Arpaio’s Lawyers Ask Press To Report Conviction Accurately, Quezada Tells Reporters “Don’t You Dare”

After Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio received a full pardon from President Donald Trump late last week, attorneys for Arpaio issued a statement reminding reporters that he “was not convicted for “racial profiling.” In response, State Senator Martin Quezada tweeted his own message, or what some are calling a threat, to the media.

Quezada warned: “Don’t you dare water down the racism and defiance of the rule of law from this man. #ArpaioPardon”

Arpaio’s attorney noted that his “conviction had nothing to do with race.”

“The court’s verdict,” according to his attorneys, “does not even mention race. In fact, prosecutors admitted before trial that the Government was “unaware of facts” that would support “that he [Sheriff Joe] and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race.”

“Mr. Arpaio respectfully requests that these statements be corrected, and that the correction be published in a manner comparable to that of the original publication and be disseminated to the same audience,” requested attorneys.

“The 2011 Order that Mr. Arpaio was convicted of “willfully” violating, can be accurately described as an order not to detain illegal aliens based solely on their status as illegal aliens, “without more,” wrote the attorneys.

In an interview on the James T. Harris radio show, State Senator Steve Montenengro discusses the politics behind Arpaio’s conviction

The actual Order prevented the “Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] and all of its officers …. from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law. ”

Arpaio’s attorneys noted that he was convicted by a federal judge, “sitting without a jury,” of “willfully disobeying a 2011 temporary Order (“preliminary injunction”) which provided that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) could no longer act as federal immigration officers to enforce immigration law. President Obama’s administration decertified the MCSO as an immigration enforcement agency in October 2009, during the first year of President Obama’s own term. The Bush administration had previously given the Sheriff’s Department such authority, under the “287(g)” program.”

Arpaio’s attorneys argue that the “2011 temporary Order was not clear as to whether the Sheriff’s Department could still cooperate with federal immigration officers by turning over illegal aliens who were apprehended for violating some other law, i.e. during the course of a lawful stop, which was and is a “common practice” by law enforcement agencies in southern Arizona, according to the testimony of the Special Agent in Charge of the Casa Grande Station at the time, who testified at trial.”

Arapio’s attorneys claim that the issue of whether or not the “Sheriff’s Office could still detain illegal aliens for the sole purpose of immediately turning them over to federal authorities was not clarified until a 2013 Order from the court, which specifically provided that it could not.”

Arapio’s attorneys claim that he was acting “out of respect for the court’s clear 2013 order,” when he issued “an order to his deputies to stop turnovers to federal authorities.”

“Every witness who testified at trial on this issue testified that the 2011 Order was unclear as to whether turnovers were legal or not—including MCSO Lieutenants, a Sergeant, and even the MCSO’s own lawyer. The MCSO’s lawyer testified that he advised the Sheriff that he could make a “good faith” argument that it was permissible to continue to turn illegal aliens over to federal authorities under the Order, even though the lawyer thought the Judge “likely, not definitively” could say just the opposite too,” stated the attorneys. “The lawyer said that the Order was “ambiguous” even to him, and that “we weren’t sure what it [the Order] meant.” What they understood it to mean was simply that they could not stop someone solely for being illegal alien; but they never had a practice of doing that, and only detained people on the suspicion of violating some other state law or crime (like the human smuggling law). Accordingly, the Sheriff made numerous statements to the media that his office had not changed its policies with respect to cooperating with federal law enforcement and turning over illegal aliens, because he did not believe that the 2011 Order required any change to those policies, and Order did not clearly direct any changes.”

While the Order was alleged to be unclear, Arpaios’ attorneys argue that “What is clear is that under federal law, a defendant cannot be convicted of criminal contempt of court unless the court’s order was “clear and definite.”

“The Sheriff repeatedly asked for a jury trial, and he was clearly entitled to one under a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 402. And the judge can always grant a trial by jury, even when one is not required. There were numerous reasons to do so in this case, where the court’s independence would clearly be viewed with suspicion—after all, this was a case for contempt of court, and the court was basically the “victim.” Not only did the court deny the Sheriff a jury, but it went out of its way to avoid his constitutional right to one (by arbitrarily limiting the potential sentence to below the constitutional minimum),” concluded Arpaio’s attorneys.

“This resulted in a trial for “criminal contempt of court” to the court, which was about as fair as trying a crime to the victim,” concluded the attorneys.

Arpaio’s attorneys also filed a motion Monday, seeking to have his federal criminal contempt of court conviction vacated. They are requesting that the conviction be vacated because the judge denied a trial by a jury of his peers.

14 Comments on "Arpaio’s Lawyers Ask Press To Report Conviction Accurately, Quezada Tells Reporters “Don’t You Dare”"

  1. Since when do we allow politicians to threaten citizens and the press? Even President Trump does nothing more than call the msm “fake news”. This clown was an active member of Mecha in college and thus thoroughly indoctrinated to racist views. He least of all is qualified to be issuing threats to anyone regarding what Arpaio was actually charged with.
    This sets a dangerous precedence for citizens who can and will be intimidated by politicians.

  2. This was a witch hunt from day 1 to punish Joe for investigating BO’s birth certificate.

  3. courts gone agenda wild – nothing new under the sun these days – this judge is a criminal, should be removed

  4. One of many things I learned years ago from Dr. Maria Montano-Harmon is that “Mexican” is not a race. If one was born in Mexico of Mexican parents, one’s nationality and citizenship is that of being Mexican. It’s not a race! Anthropologists have verified this. If one is born in the US of one or both Mexican parents, one is of Mexican-American heritage, denoting ancestry as well as citizenship. If one is a Mexican citizen and enters the USA illegally and is caught and detained by any certified US LEO, one is a Mexican citizen illegally here in the US. So, State Senator Quezada, stop race-baiting and stop accusing others of race-baiting.

  5. Senator Quezada should be ashamed of himself! Doesn’t he know that in this country we are supposed to have a free press that isn’t supposed to be intimidated by thugs? Guess not! But boy oh boy you can bet the media knows it has been put on notice!

    Si se pueda!

  6. Dale Brethower | August 29, 2017 at 7:35 am | Reply

    After close to 20 years of living in Arizona and a couple of years teaching (adjunct prof) at a university in Mexico, I still cannot identify either an “Hispanic” or a “Mexican” by sight. I met far too many Mexicans of Scandinavian decent and far too many Native Americans who were born in Mexico or the USA–I never could tell by looking. Pick up person X for violating a law and check the immigration status–that has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or country of origin. Laws pushed by the left cannot change the facts of birth or ancestry as the Feds attempted to do. I’m sure Sheriff Joe’s conviction would have been overturned on appeal; Trump saved the US taxpayers millions of dollars by the pardon.

  7. The Oracle of Tucson | August 29, 2017 at 7:45 am | Reply

    IMHO, The truth and the facts are completely missing from this story.
    They have been replaced by hysteria and emotion, the botton feeding lowlife who make up the modern day American media would make Joseph Goebbels over at the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda envious and proud.
    Why is it in hunting we call it poaching when you fail to follow the rules, but in politics we call it justice when we fail to follow the rules?
    Sheriff Joe clearly is the victim in this case, the merits of this case wouldn’t have lasted five minutes under appeal, Judge Bolton’s failure to protect sheriff Joe’s 6th amendment rights to a jury trial alone is overly low hanging fruit, ripe for appeal.
    Her courtroom antics puzzle not only her peers but anyone who understands right from wrong.
    The pardon really just ends the abuse of power by the chocolate Jesus and his holdover malcontents.
    Bolton should be suspended awaiting a review for her judicial poaching. Winning should never be confused with cheating. IMHO, Judge Bolton clearly is a vindictive rouge judge, an Obama party puppet who’s misused her court, betrayed the public’s trust and outright lied when she took her oath.
    What a worthless cheating legacy, a fine way to end her tenure placing party over people. Justice may be blind but it’s easy to see through this smoke screen.
    Yes sheriff Joe is a victim of Bolton’s abusive courtroom misconduct.

    The Oracle

  8. Isn’t a knuckle sandwich on Martin Quezada’s menue?

  9. I have said for years that the court system has nothing do with justice, right or wrong or guilt or innocence. In most cases it’s a matter of which lawyer is best in theatrics and B.S.ing the jury. In the case of summary trial (no jury), it’s pretty much up to the prejudices of the judge; you’re just along for the ride.

  10. Se Quezada the rule of law and the Constitution were violated by former President Obama. And it sounds like you want to continue that crime.

  11. Dwayne Wolfswinkle | August 29, 2017 at 9:37 am | Reply

    Where is the Arizona Senate Leadership? This Racist needs to be censured or at least someone should file an ethics complaint against Sen. Mecha Quezada.

    Given the gutless nature of the Arizona Senate it is doubtful that anything will be Done.

  12. Lie and Deflect, Divide and Conquer. The Fascists are well trained.

  13. These dam activist judges need to be reined in.

  14. Quezada should be hit with an ethics complaint, but you just know for sure for sure that the Republicans won’t do s$%#

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*