Try that again in English?
Here it is:
"
Arpaio was held in contempt of court by a federal judge for continuing his policy of enforcing immigration laws against illegal aliens. When Arpaio was sued for allegedly violating civil rights, a federal judge whose family member was representing the side suing Arpaio—a conflict of interest that under federal law requires the judge to recuse himself—ordered Arpaio to cease his law enforcement efforts.
When the judge later decided Arpaio was not fully complying with that order, he held Arpaio in contempt of court and referred the matter to the Obama-Lynch Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Judge Susan Bolton—who was appointed by President Barack Obama—convictedArpaio without a jury on July 31 of this year."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...t-franks-praises-trumps-pardon-of-joe-arpaio/
"
Arpaio was held in contempt of court by a federal judge for continuing his policy of enforcing immigration laws against illegal aliens. When Arpaio was sued for allegedly violating civil rights, a federal judge whose family member was representing the side suing Arpaio—a conflict of interest that under federal law requires the judge to recuse himself—ordered Arpaio to cease his law enforcement efforts.
When the judge later decided Arpaio was not fully complying with that order, he held Arpaio in contempt of court and referred the matter to the Obama-Lynch Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Judge Susan Bolton—who was appointed by President Barack Obama—convictedArpaio without a jury on July 31 of this year."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...t-franks-praises-trumps-pardon-of-joe-arpaio/
Upholding Federal law is not being "contemptuous" of the rule of law and it was not former Sheriff Arpaio that pick and chose which laws to uphold, but rather those 'excuse for a judge' judges that did so.
Drop the arrogance,it's perfectly clear what he asked.
So, he upheld immigration law in spite of a court order to stop.
And the judge had a huge conflict of interest. And a partisan judge convicted him.
Yeah, he's a bad apple for sure
And the judge had a huge conflict of interest. And a partisan judge convicted him.
Yeah, he's a bad apple for sure
The other half of the story:
The case that led to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s criminal conviction last month, and his pardon by President Trump Friday night, began in 2007 with a traffic stop in Maricopa County, Ariz., and the wrongful nine-hour detention of a Mexican man holding a valid tourist’s visa. The man sued Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, alleging racial profiling by deputies working for the most visible sheriff in America in a case that evolved into a class action suit for all Latino motorists in Maricopa County.
After four years of depositions and hearings and motions, a federal judge in Phoenix entered a preliminary injunction against Arpaio and the sheriff’s office, noting that “states do not have the inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law.” He ordered Arpaio to stop detaining anyone not suspected of a state or federal crime — simply being in the U.S. illegally is not a crime, only a civil violation.
That was in December 2011. And that’s when Arpaio’s defiance of the court began. Over the next five years, two federal judges found that Arpaio wasn’t abiding by the injunction, was regularly telling the news media he wouldn’t abide by it, continued to have deputies make immigration-based stops, and even made “multiple intentional misstatements of fact under oath,” one judge wrote. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow wrote last year that Arpaio made false statements about his department “in an attempt to obstruct any inquiry into their further wrongdoing or negligence,” and that Arpaio and his chief deputy “have a history of obfuscation and subversion of this Court’s orders that is as old as this case and did not stop after they themselves became the subjects of civil contempt.”
So after 21 days of hearings in 2015, Snow found Arpaio in civil contempt of court. But the judge felt that Arpaio still had no interest in complying with his orders to provide information on immigration enforcement, or to stop making immigration arrests. So last year Snow took the extraordinary step of referring the sitting sheriff of Maricopa County to another judge for a charge of criminal contempt of court, with a possible six-month jail sentence. [Arpaio was defeated for reelection in November.]
Over Arpaio’s objection, that judge — U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton — heard the case herself, without a jury. [An appeal on that issue was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court when Trump issued his pardon.] Bolton found Arpaio guilty, citing his numerous statements to the news media and his actions in continuing to detain Latino motorists. Despite his knowledge of injunctions ordering him to stop immigration enforcement, Bolton concluded, Arpaio “broadcast to the world and to his subordinates that he would and they should continue ‘what he had always been doing.'” She set his sentencing for October 5, where he faced up to six months in jail. But Friday night, President Trump pardoned Arpaio before he could be sentenced.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-facing-jail-time-before-trump-pardoned-him/
Note that he was found in civil contempt years ago, and continued to publicly state his intent to defy the order, thus resulting in a referral for prosecution of criminal contempt. Note also that his (unconstitutional) racial profiling was sweeping up people who weren't committing any crime (illegal immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal one), as well as people who were entitled to be here by virtue of holding a valid visa.
Bottom line: Arpaio had his pet cause and didn't care about whether he had authority to touch it at all, let alone concern himself with the legality of his methods...and then publicly trumpeted his intent to flout the law and the court's order.
The case that led to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s criminal conviction last month, and his pardon by President Trump Friday night, began in 2007 with a traffic stop in Maricopa County, Ariz., and the wrongful nine-hour detention of a Mexican man holding a valid tourist’s visa. The man sued Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, alleging racial profiling by deputies working for the most visible sheriff in America in a case that evolved into a class action suit for all Latino motorists in Maricopa County.
After four years of depositions and hearings and motions, a federal judge in Phoenix entered a preliminary injunction against Arpaio and the sheriff’s office, noting that “states do not have the inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law.” He ordered Arpaio to stop detaining anyone not suspected of a state or federal crime — simply being in the U.S. illegally is not a crime, only a civil violation.
That was in December 2011. And that’s when Arpaio’s defiance of the court began. Over the next five years, two federal judges found that Arpaio wasn’t abiding by the injunction, was regularly telling the news media he wouldn’t abide by it, continued to have deputies make immigration-based stops, and even made “multiple intentional misstatements of fact under oath,” one judge wrote. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow wrote last year that Arpaio made false statements about his department “in an attempt to obstruct any inquiry into their further wrongdoing or negligence,” and that Arpaio and his chief deputy “have a history of obfuscation and subversion of this Court’s orders that is as old as this case and did not stop after they themselves became the subjects of civil contempt.”
So after 21 days of hearings in 2015, Snow found Arpaio in civil contempt of court. But the judge felt that Arpaio still had no interest in complying with his orders to provide information on immigration enforcement, or to stop making immigration arrests. So last year Snow took the extraordinary step of referring the sitting sheriff of Maricopa County to another judge for a charge of criminal contempt of court, with a possible six-month jail sentence. [Arpaio was defeated for reelection in November.]
Over Arpaio’s objection, that judge — U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton — heard the case herself, without a jury. [An appeal on that issue was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court when Trump issued his pardon.] Bolton found Arpaio guilty, citing his numerous statements to the news media and his actions in continuing to detain Latino motorists. Despite his knowledge of injunctions ordering him to stop immigration enforcement, Bolton concluded, Arpaio “broadcast to the world and to his subordinates that he would and they should continue ‘what he had always been doing.'” She set his sentencing for October 5, where he faced up to six months in jail. But Friday night, President Trump pardoned Arpaio before he could be sentenced.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-facing-jail-time-before-trump-pardoned-him/
Note that he was found in civil contempt years ago, and continued to publicly state his intent to defy the order, thus resulting in a referral for prosecution of criminal contempt. Note also that his (unconstitutional) racial profiling was sweeping up people who weren't committing any crime (illegal immigration is a civil matter, not a criminal one), as well as people who were entitled to be here by virtue of holding a valid visa.
Bottom line: Arpaio had his pet cause and didn't care about whether he had authority to touch it at all, let alone concern himself with the legality of his methods...and then publicly trumpeted his intent to flout the law and the court's order.
No, it wasn't. "What did the court order what?" What did it say? What did it cover? There's a missing verb there.
Okay. Which law says a state or county cannot participate in enforcing immigration laws? I can't find that one?
Violating immigration law is a civil matter, not a criminal one, in most cases, to say nothing of the fact that he was detaining people who were here legally. And he was convicted by a different judge entirely, after two other judges found him to be out of compliance.So, he upheld immigration law in spite of a court order to stop.
And the judge had a huge conflict of interest. And a partisan judge convicted him.
Yeah, he's a bad apple for sure
Thanks for the copy and paste. It still doesn't answer the question as to which law Joe violated. It sounds like the judge all along was trying to legislate from the bench.
Similar threads
