Blogs

Manet, the PC Grinch who's afraid of Christmas...

How in the hell did Janet Napolitano become Governor of this state? Her major accomplishments while in office have been: 1) staying in the closet despite her widely-assumed lesbianism; and, 2) pulling inane PC crap, like changing the name of Squaw Peak to Piestewa Peak (a name no one uses) and labeling the official AZ Capitol Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree," as was recently reported by local journo Howie Fischer.

Nappy told Howie that "We're celebrating a number of holidays," then admitted that Christianity is the only religion that decorates effin' pine trees like that. Indeed, legend has it that Martin Luther, father of the Reformation, decorated an Xmas tree to mimic the stars shining through tree branches. (Though some monk dood did it before him, supposedly.) Yes, conifers were used by Roman and Germanic pagans to symbolize different things, but decorating trees with lights and freakin' popcorn and candycanes? That's as Christian as canned ham, boychik.

I figured my pals at the ACLU would be all for this PC stuff. So instead I called up Sean McCaffrey, executive director of the AZ Republican Party, and asked him for a response to the Governor's dumbass move.

"The Governor can continue to offend people with her budget," he told me. "She should stop worrying about offending people with her foliage."

Don't get me wrong. She should throw a Menorah up there too. Maybe put one right on her desk. Spin the dreidel with reporters. Eat some freakin' latkes. Live it up. Kwanzaa? Put that kente cloth on, girl. And when Ramadan rolls around, her ass can fast. After all, Janet's caboose always has been kinda big. Not that I'm one to talk.

See, not only is this PC-bull for the birds, it's downright arrogant. Who the heck is Janet Napolitano to re-christen the Christmas tree? Sorry, Christianity pre-dates her by about 2,000 years. And though other government entities attempt these same PC name-change-switcheroo shenanigans, a Christmas tree is now and always will be a Christmas tree. Just like a Menorah will always be a Menorah, not the "Holiday Lamp."

BTW, Secretary of State Jan Brewer told Howie it's a Christmas tree in her offices, and will be if she wins an eventual bid to replace Manet once Manet's termed out. But then, Jan's a Republican. And Republicans are allowed to celebrate Christmas.

I understand all about the division of church and state, and fully support it. But this is really ridiculous.

Dennis Wilenchik, taken to the woodshed by Judge Anna Baca.

As she promised in court on Monday, November 26, Judge Anna Baca yesterday reiterated in a detailed minute entry that former special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik botched the subpoena-issuance in the New Times case and did not follow the requirements of the statute involved.

Specifically, Baca ruled,

”THE COURT FINDS that the subpoenas issued in 430 GJ 97 were not validly issued. The special prosecutor did not comply with the requirements for issuing grand jury subpoenas without the prior authorization of the grand jury. Specifically, the special prosecutor failed to notify the foreman of the grand jury of the issuance of two of the subpoenas, and failed to notify the presiding judge of the issuance of all four subpoenas.”

Indeed, Baca's interpretation of the law and Wilenchik's failure to comply with it in the New Times case paralleled my understanding of both.

"Under A.R.S. § 13-4071(B)(2)," wrote Baca, "The county attorney can obtain a grand jury subpoena when authorized by the grand jury or requested to do so by the grand jury. However, when the grand jury has not authorized the subpoena, the county attorney can only obtain a grand jury subpoena pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4071(C), and must comply with all four of the requirements of that subsection including notification to the foreman of the grand jury and to the presiding judge."

You can read Judge Baca's ruling in its entirety, here

So, not only were Wilenchik's subpoenas to New Times overbroad, they were invalid from the beginning of this sordid mess. Wilenchik assumed the mantle of the grand jury, and apparently believed he was the grand jury. Kinda like a super hero (or super villain) with super prosecutorial powers. And maybe green death rays that flow from his fingertips, and a leotard and matching cape. But I digress.

In general, Baca's ruling was matter-of-fact, pointing out where Wilenchik and the County Attorney went off course, and ordering that the new documents provided by Chief Assistant County Attorney Sally Wolfgang Wells should be kept in the unsealed grand jury file.

But where is the sanction for Wilenchik overriding the law and doing as he pleased? And why does County Attorney Andrew Thomas continue to employ Wilenchik in a number of lucrative civil matters for the county ($2 million worth and counting)? Will the AZ Bar step in, with possible censure or disbarment, for the egregious trampling of the rights of this paper, its readers and its owners?

In other words, the final act of Wilenchik's adaptation of Shakespeare’s Richard the Third has yet to play out. Stay tuned to the Feathered Bastard for more gripping legal drama, as the Wilenchik, and the worm, turns...

For more on this item, please read Monday's post, "Judge Baca says Dennis Wilenchik did not comply with law; some docs still missing from New Times grand jury file."

If you ask me, Joe likes playing with puppies a little too much...

This canine is older and wiser...

By now, most folks have surely heard of the Joe Arpaio roast local Republicans are holding in Sun City at the Maricopa County Events Center. Sun City! Everyone there's gonna look like Bea Arthur or Larry King.

It's doubtful anyone will really take verbal pot-shots at Maricopa County's version of Idi Amin. In fact, I was recently told by one of the roasters that he's seen the other guys' material, and it's all lame, 'cause people are afraid to make fun of the guy. So I'm gonna do it for 'em! Here are some of the jokes you won't be hearing at the Joe Show if you go. Thanks to my colleague Ben Leatherman, who assisted with a few of these. To be fair, Joe should really arrest him first.

I'm hoping aspiring comics out there will add to the joke list. We might as well make fun of Arpaio, since we're stuck with the bastard for the time being.

Attorney General Terry Goddard wanted to be here today to roast the Sheriff, but the Selective Enforcement Unit currently has him detained.

They call Joe America's Toughest Sheriff. And that's just his stool sample.

Last, but not least, here's Joe on Lou Dobbs saying it's an honor to be called KKK...

Ever see a lawyer who doesn't like to argue? Well, now you have, Michele Iafrate, the alleged legal beagle who's complaint re: Ray Stern got him cited for "disorderly conduct."

Since the posting of my Monday blog item, “The new Nick Tarr? Reporter Ray Stern's disorderly conduct charge mysteriously disappears...," Stern has received a notice to make himself available December 20 for a pre-trial conference in the matter of the lame-o "disorderly conduct" ticket issued to him for allegedly disturbing the Lethean stillness of PHX barrister Michele Iafrate's law office bungalow on October 18.

Though Stern showed up last week at the date and time indicated on his ticket, his name was not on the docket. I immediately assumed that the skullduggery of Sheriff Joe's Selective Enforcement Unit was at play, but in fact it seems it was just the ordinary incompetence of government employees. The charge was filed, it’s just been meandering its way through the entrails of our august legal system.

The "Release Order" Stern received (uh, never mind that he was never arrested to begin with), indicates that Stern is free on his own recognizance as long as he adheres to certain standard conditions, such as,

1) refraining from committing any criminal offense

2) not leaving the state without the permission of the court

3) not moving from his current residence

and perhaps most severe, to my mind anyway,

4) not drinking while driving.

Never fear, Ray. I promise to drink and drive for you, as long as you return those naked pics I gave you of me and Joe together at that animal husbandry festival in Gilbert.

Thus, the stupidity rolls on like a mighty wind, and the authorities compound the retardedness of citing Stern to begin with by continuing on to trial with this pathetic waste of time and taxpayer moolah. After all, they have to teach Stern a lesson, and warn him off expressing his opinion in the law office of one of the Sheriff's counselors ever again!

Heh…They don't know Ray very well, do they?

In a hearing held late Monday a.m. following up on the New Times grand jury imbroglio, Superior Court Judge Anna Baca concluded that, "Mr. [Dennis] Wilenchik as special prosecutor did not comply with the requirements of issuing subpoenas," in the case. Baca also found that a sheaf of documents (including actual subpoenas, affidavits of service and other notices) handed over to her Monday by Chief Assistant County Attorney Sally Wolfgang Wells, should have been in the grand jury file from jump, despite Wells' assertions to the contrary.

At issue in yesterday’s pettifogger gabfest: How grand jury subpoenas are issued; who should be notified of these otherwise secret subpoenas; and what checks exist on the authority of a rogue prosecutor playing the elastic Mr. Fantastic and overreaching, as happened with erstwhile prosecutor Wilenchik.

As this blog’s previously reported, Baca ordered Wells on October 24 to search the C.A.’s files for the existence of the original grand jury subpoenas and other pertinent paperwork. On November 7, Wells advised Baca that the County Attorney had obtained the prosecution file from ex-special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, but, "No documents were located in that file that should have been part of the Clerk of the Court's file."

This was evidently as vague to Judge Baca as it was to a layman like moi, so Baca specified that the County Attorney file a supplemental report, and that a representative from the prosecutor's office be present November 26 to discuss the contents of the grand jury file. Wells responded last week, stating "copies of subpoenas and certifications" had never been part of the court's file in a grand jury proceeding. According to Wells, they're normally returned to the prosecutor's office after they're filed.

As New Times attorney Tom Henze pointed out during Monday's hearing, "This is important stuff, this is not technical," though that's the way the C.A.'s office wants to play it. Henze informed the court that Arizona Revised Statute 13-4071 states grand jury subpoenas can be issued only by the judge, the county attorney, or the clerk of court. According to a 1982 AZ Supreme Court Ruling, the judge and the county attorney cannot do this without the grand jury's prior consent. The legislature later amended the law, adding a subsection C, detailing specific things that must be done if the clerk of court issues the subpoena "without prior authorization."

New Times’ subpoenas were signed by the Clerk of the Superior Court. That's how Wilenchik chose to have the subpoenas issued. The very documents Wells submitted to the court today testify to this fact. (The subpoenas bear the clerk’s signature, not Wilenchik’s.) Therefore, the requirements of the law were not met. There may have been notifications to the grand jury foreman for two subpoenas, but there were none for the subpoenas issued to reporters Paul Rubin and John Dougherty. Nor are there records of notifications being made to the presiding judge, as stipulated by statute.

Henze observed that there's nothing in the record proving that the grand jury foreman was given anything, just a couple of notices filed with the grand jury clerk. Who knows if the foreman actually eyeballed them?

Bottom line is, either you have the authorization of the grand jury, or you don't. Wilenchik did not. The procedures specified by statute are there to protect us all from one man assuming the role of the grand jury, as my boss New Times co-founder Mike Lacey detailed in his November 1 column, "He Just Doesn't Get It." That "He" being Wilenchik.

I don't think County Attorney Andrew Thomas gets it either. His underling Wells basically stated that the C.A.'s office reads the law as if the AZ Supreme Court never stepped in and ruled on it, as if the state legislature never amended the law to state what procedures should be followed if a prosecutor wants to issue a subpoena minus the grand jury's imprimatur.

Wilenchik remains as dense as plutonium on this. When I asked him for a response to Baca's statement that he did not adhere to the law’s requirements, he said in part,

"The issue is not only moot, but another one blown completely out of proportion by either you or your paper. To the extent any technical notice was not sent to the court at most it would have been only a notice and not the subpoena itself, and to the extent the individual's subpoenas were not copied to the clerk of the grand jury there is no reason to believe this was anything other than inadvertent by those here involved in that and certainly for no improper motive or purpose."

The Wily One makes an interesting assertion there, that, “To the extent any technical notice was not sent to the court at most it would have been only a notice and not the subpoena itself.” Chief Assistant County Attorney Wells used this argument in court to pooh-pooh the matter, stating that the statute mandates only that the foreman be notified “of the fact of the issuance of the subpoena within ten days following its issuance.”

This, despite the fact that the County Attorney’s office insists it doesn’t have to follow these rules in subsection C of the law anyway.

Yet, as observed in Monday’s hearing by Village Voice Media counsel Steve Suskin, the notifications of subpoena issuance signed by Wilenchik and submitted to Baca yesterday by Wells directly reference the subpoenas, and actually have the subpoenas to New Times attached! Specifically, they read, “The County Attorney has requested the issuance of Grand Jury Subpoena No. GJ97. Said Subpoena was issued on August 24, 2007, by the Clerk of the Superior Court as reflected in the attached subpoena.” [Emphasis mine.]

Who’s buffaloin’ who here? Doesn’t the language of these notifications to the grand jury foreman and the fact that subpoenas were attached to them directly contradict Wells arguments, as well as the disingenuous statement by Wilenchik above? They also further demonstrate that Wilenchik was attempting to operate under subsection C of the statute, but did not adhere to its rules. Um, is anyone paying attention over at the State Bar? They’re investigating Wilenchik, you know.

Yesterday, Henze called Wilenchik's conduct "sanctionable." And John Dougherty's attorney Bruce Feder asked the court to order the C.A.'s office to go back again and look for the documents that are still missing. But Baca did not do that, saying, "We have what we have," in regards to paperwork. She promised that she would be issuing a more detailed minute entry on the matter in coming days.

And so concludes this latest edition of the Feathered Bastard’s Online Law Review & Legalese Emporium. What's so unsettling is how, well, unsettled the whole thing is. In spite of the C.A.'s office quashing the grand jury and the subpoenas, the C.A. does not believe its former attack schnauzer Wilenchik did anything inappropriate in the actual issuance of these subpoenas.

So it's OK, in their opinion, that Wilenchik "anointed himself the grand jury," as Lacey so memorably put it. That is not a good thing for any citizen of Maricopa County. Because another "Wilenchik," operating as his own Star Chamber, could be appointed in the future. Hell, Wilencheckbook still reps the county in civil cases, racking the taxpayers' bill to up to $2 mil so far. The C.A. calls that justice? “Just us,” is more like it.

Stern's still got his ticket, but his name wasn't on the court's docket...

As I mentioned in my post on harassed actor Nick Tarr last week, one of the MCSO's standard intimidation moves is to cite or arrest someone they want to "punish," then never file the ticket or the complaint with the court. Tarr stated this happened to him when his bogus 2002 citation for allegedly "impersonating" a highway patrolman was dropped the day before he was supposed to go to court.

Something similar has occurred to my colleague, New Times reporter Ray Stern. As part of the same nighttime sweep by Sheriff Joe's Selective Enforcement Unit that nabbed Village Voice Media honchos Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin, Stern was cited for the b.s. charge of "disorderly conduct." His real offense? Arguing with PHX lawyer Michele Iafrate earlier that day over whether or not taking digital pics of public docs is covered under AZ's public records law.

As discussed in this recent Bird column, legal experts agree that you can take digital pics of public records under the AZ law. That is, it is not precluded by the statute. But Iafrate objected to Stern taking digital photos of Sheriff's office press releases in her office. And after a brief but civil disagreement, Stern left, as was requested by Iafrate.

For reasons as yet unknown, the Sheriff's office and its sinister Selective Enforcement Unit got involved. Iafrate and her underlings claimed Stern caused a commotion in their office, that he had disturbed the peace of Iafrate's legal sanctum sanctorum by verbally jousting with her for a couple of minutes. You'd think a legal beagle would be not be boggled by such give and take, but in Iafrate's case, she was so flustered by someone who didn't agree with her that she called in the county gendarmes! Tough as nails Iafrate is not, unless we're talkin' about Lee Press-Ons.

Why is Iafrate representing the Sheriff's office, and why do New Times journos have to pick up and examine MCSO documents there? How much of the taxpayer's money is being wasted on this argument-averse lady esquire? And why did Iafrate call the Sheriff's office instead of the PHX Police Department? Maybe because the PHX PD would have laughed their asses off at the complaint? We're working on finding all this out. In any case, when Stern reported to court last week on the date and time listed on his ticket, his name was nowhere on the docket, and no one seems to know where the complaint has gone. Into someone's square file, probably.

This still sucks because the Selective Enforcement Unit could, hypothetically, come back at a later date and charge Stern. It would be unusual, but no more unusual than an "elite" plainclothes unit delivering a citation to someone's home in the middle of the night. So this matter will still be hanging over Stern, a little Kafkaesque mind-fuck from our pals at Selective Enforcement.

"The charge is ludicrous and the circumstances in which it was issued even more so," Stern told me after making his court date. "The Sheriff’s Office abused its power in issuing me that bogus citation. That's lame."

According to Stern's lawyer, the County Attorney claims to know nothing about the matter. Now isn't that convenient? The Selective Enforcement Unit can go anywhere it wants, cite anyone it wants, arrest anyone it wants, and the County Attorney casually looks the other way. Nah, this ain't Guatemala, Bolivia or Venezuela, people. It's Maricopa frickin' County, and except for the Sheriff's office's bully-boy tactics, it's lovely this time of year.

Actor Nick Tarr after his citation in 2002.

PHX actor Nick Tarr won a major victory this week in his ongoing quest to make Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his dastardly, power-crazed underlings pay for their violation of the thespian's Constitutional rights. On November 20, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling allowing Tarr to sue the officers involved in an infamous incident dating back to 2002, and to seek punitive damages should he win.

For those who weren't here five years ago, Tarr was at that time a spokesperson in the guise of "Joe Arizona" for Prop 201, a gambling initiative that ol' Uncle Joe opposed. On Halloween of '02, Tarr was handing out leaflets for the initiative at Tom's Tavern in downtown Phoenix when he was harassed by Joe's two-ton toady Chief Deputy David Hendershott and a crew of deputies doing the Fat Man's bidding. In an episode that would've been comic if it hadn't involved such a blatant abuse of power, Hendershott and his goons cited Tarr for allegedly impersonating a highway patrolman.

DPS officers called to the scene refused to arrest or cite Tarr because they saw no criminal intent in his Joe Arizona getup, which was meant to parody Arpaio. As you can see from the pics here, Tarr was done up in a pair of Joe's pink boxers, an old, unbuttoned DPS shirt, a Smokey the Bear hat, and a couple of fake cop badges. Thing is, Sheriff Joke can't take a joke, especially when it's from a rival, of sorts. (Joe supported a competing gambling initiative.) So when Joe's personal Dick Cheney -- the ever-obese David Hendershott -- spied Tarr as Joe Arizona handing out pro-Prop 201 literature (Hendershott just happened to be at the restaurant), he had his deputy dawgs corral the actor. Eventually, Tarr was cited and released, his DPS shirt confiscated by Joe's bully-boys.

Nick Tarr in the complete "Joe Arizona" costume...

Anyway, Tarr's lawsuit against Joe, in which he's repped by PHX attorney and perennial Joe foe Joel Robbins, got a boost from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed a lower court's finding that the MCSO officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Tarr's claim that they violated his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Significantly, this will allow Tarr to seek punitive damages and legal fees, assuming he wins his case.

You can read the entire Ninth Circuit decision, here.

The federal appeals court concluded there was no probable cause for detaining Tarr, considering how he was dressed.

The decision states that, "A prudent person would not have concluded that Tarr had committed the crime with which he was charged."

In regards to Tarr's First Amendment rights, the court writes:

"It is also clearly established that the police may not punish someone in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights...Tarr was actively campaigning in favor of a ballot proposition. Speech on behalf of a ballot proposition is protected by the First Amendment...Tarr’s lampooning of public officials such as the sheriff or other public figure is also speech protected by the First Amendment. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Tarr alleges, and the record indicates, that the officers were offended by Tarr’s lampooning their boss, and that this may have been the but-for cause of their decision to arrest him...In the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer, no prudent officer could have concluded that Tarr could be arrested for such speech, and it would have been clear to any reasonable officer that he could not be."

To be fair, no one's ever accused Joe or his flunkies of being "prudent" or "reasonable."

Tarr says his career as an actor has suffered as a result of the incident. And he's been forced to start a candy machine business to make up for lost revenue. When I spoke to him yesterday, he observed that what's been done to him has likely been done to many others.

"Whenever I see someone on TV and I hear news reports that they were arrested for robbery, I wonder how many other times they robbed but never got caught," said Tarr. "The same thing goes for this. How many times have Joe and his posse done mean, cruel, unlawful things to the citizens here in Arizona that they're supposed to serve and protect? If he did this to me as someone in the public eye, how many times has he done this to people out of the public eye."

Interestingly, Tarr told me the citation was actually dropped the day before he was set to go to court for the misdemeanor. This is a classic MCSO harassment tactic. They arrest and/or cite you, then drop the whole thing or never file it after the fact. Remember, Hendershott wanted Tarr booked. But the MCSO backed off once DPS officers told the MCSO they wanted nothing to do with it.

Former New Times scribe Robert Nelson wrote a couple of good columns covering the Tarr saga back in the day: "Trick or Threat," (November 7, 2002); and "Diary of a Madman, Part 2," November 14, 2002. Check 'em out for background.

Any way you slice Nickel Bag Joe's sopressata, his poll numbers have dropped dramatically. A new Cronkite-Eight poll of registered voters in Maricopa County showed that 61% of respondents, "had a very positive (32 percent) or generally positive (29 percent) opinion of Sheriff Arpaio."

Compare that to Arpaio's previous numbers. In a recent November 3 profile of the sheriff by the Arizona Republic's Dennis Wagner, Wagner noted that, "Through it all, the sheriff's approval ratings have hovered around 85 percent, arguably making him the most revered elected official in Arizona."

Indeed, in a 2001 KAET/ASU poll, "Eighty-three percent (83%) of all registered voters, with an opinion, gave Arpaio an excellent (44%) or good (39%) rating."

That looks like a loss of about 20% of Arpaio's traditional support, which is nothing for Arpaio to cheer about, even if his positive rating tops the majority. Moreover, his negatives are up. According to this latest Cronkite-Eight, 35% of respondents had a somewhat or very negative opinion of Arpaio. Compare that with a 17% poor or very poor approval rating back in the 2001 KAET/ASU poll.

Finally, a lot of the news coverage of this poll has focused on the fact that only 25% of respondents indicated that they supported a recall of Arpaio, and only 18% supported the same of Thomas. But keep in mind that this recall is essentially a symbolic effort spearheaded by two local activists. Even if they were able to gather enough signatures, it probably wouldn't appear on the ballot until November of '08, which is when both men are up for reelection.

If 25% of registered voters are willing to recall your ass, despite the fact that the recall effort is symbolic, that is not a good thing for your side, boyo.

I think you can attribute some of the attrition in Arpaio's numbers to the uproar over the arrests of Village Voice Media execs Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin. The folks at Cronkite-Eight point out that,

"The survey also found that 71 percent of those interviewed were aware of the arrests of two executives of the Phoenix New Times newspaper for allegedly violating grand jury secrecy rules. Among those who were aware of the issue, 49 percent felt the executives should not have been arrested, 34 percent said they should have been arrested and 17 percent did not voice an opinion."

However, Arpaio has been doing other boneheaded things that make him look opportunistic and thug-like, so not all of his 20% drop can be credited to the New Times fiasco.

Finally, though flacks for Thomas have expressed their approval of the new numbers, that sounds like some serious whistling past the graveyard. Respondents giving Thomas a positive approval rating numbered only 40%, and of that 40%, only 6% of it was "very positive," the rest (34%) was "generally positive." His negatives? 25% very or somewhat negative. The rest had no opinion. Those are very soft numbers, and must embolden potential challengers like Democrat Gerald Richards, who has formed an exploratory committee to test a run for County Attorney.

Arpaio, Thomas, and their flacks can spin the poll all they want. Bottom line: Reelection is not assured for either incumbent. And like they say in the bakery when life's copacetic, that's donuts, baby.

As further proof that a coterie of loudmouthed, reactionary extremists are calling the shots in our benighted Valley of the Sun, and winning in their push for the ethnic cleansing of the local Hispanic population, Channel 3 reports that, "The Phoenix Police Department's upper brass has assembled a committee to explore revising Operations Order 1.4.3."

That's the operations order that basically keeps beat cops from calling ICE on every brown person they stop for a traffic ticket or minor infraction. Currently, PHX PD only alerts Immigration and Customs Enforcement if a serious felony offense has occurred.

That last statement's a bit misleading. As a result of Prop 100, which denies bail to illegal immigrants accused of certain felonies, if a suspect is booked into the county jail on a Class 4 felony or above, paperwork is filled out upon checking them in, notifying the jailer that: 1) the person may be in the country illegally; and 2) that the individual is alleged to have committed a Class 4 felony or above.

Forgery, for instance, is a Class 4 felony. If the person has questionable documentation, that would count as suspected forgery. The sheriff's office has deputies cross-trained as ICE agents. So let's say someone gets pulled for a busted tail light, and the driver has a forged I.D., as many illegal immigrants do. That person could be on a bus to Nogales in a matter of days, especially if they sign voluntary removal paperwork.

This is happening on a daily basis. Recently I wrote about the plight of North High honors student Virginia Gutierrez, who was arrested for forgery after going to the PHX PD to get her car out of impound. Once in jail, the 18-year-old, who had been awarded scholarships to attend ASU, was convinced to sign a voluntary removal order. She's currently in Mexico, and if she ever tries to come back, there's a bench warrant out for her arrest in the forgery matter. See, because she had been deported, she couldn't make a preliminary hearing on the forgery charge, so the judge issued a warrant. Even Franz Kafka couldn't make this stuff up.

Gutierrez was a notable example because she was a model student and would have made a model U.S. citizen if we had a Dream Act in this country. But the same deportation hustle is being played on countless immigrants in the state illegally. I hear about new cases almost every other day. I'm sure the nativist assholes out there cheer every one. Most of these people have done nothing to earn such hatred, other than working their asses off at jobs these dumb crackers would never do anyway.

Ever since the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police spoke out on this issue on October 8, warning of the consequences of having beat cops enforce immigration law, PHX Police Chief Jack Harris has been skewered mercilessly on talk radio by such wing-nuts as Darrell Ankarlo and former congressman-turned-AM-lip-flapper J.D. Hayworth. Local nutbar nativists use Harris' name as a form of invective, and rage incessantly about Operations Order 1.4.3. The pressure is working. Thus the reconsideration of PHX PD policy.

Mexican-hating wackos no doubt envision a white-dominated utopia where anyone with less than a creamy complexion is immediately suspected of being in the country illegally. In other words, being too tan is probable cause enough for a stop. (Do you really think cops will be stopping wayward Canadians?) And once Russell Pearce's racist employer sanctions law goes into effect in '08, the nativists' ethnic cleansing pincer move will be complete. Only Caucasians will be able to avoid being harassed for DWB (Driving While Brown), WWB (Walking While Brown) or just BB (Being Brown). Black folk already get this treatment, though at least they don't have to worry about being deported.

Be careful what you wish for, all you KKK-wannabes out there. Because this is the world you want to live in, if it comes to fruition, you don't get to complain if you're being raped or robbed and the cops are too busy busting Juan for not having the proper paperwork. There aren't enough cops to go around as it is. Put them to work pinching otherwise law-abiding illegals, and they may not have time to investigate murders and other violent crimes. No bitching will be allowed when you reap what you've sown.

Whaddya think, is this clown car a cultural stereotype?

So, I've received a couple of calls about this Billy Moore Heritage Days parade that was held in Avondale a few weeks back on October 27. It's sort-of a founders day thing, and it seems Sheriff Joe has an entry in it every year. The report I was getting from folks, including the principal of a local school, was that Joe's parade entry included himself in a convertible surrounded by his security detail -- no doubt members of Joe's dreaded Selective Enforcement Unit, and some clown cars riding behind them. (They couldn't have been real clown cars because Joe wasn't in one. Get it?)

According to the principal, who's of Hispanic descent and did not want her name used, at least one of the toy cars was done up like a sheriff's vehicle, with someone in MCSO brown driving it. The other was a tiny, white Ford truck driven by a guy in a brown cowboy hat, with a bushy black mustache, shouting "Arriba! Arriba!" a la Speedy Gonzales. This, as he was being chased by a miniature cop car.

Check it, Diego, it's officer friendly come to arrest your mom.

"I guess he was trying to stereotype the Mexican immigrant," the principal told me. "The person inside of the truck was dressed with a hat and a mustache, yelling out silly things like, `I’m bad, I’m bad.'

"The people I was with didn’t realize it at first until I pointed that out to them," she continued. "It seemed like he was trying to make fun of Hispanics. There were also some little police cars that were chasing that truck."

Hey, let's all watch while Manuel kicks this old gabacho's ass. (This image supposedly from '06.)

Now, this seems like a rather provocative entry, given Sheriff Joe's current war on illegal immigrants, and the fact that Avondale is around 50% Hispanic. Indeed, many of the folks there to watch the parade were Hispanic, from all accounts.

So I rang up Pier Simeri, the City of Avondale's Public Affairs Director, and she and others in her department dug up a few photos of Joe's part in the wing-ding. As you can see, the dood in the truck might be a cultural stereotype, or maybe he's the leather guy from Village People. I reckon it depends on your point of view.

"Do you mean the American kiddie-clown in the floppy cowboy hat with a Yosemite Sam mustache?" asked MCSO flack Paul Chagolla when queried about it. He referred me to Avondale's parade organizers for more info.

So I rang Amy Bolton, Avondale's Public Information Officer.

"I really don’t think the Sheriff was trying to make a political statement," offered Bolton. "But I can’t speak on behalf of the Sheriff or his department. My feelings and my interpretation obviously are based on my experiences. I’ve not been hunted down by the sheriff for any reason."

Bolton mentioned that the same clown cars had appeared with the Sheriff in last year's parade, and no one complained then. She also mentioned that Billy Moore, Avondale's founder, was himself an outlaw, so perhaps the guy in the truck was meant to personify a criminal in general.

Maybe, but why would he by driving a truck and shouting, "Arriba!"? By Arpaio's logic, all illegal aliens are criminals. And as Nickel Bag Joe suspects all Hispanics of being illegal till proven otherwise, he doubtless sees every Hispanic as a possible collar for his deputies.

Avondale sent me a photo from the '06 parade, and it looks like the very same guy in the Magnum P.I. 'stache. What's changed between '06 and '07? Joe's punitive, racist 'round-'em-all-up-and-let-God-sort-'em-out approach to the undocumented. Even if the intent of these clown cars was not a bigoted one, Arpaio's cynical, prejudiced showboating on immigration now taints everything his department does. No wonder a Hispanic person would view such a display with a jaundiced eye.


Sheriff Joe: One more reason to be ashamed to be white.

In my Wednesday blog post ("County Attorney’s office (finally) files `Notice of Intent to Dismiss' charges in Lacey/Larkin matter"), I mentioned a cryptic document recently filed by Chief Assistant County Attorney Sally Wolfgang Wells, entitled, "State's Report of Document Search." Responding to an October 24 order from Judge Anna Baca to look into the whereabouts of the original grand jury subpoenas to New Times and to writers Paul Rubin and John Dougherty, Wells informed the court that the County Attorney had obtained the prosecution file from former special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, but that, "No documents were located in that file that should have been part of the Clerk of the Court's file."

Apparently, Judge Baca found that explanation inadequate, because now Baca has issued a sternly-worded dictum demanding a supplemental report from the County Attorney's office be filed with her by November 21. This second report is required to inform Baca of the following:

"(1) whether the MCAO has any documents that reflect when and if the subpoenas were issued at the request of the grand jury...(2) whether the MCAO has the originals or copies of Notices of the issuance of the subpoenas to the grand jury foreman and Notices to the presiding judge... and (3) whether the MCAO has the original subpoenas and affidavits of service."

Baca also set a post-Thanksgiving hearing on the contents of the grand jury file for Monday, November 26.

You can read Judge Baca's entire order, here.

Don't know if Judge Baca has ESP, but she seems to be reading my mind in the following passage:

On November 7, 2007, the Clerk’s office reported that it does not have any documents in its possession other than those retrieved at the October 24, 2007 hearing. The MCAO reported that it obtained the prosecution file in 430 GJ 97 from the office of former special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik and that “no documents were located in that file that should have been part of the Clerk’s file.” It is not clear what documents are referred to as “documents that should have been part of the Clerk’s file.” The court now clarifies its prior order and directs the MCAO to supplement its November 7, 2007 report to the court.

What's the big deal about these missing subpoenas? I mean, New Times founders Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin already published the infamous subpoena to New Times in their cover story "Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution." You know, the one that got Sheriff Joe's Selective Enforcement Unit slapping the cuffs on the duo in the middle of the night and hauling them off to the hoosegow.

Yet, as Lacey wrote in his November 1 column, "He Just Doesn't Get It," Wilenchik "anointed himself the grand jury," instead of facilitating the grand jury. The special prosecutor was required by law "to report to the grand jury foreman and the presiding judge the existence of a subpoena within 10 days of issuing it." Wilenchik didn't do that.

Could the subpoenas be missing because they might offer proof that Wilenchik did not play by the rules?

Lacey calls Wilenchik out as a serial prevaricator in his most recent column, "Wilenchik's a Liar, and There's More." Therein, Lacey discusses how Wilenchik personally sought the arrests of Lacey, Larkin, and their lawyers, Tom Henze, Janey Henze, and Steve Suskin. But when asked after the fact who issued the order for an arrest, Wilenchik buffaloed us in an e-mail, "Don't know. If I find out will be back . . ."

As Lacey points out in this week's column, Wilenchik's being disingenuous. Not only did he ask for the arrests, he wanted New Times' lawyers thrown in Sheriff Joe's gray bar hotel as well. And he was aiming at bankrupting New Times, asking for up to $90 million in fines against us for the alleged grand jury disclosure.

Lacey revealed that New Times bills "approximately $14 million annually," adding, "that's our revenue before printing, rent, supplies, salaries, benefits, and taxes."

So Wilenchik was looking to put New Times under, as well as lock up all our execs and lawyers. Then Wilenchik refuses to own responsibility for all this, and now they can't find the subpoenas that set this prosecutorial Titanic in motion?

I asked County Attorney flack Michael Scerbo for an explanation of the County Attorney's report to Baca and the absence of those subpoenas.

"We have nothing to add relating to the State's Report of Document Search," he told me. "The report is self explanatory."

Like they say on jump street, Mike, better tell it to the judge.

Female trouble: The flash-art GIF at maricopagop.org.

What do Andrea Dworkin and Republicans have in common?

You could say both are deader than doorknobs. Metaphysically, intellectually. Dworkin's been physically dead for a couple of years now. She died in 2005 at the age of 58 from heart failure. The Republicans? They haven't had a solid idea going for them since Ronald Reagan.

Oh, and there was a shared antipathy for pornography, unless it was their own pornography. Dworkin testified before the Meese Commission on porn in the '80s. She was part of the uber-radical feminist agenda that saw all men as rapists, and porn as a form of rape. Conservative Republicans have different reasons for hating porn, but in the '80s there was an alliance between extremist femi-Nazis like Dworkin and right-wingers over the issue of adult viewing material. This, to the detriment of a little thing called the First Amendment.

Why do I bring up an elephantine anti-porn icon and the Grand Old Party? Actually, the local Rs brought her up. Specifically, the Web site for the Maricopa County Republican Party. I happened to be checking it out, when I noticed Dworkin's homely puss on their site as part of an appeal for cash. The little piece of flash art features a roguettes gallery of lefty harridans. There's Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, White House correspondent Helen Thomas, ketchup queen Teresa Heinz Kerry, Democratic pundit Susan Estrich, 9/11 conspiracy theorist Rosie O'Donnell, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Barbara Streisand. (What, no Gloria Steinem?) The images, as you can see, are less than flattering.

The caption reads, "Click the picture and donate to support our Conservative Republican Organization. Together we can send them all home."

Except for Dworkin, who's dead, and who had more influence under Republican regimes than Democratic ones. Also, the only two women here who hold a government post are Clinton and Pelosi. And Republicans only have themselves to blame for Pelosi being in charge. Helen Thomas? She's a freakin' journalist, for Chrissakes. Janet Reno's probably close to death. In any case, she's no threat. Teresa Kerry is less of a wuss than her husband, whose political career will never advance beyond the Senate.

Are they really afraid of Susan Estrich, Babs, or the mouth that roared, O'Donnell? If they are, they need a serious infusion of testosterone.

I'll be honest, I'm no big fan of most of these broads. Although, Pelosi ain't so bad in my book, except for the fact that she never seems to blink. Rosie O'Donnell's an idiot. Madeleine Albright's got stones, though. She seems like the kinda gal you could belt back Scotch with. Helen Thomas, too.

Sometimes it does seem as if the Dems lack something in the babe department. The Republicans have Ann Coulter, of course, who's hot in spite of that Sarah Jessica Parker horse-face of hers. They've also got woof-worthy wing-nut Michelle Malkin, and Debbie Schlussel, who's a total babe despite being ideologically vile.

But then, they also have to claim battle-ax Barbara Bush and Lynne Cheney. And, let's be honest, Laura Bush can be pretty effin' annoying in that Southern woman kinda way. A ball-buster with a velvet veneer.

We have a couple of hotties on the left-side of the fence. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is hella-hot and hella-smart. I wish she was running for Prez instead of Hillary. Cali Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is quite babe-ish, and gets big points for whipping B-1 Bob Dornan's ass. And locally we've got the lady the nativists love to hate, State House Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who's as sexy as her name. Plus she's bisexual. Gotta love that, guys.

Andrea Dworkin, she was a nut-job, sure. But she was so far left, she basically curved around and fused with conservative moon-howlers. The right-wing elevated her status, and helped give her legitimacy, despite her borderline psychotic writings. Plus, if they just wanna rag on her because of her looks, have they peeped Tom DeLay or Rush Limbaugh lately? Those are some really ugly assholes.

"A day late and a dollar short," laughed Village Voice Media Executive Editor Mike Lacey when asked to comment on the latest bit of legal paperwork to cross his desk, the "State's Notice of Intent to Dismiss," which was filed November 7 by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and received on November 13 by Lacey's lawyers Tom and Janey Henze.

VVM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jim Larkin received virtually the same notice. Tom Henze explained that both Lacey and Larkin were each issued a criminal complaint in the form of a ticket after being arrested and released. (Lacey was released when he made bail, Larkin after being booked.) However, neither the ticket nor a more formal criminal complaint was ever submitted to the Phoenix Downtown Justice Court after members of the Sheriff's Orwellian-ly titled Selective Enforcement Unit wrote each man up on misdemeanor charges of revealing grand jury details in their October 18 cover story, “Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution.”

You can read the notice dealing with Lacey, here.

The tickets are referred to in the paperwork as "MCSO Traffic Ticket and Complaint[s].” Lacey's doc states, "The actual…complaint and number were not provided to the prosecutor. It is the state's understanding that no such [complaint] has been filed with the court as of this date."

Perhaps in the aftermath of “selectively” enforcing the law, and selectively cuffing and collaring New Times founders Lacey and Larkin on misdemeanor charges that normally would elicit no more than a summons, the SEU didn’t have time to file actual complaints. Maybe they expected that Andy Thomas’ highly-paid attack schnauzer Dennis Wilenchik would cover that end of the deal. Or at least order one of his legal flunkies, like former Superior Court Judge William French or low-totem-pole-boy Rob Somers, to do the deed.

Of course, the window of opportunity closed rapidly. Less than 24-hours after Lacey and Larkin were pinched, Thomas called his now famous news conference of Friday, October 19 announcing that the charges against the pair were to be dismissed, and that he had been blissfully ignorant about the circumstances of the arrests. The matter was over, and Wilenchik was fired. Well, sorta. Fired as special prosecutor, but allowed to leech off the county by representing it in civil cases, cases that have permitted Mr. Wilencheckbook to rack up $2 million in legal fees from the taxpayers, and counting.

Incredibly, Wilenchik claimed he was the real Sergeant Schultz on this one, as he had known noth-ink, noth-ink! about what was going on in his own law office. MCSO flack Paul Chagolla stated Wilenchik's paid patsies French and Somers dealt with the Selective Enforcement Unit the eve of the arrests. Hmmm...Does anyone out there really believe a control freak like Wilenchik wasn’t riding this flea-bitten burro all the way to the market?

As Lacey pointed out in last week’s column, “He Just Doesn't Get It,” Wilenchik actually “anointed himself the grand jury,” and in the process, “evaded case law and statute.”

Lacey wrote,

“Arizona law allows a prosecutor to issue a subpoena without prior grand jury review. But prosecutors must report to the grand jury foreman and the presiding judge of the Superior Court the existence of any subpoena — within 10 days of issuing it. Wilenchik did neither.”

Since this would-be witch hunt was so badly bollixed that Thomas had to step in and “fire” his supposedly independent special prosecutor, why did it take Thomas’ office weeks to get around to making good on Thomas’ press conference promise to drop the charges? In fact, attorney Tom Henze had to pull some wicked incisors getting Thomas’ office to file this official notice ending the matter, in what Henze called a “belt and suspenders” tactic to make doubly sure this feral cat was dead and buried.

Still, in these notices, there’s a lame attempt by Chief Assistant County Attorney Sally Wolfgang Wells (real middle name, BTW) to help her boss duck responsibility, when she offers that, “The actual…complaint and number were not provided to the prosecutor.” Call it a legal shrug: Hey, the Selective Enforcement Unit didn’t give us the info., so what did you want us to do?

Now that that’s settled, anyone up for a game of Greek dodge ball?

In a third, simultaneously-issued doc signed by Wells, the assistant prosecutor informs Judge Anna Baca that, per Baca's instructions on October 24 when she ordered grand jury docs related to New Times' case unsealed, the MCAO "requested and received the prosecution file" from the office of former special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik.

This oddly-labeled "State's Report of Document Search" then states:

"The Maricopa County Attorney's Office reviewed the contents of that file to determine whether it contained any documents that should have been filed in 430 GJ 97. No documents were located in that file that should have been part of the Clerk of the Court's file."

You can read the "State's Report of Document Search," here.

Now wouldn’t you love to take a gander at that prosecution file Wells obtained from Wilenchik? Back on October 24, Baca wondered where the actual subpoenas in the case were and why they weren’t in the grand jury file she was releasing. Wells said she’d look into it. This, apparently, is her answer. A particularly unsatisfying one, I might add, and one that raises a legion of queries. I’ll be asking those queries of the appropriate persons, and return with an update when I know more.