Bill Montgomery's Shame: Mom Risks Deportation Because of MCAO Felony

If she were to leave, Ivon explains, Luis would remain behind.

"He would have to stay and work," she said. "Because we have nothing."

Today, the human rights group Puente rallied at Phoenix's ICE headquarters to request that Ivon be allowed to stay. Puente produced the video above of Ivon telling her story.

The group also has a petition you can sign, asking ICE to let her to remain in the country.

Ivon had heard about the controversy over Montgomery's charging practices, of how the MCAO hits undocumented workers with felonies, while giving college kids a slap on the wrist when they commit the same crime.

"I see, on TV, that some people, they use a false ID to buy alcohol," she said. "And they just give them a misdemeanor. I can't understand why. They were doing bad stuff. I was just working."

I can't understand why either. Nor do I understand why ICE continues to take tainted cases from Maricopa County, where Arpaio is being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for racial profiling.

One arm of the government remains indifferent to what the other arm is up to. Or so it seems.

Meanwhile, Arpaio raids establishments we all patronize, places where food is prepared or brought to us by people such as Ivon.

ICE had no comment as of Monday, but my understanding is that the case is under review.

We are a better society, a better country, a better state and county, with Ivon and Luis and Zurisadai here with us.

Give the undocumented a way to get right with the law, and they will. Allow them to work legally, and they will. Let them apply for driver's licenses and require them to get auto insurance, and they will.

In the interim, stop the deportations of folks like Ivon. End Arpaio's raids, and shut down Montgomery's discriminatory charging practices.

This madness has to end. We must make it end. It's the least we can do for the people who feed us.

My Voice Nation Help
71 comments
ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

10:04 PM on 04/22/2012  There are aspects of Balko’s article that will resonate with anybody who is not a snob or self-serving middle-upper class elitist. 


"Therefore, his article will NOT resonate with many here.

What you will not find here at the Huffington Post or over at that great African-American advocacy web site known as The Root is a discussion of what generally happens to minorities and the poor in this “judicial” system of ours.

That’s because the only time anybody here at good ’ol Huffington or over at The Root sees a poor person is when somebody comes in to clean out their waste basket.

Here’s how it works. An African-American is hit with a couple felonies, or sometimes 3 misdemeanors that would result in many years behind bars.

But, they can plead guilty to a misdemeanor and get probation immediately. And after all, as their defense attorney will assure them, pleading guilty once is “no big deal.”

This can be ratcheted up a notch. A life sentence versus taking 5 years for example -- at least after time off for good behavior. (You actually get 8-10 years at sentencing. Looks better for the prosecutor that way.)

Particularly if you have children, you have only one clear choice to make in the Hobbesian circus known as our “judicial” system. You take the deal.

This has been the sad sorry state of affairs for at least 4 decades now, and nobody seems interested in doing anything about it."

dkessler4
dkessler4

Monty is just Andy Thomas with a new jacket...  Justice in Arizona is lacks humanity and tolerance toward others.  Without these traits it produces an intolerant tyranny for those it pretends to serve.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

Seriously folks, the people of Maricopa County elected a silver-haired, Army trained version of Candy Andy Thomas.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

Bill Montgomery Screws Up Tom Horne Complaint, Judge Recommends Dismissal by Feathered Bastard
http://bit.ly/WVyyoD

Montgomery has shown he has the power to do what he wants. He can help his cronies, go to the legislature and on this case say its unconstitutional but with mother and her children "charge" higher to deport them.


Strategy: How to taint a case for your cronies.

Wrong jurisdiction? Like MCAO Bill Montgomery didn't know when he started the process?  

This case belonged -- not in the Civil Court,  but IN THE CRIMINAL COURT,  in a state where the "people" -- if Appropriations John Kavanagh's emergency bill has his way -- will face a misdemeanor and 6 months in jail for walking into the wrong bathroom (need birth certificate to denote gender). 

Montgomery says he will appeal. He should personally take it ALL the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, like AG Horne would say and do!  Has Montgomery got the guts? He has no trouble destroying mothers and children's lives on a daily basis.

One set of laws (ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY) for the 'officials" ( top law enforcers), another set of laws for the people.  A victory lap for corruption!

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

MCAO Montgomery lacks the experience or vision to see the devastating consequences for decades to come to not only these families but the dark hole he and his cronies are creating for the once fine state of Arizona.  Like, looking at the 10 years of failed wars and the lies that took our blood and treasure, and our foreign policy in tatters.  Montgomery will represent the dark side of Arizona's history and with his military background of "shoot first, ask later" has decimated fair justice.

Cozz
Cozz

The Power Of The ProsecutorBy Radley Balko Posted: 01/16/2013 10:09 am

The death of Internet activist Aaron Swartz has generated a lot of discussion about the power of prosecutors -- particularly federal prosecutors. This is a good thing. The conversation is long overdue. But the discussion needs to go well beyond Swartz and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Prosecutors have enormous power. Even investigations that don't result in any charges can ruin lives, ruin reputations, and drive their targets into bankruptcy. It has become an overtly political position -- in general, but particularly at the federal level. If a prosecutor wants to ruin your life, he or she can. Even if you've done nothing wrong, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it.

There are a number of factors that got us here, and it's worth looking at them in turn.

We have too many laws.

There have been a number of projects that attempted to count the total number of federal criminal laws. They usually give up. The federal criminal code is just too complex, too convoluted, and too weighted down with duplications, overlapping laws, and other complications to come to a definite number. But by most estimates, there are at least 4,000 separate criminal laws at the federal level, with another 10,000 to 300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally. Just this year 400 new federal laws took effect, as did 29,000 new state laws. The civil libertarian and defense attorney Harvey Silverglate has argued that most Americans now unknowingly now commit about three felonies per day.

But you, citizen, are expected to know and comply with all of these laws. That isn't possible, of course. It would probably take you most of the year to understand them all, at which point you'd have the next year's batch of new laws to learn. You'd probably also need to hire a team of attorneys to help you translate the laws into terms you can understand. After the McCain-Feingold legislation passed in 2003, for example, both parties held weekly, three-hour classes just to educate members of Congress on how to comply with the bill they had just passed. This is a bill they wrote that applied to themselves, and they still had to bring in high-paid lawyers explain to them how not to break it.

Most of us don't have that option. And it's absurd that someone should have to hire an attorney or tax accountant merely to pay their taxes, run a business, run for office, or start a political organization without fear of getting hit with exorbitant fines, or going to jail.

Worse, while we citizens can go to prison for unwittingly breaking laws of which we weren't aware, prosecutors and law enforcement officers who wrongly arrest, charge, and try citizens based on a misunderstanding of the law generally face no sanction or repercussions. Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a police officer who illegally arrests someone because he wasn't aware of the law can only be held liable if the law in question was "clearly established" at the time he violated it. Prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity, which basically shields them from liability no matter how egregious their mistakes.

We need to move away from the idea that every act we find immoral, repugnant, or unsavory needs to be criminalized. Every new criminal law gives prosecutors more power. Once we have so many laws that it's likely we're all breaking at least one of them, the prosecutor's job is no longer about enforcing the laws, but about choosing which laws to enforce. It's then a short slide to the next step: Choosing what people need to be made into criminals, then simply picking the laws necessary to make that happen.

The laws are too vaguely and broadly written.

Federal laws on matters like conspiracy, racketeering, wiretapping, mail fraud, and money laundering gives prosecutors enormous discretion and leeway. Likewise for many of the post-9/11 laws that address giving aid to designated terrorist organizations, the notoriously awful Honest Services Fraud law (which the Supreme Court narrowed in 2009), and of course the CFAA.

There has also been a trend over the last 20 years or so toward laws that don't require prosecutors to show criminal intent. This means you can be prosecuted for crimes you had no idea you were breaking -- even laws you actively tried not to break. A 2010 study co-authored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Heritage Foundation found that in its rush to criminalize more and more behavior, Congress has been passing poorly-drafted laws that increasingly lack any requirement at all to show intent. Even when intent is included, the study found, it tends to be vague and open to interpretation (which also means open to abuse) by prosecutors.

At the state and local level, laws against "public nuisance," "disorderly conduct," and "keeping a disorderly house" also typically give law enforcement and prosecutors wide discretion.

Take all of that with the massive total number of laws, and you get a system ripe for abuse. If a prosecutor has it out for you, he can probably find a law he can plausibly argue you've broken. Even if you're acquitted -- in fact, even if the charge is dropped, or if you're investigated but never charged -- you don't get compensated for the time, stress, and expense the whole affair cost you. In federal cases you're supposed to at least be reimbursed for you legal expenses, but that doesn't appear to happen much, either.

Cozz
Cozz

Prosecutors have perverse incentives.

At the state level, prosecutors are reelected, move on to higher office, or win prestigious jobs at high-powered law firms for racking up large numbers of convictions -- and for getting high-profile convictions. They're rarely publicly praised or rewarded for declining to prosecute someone in the interest of justice. I'm sure it happens. But it isn't the sort of thing even a well-intentioned prosecutor is going to boast about in a press release.

USA Today recently found that federal prosecutors who commit misconduct en route to wrongful convictions are rarely if ever sanctioned. Other studies have come to similar conclusions about state prosecutors. Often, prosecutors aren't even named in appeals court decisions that overturn convictions due to misconduct. And there's of course the aforementioned absolute immunity, an absurd bubble of protection afforded only to prosecutors and judges that the Supreme Court basically cooked up from scratch.

It isn't difficult to see how we might get unjust outcomes when incentive points toward building an impressive volume of convictions, and seeking out high-profile, publicity-seeking cases that tend to me more driven by politics than justice, while there's rarely penalty for breaking the rules or going too far.

Protections have morphed into weapons.

Grand juries, intended and once used to protect people from the excesses of prosecutors, are today used by prosecutors to harass and intimidate. I wrote about one example a few years ago when Assistant U.S. Attorney used a grand jury investigation to silence pain patient advocate Siobhan Reynolds, who had been criticizing the office's prosecution of doctors. Plea bargaining is often seen as a tool that lets guilty people get off with less punishment than they deserve by pleading to lesser crimes. But too often, it too is used as a weapon. Thanks to the overlapping and duplicitous laws, prosecutors can stack charges to build enormously long potential sentences. This happened with Swartz. The threat of decades in prison can then make pleading to a lesser charge and lesser time enticing, even to an innocent person. This is an everyday thing, but the problem was put on wide display during the scandals in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, where dozens of people pleaded guilty to crimes they didn't commit.

Bringing the hammer down.

The federal government in particular seems to be getting less tolerant of challenges to its authority, and more willing to use more force and more serious charges to make an example of people who defy the law. You see this with the ridiculously disproportionate SWAT raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. No one seriously believes the people running these businesses are a threat to federal law enforcement officers. Sending the SWAT team is about sending a message. The government is sending a similar message when it conducts heavy handed raids on farmers and co-ops that sell raw dairy products, or when it sends paramilitary teams to raid the offices of doctors suspected of over-prescribing prescription painkillers. You see it when the feds throw the book at suspected copyright violators, or at the executives of online poker sites, threatening decades in prison. The goal in these cases isn't to stop and punish someone who is a serious threat to other people. It's to send a message to the rest of us: Defy the government as this person did, and here is what will happen to you.

The politicization of criminality.

When everyone is breaking the law, it becomes rather easy to use the law as a political weapon. We saw this during the Bush administration with a number of targeted prosecutions aimed at prominent members of the other party, or at "sending a message" of some kind. And of course the law and order instinct toward more power for cops and prosecutors has long been more associated with conservatives.

But the left is guilty, too. The rush to publicly convict George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin resulted in an indictment that most defense attorneys have since characterized as absurdly overreaching and aggressive. Yet outside of legal commentators and pundits, most on the left seemed to be okay with it. There have also been credible accusations of prosecutorial misconduct that have received little coverage outside the conservative media (which itself seems suddenly interested in protecting the rights of the accused). When Elliott Spitzer was trouncing the constitution with aggressive tactics in his pursuit of corporate bigwigs, he was largely cheered by progressives and editorial boards who are traditionally more supportive of the rights of the accused. When the Heritage Foundation first undertook its overcriminalization project, the progressive organization Media Matters actually mocked the conservative think tank for being soft on crime.

Too often, criticism of prosecutorial excesses isn't framed as this should never happen, but why isn't this happening to the people I don't like? Until that changes -- until partisans are willing to condemn abuses even by their own, or committed against their political opponents or people they personally find unsavory -- the problem is only going to get worse.


I'd suggest all of these factors (and probably a few I haven't thought of) have increasingly made us a nation ruled not by laws, but by politics (and by aspiring politicians). And once criminality is influenced primarily by politics, we're all just potential criminals.

 

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

County Attorneys, like MCAO Montgomery wield awesome power to destroy lives. As a prosecutor, he has no oversight or accountability and has absolute immunity. Time for Term Limits for County Attorneys and County Sheriffs and most of the issues dominating the top would evaporate. Arizona has decades long tyrants who "rule" its kingdom.


Sara MayeuxNew Study: Prosecutors, Not Police, Have Driven Prison Population Growth

Prison Law Blog

The United States prison population has exploded over the past 40 years. But why? Have police been making more arrests? Have prosecutors been charging more people with crimes? Have judges been issuing longer sentences? Have parole boards become stricter? (All of the above?) Since many accounts of mass incarceration collapse “the criminal justice system” into a single monolith, it can be hard to know exactly what part of the system has driven the growth in the prison population.

A new empirical study by Fordham law professor John Pfaff aims to provide a more granular explanation of the causes of mass incarceration. Pfaff concludes that only one other relevant number has changed as dramatically as the prison population has: the number of felony case filings per arrest. In other words, police haven’t been arresting more people:

[B]etween 1982 and 1995, arrests rose by 26% (from 3,261,613 to 4,118,039) while mean [prison] admissions rose by 149% (from 212,415 to 530,642); between 1995 and 2007, arrests fell by 28.6% while admissions rose by another 31.9%. It is thus clear that arrests are not driving the growth in incarceration—and by extension neither are trends in crime levels, since their effect is wholly mediated by these arrest rates. 

Rather, prosecutors have become more likely to charge those arrested with crimes:  (excerpt)

DNichols
DNichols

"Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone."

J.C.

This is not Mongomery, Arpaio, Brewer, or their Supremacist/Nazi following.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

MCAO Montgomery, What lies ahead is nothing but cruel and inhumane treatment and you know it. The Arizona and Mexico's harsh desert has replaced Hitler's ovens and our elected officials and profiteers have used it accordingly. Truly shameful in the 21st century! And this is what you're subjecting people to along with the broken jails, detention centers and prisons that now have a Class Action lawsuit against the Arizona Dept. of Corrections.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

MCAO Bill Montgomery, "minister of fair justice", a Catholic, is part of Arizona's Darkest Hour. His God is his GOP party. He does NOT care about women and children or keeping families together.  

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

To all those who think that charging undocumented aliens with forgery, a class 4 felony, so they are nonbondable is a good thing - note that the MCAO pled this as a class 6 felony.  Had they charged a class 6 felony in the first place, which is where they ended up on the plea deal, she would have been bondable.  This is further indication that MCAO charging policy is specifically intended to prevent bond, despite Bill Montgomery's protests to the contry, which MCSO employee yourproductsucks confirmed on this blog on Sunday.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@dkessler4 

Authoritarian. Not a democracy. Government the #1 employer in Arizona, a "conservative" religious? state.  Hands out for hundreds of millions of Federal dollars while criticizing the President and the federal gov't.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

Today, !0 year anniversary since the U.S. invaded Iraq in a pre-emptive war, based on lies to the people. So who are the people to trust to do the right thing? MCAO Bill Montgomery and his follow prosecutors "ministers of fair justice"?

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

The above to those who play GOD with others peoples' lives. We understand that women and children are the easiest targets the bullies use.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Cozz I agree that there are too many laws.  More Government oversight is never the answer.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@Cozz  "The laws are too vaguely and broadly written." In Arizona, the laws are so broadly written to create a lucrative "industry". Did you know? Technically, changing a baby's diaper in Arizona is child molest? And what are the lawmakers doing to correct the poorly written language? Nothing. Meanwhile, it plays out in the Family Courts as well.  How to get rid of a spouse?

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@Cozz  Your well-informed comment and information is a great public service. Thank you.

Cozz
Cozz

@truthseekeraz  

So right, the CA's office is as bad as the criminals they prosecute but have the license to get away with just about everything they do.

...and the Courts do absolutely nothing to stop them.

Total bullshit.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@DNichols   These elected officials who are using immigrants for political, career gain and profiteering are on this well-worn path to destroying the peoples' rights, their lives and families.

 "THE HOUSE I LIVE IN"  Official Trailer #1 (2012) Sundance Award-winning Documentary by Edward Jarecki, filmmaker - YouTube  It should be a civic duty for ALL people to watch 4 decades of failed policy, where we are today and where we're headed -- unless the people speak up nothing will change. Kavanagh represents the "old school" that has destroyed many families and innocent lives. Time for "smart on crime". The taxpayers have been conned and bilked long enough.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0atL1HSwi8

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@truthseekeraz Not sure what his religion has to do with anything and, in fact, it sounds almost like bigotry for you to call it out because it is unclear why you did so.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

These officials create laws that continue to take peoples' rights away and threaten basic human rights. Common sense and fairness is what is needed here. 

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public and your attempt to use my personal opinions as official statements of a County Office is simply wrong.  You are part of the problem in  your attempt to quell an opposing point of view by creating false representations in the minds of other readers.   You have no independant knowledge of where I may or may not be employed.  An attorney making libelous statements on a public forum should be wary of consequeences.  If you think that making such statements aren't potentially very damaging we may very well see eachother in court.  Everything I post here on this forum is my own personal opinion and does not ever reflect the postition of any entity or organization.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public Offering plea deals for lesser offences is not necessarily synonymous with the strength of the case reference the original charge...but you already know that.  It's cute how you prey upon the ignorance of others in order to bolster your arguments.  She pled to a felony.   It's obvious that neither the MCAO's Office nor the Judicial Branch of Maricopa County agree with Lemons lemmings in his fallacious "comparison other" regarding fake id's and title 4 offenses.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@truthseekeraz You are wrong.  Changing a baby's diaper is not child molest...Where there is no culpability, there is no crime.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@CozzThis is what it is all about.  Their strategy -- which group of people can we turn into $$$'s for ourselves and to make lawyers obscenely rich, private prison corporations who "control" Arizona, and get elected for Governor?   Who will be next -- until there will no longer be income producers or taxpayers left to pay for the destruction of America -- a war on America. 

"THE HOUSE I LIVE IN"  Official Trailer #1 (2012) Sundance Award-winning Documentary by Edward Jarecki, filmmaker - YouTube  It should be a civic duty for ALL people to watch 4 decades of failed policy, where we are today and where we're headed -- unless the people speak up nothing will change. The "old school" (which Montgomery is carrying on) that has destroyed many families and innocent lives. Time for "smart on crime". The taxpayers have been conned and bilked long enough. The elected officials and lawmakers have put their own constituents and the taxpayers at risk for harm, using the taxpayers' $$$'s to do it.

DNichols
DNichols

Why don't they expose the Thousands of Disguised Multi-Million Dollar Spying Drones that are Watching us all?!

You don't have to be a Criminal, they are flying zones over our Cities right now watching every one.

Since the so called "Patriot Act" we are the "Enemy", and we just call this Out of Control Spying our new "National Deficit."

How many in Jail now were put there by Un-Constitutional Spying inside their very American Homes?!

To: Honesty, and Transperancy.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @truthseekeraz  Arizona was touted as a "compassionate conservative" state and a "religious" state that believes in Jesus Christ. Would Jesus treat this mother and her child and family this way? Look for a way to deport them? Or work at solving the problem another way? Which moral compass is he using --- his religion (Catholic pope showed the world the meaning of his faith this past week), his oath to the military, or his political party the GOP?

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks And I'm doing nothing to quell an opposing point of view at all nor am I creating any false representations.  If you think that this was an effort at some sort of intimidation then you are entirely mistaken.  I was pulling together information from various sources, including articles from the PNT and comments on the blogs.  Nothing more. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks My information on where you are employed comes directly from your comments on this website.  In response to the article “Joe Arpaio's Deputies Raid Taco Shops in Workplace Immigrant Roundup Number 72” (PNT; March 15, 2013) you commented “@david_saint01 While I agree that the resources used in the HSU division could certainly be better served in patrol where we are desperately low in staffing, it's hardly 80%. 20 deputies out of 450 is actually 4% of the SO's resources.”[emphasis added].Your use of the first-person “we” clearly implies, if not states outright, that you are employed by the MCSO.Otherwise you would have used the third-person “they” to describe the MCSO.  This was not the first comment that you've made that suggests that you are an MCSO employee.  So clarify, do you work for MCSO or not?If not, I’ll happily issue a retraction of, and apology for, my prior comment but I hope that you will also stop using language that suggests that you are an employee of MCSO.Which is it, are you an MCSO employee or not?

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks And if you read my comments on that article you'll see that I didn't agree with Lemons either as I pointed out that it may be difficult to charge under the forgery statutes for the majority of the fake ID's because most of them are "borrowed" and therefore not forged.  My opinion, as I've stated clearly, is that there is a tremendous irony that an accused murderer like Ian MacDonald can bond out by $75,000 but an accused forgerer is non-bondable.  Your positon (and correct me if I misstate it) is that the accussed forgerer being non-bondable is a direct result of charging as a class 4 felony under prop 100 and there is nothing that the MCAO can do about that so there needs to be a legislative change.  My point is that the MCAO has the prosecutorial to charge under ARS 13-2004 or 13-2006, whch are classes 6 felonies and therefore still bondable under prop. 100, which may be the statutes under which the plea bargain described above was reached.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@truthseekeraz I have read and enforced the statutes you speak of.  Provide and example of a person who has been convicted of child molestation after having done nothing more than changed the child's diaper.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@DNichols You need to write a "My Turn" piece for the Az Republic for ALL to see. If they don't publish it, that will confirm the many well-informed comments you write are true.  The "system" doesn't want the public to be informed. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks But since you are privy to the facts, just out of curiosity - how much does it cost to maintain an untried/unsentnced inmate at the MCSO jail where these nonbondable undocumented alien are housed?

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public I jumped to conclusion.  for that I apologize.  I will read you in a different light from here on out.  Too often I take an adversarial posture when it is unwarranted.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks Then I won't do that again. It wasn't my intent to suggest that this time - I would have just attributed the comment to the MCSO if I was trying to suggest that your commented wsa an official representation of the MCSO's opinion.  Sometimes you seem to sound like the PIO, like when you discussed source of funds, stats on number of deputies, etc., on Friday in the America's Taco Shop article, and when you do it seems like you are going beyond simply stating your personal opinion but almost as if you were representing the agency.  I understand that you're trying to factually set the record straight when others are using incorrect facts and it is probably frustrating for you on this site at times.  I will be careful not to infer that you are speaking on behalf of the agency or suggest that your opinions are those of the MCSO. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks And your comment that I was referring to was, " The problem with letting illegals go who take on another's identity is the simple fact that when released, they simply change their identity to avoid prosecution...It was a rampant problem prior to prop 100. Now it's not."  The point of your comment, as I fairly interpreted it, was that charging undocumented aliens with class 4 felonies so they are non-bondable under prop 100 is an intentional approach that is being taken to resolve the "rampant problem" that you described in your post.    If you meant something else by your comment please feel free to clarify it.  The whole issue is whether the MCA intentionally charges under ARS 13-2002 so its a class 4 felony instead of under ARS 13-2004 or 13-2006, which are class 6 felonies and would be bondable under prop. 100.  Part of the discussion is with ICE and DHS attorney have coached MCAO staff on ways to charge to make undocumented aliens non-bondable.  That is a very valid issue and discussion point and I referenced your comment as part of the discussion on the issue.  Not sure why you take issue with that.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@yourproductsucks Actually, you are the one who made where you are employed an issue in your post above when you essentially accused me of libel for stating that you are employed at the MCSO.  You made a very strong statement that my assertion that you worked for the MCSO was potentially very damaging to you and that if I didn't understand that we would see each other in court (presumably for libel).  The big difference between working for MCSO and working in the private sector is that MCSO is a governmental entity and therefore subject to different regulations and requirements.  I don't want to commit libel and certainly wouldn't do so intentionally - so should I issue a retraction or not?

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public The issue is not where I am (or am not employed).  The issue lies in the attempt to frame my personal opinions and statements being the opinions of the MCSO.  That is wholy unfactual an innappropriate assumption for you to draw.  You attempt to attack the MCAO and their policies and use a very loose interpretation of my statements to bolster your claim. 

I am certain that the law firm you work for would not appreciate nor give you authority to post here in their behalf.  Your opinions are personal.  I respect that.  You should be man enough to do the same.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...