Joe Arpaio's Pal Andy Kunasek on Blast by Activist Beto Soto in New Dennis Gilman Video

Dennis Gilman's latest: Beto Soto vs. the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

As we get closer to June 14 -- simultaneously Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 81st birthday and the date that parties in the racial profiling lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio are to appear before federal Judge G. Murray Snow -- the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office becomes more emphatic in its stated intent to nix (at least for the moment) its racial-profiling ways.

See Also:
Citizen Journalist Dennis Gilman and His Video Camera Take on the Valley of the Sun
Bill Montgomery Would Rather Talk About Jodi Arias Than Judge Snow's Order, and Here's Why

Last week, the Arizona Republic reported that the MCSO's notorious Human Smuggling Unit would no longer be patrolling county highways hunting Hispanics and that Arpaio's work site raids seeking undocumented workers have been placed on hold.

Fox News reported that the fear-inducing signs on MCSO vehicles asking citizens to "Help Sheriff Joe Arpaio Fight Illegal Immigration" by calling Joe's report-a-brown person number are being removed.

The number itself is now out of service.

And in a real eye-rolling moment pointed out by my colleague Matt Hendley, the MCSO issued a press release this week talking about how "six men walking in the desert" had been rescued by MCSO deputies, who "drove all six to the nearest convenience store at their request and then contacted Border Patrol to notify them of the situation."

Talk about bending over backwards. Or would that be forwards?

Then Friday, the Associated Press got in on the action, announcing that the MCSO had "temporarily suspended" its anti-immigration activities.

The AP quoted MCSO spokesman Brandon Jones as stating that, "We are out of the immigration business until that hearing," meaning the one on Joe's b-day.

And the piece de resistance, Arpaio's $1 million legal beagle Tim Casey told the AP that Snow's ruling was so important that, "It will invariably impact individual rights and law enforcement operations throughout the United States."

Wow, way to kiss up to the judge, Tim. One question: If the ruling is so significant (and I agree that it is) then why have you already signaled that an appeal is in the works, an appeal that could cost the county another $2 million?


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
131 comments
Cozz
Cozz

Andy Kunasek, now there's an Arpaio lapdog if there ever was one.

Andy Kunasek is nothing more than a chicken shit punk.

DNichols
DNichols

Poor Teflon Joe Arpaio, I am sure he thought he had "Destroyed " plenty of Racial Profiling Evidence to get off the Hook from the Scales of Justice.

robert_graham
robert_graham

I will be putting http://sb1070.org back online soon because SB 1070 is a common-sense law in the fight against illegal immigration in Arizona.

Tommy_Collins
Tommy_Collins

Dredge, you may notice that a federal judge has ruled based on federal law. Federal law is superior to state law. Your many arguments and opinions seem moot, since this issue has already been ruled on by a professional who has the ability to understand and apply constitutional law, which doesn't seem to be your case. Perhaps you should take the time to have someone read the ruling to you and explain it so you are less confused. 

In the mean while, there is no value in 'dredging' up any further mush you may hear from those who advise you on what to think and say. 

This article is about the county wasting further money on appeal that ruling. It really has very little to do with illegal immigrants other than they were victimized by employees of MCSO at the direction of the elderly elected official.

DREDGE
DREDGE

Another thing, if the board suggested Arpaio had the right to do these activities then the onus goes to them, not the Sheriff's office. Also, If the laws had allowed this previously then I don't see how the feds could arbritarily say stop now, giving the illegals are still illegals. And, IF ARPAIO MADE ONE SINGLE CALL TO THE FEDS AND THE FEDS DID NOT ACT ON IT, NOR RECIPROCATED WITH THEIR AUTHRORITY IT WOULD SEEM THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTLEY NO REASON TO HAVE A POLICE FORCE OR SHERIFF'S OFFICE AT ALL BASED ON THE TANGLED WEB OF THE FEDS' POORLY ARTICULATED SCEMES TO ABORT AND AND DISREGARD OUR LAWS.

DREDGE
DREDGE

I GUESS ANOTHER DEFENSE IS THE sHERIFF'S OFFICE COULDN'T TELL WHAT RACE THE CARS WERE THEY WERE STOPPING.

DREDGE
DREDGE

I guess all the criminals post the anti-Arpaio dissent.  Just who exactly is going to save you now from the criminal illegals? Think the Arpaio appeal is pricey/ Wait till you have ten million illegals and their illigitimate kids to support. Then will you guys get a brain? you don't think the pooliticains or feds are going to protect you do you?? they won't. THEY ARE SELLING YOU OUT FOR MONEY. DON'T YOU GET IT?

DREDGE
DREDGE

The difference bewteen the lawsuits is the Sheriff was elected and protecting the citizens of Arizona. Anyone of you who is racist or an illegal loving dirtbag should read the laws they say Arapio was breaking becasue the feds are the ones who are ignoring the laws and applying them wrong. illegal is still illegal. Check this out: Illegals not mentioned becasue theya re not citizens. If you are a Mexcian Descentdent and an American get some Identity on or get the heck out of the USA. WE WERE HERE FIRST AND WE ARE NOT MEXICO. WE have an American Idnetity and laws, county, city, state, and if the feds would read , yes fed laws theya re supposed to follow.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee ALL CITIZENS NOT ILLEGALS equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.

No illegal should get amnesty, n o presidnet should be able to give our country away, and no feds should be allowed to prosecute any elected policeman, sherfiff, city , country, state enforcement officer for follwoing the laws.

I SAY THE STATES HAVE FIRST RIGHTS TO PROTECTING THEIR CITIZENS FROM ILLEGAL INVADERS WHO HAVE CROSSED THEIR STATE LINES, AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEDS RIGHT AND DUTY TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION.

DREDGE
DREDGE

The difference bewteen the lawsuits is the Sheriff was elected and protecting the citizens of Arizona. Anyone of you who is racist or an illegal loving dirtbag should read the laws they say Arapio was breaking becasue the feds are the ones who are ignoring the laws and applying them wrong. illegal is still illegal. Check this out: Illegals not mentioned becasue theya re not citizens. If you are a Mexcian Descentdent and an American get some Identity on or get the heck out of the USA. WE WERE HERE FIRST AND WE ARE NOT MEXICO. WE have an American Idnetity and laws, county, city, state, and if the feds would read , yes fed laws theya re supposed to follow.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee ALL CITIZENS NOT ILLEGALS equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who would later sign the landmark Voting Rights Act into law.

No illegal should get amnesty, n o presidnet should be able to give our country away, and no feds should be allowed to prosecute any elected policeman, sherfiff, city , country, state enforcement officer for follwoing the laws.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

I wonder if the BoS have a choice when it comes to funding an appeal reference Judge Snow's ruling.  I think there is a reasonable argument that if the BoS doesn't fund the appeal they are infringing on arpaio's right to due process.  I am not an attorney, but I believe there may be case law to support my opinion, although I don't know if it makes a difference whether this was a civil hearing or not.

Dontbelieveit
Dontbelieveit topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan The only thing you will put back online is your fat lips on the jokers flaccid weiner

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@JoeArpaioFan 

Dumbass, the most CONSERVATIVE U.S. Supreme Court since William Howard Taft in 1909 barred BS1070 from taking effect.

And thanks to Judge Snow, yet ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE, the part of BS1070 where law enforcement can ask for papers has also been barred.

It should be noted that the DOJ, headed up by a Democratic Attorney General, found 18 months BEFORE Judge Snow's ruling that the MCSO racially-profiled. A Republican judge just confirmed the DOJ's findings.

Sad when people from BOTH political parties agree that the narcissistic old man is biased against Latinos.

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@JAFFYDUCK. QUACK....QUACK...QUACK, WHAT A QUACKING BITCH U R. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT FROM MCSO AND THE DRAMA QUEEN (I've been descriminated) IT'S OVER BITCH. It doesn't matter how many POS web sites U put up, U can't do anything, "Illegals" R here to stay, U can shit all over the place, foam from the mouth, whine and rant all U can U CAN NOT DO ANYTHING , Judge Snow's ruling is very clear: NO MORE MCSO'S CIRCUS, wasting taxpayer's money.

What U should worry about is what R U going to do after this is over, probably U R gonna have to suck dick full time. BTW, did U know that DREAMERs are going to get Their driver's Licences. Seems like the WITCH FROM THE WEST LOST. After knowing all these I hope U DROP DEAD. HA HA HA HA HA LLLLLOOOOOSSSSSEEEERRRR. FNG BIATCH

robert_graham
robert_graham

@Tommy_Collins No Tommy, your many arguments and opinions are moot because the truth is that what Arpaio did was not profiling. If the real facts had been revealed at trial the ruling would have been different. 

For example, the Hispanics claiming they were profiled claimed theyw ere pulled over because of their skin color but that is not what happened. They were pulled over because they broke the law.

There were many obvious things thatw ere never brought up in trial but will be on appeal. And Arpaio will prevail - I guarantee it. You will lose.

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@DREDGE, ...fuck another Jaffy....how in the fuck all of U fit under the DRAMA QUEEN's bed? U, hillfolkredneck and jaffy should call a meeting., See,  if each one of U put UR 2cells brains together, U might be able to get a glimpse of what is really going on.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@DREDGE we are all aware that the politicians are selling us out for money, Joe is a politician too and proves your point.........he has done nothing but cost us money since  he has been here.  there are how many billion people in the U.S.? are you saying none of them are criminals? how many million people are in the U.S. that are citizens with illegitimate children? we are supporting them too. Joe is supporting American citizens NOT having jobs by ignoring the people who hire the illegals. he cant make or win the case, but it IS his job to present it to the MCAO, why wont he? you cant fix a system by ignoring everything but one problem, Joe blew off all those rapes and still blew them off when he had a chance to rectify the situation. Joe was given funding to enhance and update his agency when it came to those crimes and he lost the money and cut the task force in half by sending police to teach the Hondurans. if Joe was so enthused about saving our jobs and our people, why was he sending OUR police to the Honduras when they were evidently needed here more?

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@DREDGE, Nice rant dredgeboi, U need to stop drinking that TEA, don't  listen to HILLFOLKREDNECK rants either, unless U R joint by the hip, with Jaffy on UR lap, then those rants make sense.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@DREDGE 

Did you know who originally proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Democratic President John F. Kennedy.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@DREDGE 

Um dumbass, read the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Which granted 3 million illegal immigrants citizenship.

And it should be noted that IRCA was signed by then-President Ronald Reagan, one of the most iconic REPUBLICAN Presidents of the 20th century.

david_saint01
david_saint01

@DREDGE lmao ILLEGAL IS STILL ILLEGAL..SO WHY DO YOU STILL SUPPORT JOE AND HIS LAW BREAKING WAYS?? Does the Constitution not mean anything to you, or is it just there for your convenience? FYI in the eyes of the law, what MCSO has done far outweighs immigrants crossing the border illegally ..US Supreme Court vs AZ (in 1070 case) stated "it is not a crime to remain in the country illegally, but rather a civil offense" (less than the equivalent of a traffic ticket at that)...

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@yourproductsucks 

What I don't understand is why Arpaio wants to appeal the decision (his Constitutional right) when, 18 months before this ruling, the DOJ found the exact same things Judge Snow found.

I bring this up because, as you know, the DOJ is headed up by a Democratic Attorney General and Judge Snow is a Republican, having been appointed by W. It doesn't appear politics has anything to do with the decision

Also, what do you think will happen to BS1070 in light of Judge Snow's ruling?  

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@yourproductsucks the way i see it, if an employee costs you money thats one thing...........if they keep costing you money through damage or damages............you can them and leave them responsible for the cost of their actions

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@yourproductsucks i thought they could approve or deny all of his legal stuff (I.E.; legal costs, settlements, etc etc) 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks  

Arpaio, as a person, does not have that right, the BOS does. Arpaio represents a group here, not himself (he is not being charged personally, nor would he be). 

If BOS decides not to appeal (would be the smartest thing they have done in a long time) and Joe wants to appeal it, he is more than welcome to... Out of his own damn pocket.

sarum
sarum

@JoeArpaioFanMy Mexican husband has been pulled over weekly for DWM or DWB for decades by local police departments, never MCSO.  He does not have to commit a violation to get pulled over.  Since SB1070 passed only 1X he was pulled over by black rookie - so we just figure when the good old boys don't want to work with someone they force them to do it in hopes of complaint or lawsuit will boot them out of department.  So to us it appeared that SB1070 was pivotal in making clear profiling not allowed.  I don't know if this is based on pre-SB1070 material or post.  Looking all over and not finding info I need to determine for myself.  Like what criteria did DOJ use to make determination?  From what time period?  

dennis20
dennis20 topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan @Tommy_Collins  JAFFY, you clearly didn't see the evidence or hear the testimony from both sides. The MCSO damned themselves by the emails, the destroyed records they were ordered to save as evidence as well as even making up their own law. (or finding it on the internetz and using it without checking) You should've attended a few of the hearings.  Between Sgt. Bret Palmer and Chief Brian Sands it was hard to keep a straight face. 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan@Tommy_Collins 

You do realize that during an appeal, you cannot bring in new evidence right? All an appeal says, is that the judge made a procedural mistake, therefore the existing evidence from the trial needs to be re-examined. You cannot introduce any new evidence, for that you need a new trial, not an appeal, which means you first have to show grounds for a new trial, none of which exist.

"the truth is that what Arpaio did was not profiling" - That's your opinion, one that the COURTS clearly do not share.

Your opinion plus $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee too - for the rest of us the coffee is only $1, but your opinion is worth so little it actually raises the price.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan they cant bring anything of the sort up in the appeal Robert, did you forget MCSO had "accidently" destroyed many of those records? it really is kind of funny how whenever "Joe" has a case against him..........records are conveniently destroyed, any of his officers who have a case and could possibly use a little luck like that..........it doesnt seem to really happen then.    Hmmm? coincidence or just a perk of being the head of the agency and being the one giving orders? I think it is the flaccid failure pulling rank

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@JoeArpaioFan 

"They were pulled over because they broke the law."

What law numbskull? There is that pesky little thing called probable cause, which is enshrined within the 4th Amendment.

Regardless of immigration status (that is a protected class) these CITIZENS, granted permission by the federal government under W, were targeted because of their skin color.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@JoeArpaioFan 

If it wasn't racial-profiling, then what was it?

Keep in mind that Arpaio AND MCSO are getting a court-appointed monitor.

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@JAFFYDUCK, UR A ONE TRICK BIATCH. All U rant is about "Illegals", U should ask UR mom why did She make love with an "Illegal". Go and find UR daddy and tell Him: "I hate U because U R an "Illegal"", perhaps He'll hook U up with some "Illegal's" dick, which is probably what U've been craving for all allong.

All the fucking time U come with something like:"the hispanics claiming they were profiled claimed theyw ere pulled over because of their skin color but this is not what happened. They were pulled over because they broke the law",how in the fuck U know that? were U present when this was happening? U DON'T KNOW SHIT BITCH. THAT POS RACIST IS GONNA HAVE TO OBEY JUDGE SNOW'S RULING OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES,"I GUARANTEE IT"

BTW, I noted that now is "Hispanics" instead UR usual "Illegals". JOE MUCH. FUCKING PUSSY ASS BITCH.

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@JAFFYDUCK, Were U holding hands when U said that, 'cause I guess that both of U R under the OLD FART's bed while posting. Don't forget about the one over the bed, don't let Him FALL AGAIN.

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@JAFFYDUCK, WHAT A  MORON U R JAFFY, So U agree with what DREDGEBOI says.STUPID ASS.

robert_graham
robert_graham

@danzigsdaddy @DREDGE Hey screw your 'costing us money" arguement. Let me ask you, how much money is illegal immigration costing us????? Well???????  Did you know that more than 60 percent (maybe more) of the inmates in Maricopa County jails are illegal aliens?  Yes it's true.  So, how much money are they costing us?  And how many illegal aliens in this country are costing us in healthcare every year?  And how much money are illegal aliens costing taxpayers for everything else?  How dare you cry about what you think Arpaio is costing us!

robert_graham
robert_graham

@david_saint01 @DREDGE My god what a real dumb son of a bitch you are. First of all Arpaio does not break the law - he enforces it so therefore he is NOT a lawbreaker. You are confused.

Does the Constitution not mean anything to you?  What part of the Constitution says illegal aliens deserve amnesty or that our immigration laws should not be enforced. If you were a true follower of the Constitution you would have a different outlook on life.  

I beg your pardon but it is a crime to remain in this country illegally.  If it were not then there would be no such thing as deportations, border fences and Border Patrol.  You simply don't want it to be a crime. We must make illegal immigration a more serious crime under immigration reform.


Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@danzigsdaddy @yourproductsucks 

They do - this is nothing more than wishful thinking on YPS's part. That and YPS's wanting to stir the pot to get an argument going.

robert_graham
robert_graham

@Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks Did Mary Rose Wilcox have the right to use county funds to pay for her legal expenses? Of course you thought so, so that answers your question about Arpaio.

dennis20
dennis20 topcommenter

@Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks  The BOS has turned down aqppeals and settled on plenty of other lawsuits over the last 15 years. It almost seems like Arpaio would want to have his fans pay for it. Remember Brewer and the 1080 lawsuit?  If memory serves me she claimed she wouldn't use taxpayers money to fight it.  I could be wrong on that and its worth researching. There was so much news around it in 2010 that it was hard to keep up on everything. 

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@sarum 

BS1070 states in its preamble that "attrition through enforcement" was to be the driving force for racial-profiling.

Melendres v Arpaio was filed sometime between 2007 and 2008. So pre-BS1070.

The DOJ found the narcissistic old man to have racially-profiled in December 2011. While this lawsuit was still in play.

Judge Snow merely affirmed what the DOJ found: That prior to and subsequent to the passage of BS1070, the hateful old man racially-profiled Latinos.

All BS1070 did was make racial-profiling easier. And it was twice-disgraced, corrupt, narcissistic and mentally sick Pearce's last stand.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@JoeArpaioFan 

Um, you DO realize a Democratic president declared the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868? (Andrew Johnson)

A Democratic president dedicated the Statue of Liberty on October 28, 1886? (Grover Cleveland)

And it was a Democratic president who lead America to victory in both WWI and WWII? (Woodrow Wilson and FDR)

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@JAFFYDUCK, QUACK..QUACK. R U going to "guarantee it" as U had "guarantee it" the "raids" and posting peoples names and addresses along with licences plates numbers and pictures of those driving or is it just another "stunt"?, just like U do all the time. GAPING VAGINA MUCH?

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@JoeArpaioFan 

Do you know how much it costs to deport a single undocumented immigrant? $12,500.

Arpaio wastes his $270M budget on total bullshit. He has the biggest budget of any government entity in Maricopa County and he wastes the most money of any government entity in Maricopa County.

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@JAFFYDUCK, I sse that no U R salivating TWOTIMES PEARCE'S dick also, U R regurgitating the same bulshit that He said some time ago.(6o%, maybe more of the immates on MC jails R illegal alliens) fucking bullshit.

U should ask the RACIST 1, why is He arresting all those "Illegals" resorting to "made up" laws, costing money. Why don't U bitch about it. U fail to see that while He is getting all that money from the Feds, -probably profiting from it Himself- is the tapayer's money the one beign misspent. Why don't U cry about that bitch. IGNORTANT PUTO.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@david_saint01 @JoeArpaioFan @DREDGE 

David, not only does it take 2/3 of both houses of Congress to amend the Constitution, but it also takes 3/4 of the states.

Unless sad little Robert wants to go the way of the Constitutional convention. Something that hasn't happened since 1787.

david_saint01
david_saint01

@JoeArpaioFan @david_saint01 @DREDGE LMAO the person ignoring their hero violating the 4th and 14th Amendments is asking ME if the Constitution means nothing to me? HAHAHA you sure are a special breed..the short bus kind of special. 

You can beg all you want, still doesnt change the fact that the SUPREME COURT, whos opinion has a little more weight than yours, has stated that its NOT A CRIME to remain in the country illegally. Sorry you cant handle that, but thats YOUR problem..dont like it? get 2/3rds of Congress to change the Constitution then. Good luck with that though, lol, Congress can barely agree on anything these days, much less 2/3rds. 

i think its you thats confused, and misguided by your hatred.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753  

You are right, which also means it was your choice, since it's an open forum and you are a free person I assume, to respond to me, even though I was not talking to you.

So you stuck your nose in for the purpose of arguing my opinion - which is your right, but don't sit there now and say you are not arguing and that you don't want to argue.

If you didn't want to argue, you would not have replied to me and kept this alive.

You could have and can end this any time you are done trying to do exactly what I said you would do, try to have an argument.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks You do realize this is an open forum where anyone can comment on any comment they feel obliged to?  You were not talking to me but you certainly were talking about me. 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

"I have no interest in arguing with you."

Then why are you?

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753  

I did not attack you, I wasn't even talking to you, I was talking to Danzig.

I gave an opinion about something, that is all. You could have ignored it or not - that was your choice to respond to me directly and try to have a fight.

Like usual, you attempt to make things appear a way they are not, you must work for MCSO.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 You attacked me...maybe you don't see that from your vantage point.  I have no interest in arguing with you. But if it makes you feel better, so be it.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753  

And now rather than ignore my comment, so an argument does not start, here you are arguing. 

Thanks for proving my point for me.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 Yea, my post is real argumentative.  You got me there.

I think I was clear in stating I wasn't sure, and I didn't know and I could be wrong; all very argumentative stances.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@yourproductsucks 

Was not aware of that. I do know that the last time the Wilcox case came up in federal court Judge Neil Wake ordered Maricopa County to pay her attorneys' expenses, and I've been following these cases pretty closely. 

Also, why would the County pay for Wilcox's legal fees when Judge Wake can and has ordered the County to pay her legal expenses? It makes no sense for them to pay twice.  

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967

@JoeArpaioFan 

Um, Wilcox didn't use county money to pay her legal expenses. She paid for her attorney out of pocket.

Her attorney just happens to be one of the best in the Valley.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan @Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks 

1. I didn't have any questions abotu Arpaio

2. I never said Arpaio did not have the right to have the county pay for his defense.

There is a big difference between causing the problem and having the county pay for it legally, like Joe did - and the problem being caused for you and the county paying for it legally, like in the Wilcox case. 

So what are you blabbering about???

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@dennis20 I don't know how sb1070 and the rulings against it are comparible to the Snow ruling.  I also don't know who's responsibility it is to defend the Sheriff's Office.  If it is solely the BoS's job to do so, then I would agree they have the power and authority to determine whether or not an appeal is made.

I do know that the appeal process is available and is a Constitutionally protected right.  I don't know that I agree with the tactic of shaming others to forgo their rights to appeal and villianizing them for doing so should they choose.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...