Bill Montgomery Charges Four Uncle Sam's Workers, Others Not Charged

picresized_1374615004_photo.jpg
Uncle Sam's in Union Hills, one of two locations Arpaio's boys in beige raided last week...

Is there a crack in the anti-immigrant alliance between Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

To say so, at this point, seems premature.

There are rumors afoot that all 10 of those reportedly arrested in Arpaio's recent raids on the family restaurant chain Uncle Sam's have been released.

That rumor is inaccurate.

See Also:
Joe Arpaio Retaliates Against Katherine Figueroa, Hits Uncle Sam's with Immigration Raid

However, not everyone collared in the Uncle Sam's raids is being prosecuted.

According to the Maricopa County Superior Court docket, only four of those arrested in the raids on two Uncle Sam's locations have been charged.

They're hit with mostly class-four felonies involving forgery and ID theft.

picresized_1374614418_montypuggery.jpg
These four men remain in jail, charged with forgery and ID theft in the Uncle Sams raids...

Asked why all those arrested were not charged, MCAO spokesman Jerry Cobb issued the following statement from Montgomery:

"We did not 'scratch' any charges. While the results of the initial investigation did result in a series of arrests, our initial review of the evidence does not support filing charges against all of those arrested at this time.

"This type of procedural result is not an infrequent occurrence when prosecutors review cases submitted by law enforcement agencies and should not be understood as any change in how the MCAO prosecutes cases of employment-related fraud. As I have repeatedly stated, we treat these cases just as we do any others -- based on evidence."

I'll update this further if I get more. According to the court, these men are being held nonbondable pending trial, per Prop 100, Arizona's Bailable Offenses Act.


My Voice Nation Help
21 comments
dennis20
dennis20 topcommenter

I wonder how many businesses that contribute to the GOP or Arpaio financially ever get raided? My guess is none. 

loneeagle1938
loneeagle1938

So, once again Pretty Boy Fancy Suit Bill Montgomery probably did not charge the other illegal aliens simply because did want to Bram over at Ch12 TV News waiting you know folks!

normajae
normajae

Abuse of power, discrimination, corruption, etc., seems to continue and never end in Arizona.  Such a beautiful state with so many hateful people...very sad.

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

I wonder if the "victims" that the CLOWN SHURF  said that were going to testify, R still going to do so, or is it more of his usual bullshit. If it's more of the same bull, I might recommend him to carry one of those little horns to add to his circus act, better yet, I might send him a pair of big shoes,so he can wear them on his next performance........oh , and another pair of big shoes 4 Monty.

RobAZ
RobAZ

It's been reported that over 100 employees - in the past year alone - of this establishment were found by MCSO in their "lengthy investigation" to have discrepancies.  Many of those were reported to have incorrect names associated with the SSN provided when hired.

In Arizona E-Verify is the law and has been for several years.  Heck, we spent a good chunk of change fighting - and coming out on top - all the way up to SCOTUS for that law. Every single person offered a job must clear a check through E-Verify.  

How in the world could so many people have worked for this place with a name that did not match the SSN they provided and were not flagged by E-Verify?  Heck, I've had divorced women who've changed their name back to their maiden name flagged because of the discrepancy.

Why was Uncle Sams not charged for not using E-Verify when it's obvious they were not?

lllosingit2
lllosingit2

@normajae Abuse of power? I call it doing their jobs, If you have ever had your identity being used by someone else you wouldn't be so quick to judge the Sheriffs office. The only Hate is the people who can't file taxes, Who's credit is ruined, Can't open a bank account....Yeah they hate that!

loneeagle1938
loneeagle1938

Big Amen and Fully Agree With You! Did anybody tell you that your kinda cute today?

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

@JAFFYBOOBOO, then why LAP DOG didn't do it bitch, that FETID FOOL AND LAP DOG MONTY R full of shit. I guess that those "Dangerous workers" posse more threat then all those felons with warrants that had never been caught, the criminals and pedophiles. BTW what were U doing posting at 4 am? diaper change 4 saggy bs.? or did U sneak on UR mom tu use the computer? N-Way, don't forget to lick clean those toilets at BK!!! BIATCH.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan Including the EMPLOYER, correct?  70+ EMPLOYER Sanctions raids, and not a single EMPLOYER busted.

NWEng
NWEng

@RobAZ 

E-Verify has always been a failure, it's about affective as cardboard body armor.  The problem isn't verifying that the person on the paperwork is authorized for employment, it's verifying that the person WITH the paperwork is the person ON the paperwork.  Until then, you're essentially allowing someone to vouch for themselves and we see how well that's worked so far.  Unless of course having a disposable work force is the actual end goal, and that's not so far fetched around here.

marcy
marcy

@RobAZ 

It isn't true that "every single person offered a job" must clear a check through E-Verify.  Only if they are actually hired.

There is no reason for divorced women to change their name, an employer cannot fire someone because E-Verify came back with a tentative non-confirmation.  They are required to notify the employee of the tentative non-confirmation and the employee has 8 federal workdays to contest the non-confirmation.  If an employee contests then the employee is permitted to continue working.  A divorced woman would merely send in paperwork showing her maiden name and divorce paperwork when contesting and it is a simply matter for E-Verify to then come back with confirmation of right to work.

Given that the MCAO isn't prosecuting 60% of the people arrested in the most recent raid suggests that Joe's goons aren't doing a very good job of identifying people who are actually breaking the law.  

The MCAO doesn't go after employers because Republicans wouldn't like the blow back if their prime constituents, business owners, started getting charged.  

There are no penalties for not using E-Verify in Arizona.



JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the I-9 require a prospective employee to furnish a state or federal issued photo ID and the prospective employer to verify that the identity on the ID matches the information provided by the prospective employee.  So an employer should be able to use the photo ID opbtained as part of the I-9 requirements to confirm the identify of the individual and then use e-verify to confirm that the information provided by the individual is valid.  Of course, none of this is helpful if the person has a set of forged  documents that all match, including a forged or fake photo ID, but aren't these to requirements taken together peices to the same puzzle?

RobAZ
RobAZ

@NWEng @RobAZ When a person's name does not match the SSN...that's a clue.  I won't argue that E-Verify doesn't have issues, it does.  But I also wouldn't call it completely worthless.

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

@marcy

I totally agree, have said that all along, which is why no employers have ever been charged, they don't want to bite the hands that feeds them..

>>The MCAO doesn't go after employers because Republicans wouldn't like the blow back if their prime constituents, business owners, started getting charged.  

RobAZ
RobAZ

@marcy @RobAZ  Used the wrong words to describe being hired but what you describe is correct.  I never said an employer cannot hire someone because of non-confirmation, though, as you note the employee does have a limited time in which to provide verification or proof they're trying to get the issue corrected.  In my experience, or perhaps is was the company policy, those who do not get it done in the time alloted are not permitted to work.  In the cases I dealt with on the divorced women who'd changed their last name either back to the maiden or due to a new marriage, it definitely not was as simple as you describe.  Again, maybe times changed or it was company policy.

As for the reasons you state regarding MCAO/MCSO not going after the employers...well, no argument there.

NWEng
NWEng

@JohnQ.Public 

"So an employer should be able to use the photo ID opbtained as part of the I-9 requirements to confirm the identify of the individual and then use e-verify to confirm that the information provided by the individual is valid."

The problem isn't whether the information on the documentation is valid or not, it's if that information belongs to the person standing in front of you with it.  And the crux of the issue lies in your latter comment regarding the ability to obtain forged documents that appear to be sufficient to fool a system put into place to ensure that people who aren't authorized to work in this country/state in the first place.  The reality of this whole situation is that a generally uneducated laborer with limited English skills can come up with forged documentation that's good enough to fool this system and I see that as a root issue; either they're way more intelligent and cunning than we give them credit for, or E-verify is just a piss poor "solution".  Which do you believe?

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public While I-9's are legally needed for all employees, I wonder how many EMPLOYERS skip that step.  Again, why has MCSO not busted even one EMPLOYER in 70+ EMPLOYER Sanctions raids!

loneeagle1938
loneeagle1938

Yep E-Verify  has issues such as it is too totally useless since it the people operating it simply would't know a wanted criminal or an illegal alien from it's own rear end!

NWEng
NWEng

@RobAZ @NWEng  

I believe it's worthless until it actually identifies and verifies who the person is standing in front of you looking for a job.  We know this current system fails, a lot, and this article is a testament to that fact; if it worked properly (as a whole,)  you wouldn't be able to make up some random SSN and fake ID and use it to vouch for yourself.  (And yes, I do have a concept in mind...)

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@RobAZ big loophole in the E-verify law..............................you cant re-run the employees number if they were hired before E-verify

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...