Captain Joel Fox Files Court Motion to Stop $315,000 Fine for Hiding Names of Contribution

By Ray Stern Wed., Jul. 1 2009 at 2:47 PM

Categories: News

Captain Joel Fox appealed his case to the Maricopa County Superior Court yesterday and asked for his $315,000 fine to be delayed until the appeal's outcome.

Fox wants the court to overturn the decision by Judge Thomas Shedden of the state Office of Administrative Hearings, cancel out his fine, and order the county to pay his legal fees.

Followers of this case won't find much new in his arguments [see below]. Fox is still basically claiming he and the shy boys behind the mysterious $105,000 Republican Party donation are getting screwed.

It's almost like he's trying to pull a Jedi mind trick: The $105,000 wasn't a contribution. The SCA is not a political committee. These aren't the droids you're looking for...

We can't imagine why a judge wouldn't be interested in getting to the bottom of the mystery before he lets Fox off the hook. Then again, maybe Fox will be allowed to whisper the names of the donors in the judge's ear, like Fox wanted to do with the elections department staff.

The attorney hired by the county to represent its side, Jeffrey Messing, and County Elections Director Karen Osborne declined to comment on the pending "complaint for judicial review of administrative decision."

Unless the court moves fast on the stay of the fine, Fox better get out his checkbook.

Summons & Complaint Fox

Motion to Stay Fox

Tags:

andrew thomas, county attorney, joel fox, maricopa county elections, sca, sheriff command association, sheriff joe arpaio

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

More About:

Bullshit Joel. You're MCSO. One thing we all know is that if you pulled someone over, asked to search their vehicle and the subject refuses, that it will never result in the subject being released and told to have a nice day. You'd be on that radio and getting some fellow officers out to brainstorm a solution. Just like a ham sandwich can be indicted, you can find what you consider probable cause to search most any vehicle you want, and you know it.
Cops don't always "wish for detainees" to talk. If a person is arrested and invokes their rights, nothing more is asked, or there's a risk of losing the whole case. Cops HATE to lose a case on their own mess up. And if a person doesn't want to be searched, cops (should) respect that choice. You have a constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and as much as a cop might want to solve a case, you never, ever cross the line to the other side to get there. If that happens, what's the difference between the cop and suspect? I know the movies and the media just love to tell stories of dirty cops that cross that line, but the truth is that 99.99% of cops are good, hard working men and women who would stand up for your constitutional rights just as much as they would enforce any other law. Remember, cops generally love the law. It protects the weak from oppression, it maintains order, and efficiency, and brings as much fairness as is possible in an unfair world...that is, when it's done right. And while we're all human, good cops always do everything they can to do it right.
Joel is probably just one step ahead of having to take the 5th and is probably working so hard because he REALLY does not want certain connections to be made. He doesn't have the money to hire an attorney, so he's hanging his hat on a really weak nail. If there was nothing to find here, he would not be working so hard to "stand up for his rights". I thought that police officers routinely tell their suspects "If you've got nothing to hide, then why not tell us what you know?". How can a cop retain any respect within the law enforcement community if they take such a stand? Cops wish for detainees to talk, right? So Joel, what are you fighting so hard to hide?
Seems if Joel Fox co-mingled the SCA funds in his private bank account (that does seem to be what he said, with not wanting to turn over his personal financial records!), the IRS might be VERY interested in that $105k too! with that amount of money, there surely are taxes involved! So Fox has a legal issue for the contribution, probably a professional issue with AZ POST, and maybe a sprinkling of IRS on top!
Joel: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client" Folks, there must be some very big stakes here if the guy is willing to risk losing $315,000 of his OWN MONEY. I'm guessing that the people who he has pledged to protect are backing him financially (or are willing to back him when he loses). Just like a suspicious-acting person that refuses to allow a deputy to search his vehicle during a traffic stop, that refusal only brings more scrutiny. More deputies show up, more dogs, etc. Eventually, someone finds a tiny spec of blood on the door handle and probable cuase is established. Sort of like that whacko pastor out at the Border Patrol checkpoint near Yuma. Joel, you're about to get (metaphorically) tased to the tune of $315,000. You must have some interesting conversations at the dinner table as your wife paces back and forth wondering why you're being such a pig and putting your whole family at risk. All this to feed your massive ego so you can prove to the world that you're as smart as an attorney?
Thanks for the call, Ray...sorry I couldn't get back to you, but I think I'd rather post my own response (thanks kindly for making that possible). I know it doesn't do any good, and I know I've said it about a thousand times already, but just for old time's sake, Joe Arpaio had nothing to do with SCA or the donation to the Republican Party, and he never gave me money directly or indirectly for anything, ever. Thanks for the kudos on my legal writing. You guys have no idea how long it takes to write this stuff up when you don't really know what you're doing. Thank God for the google. I'm not getting any advice from any attorneys, especially not from any within MCSO. You might be surprised, but there are ample examples of legal filings online, especially precedence setting cases, and there's even some guides for the pro se litigant at the Arizona Court of Appeals website. I won't go so far as to say it's public friendly, but everything is there if you look. There's no way I could become an FBI snitch, or anyone's snitch because there's nothing to snitch about. It happened just like I said it happened and the only thing you don't know is the who and the when. And just for the record, I've never seen Joe Arpaio burn anyone to save himself. The only time I've ever even heard him say anything negative about someone else is when they pick a fight with him (like Phil Gordon). Not that it's anyone's business, but I can afford a $550,000 home because I've lived in the valley a long time, and bought this house right after selling a house that I owned and lived in for 13 years, and used that profit as down payment. That along with the very creative mortgage options that were available 3 years ago gets me a payment that I can handle (for about 18 more months, and then it's refinance or move). This house isn't worth anywhere near what I paid for it and if the market doesn't turn around soon, It'll be the worst financial decision I've ever made, so even if I manage to win my appeal, you can all look forward to that. The thing about an appeal is that it's not for making new arguments. An appeal means you think the lower court judge erred in his decision, and you want another judge to look at the same facts, evidence and arguments to see if he (or she) agrees. In this type of case, the review is rather limited in that the court can only overturn the decision if it is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, not based on substantial evidence, or an abuse of discretion. I happen to think it is all of the above and will provide legal arguments and precedence to support that belief, which means I have grounds for an appeal. The law is what the law is. I know it sounds silly, but it's not whatever you want it to be. It is what it says, nothing more, nothing less, and if the law doesn't fit, you can't bend, warp, and twist it around to make it fit, no matter how bad you want it to. I would suggest you all take a few days and familiarize yourself with Title 16. It's not an easy title, but I'm sure you can figure it out. Remember that words do not retain their common meaning when defined within the statute, so a word like "contribution" doesn't just mean that one person gave something to another...the definition of that word, and many others, comes from the statute, not the dictionary. If the word is not defined within the statute, then it does take the common meaning, so something like "county attorney" will mean "county attorney", but not a contracted legal counsel for the County Recorder because such counsel is not a county attorney in any stretch of the imagination. And when it says "for the purpose of influencing an election" it means the reason was to influence an election, which is to sway the vote in an actual contest to be decided by voters. And in a case like this, the county can't just say "it's obvious"...they actually have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason was to sway the vote in an actual contest to be decided by voters, which, of course, would be easy, if SCA had actually paid for those campaign ads, but that assumption fell apart at the hearing. Anyone who still says SCA paid for those ads is just plain lying (ie KPHO). It seems everyone wants to "get to the bottom of the mystery", but if the law doesn't require it, you can't force it. It's not me trying to twist the law to suit my purpose; it's Elections. They want to get to the bottom of the mystery, too, I imagine, but there really isn't any mystery worth solving here. The money I gave to the Party was given back to me. All the money actually spent during the election cycle is accounted for in already published campaign finance reports. All the donors are named and reported. The only reason you all still want to know is because you think Arpaio is behind it, or I got all the money within a few weeks of sending it, or that there was some cigar smoke filled back room or dark alley dealing going on. But there wasn't anything like that, and I offered to prove it to Karen Osborne but she wouldn't allow it, and then threatens a $315,000 fine if I don't do what they want, even though it wasn't in the compliance order. I'd much rather be done with this and stop wasting everyone's time, but they left me no choice, so appeal, here we come. And just to keep the facts correct: I filed the appeal on June 19th, not yesterday. The decision is from the Department of Elections. ALJ Shedden issued a recommendation, which was accepted and adopted by Elections. This is not an appeal of ALJ Shedden's order, it is an appeal of the Election's order. I'm also not appealing a $315,000 fine. No fine has been levied. I'm appealing Election's decision because I'm not a PAC, and didn't make a contribution. I'm also not "hiding the names from the contribution". At least not any more than I'm hiding the rest of my personal financial records, or no more than Ray is hiding his personal bank account. Ray, would you post the past 12 months worth of your bank statements on your blog? If you don't, would you tell us why you are hiding your bank account? Is it because you've done illegal things and you don't want anyone to know? How about the rest of you? Tommy C, would you care to upload your bank statements to rapidshare or megaupload and post us a link? Are you hiding illegal activity, too? Or is it maybe because your bank statement is personal and private and you shouldn't have to publicly expose it to prove yourself innocent? It really shouldn't take a jedi mind trick to figure that out.
Seems something like this illegal action by Fox should trigger a review by AZ POST. Heck two deputies in Pinal County have that happening, and for far less than what results in a $315,000 fine. Maybe Fox can get a job as a janitor in the Mesa Library, as a Corn vendor, or in a car wash when all his nonsense stops.
Honest Injun (no harm intended) folks. Does Mr. Fox really believe himself? I've said it a few times and I'll say it again: Mr. Fox, you really need to understand that the MCSO shurf doesn't care about you. He will sacrifice your sorry ass in a heartbeat to save himself. How many times in your career have you seen him burn others for the sake of his own laggard ass? Think about it. Your only hope is to do what you and I both know is right and roll on him. You've received counsel from within your own agency. They are telling you the same thing. Your career, as it is, is over and you can only salvage so much anyway. Mr. Fox, the administrative officer did you a favor. He gave you time to prepare and you've taken that time to try to appeal, without grounds for appeal. Mr. Fox, you've ignored my good advice previously and I've called it right, and I'm right again. Do it tomorrow, while you still can. Joe will fall long and hard and take a list with him. You don't need to be on the list.
Considering that Fox claims to be representing himself, the writting don't seem to be the work of an armchair lawyer. I wonder who is actually giving him legal advice. Could it be someone he works with that is a trained lawyer? (a "mac attack", perhaps?)
What part of ILLEGAL does Joel Fox not understand? Turn over the names! Including the one person that gave $25k! I bet that's a name we all have heard befoe1
LOL... What a major Joke MCSO and Fox is. Amazing these people are even allowed to call themselves law enforcement.
It seems that MCSO personnel just don't understand they can't always manipulate the law and the system to fit their needs. Can't wait for the Superior Court smackdown. This should be good. Also can't wait to see the names on that list, or the source of the $315k.
Don't make me rat out the Sheriff.........lol......what a joke Maricopa COUNTY HAS BECOME AND ALL BECAUSE OF LARD ASS JOE! Isn't its about time that law abiding pple of Maricopa County band together and tar and feather this piece of garbage called Joe Arpio out of this County? we are the laughing stock of the Country if not he World. How much more damage does this no good piece of manure have to produce before we band together and get rid of him? Democracy is alive and well in Maricopa........RIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!