Joe Arpaio/MCSO Lawyer Explains Some Actual Objections to Justice Department Monitor

arpaio_underwear1.jpg
Joe Arpaio may need a fresh pair of these after his continuous freak-outs over the proposed "monitor" situation.
If you've heard Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's explanations for why negotiations with the Justice Department broke down, he makes it sound as if Attorney General Eric Holder himself wants to be the new sheriff.

It's the proposed Justice Department "monitor" that people in the MCSO's corner are objecting to -- defined as the person or people who would have "the opportunity to review and approve all new guidelines and plans before their implementation by the MCSO" -- and Arpaio/MCSO lawyer Joe Popolizio has offered his explanation of what a few of the actual objections are.

The monitor was supposed to make sure Arpaio and company got the ball rolling on changes in the right direction, on the heels of a Justice Department investigation that found massive racial-profiling in the Sheriff's Office, as opposed to Arpaio's half-assed attempt, in the form of a 17-page booklet.

Arpaio's flak released a three-page memo from Popolizio, explaining the objections to specific language about the monitor, which can be found in full at the bottom of this post.

The first objection is this line from the DoJ draft agreement: "All new and revised policies, procedures, processes, and training must be approved by the Monitor and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") prior to implementation."

Popolizio believes that language gives the monitor veto power over Arpaio, setting up the monitor for "broad control" over the MCSO.

CNN quoted Arpaio
on a specific objection to that, as he thought the monitor might hinder his ability to put out press releases.

Popolizio's reasoning for this theory is more of an interpretation of the language in the agreement, rather than the actual words spelled out by the Justice Department.

"This 'Monitor' is by the DOJ's own definition a usurpation of Sheriff Arpaio's authority, and certainly exceeds the power to conduct interim reviews of MCSO compliance and to issue corresponding reports," Popolizio says.

Wherever that "definition" is, it certainly isn't in the Justice Department's proposed agreement.

Popolizio's other objection is the establishment of an Office of Inspector General for the MCSO, which would generally write up reports nitpicking things the sheriff's office does. OIGs are pretty common in counties across the country.

Again, on this issue, Popolizio provides the actual text from the agreement, along with his interpretation.

"Constitutional policing rests on consistent and unbiased assessment of a law enforcement agency's policies and practices," the DoJ's description of the position reads. "To that end, the County shall establish an Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") to ensure MCSO's continued compliance with constitutional policing. The OIG shall carry out its responsibilities through three distinct areas of activity: Compliance Audits, Complaint Investigation and Adjudication, and Public Reporting."

Somehow, Popolizio contends this is another takeover of the MCSO, saying, "The OIG provides additional, unprecedented control of the Maricopa County Sheriff and the MCSO."

Pointing to a section to prove his point that the OIG's powers are "almost unlimited," Popolizio cites this bullet point from the agreement:

The Sheriff and MCSO personnel shall be required to cooperate fully with the OIG. The OIG shall have access to any MCSO personnel and facilities, subject to limitations imposed by law. The Sheriff and MCSO personnel shall promptly provide complete and unrestricted access to the OIG to inspect records, reports of audits, IA investigations, and complaints from MCSO's D Services. The OIG shall evaluate these reports, audits, and investigations to assess their quality, completeness, and findings.

Why giving an auditor access to MCSO records is an objectionable proposal isn't explained by Popolizio.

This fear and rejection of the monitor is the main reason the negotiations broke down, and why the Justice Department filed a lawsuit, but according to text in the DoJ lawsuit, MCSO doesn't really have that much of a say over it, since Arpaio's office relies on federal funds that came with some contractual agreements:

Defendant Maricopa County (the County) is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. The County is responsible for funding MCSO. The County's programs and activities receive federal financial assistance, including from DOJ. As recipient of federal funds, the County is responsible for ensuring -- and it has made contractual assurances that it will ensure -- that the programs or activities to which it distributes those funds, including programs administered by MCSO, comply with federal law.

Either way, the MCSO still contends it's a full-on takeover of the sheriff's office.

"Our hope is that this information clarifies the misconceptions about the DOJ defined 'Monitor' and demonstrates the DOJ's real desire to control the Sheriff and the MCSO rather than to merely audit it," Arpaio's head flak Lisa Allen writes to reporters. "We are providing this material to all media outlets covering this story as an effort to help explain our position - that Sheriff Arpaio, while wanting a resolution and to find common ground, will not turn over control of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to the federal government."

Popolizio's memo, which points out each section of the draft agreement that's getting the MCSO's collective undies in a bunch, can be found below, so you can judge for yourself whether it looks like the federal government's trying to take over:

Joe Popolizio Memo

My Voice Nation Help
47 comments
Tina
Tina

Belligerance, bluster & bluff, deception, denials, lies & distortions, all Arpaio behaviors we've come to expect, and now his lawyer Popolizio is exhibiting  those same tendencies.  Arpaio dreads exposure of the truth, facts and evidence in a court of law and wants to continue with his wiles & guiles and delaying tactics to stall\l exposure of his wrongdoing.
In my view Arpaio is a deceitful and sadistic snake-in-the-grass, and the DOJ has his number. Truth and justice will prevail.

ARKKANNJJELIONN
ARKKANNJJELIONN

DEAR. ARPAIO    GOD   BLS   YOU   GOOD  WORK.  SR.   WELCOME CALIFORNIA

jtmunkus
jtmunkus

And the safety of thousands more Maricopa County residents is compromised, and more cases ignored, while the morally-bankrupt geezer Joe focuses what resources he hasn't already pillaged from MCSO on his personal ass-saving crusade. 

Go, Joe.  Your time is long gone.  The harm you intentionally inflict on the county far surpasses any perception of good that you bring your homogenous supporters over at Club Xenophobe West.

Beat it.

Coz
Coz

Can't wait to see what happens when the DOJ shoves a monitor up Bozo Joe's ass and there isn't a thing he can do about it.\

Yehaw !!!!

Coz
Coz

So what do the slimeballs at MCSO have to hide if they're not breaking the law ?
LOTS !!!!!!

scott huminski
scott huminski

2nd plaintiff files in USA v. Arpaio

http://www.scribd.com/jarpaio_... 

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Frivolous and misguided.

scott huminski
scott huminski

Hmm, Seems like your take on the situation would have been filed by Arpaio by now.  Perhaps you should prepare an affidavit and present it to Arpaio's attorneys for filing in federal court.

Like they say, put up or shut up.  Post your affidavit here concerning your knowledge of the facts of the case.  I have done so under oath.  Waiting...

Put forth your "fact" under oath, or is it true that you have no knowledge of fact related to my claims. Seems like you don't wish to be charged with perjury. Smart choice.

So, an Arpaio supporter refuses to support Arpaio with a sworn affidavit concerning your knowledge of the facts. With a supporter like that, no need for opponents.

US War Veteran
US War Veteran

No one asked you to describe yourself, we all know what you are. 

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

In order to bolster yourposition you are asking others, including the County Attorney, to prove a negative, an impossible task.  The premise of your argument is fallacious, making your argument moot.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

"Bottom line: just because we don't like Arpaio doesn't mean that we like anyone who comes at him. To remain credible in our criticism we must reject the illegitimate claims"

EXACTLY!!!!!

scott huminski
scott huminski

Unfortunately the Complaint-in-intervention was executed under oath and stands on the record unopposed.  We'll see what other sworn testimony is offered.  I predict none.

So the CA never assaulted me as sworn to in 2 affidavits filed in federal court? What is your information source, it is not the CA who has been silent about the entire affair that is under federal investigation.

TruConserv
TruConserv

I don't believe him. Read his complaint.  It's a frivolous POS.

He harassed continuously the police because he wanted them to arrest some dude they didn't even know and against whom Huminski had no persuasive evidence. They told him they would ask the County Attorney to examine his acts if he didn't back off.

He then decided that he's been harmed because the police did what we want them to do: when they think someone is breaking the law where they are the victim, they should consult with the county attorney.

For the record, the CA never did anything to Huminski.

Bottom line: just because we don't like Arpaio doesn't mean that we like anyone who comes at him.  To remain credible in our criticism we must reject the illegitimate claims. 

 

TruConserv
TruConserv

The Sheriff is not your nemesis.  It's whomever the prissy dude you got into a slap-fight with. He played you so f-ing hard it's funny.  He lied to you about his having a relationship with Arpaio, and that if you didn't back down he'd sic him on you -- and then you go and get the sheriff on your arse simply by being the d-bag you are.  Nothing would have come of this if you had just accepted their response that they didn't know this guy.  You could have worked the system in its usual manner.  Instead, you went all Huminski on them - to your detriment.

At the end of the day the Sheriff and his office have nothing to do with you, other than they asked you not to be a jerk.

BTW: I graduated from Law School 20-years-ago ... and have been taking CLE's ever since.

Your case will be dismissed.  You will be mocked. Your nemesis (not the sheriff) will continue to laugh at you.

Babeu
Babeu

I definitely believe you. And Sheriff Joe and his people that follow him think it is one big Joke. It is time to put a stop to them. Never mind that idiot that calls himself some product that sucks. He sure has the right name for himself. These people make up their own rules and break every law. He always ask for evidence, when it is right in front of him. He looks like and stupid baby and acts like his the investigator. Best of the luck to you and ignore this moron. Lucy Babeu

scott huminski
scott huminski

Yes, the federal lawsuit and the subsequent complaint i filed both set forth per se First Amendment retaliation by the sheriff's office.  Law enforcement in the county has chosen to use the unconstitutionally vague and broad language in the statute to silence dissent.  i.e. civil litigation and reporting crime both crimes under 13-2921 as the conduct of multiple agencies reveals. 

scott huminski
scott huminski

My nemesis, the Sheriff, is subject of a federal criminal investigation.  He might presently be free to laugh, a situation that might change.

scott huminski
scott huminski

The lawsuit seeks to declare the AZ harassment statute unconstitutional.  The plain language of the statute criminalizes protected first amendment conduct -- civil litigation and reporting crime to law enforcement.  Federally protected conduct.  Go to law school if you wish to opine on the law.

Babeu
Babeu

Yourproductsucks, even if the evidence was stuck up your ass, it would not be good enough for you. You are on here because you just need attention. Take your blinders off. kiss Joe's ass all you want. Even Sheriff Joe's admit he goes after the illegals to piss the feds off and you cannot admits what he says.At least align yourself with Sheriff Joe the right way. Evidence is so overwhelming, start learning how to read before you speak your bullshit. Lucy Babeu

TruConserv
TruConserv

You are your own worse enemy.  Public servants have a right not to be harassed. You have the right to follow appropriate means of communication, they have the right to ignore you.  When you go outside the appropriate means of communication, they have the right to avail themselves to the law.

No one in the Sheriff's threatened you with arrest.  They threatened to have the county attorney take a look at your acts and determine if you had breached the law.

That is their right.  The only one seeking to deny anyone their right of free speech, freedom of association and counsel is you.  You don't like it when people speak back to you, when they express their desire not to associate with you and when they want to have counsel review whether your acts violate the law.

Your claim will be dismissed.  You will be mocked.  You are your own worse enemy.

and all the while, you nemesis remains free to laugh at you every day.

Truconserv
Truconserv

Are you nuts?  You don't think people read this blog?  You're the resident contrarian.  Every time someone goes after Arpaio, you're there to tell them they are wrong - which what I wrote.

ROTFLMAO

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

I oppose those who lie and embellish in order to make their points seem more valid.  Provide evidence of my support of Arpaio.  I assure you, you will find none.  I doubt you will have the intestinal fortitude to apologize for your incorrect assertion. 

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

In order for a statement to become a threat, the person making the statement has to have the means to follow through on the statement.  Your nemesis lied to you about his relationship with a politician and then stated the politician would do his bidding.  You can't win a suit against the politician for threatening to arrest you if that politician did not make the threat.

You weren't threatened by anyone but your pen pal.

scott huminski
scott huminski

Well actually it is the threat of arrest and prosecution via the AZ harassment statute in retaliation for federally protected expression that is at the core of the suit.

A First Amendment retaliation claim stronger than the one brought by the United States.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Like a broken clock that actually gives the right time twice a day, YPS actually has something right - even if it is simply the consequence of his opposing anyone who opposes Arpaio.

Reading the motion, it seems that Huminski was told a lie about his nemesis' relationship with Arpaio and now wants to sue Apraio because of it.  It's really that frivolous.' 

He is his own worse enemy - and I am confident I'm not the first person to state that.

Amy Peeples
Amy Peeples

Wow..@Scott Huminski ..after following the,link I googled your name. why does that guy who is friends with Arpaio hate you so much? Thats some crazy shit..

Carl Toersbijns
Carl Toersbijns

You can't fix paranoia especially if you have reasons to believe that the threat to your "control systems" are real... This was a self-inflicted wound based on ego and fear that the upper echleon couldn't operate as "business as usual" with a set of eyes and ears in the next room if not the same floor OR that staff or employees honest enough to do their jobs would have access to this "monitor" to glean events, ideologies and corruptive behaviors before it reaches the sheriff..or his supervisors..

LD19 Resident
LD19 Resident

I know why the MCSO shurf wants to make the DOJ monitor answer to Joe: Once the DOJ and MCSO resolve the racial-profiling lawsuit, the monitor would be subject to termination by MCSO and MCSO would be allowed to continue to abuse its power and the Constitution.

Now, once the federal judge tells the Flaccid Fraud that the monitor is a requirement and OSB has no choice, the MCSO shurf would not be able to terminate the monitor and thus not be allowed to abuse its power and the Constitution.

OSB best get used to having the monitor in MCSO and the jails. Hopefully the DOJ will put MCSO in federal receivership to weed out the corrupt deputies. Then hopefully criminal indictments are handed up against Candy Andy Thomas, Aubuchon, the MCSO shurf and Henderbulk and a PROFESSIONAL sheriff is installed.   

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

The corrupt deputies? Can you provide evidence of the Existance of these corrupt deputies? Name names. Provide examples. Stop generalizing and provide evidence.

LD19 Resident
LD19 Resident

Well Rachel, since you're as clueless as you sound and look, let's start with Henderbulk, Chagolla, Black, Fox, Sands, etc.

BTW, the DOJ lawsuit doesn't name names. It generalizes all deputies as racial-profilers and therefore corrupt. I suggest you get your eyes checked Rachel.   

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

...and Hendershott, Black and Fox are gone, all of them fired.  I know you toss "corrupt" and "mentally ill" and "evil" around like spare change, but can you provide evidence to support your assessment of Sands and Chagolla?  I'll bet not.  You don't like the guys so you smear them, yet you can't show examples of these guys being convicted of anything that supports your "assessment."  

I don't care for any of the people you listed, yet I find it intellectually dishonest to make up lies and innuendo because of my negative feelings about them as individuals.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

The DoJ generalizes ALL deputies as racial profilers and therefore corrupt?  Please show me where that is!  I'd love the evidence to support a law suit.  By the way, pigeonholing an entire group of people in the manner you are suggesting the DoJ "generalizes" MCSO Deputies is a text book example of illegal profiling. 

Oh, the irony!

DNichols
DNichols

The Arpaio trained "Goon Sqauds" that have Tased to Death many Arizonans, recently an Iraq War Veteran.

Using their Tasers time and time again until their victoms heart quits.

In 1996 they Tased a man over twenty times while he was restrained, and had a wet towel shoved down his throat to stop him from begging for his life.

When you Kill some one once inside the door of the Jail with Tasers, no harm , no foul?

Arpaio has run Maricopa County Jails as his own Private Prison Camps, the M.C.S.O. has desperately needed a Monitor since Arpaio arrived.

To: Justice, even in Politically Corrupt Arizona

US War Veteran
US War Veteran

WOW, you either are an imbecile with a very short memory, or you are an imbecile trying to cover up for the corrupt asshole Sheriff Joke arPayaso, here this may refresh your memory:

Jabba the Hendershott, and lover "bois" Fox and Black.

Stay tuned, more names coming in the near future.

narizona
narizona

Does the ol S>O>B> really think that he can take on and beat the US government? Talk about being delusional. I think the fat boys on crack.....butt crack.................... pink undies for you joey .with your connections you ought to be able to smuggle in some pink depends for you!

DNichols
DNichols

The nerve of the U.S. Government to challenge their "King".

wherewasi
wherewasi

"Either way, the MCSO still contends it's a full-on takeover of the sheriff's office."
Well, this is exactly what some of us think has been needed for many years.  I'm all for it.

Phoenix Justice
Phoenix Justice

I am still waiting for the criminal charges against Sheriff Arpaio and his henchmen.

Amy Peeples
Amy Peeples

Norm Pattis , an outstanding attorney in CT, wrote a very interesting article about Arpaio in his blog this week.
Basically he talks about how the DOJ has accused some officers in CT of racial profiling, its almost identical to what they have accused Arpaio of. The only difference is those officers are facing prison time if found guilty , and Arpaio, as we all know, is only facing civil charges.

http://www.pattisblog.com/

Bnbk
Bnbk

Amy,the DOJ also has a criminal investigation open on Arpaio,that was started  under the Bush administration. Why they haven't moved foward and criminaly charged Arpaio is very puzzling but hopefully they will quit sitting on their hands and move foward with it....My suspicion is that once they succeed with their civil lawsuit,they will be in a better position to access and audit all records,which will help them with their criminal case. This is why Arpaio is resisting their efforts. Once the MCSO's books are opened it's game over for the corrupt shurf of Maricopa County. 

shadeaux14
shadeaux14

Of course they don't want any kind of transparency of their operations because it would expose the depth of the corruption at the MCSO.
If a monitor is forced on Arpaio and he is subject to oversight by the OIG, I have a feeling that that it would result in multiple indictments within the MCSO in addition to Joe.

Gerry_C
Gerry_C

Roll the tape where OSB claims he runs a transparent organization.

david saint
david saint

It doesnt take a genius to figure out this has to do with money.  Arpaio doesnt want the books opened or audited by anyone outside his control, likely because it will show some fraudulent behavior.  Why else would he go to such great lengths to hide his finances and refuse an audit of MCSO's? Also, I dont see how arpaio can say this would get in the way of his doing his job, considering he isnt doing it aleady lol.  For instance, check out the percentage of cases they actually close (not by exception that is). You could go even further and check on the conviction rate of cases his dept handled.  Id bet good money both would draw one to conclude MCSO is in dire need of a new boss, and its ineptitude is rampant. I dont have those numbers handy, but if they were clearing 75% + by exception, that would mean they are actually closing less than 25%..and the conviction rate is likely around 15% or less.  

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...