Feedback from the Issue of Thursday, January 21, 2010


Nice to know: It's gratifying to learn, since reading the Michael Lacey article that appeared at the end of the year, that grand juries are looking into the actions of Joe Arpaio and his henchmen at the state and federal levels ("Joel Fox Testifies Before Grand Jury in SCA Case," Valley Fever blog, December 18, and "Arpaio Grand Jury Probe Begins".

We've known for some time that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating civil rights abuses by Joe's department against Hispanic Americans and illegal immigrants, but it's nice to learn that the grand juries are also considering criminal action.

I've been told that authorities sometimes convene grand juries to look as though they are seriously probing abuses by the likes of Arpaio, when in fact they plan to do squat. In other words, they want to get the public off their backs so they pawn off the problem on a grand jury, and if the grand jury fails to [indict], they say, "Sorry, we tried!"

But I don't believe this is the case here. I believe that the Obama administration's U.S. Attorney's Office, in particular, wouldn't be parading witnesses into the grand jury chamber if it didn't think there was a prosecutable case against Joe and his goons. Because God (and everybody who's followed this situation) knows there's low-hanging illegal fruit to be picked when it comes to crooked old Joe.
Juan Moran, Phoenix

Goddard's ticket to the guv's office?: Indeed, the nooses must be cut down! And we're counting on state Attorney General Terry Goddard's office to slash them with its SCA [Sheriff's Command Association] investigation. If Goddard brings down the likes of Captain Joel Fox, Chief Deputy David Hendershott, and (hope against hope!) Joe Arpaio, he deserves to be elected governor.

Goddard, this is the time for you to stand up for what's right in your home county and, at the same time, ride this investigation into the governor's office! You'd be a fool not to take advantage of this situation.

As for the feds, Godspeed, too. I pray the U.S. Attorney will convene "perp walks" for Arpaio, Hendershott, and the rest of Arpaio's Mafia before it's over. I, too, will be standing in the lobby of the federal courthouse for that Joe Show.
Rob Warner, Phoenix

Joe twists the numbers to suit him: The "35,000 captured and deported illegal aliens" referred to in Arpaio's fundraising letter, should be understood as follows:

Maricopa County is the fifth-largest county in the nation and has one of the highest proportions of Hispanic residents (both legal and illegal). The police departments in Phoenix and other cities and towns in Maricopa County deliver all arrested criminals (of all races and nationalities) to Arpaio's county jail for booking.

The MCSO's detention officers, operating under their federal 287(g) authority (the jail portion of which was never rescinded) then sort through the prisoners arrested and delivered by other law enforcement agencies to determine the residency status of each.

The illegal aliens discovered thereby, along with the two dozen or so whom the MCSO itself picks up in its bi-monthly "sweeps" and a few more it gets in even more occasional drop-house raids, provides the 35,000 figure. The little bit of the MCSO's own arrests, dumped on top of the mountain produced by everybody else, makes this "captured" figure "more than all of the other 64 local law enforcement agencies combined."

None of Arpaio's statements quoted by Michael Lacey from this letter are technically untrue; the flim-flam and prevarication arise from Arpaio's attempt, by suggestion, to mislead his supporters into giving the MCSO full or primary credit, rather than the marginal contribution they can rightly claim credit for.

In other words, as an enforcer of immigration law, the MCSO's arrest record is small and weak.
Emil Pulsifer, Phoenix

Everything to lose: Janet Napolitano and Terry Goddard have one very important thing in common: They're both cowards.

These two would never do anything to jeopardize their political futures. Do not count on Napolitano or Goddard to stand up to JoKKKe Arpaio and Candy Thomas.
Name withheld

Polk is doing Goddard's job: Sheila Polk is my hero!

Finally, someone with integrity — along with a couple hundred Phoenix lawyers — has spoken out against this longtime conspiracy in Maricopa County.

I think it's especially telling when this person is someone hired to prosecute the drivel trumped up by Thomas and the other miscreants, and then refused to do so, returning the whole package to Maricopa County with a simple "no thanks."

This should be the catalyst to make something happen at that [the attorney general's] level. This could be the perfect opportunity for Terry Goddard to save face by using the action of Polk as the "cause" for intense investigation and action against Thomas and the MCSO gang of misfits.

It's just too bad the action had to come from a county attorney, and not the AG, in the first place.
Name withheld

My Voice Nation Help
Clifford Robinson
Clifford Robinson

In response to the article regarding "A Wild Ride" I think it's repulsive that the airport tries to make profit off the transportation industry for providing services to travelers. I drove a taxi in Dallas, TX for years and if you had the Dallas city permit to drive a taxi, you also had the privilage to pick up at Dallas's Love Field Airport, no matter what Company you worked for. The City of Dallas would charge minor fee's for Airport decals on a bi-annual basis charged to the taxi company. However if you wanted to make P/U at DFW out in Irving, drivers had to apply for the permit themselves at a $75 fee plus minor background checks. Once approved theses drivers also had the privilage to P/U fares no matter what cab company they also drove for until the permit expired which was after 2 years. Cab lease rates were $55-85 a day depending on which company you drove for, and the lease was for a 24 hr period. It shows that Phoenix City Council must be a bunch of retired political crony's who gridlock our Congress, who put profits ahead of reliable quality services provided. Maybe these idiots who choose these cab companies by a bid process should try using the same process as Texas Cities do, or try driving Taxi's themselves. Clifford R Former Shift Supervisor for Cowboy Cab Company Dallas, TX



States, counties, cities and individuals throughout the United States are opposing federally recognized Indian tribes within their State from petitioning the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs to take 'land-into-trust' with the tribe citing Title 25 Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 (also known as the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934) as the point of authority to do so.

Regrettably, communities and or individuals opposing 'land-to-trust' are U.S. Constitutionally ignorant and so are their attorneys. "Why is that," you ask? Because Title 25 inclusive of the Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 does not exist as of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Citizenship made any original U.S. Constitution text reference to "Indians" moot. Title 25 et al is (1) a U.S. Constitution "Irregular Engineering Standards" change-pronounced "EARS"-also known as an "Irregular Constitutional Change, " and (2) is nothing more than a 'drop-file hodge-podge' cobbled together by Congress to 'house' all Indian-related documents and enactments from 1878 to 1925 and lastly, (3) has NEVER been ratified by the public as a U.S. Constitutional change.

Title 25 et al does not exist according to the Hon. Roy G. Fitzgerald, Chairman, Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. June 30, 1926, published by WEST PUBLISHING CO., ST. PAUL, MINN and EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK:PREFACE: THE CODE OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES (Page Subscript T. 25 U.S.C.A.) This Code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925, now scattered in 25 volumes-i.e. the Revised Statutes of 1878, and volumes 20 to 43 inclusive, of the Statutes at Large. ...The first official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States was made in 1874 and followed by a perfected edition in 1878. From 1897 to 1907 a commission was engaged in an effort to codify the great mass of accumulating legislation. The work of the commission involved an expenditure of over $300,000, but was never carried to completion. More recently the task of codification was undertaken by the late Hon. Edward C. Little as chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives, who labored indefatigably from 1919 to the day of his death, June 24, 1924. The volumes which represented the result of his labors were embodied in bills which passed the House of Representatives in three successive Congresses unanimously but failed of action in the Senate.

The plain fact remains, to this day, Title 25 et al is nothing more than a long since expired "Irregular Engineering Standards" change (a.k.a. Irregular Constitutional Change) with no U.S. Constitutional legitimacy. U.S. Congress and Presidents routinely ignore this fact when they enact legislation regarding Title 25 by simply plucking out of the Title 25 'drop-file' whatever advocates the agenda at hand i.e. 'land-to-trust' provisions of the Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934, when the whole of Title 25 et al doesn't exist! Even more troubling is the fact the various States of the Union including the State's citizens don't know Title 25 et al is an "Irregular Constitutional Change" that has never been ratified as a U.S. Constitutional change by the public. Whether this universal ignorance of Title 25s Constitutional illegitimacy by Congress, Presidents and the public of the United States is a result of the fact they don't know or they don't care or they don't care to know remains to be determined. Whatever the cause for this ignorance, it remains well established in 'land-to-trust' disputes between States, Counties, local communities, individual citizens and un-Constitutional federally recognized Indian tribes. Today's law schools brazenly perpetuate Title 25s U.S. Constitutional hoax. Title 25 et al is taught to one graduating class after another this law is the law of the land. Law schools nationwide not only demand un-wavering obedience to Title 25 et al but adamantly dictate the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 changed nothing. This author is not aware of any U.S. law school that teaches Title 25 et al to be a U.S. Constitutional hoax....ergo, the on-going Constitutional hoax. QUESTION: How would it be possible for law schools to continue to credibly teach Plessy v. Ferguson as the current law of the land post Brown v. Board of Education? The same fundamental principles of law apply to Title 25 et al that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 repudiates any notion the "Irregular Engineering Standards" changes 'drop-filed' into the 'hodge-podge' Title 25 have been ratified by the public and there is Constitutional legitimacy after 1924 as is teaching Plessy to be the law of the land post Brown. And, yet, that is exactly what law schools are teaching when Title 25 et al remains the U.S. Constitutionally unquestioned/unchallenged law of the land. Law school graduates presume (1) Title 25 et al is Constitutionally legitimate as their professors unflinchingly point to the Constitution's Commerce and Treaty Clauses and (2) are taught not to question Title 25s Constitutionality.The following puts into perspective what I mean when I say Title 25 presumes post-1924 U.S. citizenship changed nothing for "Native Americans." Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate in the decision), with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. (Source: Wikipedia)(Footnote #1 by this author: Hon. Thurgood Marshall, later to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, twice argued Brown before the Court. "Brown was preceded by nearly twenty years of litigation before the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall and other NAACP attorneys exposed the limitations of the separate‐but‐equal doctrine in cases involving graduate school education. They thus laid the groundwork for ending segregation by gradually eroding the legal foundations on which it rested. ...The court's decision also had deep implications for the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs in Brown had argued that segregation singled out citizens by race. The justices accepted the view that only a belief in the inferiority of blacks, which they found untenable, could validate such distinctions. (Source: Brown v. Board of EducationThe Oxford Companion to United States History | 2001 | Paul S. Boyer | Copyright) Footnote #2. This author cynically notes blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution in Code of Federal Regulations-Indian 25. Revised as of April 1, 2001. Subchapter F-Tribal Government Part 61-Preparation of Rolls of Indians; Section 61.1 to 61.15. explicitly spelling out in an un-Constitutionally Congress passed and President signed enactment(s) manifest in Title 25 inclusive of the Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 "blood quantum" for a select group of U.S. citizens to qualify for 'recognition' by the National Government in order to be beneficiaries of 'special treatment' given to no other non-Indian U.S. citizen by the National Government. )U.S. citizenship brings with it the entire mantle of protections spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Notwithstanding these protections, legislators at State and Federal levels routinely enact legislation in conflict with the Constitution by relying upon (1) ignorance of the voting public not to question legislation, and (2) U.S. Supreme Court decisions the passage of time has shown to be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution's core tenets such as Plessy. "Land-to-Trust" for the exclusive benefit of a select group of U.S. citizens because of their race-an explicit racial entitlement/creditor race-stemming from the Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 is a case in point.The U.S. Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 spells out exactly how the National Government receives land from the various sovereign States of the Union as follows:Clause 17. Congress shall have power *** To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.There is nothing in Clause 17 authorizing the National Government to take 'land-into-trust' from any of the sovereign States of the Union for the exclusive use of a select group of U.S. citizens because of their race! Nor can any State legislature "cede" jurisdiction to the National Government to land within the State to establish a 'race-based/racial entitlement' enclave as to do so brings the State and its citizens into unwilling violation of the U.S. Constitution...specifically: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17; Article IV, Section 4; Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 Title of Nobility Clause; Art. III, �3 "[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood"; 14th Amendment- Amdt. 14, �1 ("[N]or shall any State . . . deny to any person" the equal protection of the laws;" 15th Amendment-Amdt. 15, �1 (prohibiting abridgment of the right to vote "on account of race"). Nevertheless, lawyers will argue Title 25s Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 purports to do just that and to do so without the consent of the State's legislature in which the land to be 'taken' is located. Those opposing 'land-to-trust' will present the miss-guided argument that Title 25 is subject to other federal common law such as the Environmental Protection Act which prevents 'land-to-trust' for other common law reasons. Any attorney representing opposition to 'land-to-trust' that (1) unquestioningly accept Title 25 et al as having U.S. Constitutional legitimacy and (2) gets mired in arguing some aspect of federal Indian common law Title 25 inclusive of the Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 virtually guarantees his client will lose. This author is amazed that lawyers opposing 'land-to-trust' for their clients haven't figured out the U.S. Constitution forecloses any such 'taking' by the National Government inconsistent with Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and other Constitutional Articles and Amendments.In addition to Clause 17, the notion Title 25s Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 has U.S. Constitutional legitimacy is emphatically repudiated by Article IV, Section 4-Republican form of government is guaranteed to the various States of the Union as federally recognized Indian tribes are not republican in form 'governments;' The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that forbids the United States from granting titles of nobility and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. This clause is also sometimes called the "federal" Nobility Clause, because a similar clause in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 bars the states (rather than the federal government) from granting titles of nobility. The Title of Nobility Clause is also one of the clauses that is sometimes called the "Emolument Clause"(Source: Wikipedia); Art. III, �3 "[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood"; 14th Amendment- Amdt. 14, �1 ("[N]or shall any State . . . deny to any person" the equal protection of the laws;" 15th Amendment-Amdt. 15, �1 (prohibiting abridgment of the right to vote "on account of race")"Land-To-Trust" in 'taking' land from a sovereign State of the Union by the National Government for the explicit use of a select group of U.S. citizens because of their race under Title 25s Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 does not exist as the above text makes abundantly clear. And, the fact Title 25 et al is an 'Irregular Constitutional Change" having never been ratified by the public of the United States, everything inside the Title 25 'drop-file hodge-podge' has no Constitutional legitimacy. No sovereign State of the Union has any U.S. Constitutional authority to enact any State legislation (1) that promotes racial entitlements for a select group of U.S. citizens because of their Indian ancestry and (2) makes the State's citizens un-willing parties to U.S. Constitutional violations. The National Government can enact no federal common law that brings and or compels various sovereign States of the Union into being violators of the U.S. Constitution. For anyone in a dispute with a federally recognized Indian tribe that has petitioned the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs to take 'land-into-trust' on the tribe's behalf to sue in Federal District Court the respective State's legislatures as follows:1. State of the Union citizens have standing as the true sovereign citizens of the State and the United States and under the First Amendment to seek redress in an Article III Court for actions/inactions of the State legislators a mandatory injunctive relief and declaratory judgment against these legislators to mandate each legislator in their own individual personal right to carry out their Constitutional duties; and, a State citizen can contend that they have a special non-delegable Constitutional right and responsibility: (1) to protect their fundamental civil and Constitutional rights from forcibly being made unwilling parties to un-Constitutional acts by the State's legislators including the Ninth Amendment's un-enumerated rights (2) State citizens, as the Body-Politic, can mandate through U.S.C. Title 28 #2201 & #2202, the individually named State legislator carry out their duties with clear and convincing evidence that any State legislator(s) sponsored bill-in either chamber-to cede jurisdiction of land within the State be done (A) in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (and other Constitutional Standards) and (B) to reject any ceding of jurisdiction bill that �� is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision (Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)) (3) as the �People� named in the10th Amendment, (4) stripping doctrine established under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), and Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), and Owen v. City of Independence Missouri 445 U.S. 622 100 S.Ct. 1398 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (5) State citizens are not attacking the State nor the United States treasuries, (6) the United States and the State are not named defendants, (7) 5 U.S.C. � 703 - Judicial Review of Agency Actions and 5 U.S.C. � 552b - Section f, Injunctive Relief Against Federal Agencies, (8) a Federalism question of jurisdiction between two co-equal sovereigns under 28 U.S.C. �1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. �1343 (civil rights), 42 U.S.C. ��1983, 1988 (civil rights action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief) (9) State citizens have the Constitutional power to insure Article IV, Section 4-Guarantee Clause is upheld by the individually named State legislator, (10) when the State legislator has not carried out their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State, the State citizens-under the guarantee of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment-have the power to seek injunctive relief under the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments and Title 28, #2201 and #2202 against the individual and personal State legislators in time of need to mandate the State legislators carry out their duties to protect the State's citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges and immunities from being violated by federal common law and from a federally recognized Indian tribe interfering with the State's essential government business conducted on behalf of the State's citizens and a �take-over� by the National Government to �take jurisdiction from a State over land within the State's borders� in conflict with the Constitution.

2. Motion for Mandatory Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (U.S.C. Title 28 #2201 & #2202) as a First Amendment complaint against the named State legislators in their individual personal rights to (1) carry out Article I, Section 8, Clause 17-ceding of jurisdiction to the National Government and (2) Constitutionally reject ceding jurisdiction to land for exclusive racial entitlement (and the other Constitutional Articles and Amendments that " destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision-Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)) of a select group of U.S. citizens because of the their race.

3. Move the suit be a Motion for the Court to certify the suit as a Class Action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23: Class Action "Then why is the 'land-to-trust' issue still here," you ask? In this author's opinion the answer is two-fold:1. U.S. Constitution ignorance of the citizenry.2. Lawyers who unquestioningly 'accept' federal common law Title 25 inclusive of the Howard-Wheeler Act of 1934 as being the law of the land!

Debbie Johnson
Debbie Johnson

Re: An Injustice in Sunnyslope

I am writing in reference to, what I consider, a major injustice involving the recent �murder� of �Mayer Bill� of Sunnyslope on 1-4-10. Now, I realize that the overall consensus is that Sunnyslope is no more than vagrants, prostitutes, illiterates, drunks etc.

However, I have lived in Sunnyslope on and off since 1979 and every time I leave, I end up coming right back here. It is a very �comfortable� place to live with people that live their own lives and appreciate people who do the same. The people of Sunnyslope just live their lives and hope that everyone else will do the same thing. But, just like any place, sometimes people clash, and those are the incidents that are so well publicized.

But, when someone like Mayer Bill comes along, you would always know that there's always someone around who cares. To some extent, a self appointed �Mayer�, but never challenged by any citizen of Sunnyslope in more than 30 years. He was like the �dream politician�

ESPECIALLY to us women. Bill frequently hung out at the entrance of Fry s at Cave Creek and Hatcher in the evenings. He would greet people as they came in, and quite often, when a women would arrive that he knew, he would many times escort them through the store, and if not, you could be sure that when they were ready to leave, he would be right there at the door making sure that not a one of them would go out to their vehicle unescorted. I worked as a bartender in Sunnyslope until I was faced with having to battle cancer. Bill came to visit me while I was sick, at my home. The first time, I had just moved and he wasn't sure which house it was. So he drove up and down the street honking the horn on his cart, knowing I would hear it and come out. He had two very nice flowers for me that he felt I just had to have. He told me that one was for love and the other for life, both of which I deserved.

Well, how this and my problem with the �JUDICIAL SYSTEM� are related is that we have photo radar, which snaps our picture on the freeways and sends us a notice that we have a ticket. Even if the person in the photo isn't of us (the registered owner of the vehicle), we are still responsible since it is our vehicle and our license is suspended without notice. Well, somebody murdered Mayor Bill, and even though some of the witnesses followed the perpetrator long enough to get his/her license plate, law enforcement says that they can't do anything because they can't place him behind the wheel. Well, excuse me, but just like photo radar, shouldn't the person that owns the vehicle be held liable, just as photo radar does to the innocent citizen??? I may be wrong, but I feel it is a far greater offense to murder than it is to speed on the freeway. Granted, speeding COULD result in �murder�, but this moron DID commit murder. On January 4th 2010 on 12th Street just south of Hatcher, SOMEONE cold bloodedly ran Mayor Bill over, and ran, like the coward that he is, in a vehicle that is registered to SOMEBODY, while our Mayor lay dying in the street! I can't help but wonder what big executive of what company is the registered owner, or in what area of government is this owner a part of?? And, they call this JUSTICE!!


Phoenix Concert Tickets