Is there a diaper big enough to fit big ol' baby Sheriff Joe Arpaio?
Yep, Arpaio's pitching a fit like the spoiled, soiled octogenarian that he is, demanding a do-over on a "corrective statement" that his attorney Tim Casey recently submitted to the federal court in the ACLU's groundbreaking civil rights case Melendres v. Arpaio.
In his filing last week, Casey indicated that Arpaio was willing to sign the statement, which is to be sent to all MCSO employees, per the court's instructions.
Read Arpaio's top pettifogger Tim Casey's recent, asinine filing in Melendres.
But that was before the media got hold of it and pointed out that Arpaio's corrective statement admitted to various mischaracterizations of U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow's ruling.
The statement also summarized in plain language Snow's findings and orders in the case, such as Snow's conclusion that the MCSO impermissibly used race in its operations.
Read Casey's suggested amendments to the MCSO's "corrective statement."
On Tuesday, Casey submitted a re-worded order on his master's behalf, kvetching to Snow that:
"Since the date of the filing, instead of accurately reporting to the public that the Draft Corrective Statement is a summary of the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the benefit of MCSO personnel, the mainstream media, Spanish language media, and a local tabloid have represented to the public that the Draft Corrective Statement is, among other things, an admission by Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio that he and the MCSO did, in fact, use racial profiling tactics in its law enforcement operations."
Check this passage from the original "draft corrective statement," which Casey submitted last week:
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court found that the MCSO has violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Latinos because the MCSO used race or ethnicity in conducting traffic stops.We are appealing the court's order only as far as it covers traffic stops outside of saturation patrols. We are not appealing the Court's findings that MCSO violated the constitutional rights of Latinos during saturation patrols. That conclusion of the Court will not be altered by the appeal even if the MCSO prevails on that appeal.
These are the words of the MCSO and Casey. Or they were, up till yesterday.
Now, Arpaio, his legal flunky Casey, and (quite likely) Arpaio's media relations stooge Lisa Allen, are demanding that PR spin be included in the statement.
So, for example, the passage above, as amended by Casey, would read as follows, with the added portion underlined.
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court found that the MCSO has violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Latinos because the MCSO used race or ethnicity in conducting traffic stops.We are appealing the court's order only as far as it covers traffic stops outside of saturation patrols. We are not appealing the Court's findings that MCSO violated the constitutional rights of Latinos during saturation patrols, even though Sheriff Arpaio disagrees with those findings. Again, the sheriff's decision not to appeal some of the the [sic] Court's Findings is based solely on legal strategy and his decision not to appeal on such issues should never be construed as the Sheriff's agreement with the Court's Findings on those issues.
With that decision, the conclusion of the Court will not be altered by the appeal even if the MCSO prevails on that appeal.
(Note: This is but one of Casey's many suggested amendments to the first statement.)
Arpaio's appeal is based "solely on legal strategy," eh? That's kind of like the Ukraine conceding the Crimea to Russia but claiming it's doing so only for "strategic" reasons.
You know, so Russian guns don't fill Ukrainian soldiers with "strategic" holes.
Earth to Casey, Arpaio, Sheridan, et al.: you lost. Big time. Remember back in May of last year when Snow found the MCSO guilty of widespread racial profiling?
You rocket scientists have been losing ever since.
Not only did the MCSO lose, but it's not even contesting the fact that MCSO deputies racially profiled Latinos during the sweeps.
The following is from the MCSO's appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit in Melendres:
At trial, expert and fact witnesses testified at great length about the conduct of MCSO personnel during "saturation patrols." Saturation patrols are large or small operations during which law enforcement targets a specific area for crime interdiction - for example DUI, narcotics, or human smuggling.This appeal does not contest the district court's findings and conclusions with respect to MCSO's saturation patrols. This appeal does contest the court's judgment as it relates to non-saturation patrol stops.(Italics, mine.)
The MCSO's appeal also states that:
"Leaving aside the saturation patrols, the record lacks evidence that MCSO has a pattern, practice, or policy of violating Hispanics' Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights during regular patrols." (Italics, mine.)
This means that the MCSO, by its own admission, did have "a pattern, practice, or policy of violating Hispanics' Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights" during saturation patrols.
This point is undisputed: The MCSO violated the civil rights of Latinos during the sweeps.
The MCSO's appeal merely disputes the breadth of Snow's judgment and order. It is concerned with activities that take place outside of the MCSO sweeps.
Thus, Casey's main amendments to the MCSO's corrective statement are at variance with the MCSO's own appeal in Melendres.
Moreover, Casey filed these amendments without consulting with the plaintiffs. Snow had instructed Casey to work with the plaintiffs in devising the corrective statement.
Casey did so with the first draft. But in Tuesday's filing, Casey admits that, "defendants have not consulted with plaintiffs' counsel as to their position and/or objections to the attached."
Indeed, Casey's filing seems prompted by the fact that Arpaio & Co. got some press they didn't like.
The ACLU has since filed an objection to Casey's suggested amendments, pointing out that the plaintiffs have acted in good faith and in accordance with Snow's wishes.
However, the ACLU complains that, "Defendants did not advise Plaintiffs, much less meet and confer, prior to filing their unilateral Amended Notice on April 15, 2014."
The civil rights organization asks Judge Snow to order that the first draft of the corrective statement be disseminated immediately to MCSO personnel, and that it be done so without any additional statements from the MCSO brass.
It should be obvious to Judge Snow and anyone paying attention that the MCSO is not going to play nice. The MCSO destroyed evidence in this case, defied Snow's first injunction, and has been resistant to Snow's orders ever since.
The defendants are in contempt, and Snow should lay some wood to Arpaio's fanny to ensure compliance with his order.
Otherwise, these little games are going to continue unabated.
My suggestion: Have Arizona's U.S. Marshal David Gonzales slap some pink handcuffs on Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, and their enabler, attorney Tim Casey, and let them cool their heels in a federal holding cell for 24 hours, or until they get the message.
It's long past time that Arpaio and his crew be dealt with. If Snow fails to act, he is only ensuring the MCSO's continued childish defiance.
Got a tip for The Bastard? Send it to: Stephen Lemons.
Follow Valley Fever on Twitter at @ValleyFeverPHX. Follow Stephen Lemons on Twitter at @StephenLemons.
