Snow’s Prosecution of Sheriff Joe Arpaio?
AND ARE THE CIA AND NSA INVOLVED?
by Sharon Rondeau
(May 23, 2015) — In a 187-page filing made on Friday, Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his chief deputy, Gerard Sheridan, asked U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow to recuse himself from a contempt case stemming from a December 2007 lawsuit styled Melendres, et.al. v. Arpaio, et. al.
Arpaio Recusal 05-22-15
The ACLU, which represents the plaintiffs along with numerous other attorneys, reported in 2013 that “Following the trial over a pattern of unlawful practices by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the MCSO during immigration sweeps and traffic stops, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a sweeping decision finding that Sheriff Arpaio and his agency had relied on racial profiling and illegal detentions to target Latinos. On October 2, 2013, Judge Snow issued an order mandating necessary changes by Arpaio and his agency to prevent continued misconduct and safeguard the community from future violations of their constitutional rights.”
On May 24, 2013, the ACLU announced:
Snow assigned the monitor, Robert Warshaw, to the MCSO to ensure that Arpaio and his staff complied with the mandate to cease detaining individuals based solely on the suspicion that they were in the country illegally, which he found unfairly targeted Latinos.
Arpaio, who is serving his sixth consecutive term as Maricopa County sheriff and plans to run again in 2016, has been a staunch supporter of arresting and deporting illegal aliens, which he maintains cost county taxpayers millions of dollars each year. As first reported by KPHO in December 2011, Arpaio said that in response to his apprehension of a dozen illegals on a given day, Arpaio’s “deputies were told by ICE officials that according to the new order from the Department of Homeland Security, ICE would not pick them up.”
ICE is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now headed by Jeh Johnson.
On the evening of November 20, 2014, Obama announced “executive actions” he planned to take to allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country under certain conditions, obtain work permits and Social Security numbers. Directly following Obama’s address to the nation, Arpaio, represented by Atty. Larry Klayman, filed a lawsuit challenging the actions which Arpaio said “will severely strain and cause severe harm to the crime-fighting resources … necessary to protect the citizens I was elected to serve.”
Arpaio’s case against the executive actions was dismissed by Obama-appointee Judge Beryl Howell but is now on appeal.
The racial-profiling case has continued, as an order from Snow required Arpaio’s office to be monitored for three years to measure its level of compliance. On March 17, 2015, Arpaio and Sheridan admitted to having failed to follow through on all of Snow’s orders, and resulting civil contempt proceedings were held April 21-24. Snow rejected Arpaio’s offer to pay $100,000 out of his personal funds for restitution to the plaintiffs with the purpose of settling the case out of court.
During the April hearings, Snow asked Arpaio and Sheridan questions regarding alleged reports that Snow had “colluded” with the “Department of Justice” about the case even though neither Arpaio nor Sheridan had suggested such communication. During testimony, Arpaio stated that a confidential informant hired by his office had reported that “someone” had breached the email accounts of judges, to include Snow; of more than 50,000 bank accounts of Maricopa County residents, law enforcement officials and of defense attorneys representing Arpaio’s office in a case filed by the Department of Justice in May 2012.
On Friday of that week, Sheridan confirmed that “the sheriff and I were concerned about the CIA wiretapping our phones.”
Snow then mandated that all materials gleaned from the confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery, be preserved and turned over to him. Snow also asked Arpaio about an alleged “investigation” of his wife, which was a mischaracterization of a probe launched by one of Arpaio’s attorneys of a report from a citizen of prejudicial statements made by Cheri Snow about Arpaio in a restaurant attributed to her husband about Arpaio’s upcoming election.
Neither Snow nor his wife has denied that the comments were made.
Montgomery was reportedly providing his analysis to Arpaio’s office regarding breaches which might have been carried out by the CIA, for whom Montgomery worked on a contract basis some years ago. While discredited in the media and by Arpaio himself, Sheridan testified that some of the information Montgomery provided had been verified by a federal judge on the FISA court, which approves or denies surveillance warrants from the NSA and FBI.
In June 2013, former NSA contract worker Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA, or National Security Agency, is collecting virtually all electronic communications from Americans’ home phones, computers, cell phones, and email accounts.
Through their attorneys on Friday, Arpaio and Sheridan objected to what they said was Snow’s “investigating and presiding over issues involving his own family.”
On May 10, 2012, the Department of Justice filed its own lawsuit against Arpaio’s office, contending that it “found reasonable cause that MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio were engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law. Following the issuance of the letter of findings, the department attempted to reach a resolution with MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio and provided them with a comprehensive draft settlement agreement. The proposed agreement contained a number of key reforms that had been successfully implemented elsewhere. However, negotiations were unsuccessful, primarily because MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio refused to agree to any independent oversight by a monitor.”
Then-Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas E. Perez said of the lawsuit, in part:
A hallmark of our democracy is freedom of expression. It is equally important that dedicated public servants are able to carry out their responsibilities without fear of unlawful, retaliatory reprisals. The complaint outlines a series of retaliatory actions by MCSO and Arpaio, designed to silence and punish perceived critics, with the added effect of chilling would-be critics. Retaliatory activities were directed at public officials, judges and private citizens engaged in lawful protests. For instance, the complaint quotes from a recent opinion arising out of an ethics complaint filed against the former County Attorney and two of his assistants, which found the Sheriff and others to be involved in “a concerted effort to wrestle power from [the Maricopa Board of Supervisors], County officials and Superior Court judges, and to instill fear in the hearts of those who would resist.”
Nobody is above the law, and nobody can misuse the legal process to silence those with different opinions.
Perez is now Obama’s Secretary of Labor.
In late August 2012, the DOJ abruptly dropped its four-year criminal probe into whether or not Arpaio was guilty of “abuse of power” after a federal grand jury reportedly failed to find probable cause.
In May 2013, the Obama regime’s IRS admitted to having “profiled” tax-exempt applicants using key words and terms; delaying a determination on their status, sometimes for years; and claiming the practice was limited to one office while orders were later revealed to have come from Washington, DC. After the revelations became public, numerous individuals and organizations claimed that they were “targeted” for their political views and effectively silenced during the 2012 presidential election cycle.
Outspoken Obama critic Wayne Allyn Root claims that he was “targeted” by the IRS for his “politics.” Republican presidential candidate and speaker at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast on what he saw as the woes of “Obamacare,” Dr. Benjamin Carson, also reported being audited by the IRS afterward after he refused to issue an apology demanded by the White House to Obama for his comments.
The Obama regime has imprisoned several military veterans for expressing “opinions,” as in the case of former Marine Brandon Raub on his Facebook page; Darren Wesley Huff for attempting to attend a status hearing for CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) on April 20, 2010; and the former Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who refused to deploy to Afghanistan a second time until Obama proved that he was eligible under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as a “natural born Citizen” to serve as president and commander-in-chief.
Operation Vigilant Eagle was launched in 2009 specifically to observe veterans returning from war theaters for being “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
Approximately two weeks before Lakin was released a month early for good behavior, on April 27, 2011, the Obama regime published what it said was a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH). However, within 24 hours, it was denounced as a poor forgery by experts.
Reports of possible retaliation against Lakin for his actions surfaced after he was denied a license to practice medicine in the state of Kansas following his release from Leavenworth. He now practices medicine in his home state of Colorado.
In September 2011, Arpaio commissioned his Cold Case Posse to examine the image after 250 of his constituents approached him with concerns that if the image were, in fact, fraudulent, their votes would be disenfranchised in the upcoming presidential election.
On March 1, 2012, posse lead investigator Mike Zullo and Arpaio held a joint press conference in which they announced that the long-form birth certificate image and Obama’s Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.” A second presser on July 17 of that year provided greater detail as to how those conclusions were reached.
Neither the media nor Congress investigated the findings, and Obama was re-elected to a second four-year term in November 2012.
The latest PACER entry in the DOJ’s civil rights case against Arpaio, 2:12-cv-00981-ROS, is dated April 24, 2015, the day after Arpaio provided testimony in Snow’s court in the Melendres case. Two law firms representing Arpaio’s office in the DOJ lawsuit, including Atty. Joseph J. Popolizio, were reported by Montgomery to have had been victims of “wiretapping” carried out by a government entity.
Last month during the hearings, Snow began a line of questioning to determine whether or not he or members of his family had been “investigated” by Arpaio’s office, citing a June 2014 article from The Phoenix New Times, a publication which cannot reasonably be considered impartial.
Four years to the day that the White House released the birth certificate forgery to the public, the Associated Press erroneously reported that Arpaio “acknowledged Thursday that his office was behind a secret investigation into the wife of the judge presiding over a racial-profiling lawsuit against the brash Arizona lawman known for his anti-immigration patrols.”
In a column published on May 16, Attorney Larry Klayman, who represents Montgomery, wrote that Snow is “out to destroy Sheriff Joe.” On May 12, Klayman asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow his client to intervene in the Melendres case and to mandate that Snow recuse himself, both of which the Ninth Circuit denied.
|Has U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts|
been the target of government surveillance and/or blackmail?
In July 2012, CBS News reported that Roberts had planned to vote Obama’s “signature” health care law known as “Obamacare” to be unconstitutional when the court issued its June 2012 opinion but that Roberts inexplicably changed his mind and authored both the “pro” and “con” positions in the 5-4 decision.
The other Supreme Court justice allegedly monitored is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently performed a “gay” marriage in advance of a decision to be issued by the high court next month on whether or not such unions are protected by the U.S. Constitution. During her officiation, Ginsburg reportedly stressed the word “Constitution.” Some are now calling for her recusal from voting on the case.
During the Obama regime, an unprecedented number of federal judges have declared state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman unconstitutional.
On May 15, radio host Carl Gallups suggested that those following the Cold Case Posse investigation and the current Arpaio contempt case “read in between the lines” as to “legal hurdles” stated to have delayed two press conferences by both the posse and Arpaio in his own separate criminal investigation.
|What role, if any, has Barack Hussein Obama |
played in government surveillance of
judges, law enforcers, and private citizens?
“Remember, all this started with the birth certificate investigation,” Gallups reminded listeners. “You’re starting to wade around the edges of it now…this is dark, and it gets deep, and it’s going to get deeper and probably darker.”
As a result of Arpaio and Sheridan’s filing on Friday, Snow canceled status hearings scheduled for May 29 and June 12, although he asked all parties to reserve the remaining June dates, beginning on the 16th, on which the trial is scheduled to resume.
In his May 16 column, Klayman said that Obama was “behind the initial federal investigation of the sheriff along with his comrades at the ACLU.” During a February interview on the Joe Miller radio show, Arpaio said of Obama, “I don’t think he would qualify to be hired in our office…” - © 2015, The Post & Email. All rights reserved. Source link.