by Bob Quasius (re-posted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans)

A common Democratic party narrative told to Latinos, especially in Arizona, is they should register as Democrats and vote a straight Democratic ticket, because those evil racist Republicans want to racially profile them and deport all Latinos. This is a blatant exaggeration, an obvious attempt to keep Latinos on the ‘liberal hacienda’, as few – if any – Republicans are seeking to deport Latino citizens.

A May 2001 in-dept study by Pew Research suggests a more accurate narrative to describe Republican attitudes on immigration: ‘a majority of Republicans favor immigration reform, including a path to legalization for unauthorized immigrants, and as with Americans in general, a strong majority of Republicans favor more immigration enforcement.’ The Pew Research poll also found that even among the most staunch conservatives, there is a 49%/49% split on immigration reform. Republicans are clearly not monolithic on immigration reform, and statistics like Pew Research’s hardly support any notion that Republicans are anti-Latino.

Contrary to the Democratic narrative, Democratic administrations have deported more Latino immigrants than Republican administrations. Obama has deported 1.5 million immigrants, mostly Latinos, and leading many to dub Obama our “deporter-in-chief.”

Which president has deported the most Latino citizens? Though Obama has deported more Latino citizens than any president in recent history, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt forced out more Latino citizens than any other president in history. During the great depression, a program called “the great repatriation” forced approximately one million “Mexicans” to leave the U.S. either by force or by making discrimination so pervasive that many could not find employment and simply left. Various historians estimate 60% of those who left were U.S. Citizens. The “great repatriation” was authorized by Herbert Hoover, but mostly took place during FDR’s administration.

Who is America’s worst racial profiler? Immediately for most, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio comes to mind. Sheriff Joe has become infamous among Latinos for his trademark immigration sweeps of Hispanic neighborhoods, looking for minor traffic and other infractions as a pretext to investigate immigration status. A recent study conducted by an outside police executive, and authorized by the U.S. Department of Justice, found Latinos in Maricopa County are from four to nine times more likely stopped by police than non-Latinos, and 20% of Latino traffic stops lacked probable cause. However, despite Joe Arpaio’s notoriety he is not America’s worst racial profiler.

However, the title of “racial-profiler-in-chief” rightly belongs to an Arizona Democrat named Janet Napolitano! As Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, she head’s America’s largest law enforcement agency, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ICE and CBP are notorious for the use of racial profiling in immigration enforcement, but these agencies are only part of the reason Janet Napolitano merits this notoriety. Napolitano has very aggressively rolled out the Secure Communities program, in which state and local law enforcement share fingerprint data from local jails, even though this program has generated widespread complaints about the racial profiling S-COMM has fueled.

According to a recent study of Secure Communities, 93% of those arrested under S-COMM are Latinos, while Latinos represent 78% of the unauthorized immigrant community and 3,600 U.S. citizens have been falsely arrested. One revealing statistic is that nearly 50% of those arrested under s-comm were NOT jailed for committing a crime but rather traffic or similar non-criminal violations of the law, which confirms pervasive complaints that Latinos are being jailed rather than cited for such minor traffic infractions as cracked windshields, broken tail lights (including on bicycles), frost on car windows, expired vehicle registration, speeding, etc. State and local police don’t usually have the ability to check immigration status of those they stop, but jails do. It’s apparent that increasingly Latinos who are stopped for traffic infractions are being jailed rather than cited so their immigration status can be investigated, which is racial profiling because outcomes of traffic stops are different for Latinos, and some police will target Latinos for traffic stops on the suspicion they may be unauthorized immigrants. Less than one in five Latinos are unauthorized, so the result is that thousands of law abiding citizens are subjected to the humiliation of jail for routine police encounters such as traffic infractions!

Secure Communities has become so controversial that some states, including Massachusetts and New York have objected to participation, while other states already in the program, such as Illinois, have sought to withdraw. In response to widespread complaints about racial profiling, lack of following priorities, etc. DHS created a review panel, but in the end their recommendations were watered down, and the only change is that DHS agreed not to deport low level offenders for traffic infractions until they had been convicted. Five members of the panel were so outraged at the ‘whitewash job’ they quit the panel in disgust, while the other 14 panel members who didn’t quit were very critical of DHS.

Secure Communities started out as voluntary, but under Napolitano states now have no option but to participate and remain in the program if they wish to opt-out as they were promised under Bush. Like the great repatriation, which began under Hoover, Secure Communities began under a Republican administration as a pilot voluntary program, but vastly expanded under a Democratic administration.

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

Immigration touches on every facet of America.   It is embedded into economics, education, healthcare, and even in the Constitution of the United States. More significantly, “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens in this country who seek the full protection of its laws.” See Arizona et al. v. United States, No. 11-182, Sup. Ct. (decided June 25, 2012). For the many benefits that legal immigration brings to this country, it also brings a myriad of confusion spread by politicians from both parties who force states to create their own laws that clash with powers clearly given only to the Federal Government.  As a result, this confusion has States trying to implement laws over issues that are fundamentally out of their reach.

The Constitution specifically delineates what powers the Federal Government possesses over federal issues and which ones states possess; and while we may disagree on this distribution of power, States cannot superseded this law.  They, therefore cannot write or enforce laws that are not within their authority according to  Article I Section 8: Clause 4, which states that the Federal Government governs those laws on Naturalization.  More importantly, the Supreme Court agrees.

In its recent ruling, The Supreme Court held that the Arizona lawmakers cannot overstep their boundaries especially if the laws are posed to create chaotic conflict with Federal laws.  Moreover, the Supreme Court ruling stated that even if federal laws are not written to exactly address an issue according to Article I, the States may not impose their version of enforcement or control over the issue of immigration because Federal law preempts it.

One hundred years after the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. enjoyed prosperity and worried little about the borders. In fact, one could say that it enjoyed an open border policy which helped it to grow and prosper. Those who were a threat to the nation were deported, without hesitation. Those who helped the U.S. flourish were allowed to remain. Throughout the years, immigration law has been amended, simplified, re-codified, so much that its application is contradictory at many times. Not even a sense of discretion by officials or judges can make sense of it. States, especially in our southern border, have had trouble controlling the inflow of some unwanted aliens such gangs and cartels who may indeed threaten U.S. populations.  This fear has culminated and given a hurried passing to more complicated laws.  States are reacting by taking matters into their own hands and enacting laws that are strictly reserved for the Federal Government.

In Section 3 of SB 1070, Arizona called for aliens to register into a database to keep track of immigrants present in the state. Failure to do so, would have charged immigrants with a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court ruled that alien registration  was not only unnecessary, it was already done so by the Federal Government.  SB1070, therefore, was overstepping its boundary.

The Court further stated that States cannot criminalize an alien who is soliciting work in the U.S.  Under Federal law, in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 and a court case of Hoffman Plastics, employers must already verify someone’s work status. The Arizona requirement would not only double the work but would be “unnecessary and unworkable” according to public policy. To apply this law would be a hindrance to the “accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, (1941).

Further, the Court stated that contrary to popular belief, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the U.S.  In fact, the Federal government already has a procedure in place to arrest and have them appear in court and Section 6 of SB1070 would only interfere with this federal power. Additionally, state agents do not have the proper training that would help them discern what makes someone a “probable cause” nor would they know what makes someone “removable” from the United States without having to inquire about their legal status.  Moreover, without the proper training an error in requesting proof of this, would create an  offensive situation to some Americans which could be illegal as well.   The Federal Government, already has authority over those “policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are…..entrusted to Congress.” Truaz v. Reich, 239 U.S. 33, (1915).  States can enjoin to help federal agents when there is a “cooperation” agreement with the Federal Agencies or there exists a joint task force. However, other than this, states cannot act unilaterally to apply Immigration laws.

What remained then of the skeletal version of the SB1070 was the 2(B) section that allows state officers to make a “reasonable” assessment to determine someone’s status, which includes anyone who is stopped, detained, or arrested. State police agents then have the power to determine if there is a “reasonable suspicion” to determine if that person is unlawfully present in the U.S.   However, logic would follow that if you are not properly trained, how would you know to assess what is a “reasonable” characteristic.  And if state police agents are to be trained, are they not once again overstepping the federal police powers already entrusted to agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol, and United States Customs and Inspections Services?   The Supreme Court did not state that this part was constitutional, but rather stated that this issue is not yet “ripe.”  “It is not clear at this stage,” was the wording they used.   In other words, the law has not been enforced to cause an injury where a court can remedy it.

It was a subtle warning by the Court to States including Arizona who now have options.  The manner of enforcement, then, will determine if SB1070 is to return again to be addressed before The Court.  States must be careful to ensure that state officers not infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens. Therefore, the  law must have a compelling state interest to achieve its purpose and must pass the following tests:

1.     it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never clearly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the idea is that it touches on something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. In other words, is it necessary to protect national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, while not violating explicit constitutional protections.

2.     it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest of the law. If the state action is overbroad or does not pinpoint the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

3.      it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest; meaning that there are not other means that are less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive.

States who are considering implementing the 2(B) version of SB1070 must carefully consider whether they can write and enforce laws that are not targeting a certain class of individuals who are protected in this country. The court did not state that this portion was Constitutional as it was written, only that it could not determine whether its application violated any citizen’s rights since it was not currently enforced. If Arizona, then,  decides to implement this portion of the law, it should be careful. If the law cannot meet the strict scrutiny test it should consider the Court’s ruling as a warning.  If you pick on a certain class of people, the portion of the law cannot be upheld as Constitutional regardless of how loud you scream. States must carefully walk through the tests already in place via the Constitution. The law must protect before it can gain momentum of acceptance.  More importantly,  if  the law cannot seek to remedy injustices,  States should reconsider implementing something that could divide our country rather unite it.

For Immediate Release

Marshall, MN – National GOP Group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today called on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to refocus his energies on fixing severe management deficiencies in his department.

Bob Quasius, President, stated “We’re quite frankly aghast at the pervasive problems revealed in the recent racial profiling trial and DOJ report. Either Arpaio lied at the trial about racial profiling or he simply does not know what is going on in his own department. In 2008, the conservative Goldwater Institute issued a scathing report documenting that Arpaio’s priorities are clearly misplaced. Activities that generate PR for Arpaio are top priority, and basic crime fighting, such as investigating sex crimes and serving felony arrest warrants, continue to suffer. Arpaio needs to refocus his energies on running his own department, drop his quixotic birther quest, and settle the lawsuit with the Department of Justice by taking drastic action to address systematic discriminatory policing within his department.

We’re also shocked at today’s revelations by author John Woodman that Arpaio’s cold case posse’s latest claims are fraudulent. It appears obvious that Arpaio failed to do basic fact checking before his recent press conference in which he claimed “proof” that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud. In fact, the timing of the press conference suggests an attempt to divert attention from the upcoming racial profiling trial.”

In a statement today (see below), author and computer expert John Woodman stated “The first image that they led people to believe was from 1961 actually came from a similar manual dated 7 years later, and the second image is even worse. They claimed they got their information directly from the federal government. Jerome Corsi, the conspiracy theorist whom Arpaio made an integral member of the posse, has claimed that they searched ‘for months’ before they ‘finally found’ the 1961 manual. But the second image is from 1969, and they quite clearly took it directly from a birther web site.”

#####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Statement by author John Woodman

Confirmed: Arpaio’s Posse Fabricated “Indisputable Proof” that Obama’s Birth Certificate Is “Forged”

SPRINGFIELD, MO — An author who wrote the book — literally — on Barack Obama’s birth certificate says that Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse” presented false evidence to the nation on July 17th, when they claimed to have “indisputable proof” that President Obama’s birth certificate was a “forgery.”

John Woodman has a copy of the 1961 manual that Arpaio’s posse claimed to have — and he says it directly contradicts their claims.

According to Woodman, the Posse’s most significant claim was that the penciled number “9″ by Obama’s father’s race meant that nothing at all should be in that box. The box contained the word “African,” creating an apparent conflict that Arpaio and his posse said was proof of forgery.

Both lead investigator Michael Zullo and Posse member Jerome Corsi have explictly stated that “9″ means “not reported” or “not stated.” And yet in the actual code book, “9″ means “Other nonwhite” — which would have been the appropriate category for “African.”

Just as bad however, says Woodman, are the visuals shown in the Posse’s official video — which depict documents other than the manual claimed.

“The first image that they led people to believe was from 1961 actually came from a similar manual dated 7 years later,” says Woodman. “And the second image is even worse. They claimed they got their information directly from the federal government. Jerome Corsi, the conspiracy theorist whom Arpaio made an integral member of the posse, has claimed that they searched ‘for months’ before they ‘finally found’ the 1961 manual. But the second image is from 1969, and they quite clearly took it directly from a birther web site.”

Woodman says it just doesn’t appear possible that an innocent “mistake” was made.

“There’s no way, if you have that 1968 document, that you can avoid seeing that it says ’1968.’ It’s in big, bold letters, right at the top. And a birther web site is a far cry from the US government.”

“In fact, there are at least four different falsehoods here. First, we have the two misrepresented documents. Then, there’s the claim of what the 1961 manual supposedly said, which the manual itself directly contradicts. And finally, their claim that the “9″ was even a federal code is untrue, too.”

“The real 1961 manual shows that the US government reporting was based on microfilm copies of birth certificates — not on penciled codes written by people in Hawaii.”

Literally all of their other “forgery” claims have also been disproven, Woodman says. “But this incident alone is enough to destroy their credibility.”

Woodman presents the full evidence at his web site, ObamaBirthBook.com.

——————————

John Woodman has spent more than 20 years as a computer professional in varying capacities – programming, consulting, troubleshooting, and designing and building software. He is the author of “Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? A Computer Guy Examines the Evidence for Forgery.”

###

By Raoul Lowery Contreras (reposted with permission – original post here)

What does Patrick Lanzo of the State of Georgia and Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County (Phoenix, AZ) have in common?

Lanzo has a sign in his yard that states “I do not support the n**gger in the White House.”  Lanzo owns a bar in which he caters to racist whites by calling his bar, a “Klan bar.” That should appeal to Joe Arpaio, the Bush League Sheriff in the middle of the desert. What makes him the Arizona equivalent of Georgia’s Lanzo is a parsing of this statement that Arpaio put out to raise money for his reelection campaign referring to a federal lawsuit by the Department of Justice against Arpaio, his department and his county:

Even if you do not live in Maricopa County, Arizona please know that we have become the gateway for illegal immigration in this country which affects your community as well. Please…support my campaign.

This statement is a blatant lie, just like when Arpaio claims his county is the kidnapping capitol of the USA. Another lie is that the Federal Government is trying to stop him from doing his job. Two sentences, three lies.

The Phoenix police chief was fired from his job because he lied to Congress about kidnappings. The number of illegal-border-crossers into Arizona has never really been large. For example, at its peak, hundreds of thousands of men and women crossed the border illegally into San Diego and on its most busy day, week, month or year, Arizona illegal border crossers never came close to the number that used to cross at San Diego, ever. Try half…

Reason: There simply aren’t anywhere near the number of illegal border crossers today than there used to be. In fact, there are zero net illegal border crossers today and for the past couple of years. The numbers have been decreasing every year for ten years.

People who study population movements across the border in both directions know that the number of young Mexican men has been dropping precipitously in the past decade shrinking the Mexican labor surplus drastically resulting in fewer and fewer illegal border crossers. That reduces the illegally present labor market upon which American farmers have depended on for decades to help with the planting and harvest of crops in Southwest America and California that feeds the country.

So much for Arpaio’s “gateway…”

The Federal government’s law suit is based on what the government defines as illegal activities as outlined in the actual complaint:

This Complaint sets out three categories of unlawful conduct: (1) a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unconstitutional law enforcement actions against Latinos in Maricopa County; (2) discriminatory jail practices against Latino prisoners with limited English language skills; and (3) a pattern or practice of retaliatory actions against perceived critics of MCSO activities.

This action is brought to enforce the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7; the Title VI implementing regulations issued by the United States Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to42.112; and Title VI contractual assurances.

Years of Arpaio lies and illegal actions by himself, his deputies and legal cronies in the County Attorney’s office have finally surfaced in courtrooms. His legal cronies, the former County attorney and a staff lawyer have been disbarred recently and observers are counting the minutes to criminal indictments.

Now this law suit… Another law suit against Arpaio and his Department goes to trial in July filed by an individual Mexican American – a legal resident — when he was falsely imprisoned and detained by Arpaio’s deputies.

Arpaio, himself, is being sued. His Department is being sued. The County of Maricopa is being sued. Defending these suits will cost the citizenry of Maricopa County, Arizona a fortune. To that end the County has just hired out-of-state lawyers to defend itself from the suit. That will cost up to a million dollars of taxpayer’s money.

Arpaio and his department will be defended by attorneys hired by Arpaio and paid for with taxpayer’s money. That will cost another million dollars.

All these taxpayer dollars will be spent on lawyers for two simple reasons: One, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department are provably corrupt and lawless and (2) negotiations with the federal government broke down over placing an independent monitor in the Sheriff’s office to make sure laws were followed by the department and its deputies.

Arpaio walked out of the negotiations because he says: “No one is going to tell me how to run my department!”

Joe, baby, wanna bet!!!

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Marshall, MN – We’re quite frankly perplexed that the Obama administration did not use the most powerful argument against Arizona’s immigration law at today’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing today. Chief Justice Roberts even opened the door with the question “No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling?” and yet Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. still declined to raise the issue.

The most controversial part of the Arizona law is the mandate that police inquire about immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that a person stopped by police may be subject to deportation. The U.S. Department of Justice invested considerable resources into investigating widespread complaints of racial profiling by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, headed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and based on Arpaio’s own records concluded that Latinos are 4-9 times as likely to be stopped by police for traffic violations, and 20% of the stops of Latinos lacked probable cause for the stop. The USDOJ even sued Arpaio to obtain cooperation when Arpaio refused to cooperate, and is preparing another lawsuit to force Arpaio to reform his department to end the abuses. Ending racial profiling often requires years of complex litigation, and it is difficult to hold police accountable, which is why the practice continues.

Arpaio’s department remains the only police department in the U.S. ever stripped of 287(g) immigration enforcement authority by ICE, due to the widespread evidence of civil rights abuses such as racial profiling. Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law was introduced shortly after Arpaio lost street immigration enforcement authority, and appears intended to provide Arpaio legal cover to continue his immigration enforcement authority, as well as force all Arizona police to follow Arpaio’s failed policing model. Eight Arizona police departments and jails already have 287(g) authority and don’t need SB1070 to engage in immigration enforcement, and many Arizona police chiefs opposed SB1070 because it would force them to divert considerable resources from crime fighting to immigration enforcement.

The 287(g) program has been plagued with problems as detailed by ICE’s Inspector General, and yet offers more protection against civil rights abuses than SB1070. A formal agreement is required before state and local police can engage in immigration enforcement, background checks and a minimum of one year experience are required of police officers, officers must complete several weeks of training, and work under supervision of ICE. In contrast, SB1070 does not mandate any training requirements, does not mandate ICE supervision, or background checks. SB1070 prohibits racial profiling but makes no provision for holding police accountable for racial profiling, only for not vigorously enforcing immigration law. Racial profiling is already illegal but pervasive, as evidenced in the USDOJ report on Arpaio’s department and numerous other credible studies.

SB1070 is clearly at odds with federal law and should be preempted. Unfortunately, due to Verrilli’s incompetent representation it seems likely that the most controversial aspect of SB1070 will be upheld. If SB1070 and copycat laws are upheld, we predict that racial profiling against Latinos and others who ‘appear’ Latino will become even more pervasive. A 2008 poll by Pew Research found 9% of adult Latinos reported they had been stopped and asked legal status during the previous 12 months. Not surprisingly, 81% of Hispanics do not want police involved in immigration enforcement.

Already, there is solid evidence that Secure Communities drives racial profiling against Latinos. According to a recent report, 93% of those detained under Secure Communities are Latino versus 77% of the undocumented immigrant population, and the percentage of those detained for non-criminal offenses (i.e. traffic infractions) is approaching 50% recently. Clearly, police are using Secure Communities as a funnel, often arresting Latinos rather than issuing citations for minor traffic infractions, so jails can investigate their legal status. Unfortunately, in the process an estimated 3,600 U.S. Citizens have already been arrested and detained by ICE, and many Latinos are being jailed for offenses where others are cited. For example, a Latino man in the twin cities area was stopped and arrested for a broken tail light on his bicycle, while it is doubtful most bicyclists would even be stopped for a broken tail light!

Original

by Bob Quasius (original blog posting)

The 234 page disciplinary report about Andrew Thomas and two of his deputies is shocking in it’s description of the breadth of corruption and abuse of power by former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio is not subject to discipline from the panel making the report, but it’s clear from the report that Arpaio is at least as guilty as Andrew Thomas. It’s especially galling that in a 30 minute time span, Joe Arpaio testified 27 times that he “didn’t recall” anything about the events in question, yet from the 234 page report it’s obvious he’s a central figure in this travesty of justice! This news report does a good job of explaining the scandal.

The disbarment case is especially compelling regarding Judge Donahoe, now retired, who was the top criminal court judge at the time and highly respected for his integrity. From the report (reformatted for easier reading) it’s obvious that Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio, along with their henchmen, cooked up a criminal case against Jodge Donahoe to intimidate him on another case. The fact that several police officers refused to swear a complaint against the judge despite intense pressure from higher-ups is especially noteworthy.

THE CORE FACTS REGARDINGTHE FILING OF CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE DONAHOE

Judge Donahoe had scheduled a hearing for the afternoon of December 9, 2009 regarding the Notice and Motion filed by Thomas Irvine and Edward Novak on behalf of the County. The motion filed for MCBOS by Irvine and Novak sought an order prohibiting special deputy county attorneys from appearing before a grand jury.

On December 9, 2009, under Mr. Thomas’s authority and with his approval, Ms. Aubuchon through MCSO detectives filed a criminal case against Judge Donahoe. Mr. Thomas made the decision to file a direct complaint against Judge Donahoe following a meeting with Ms. Aubuchon, Mr. Hendershott, and Sheriff Arpaio. Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon denied that they wanted to file the charges against Judge Donahoe to stop that hearing. However, as discussed below, the Hearing Panel concludes that the evidence is clear and convincing that Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, Sheriff Arpaio and then-Deputy Chief Hendershott decided to file the charges against Judge Donahoe so that he would not hold the December 9, 2009 hearing.

Ms. Aubuchon and Detective Gabe Almanza signed the direct complaint. It charged the judge with hindering, obstruction and bribery. There was no investigation in this matter prior to the filing of the direct complaint. Only after the direct complaint was filed did MCSO create a report.

Ms. Aubuchon attempted to file the charges against Judge Donahoe a day earlier on December 8, 2009, after a meeting with Mr. Thomas, Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Hendershott.

On the afternoon of December 8, 2009, Chief Deputy Hendershott of MCSO called Sgt. Rich Johnson about filing a case against Judge Donahoe. Chief Deputy Hendershott told Sgt. Johnson that they needed it done “now.” MCSO Sgt. Brandon Luth, Sgt. Johnson and Deputy Chief Young called Ms. Aubuchon on the afternoon of December 8, 2009, to ask her what was going on and what they needed to charge. Ms. Aubuchon stated they needed a Form 4, a DR (departmental report) and a probable cause statement. Ms. Aubuchon told the MCSO officers she wanted to charge bribery and related charges. Sgt. Luth did not know what to write. Sgt. Luth’s orders were to put the case together and accompany Detective Cooning to “walk it through” that evening.

Later in the afternoon of December 8, 2009, Ms. Aubuchon, Chief Young, Sgt. Luth, Sgt. Johnson and Chief Hendershott met. Chief Hendershott told them about the racketeering lawsuit, and that they thought Judge Donahoe was going to throw MCAO off all County investigations. Chief Hendershott said that he had met with Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, and Sheriff Arpaio, and that Sheriff Arpaio came up with the idea of charging the judge. Chief Hendershott told Sgt. Luth to use as the material for the Form 4, or probable cause (“PC”) statement, a complaint that the Chief Deputy had submitted to the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Donahoe. Chief Hendershott printed off his complaint and wrote the charges on it. At the hearing in this case, Mr. Hendershott was unable to describe any criminal conduct by Judge Donahoe.

Sgt. Luth drafted the PC statement using Chief Deputy Hendershott’s judicial complaint at Ms. Aubuchon’s direction.

Sgt. Johnson called MCSO’s dispatch unit and obtained a Departmental Report number for the case. At about 5:00 p.m., Sgt. Luth took the Donahoe charging documents to Ms. Aubuchon. She read them. She said that “it worked for her.” Ms. Aubuchon signed the complaint as Deputy County Attorney.

Ms. Aubuchon attempted to have an investigator from MCAO file the direct complaint in Superior Court in the late afternoon or early evening of December 8, 2009. Ms. Aubuchon assigned the task of filing the direct complaint to MCAO investigator Lt. Richard Hargus. Lt. Hargus then asked MCAO Detective Timothy Cooning to meet an MCAO clerk in front of the court at 5:30 p.m. Det. Cooning did so, and the clerk handed him the Donahoe file. Det. Cooning read the file, returned to his office, and informed Lt. Hargus that he felt uncomfortable swearing to the truthfulness of the complaint against Judge Donahoe because he had not investigated the case. Det. Cooning also was uncomfortable signing the probable cause statement because it was unclear what crimes had been committed and who had investigated them.

Lt. Hargus told his superior, Commander Stribling, that Lt. Hargus and Detective Cooning did not want to file the complaint because there was no probable cause to support it. Commander Stribling agreed that none of his detectives should be put in the position of walking through a complaint on a sitting Superior Court judge when he knew nothing about the investigation that led up to the filing of the complaint. The commissioner assigned to the evening court might ask the detective questions, and the detective would not know what to say.

Commander Stribling called Mr. Thomas. Commander Stribling informed Mr. Thomas that Ms. Aubuchon was asking Lt. Hargus and Det. Cooning to get the Donahoe complaint filed.

Commander Stribling told Mr. Thomas that based on what Lt. Hargus and Det. Cooning had told him, there was no probable cause to support the complaint. Commander Stribling told Mr. Thomas that he refused to have his detective walk through a complaint about which the detective had no knowledge. Mr. Thomas agreed, but insisted that the complaint be filed no later than the next morning.

Commander Stribling then called Ms. Aubuchon to explain his decision. The conversation was heated. Commander Stribling suggested that MCSO Sgt. Brandon Luth file the complaint, since he was with the MACE Unit. Eventually, Ms. Aubuchon acquiesced.

Because Commander Stribling had refused to have MCAO investigators “walk it through,” Ms. Aubuchon turned to the sheriff’s office to assist her in filing the Donahoe complaint. At Hargus’s instruction, at 6:00 that evening Det. Cooning met Sgt. Luth in front of Det. Cooning’s office and gave Sgt. Luth the direct complaint. Det. Cooning told Sgt. Luth he refused to swear to the complaint. Sgt. Luth called Ms. Aubuchon and handed the phone to Det. Cooning. Ms. Aubuchon told Det. Cooning she “can’t believe this” and “this is outrageous” and hung up on Det. Cooning. Det. Cooning then agreed to meet Sgt. Luth at the IA court a few minutes later, where Sgt. Luth was to file the complaint. Once there, however, Sgt. Luth refused to file the complaint.

Sgt. Luth did not want to file the complaint against Judge Donahoe because he did not want to answer questions by the court about the case when it was filed. He arranged for Det. Almanza and Det. Tennyson to meet with him the next morning.

On the morning of December 9, 2009, Sgt. Luth, Det. Almanza and Det. Tennyson met with Ms. Aubuchon. Ms. Aubuchon handed Sgt. Luth the complaint against Judge Donahoe, which she had drafted, with the probable cause statement attached.

Sgt. Luth asked Ms. Aubuchon whether she had enough evidence to charge Judge Donahoe. Ms. Aubuchon referred to past court filings and decisions and outlined for Sgt. Luth why she believed Judge Donahoe should be charged with crimes. This struck Det. Almanza as bizarre because Ms. Aubuchon was telling Sgt. Luth what the evidence was, rather than the usual procedure, in which the investigator informs the prosecutor of the evidence.

Sgt. Luth and the detectives left the meeting. Sgt. Luth took the complaint he had received from Ms. Aubuchon, along with documents Ms. Aubuchon had printed off of her computer.

The complaint was filed the same morning of December 9, 2009. Detective Gabriel Almanza signed it under oath. Sgt. Luth told Det. Almanza to sign it. Det. Almanza was not comfortable doing so, because he had not been involved in drafting the complaint and he had no knowledge as to the truth or falsity of it. Det. Almanza had never filed a complaint before. Sgt. Luth assured Det. Almanza that Ms. Aubuchon believed she had enough evidence to charge the judge. Det. Almanza signed it based on his reliance on Ms. Aubuchon’s good faith.

MCSO Detectives Almanza and Tennyson served the direct complaint on Judge Donahoe. They secretly recorded the service. After Judge Donahoe was served, Sgt. Luth was ordered to take a copy of the direct complaint to Ms. Aubuchon and Chief Deputy Hendershott. When Sgt. Luth gave the copy of the complaint to Ms. Aubuchon, she said she already received an email notifying her that Judge Donahoe had vacated the hearing that had been set for later that afternoon. She appeared pleased and happy. Sgt. Luth then gave the complaint to Chief Deputy Hendershott, explaining that the complaint had been served and that he had just met with Ms. Aubuchon. Chief Deputy Hendershott said, “checkmate.”

by Bob Quasius

By now, unless someone has lived in a cave the last four years, everyone has heard of the controversy about Obama’s birth certificate. Just last week, Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced his “volunteer posse” had concluded its investigation of Obama’s birth certificate and selective service registration document. If we take the investigative results at face value, yes indeed there is something fishy about Obama’s documents. As an electrical engineer by profession, I have a background in imaging, signal processing, etc. and I see the issues with Obama’s documents too, assuming the evidence presented itself has not been faked. Clearly there are questions to be answered, and answers to be questioned.

I am not a fan of Obama. In fact, I think Obama is the worst president in modern U.S. history, surpassing even Jimmy Carter. Obama is ‘Jimmy Carter on steroids’ and we need to rid ourselves of Obama, and just as Jimmy Carter was followed by Ronald Reagan, we need a new president to get this nation back on track. Let’s hope for our nation’s sake our next president will be like ‘Ronald Reagan on steroids.’

As much as I dislike Obama and would like to see him out of the oval office, I cannot give the recent Obama birth certificate controversy much credibility because the investigation was conducted under the auspices of Joe Arpaio. Joe Arpaio has a lengthy history of launching politically motivated investigations of his political enemies. Among Arpaio’s victims are journalists, judges, members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and community leaders, among others.

For years, if you criticized Joe Arpaio you soon found yourself on the wrong end of criminal investigations. In one case, a journalist published a story, and then unmarked vehicles with Mexican license plates came to his home in the middle of the night to arrest him for a minor misdemeanor, which was quickly dismissed by a judge, and clearly was intended to intimidate the journalist. In my opinion, Arpaio is a serial power abuser, with no respect whatsoever for our constitution, part of the ‘rule of law’ governing this nation.

Often arrests of Arpaio critics were quickly dismissed by judges as baseless, and in many cases Arpaio and his partner, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, were unable to convince grand juries to indict. Many criminal law attorneys will tell you that generally speaking, prosecutors can get most grand juries to indict even a ‘ham sandwich.’ It’s rare that grand juries fail to indict, yet many grand juries saw right through the flimsiness of cases against Arpaio critics.

As a consequence of these politically motivated and baseless prosecutions, Maricopa County taxpayers may end up paying tens of millions in damages to victims of malicious prosecutions. During the last years of the Bush administration, the DOJ launched an investigation into these alleged abuses of power, and a grand jury has been empaneled. Andrew Thomas, the former Maricopa County Attorney is in deep trouble, and may well lose his law license for his role in this scheme. Yes, Joe Arpaio may himself be indicted for abusing his power under color of law. Clearly, any investigation of Arpaio critics or political enemies conducted under the auspices of Joe Arpaio is immediately clouded by questions about the integrity of the investigation.

Now, it has emerged that Mike Zullo, the lead investigator from Arpaio’s “volunteer posse”, has co-authored a book with Jerome Corsi and will split the profits with Corsi. Question: if the investigator had concluded Obama’s documents were authentic, would he be able to sell a book? I doubt it. The fact that Mr. Zullo is profiting off of his investigation naturally leads us to question his credibility as well.

Jerome Corsi has written extensively about various conspiracy theories, for example Corsi authored “The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada“, claiming the Bush administration was plotting a “North American Union” that would merge Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., without ever obtaining the approval of Congress, even establishing a European style currency to be known as the “amero.” This is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories I have ever heard, very similar to another conspiracy theory called “reconquista”, which holds that undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. to procreate, and eventually create Hispanic majorities in the Southwest and return the Southwest to Mexico. Of course, the “reconquista” theory makes the ridiculous assumption that Mexican-American immigrants and their offspring never assimilate and want to be part of the very nation they fled in search of a better life. Corsi provided many of the materials for the investigation. I don’t find Corsi to be a credible individual, as he writes sensational books making a wide range of claims, some of which are not very credible.

I viewed evidence that Obama’s documents were forged, which certainly raises valid questions, assuming the evidence presented itself is not fake. In my opinion, there should be an investigation, but NOT by Arpaio or anyone connected with Arpaio. A DOJ investigation will never happen during Obama’s presidency, since our U.S. Attorney General works for Obama, and federal law no longer provides for independent special counsels as in the past. This investigation into whether any state laws were violated by the Obama campaign should be performed by Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and the state police, or by another sheriff, which should NOT be Paul Babeu, who also lacks credibility.

Original posting

(note: this blog, as with all blog postings with a byline, is my personal opinion, and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans)

by Blanca Guerra

Thank you Sheriff Dupnik.

Thank you very much for not being like the law enforcement leaders in Maricopa County.  It seems like the Maricopa County Sheriff’s department is now making a reality show with intention of showing the world how to violate citizens’ rights in Arizona.

Check out the video attached.  Maricopa County law enforcement thought it was necessary to arrest an unarmed individual, hispanic by the way, and used expensive equipment and manpower  for an issue that a telephone call to his probation officer would have resolved the matter.

Sheriff Arpaio Reality Show

The Maricopa County Sheriff has racked up fines and judgments in the sum of over $23 million dollars.  There are still several legal matters sure to end with more monetary judgments against the sheriff.  The class action suit that was accepted in District Court is sure to grant plaintiffs much more that $23 million.  Mind you, this is only for hispanic/immigration issues.  Law suits are sure to continue to rack up for the cases where the sheriff’s department failed to follow through with investigating sex crimes against children.  The findings have already been made by the DOJ.  How many more law suits will the sheriff’s department be accruing?  Now guess who is responsible for paying millions and millions of dollars (a huevo), spanish word for “no choice”, because of one man’s hatred?  The citizens of Maricopa County that’s who!

Maricopa County Sheriff’s hatred will cause the county residents tax increases to cover the fines and damages awarded against him.  Maricopa county taxes will be outragous soon.

Thanks Sheriff Dupnick.  Pima County does not want that kind of tax hikes.

(written by Bob Quasius)
GOP Group Demands Sheriff Arpaio Resign and Leave GOP
For Immediate Release   13 December 2011

Phoenix, Arizona – Sheriff Joe Arpaio is actively campaigning for presidential candidate Rick Perry and his own reelection, and other activities not related to fighting crime in Maricopa County, such as investigating President Obama’s birth certificate.

Meanwhile the wheels are falling off the wagon at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), as shown by the lack of investigation of at least 400 serious sex crime cases, many involving child rape. Sheriff Arpaio has diverted resources from critical crime fighting activities such as investigating sex crimes and serving thousands of felony arrest warrants, to immigration sweeps and prosecution of his critics. The Board of Supervisors estimates up to $100 million was improperly diverted by Arpaio.

As a direct result of Arpaio’s misplaced priorities, violent crime has soared by 57% during the last ten years, while falling elsewhere in Arizona. The MCSO is the subject of massive lawsuits related to malicious prosecutions of Arpaio critics, wrongful deaths, federal investigations into abuse of power by Arpaio, and a class action racial profiling lawsuit.

Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO has become America’s poster child for why state and local police should not become heavily involved in immigration enforcement. A recent report by the Goldwater Institute documents misplaced priorities and improperly cleared criminal cases. Arpaio’s incompetence and misplaced priorities effectively provides amnesty to violent criminals including child rapists!

We demand that Sheriff Arpaio immediately resign and apologize to the sex abuse victims, the people of Maricopa County for his abject failure to protect them, and to thousands of Hispanics, who were victims of racial profiling. A new sheriff is needed who will transform the MCSO into a professionally led department that prioritizes crime fighting and community policing, rather than grandstanding for media exposure, persecuting critics, and immigration sweeps of Hispanic neighborhoods, which terrorize these communities and undermine community policing. There is already one qualified candidate in the race, and with Arpaio out of the race more qualified candidates will likely emerge.

Sheriff Arpaio has disgraced his office and the Republican Party, and severely polarized Arizona into two camps, divided over the immigration issue. If Sheriff Arpaio remains in the race and the Republican Party, Democrats in Arizona will rally Latinos in opposition to Arpaio, and turn Arizona Blue, perhaps for decades.

A recent PEW Research Report shows a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, contrary to the perception that Arpaio fosters with his rhetoric. The vast majority of Republicans, including most opposed to immigration reform, do not deserve the image of Republicans that Joe Arpaio and other Nativists foster.

Arpaio does not belong in the party of Lincoln. Arpaio does not respect the constitution, and he seeks massive expansion of government power over citizenry, and clearly abuses his power. For both the good of people of Arizona and the GOP, we call on Arpaio to immediately step down and leave the GOP, and clear the field for a worthy candidate to fill the job of Sheriff.

original

# # # # #

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and descendants of recent immigrants who are going through the process of acculturation. Our mission is to make America and particularly the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. This combination of efforts will strengthen the Republican Party, and lead more Republicans to embrace more welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. Cafe Con Leche Republicans has chapters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

(written by Bob Quasius)

Phoenix, Arizona – We are pleased at the Department of Justice investigation into civil rights violations by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s department, confirming what we have been saying about Arpaio. We repeat our call for Arpaio to resign, and apologize to violent crime victims whose cases were not even investigated, and the many thousands of Latinos who were unjustly targeted by Arpaio’s police through racial profiling. We also call on Arpaio to leave the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln. A majority of Republicans support immigration reform including a path to legalization, and most Republicans who are opposed to immigration reform do not share Arpaio’s extremist values. Arpaio’s affiliation with the Republican Party hurts our chances in the next election and we’d like him to leave.

We also call on the presidential candidates who embraced Joe Arpaio to now renounce Arpaio. In particular, Rick Perry sought and received Arpaio’s endorsement and campaigned together in New Hampshire. Rick Perry has also adapted extreme views on immigration involving mass deportations. We repeat our call for Rick Perry to end his campaign, as we do not believe he is electable, and Arpaio’s involvement hurts the GOP. We also call on Michelle Bachmann, who also has called for mass deportations, to renounce Joe Arpaio, whose endorsement she sought. Mitt Romney also sought Arpaio’s endorsement and has taken an enforcement only stance, though less extreme than the other candidates. We would like to know whether each of these candidates approve of such extreme policing measures, such as targeting Latino drivers for traffic stops, arrests for minor traffic violations instead of writing a ticket, etc.

Joe Apraio and his department is a poster child for why police should not become involved in immigration enforcement. The massive diversion of resources in Arpaio’s department detracted from fighting crime, and opened the door to racial profiling. Official crime statistics showed that from 2002 to 2009 violent crime rose in Maricopa County by 58% while violent crime fell elsewhere in Arizona. Unfortunately, Arpaio popularized the notion that more enforcement is all that is needed to resolve our nation’s immigration problems, rather than address the root cause, which is a broken immigration system. Numerous credible studies show racial profiling of Latinos and other minorities is already a problem, and requiring state and local police enforce immigration law only encourages more racial profiling.”
original

# # # # #

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and descendants of recent immigrants who are going through the process of acculturation. Our mission is to make America and particularly the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. This combination of efforts will strengthen the Republican Party, and lead more Republicans to embrace more welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. Cafe Con Leche Republicans has chapters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.