The normally defiant sheriff for metro Phoenix responded meekly and shifted blame Wednesday as he was questioned in court about why he violated a judge's orders to stop carrying out his signature immigration patrols.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he accepts responsibility for disobeying the 2011 order, but he repeatedly added that he delegated the enforcement of the injunction to his lawyers and staff. He was asked whether he remember getting an attorney's opinion on carrying the order's key section.
"Not that I can recall," said Arpaio.
The sheriff could face fines if he's found in contempt of court for his acknowledged violations of the injunction and two other orders issued in a racial-profiling case that Arpaio eventually lost. Rank-and-file officers who were never told about the injunction violated the order for about 18 months.
The sheriff also has accepted responsibility for his agency's failure to turn over traffic-stop videos in the profiling case and bungling a plan to gather such recordings from officers once some videos were discovered.
Arpaio made the acknowledgments in an unsuccessful bid to get the hearing called off. The contempt hearing marks the boldest attempt to hold the sheriff personally responsible for his actions.
His voice wasn't booming in court as it often is before TV cameras. Instead, he was hoarse, looked tired and often answered questions by saying he didn't recall. Arpaio's attorney hasn't yet had a chance to question him in court.
The sheriff, whose testimony is scheduled to resume Thursday, was questioned about a former supervisor on his smuggling squad who said Arpaio ordered him to violate the 2010 order.
A day earlier, Sgt. Brett Palmer had described a tense encounter with Arpaio about a month after the 2011 order was issued in which federal immigration authorities refused to accept immigrants who hadn't committed a violation of state law. Palmer said he planned to bring the immigrants to another federal immigration agency, but he was ordered to first call Arpaio, who ordered him not to release them. Palmer said the sheriff eventually backed down.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Tenn. Attorney General Wants Court to Set Aside Municipal Broadband Ruling
Tennessee's attorney general wants a federal appeals court to set aside a recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission to allow cities like Chattanooga to offer municipal broadband beyond their normal service area.
State Attorney General Herbert Slatery said in the filing with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the FCC had "unlawfully inserted itself between the state of Tennessee and the state's own subdivisions."
Slatery had been among several prominent Tennessee Republicans who had urged the FCC not to override a state law that blocks Chattanooga's electric utility from expanding its super-fast Internet network to surrounding areas. Other letter writers included Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam and the state House and Senate speakers.
The FCC nevertheless voted 3-2 last month in favor of the utilities in Chattanooga and Wilson, North Carolina. President Barack Obama had pushed for the FCC's decision, saying the state laws stifled competition and economic development.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who voted with the majority, said at the time that some states have created "thickets of red tape designed to limit competition." The ruling was opposed by the commission's two Republican members, who argued it was outside the panel's authority, violated states' rights and undermined private enterprise.
"We are confident that our decision to pre-empt laws in two states that prevented community broadband providers from meeting the needs and demands of local consumers will withstand judicial scrutiny," FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield said in an email.
Chattanooga markets itself as the "Gig City" for the widespread availability of gigabit-speed Internet service, which is about 50 times the national broadband average - or enough bandwidth to download an entire movie in about two minutes.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Supreme Court rejects challenge to voter ID law in Wisconsin
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to Wisconsin's voter identification law, allowing the law to stand and handing a victory to Gov. Scott Walker following a long fight by opponents who say it's a thinly veiled attempt to make it more difficult for Democratic backers to vote.
The law won't be enforced for an April 7 election because it's only two weeks away, but it will be in subsequent elections, the state attorney general said. Walker, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, is a longtime proponent of voter ID requirements and signed Wisconsin's into law in 2011. But it was only in effect for one low-turnout primary in 2012 before legal challenges kept it on hold.
The Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case ends the legal fight, for now. "This is great news for Wisconsin voters," Walker said in a statement. "As we've said, this is a common sense reform that protects the integrity of our voting process, making it easy to vote and hard to cheat."
Democratic critics, as well as a federal judge in Milwaukee who last year declared the law to be unconstitutional, say in-person voting fraud is extremely rare. In his ruling striking down the law, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman said there appears to have been one documented case of voter fraud in Wisconsin between 2004 and 2012, and that was committed by a man who obtained a ballot in the name of his deceased wife.
Opponents of the law say its true intent is to make it more difficult for older, poor and minority voters who tend to support Democrats and are more likely not to have the proper ID. The American Civil Liberties Union and allied groups persuaded Adelman to declare the law unconstitutional last year. But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago later ruled that the law did not violate the Constitution.
The law won't be enforced for an April 7 election because it's only two weeks away, but it will be in subsequent elections, the state attorney general said. Walker, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, is a longtime proponent of voter ID requirements and signed Wisconsin's into law in 2011. But it was only in effect for one low-turnout primary in 2012 before legal challenges kept it on hold.
The Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case ends the legal fight, for now. "This is great news for Wisconsin voters," Walker said in a statement. "As we've said, this is a common sense reform that protects the integrity of our voting process, making it easy to vote and hard to cheat."
Democratic critics, as well as a federal judge in Milwaukee who last year declared the law to be unconstitutional, say in-person voting fraud is extremely rare. In his ruling striking down the law, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman said there appears to have been one documented case of voter fraud in Wisconsin between 2004 and 2012, and that was committed by a man who obtained a ballot in the name of his deceased wife.
Opponents of the law say its true intent is to make it more difficult for older, poor and minority voters who tend to support Democrats and are more likely not to have the proper ID. The American Civil Liberties Union and allied groups persuaded Adelman to declare the law unconstitutional last year. But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago later ruled that the law did not violate the Constitution.
Battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case
Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.
But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.
Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.
The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.
But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.
Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.
The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.
Bond hearing scheduled for millionaire Durst in New Orleans
Millionaire Robert Durst, facing a murder charge in California and weapons charges in Louisiana, is scheduled for a bond hearing.
The hearing is scheduled for Monday in New Orleans on the weapons charges. Prosecutors say no bond should be allowed. Durst's lawyers want their client released.
They say the 71-year-old was illegally arrested at a New Orleans hotel March 14 on both the weapons charges and the warrant alleging that murdered a female friend in California. His lawyers also say his arrest was orchestrated to coincide with the last episode of an HBO show about him.
One of the weapons charges alleges Durst had a .38-caliber revolver; previous felony convictions make that illegal. The other charge says he had the weapon and illegal drugs: more than 5 ounces of marijuana.
Durst has been held for nearly a week in a mental-health unit in a prison about 70 miles from New Orleans. Jail officials say he's at risk for suicide.
The hearing is scheduled for Monday in New Orleans on the weapons charges. Prosecutors say no bond should be allowed. Durst's lawyers want their client released.
They say the 71-year-old was illegally arrested at a New Orleans hotel March 14 on both the weapons charges and the warrant alleging that murdered a female friend in California. His lawyers also say his arrest was orchestrated to coincide with the last episode of an HBO show about him.
One of the weapons charges alleges Durst had a .38-caliber revolver; previous felony convictions make that illegal. The other charge says he had the weapon and illegal drugs: more than 5 ounces of marijuana.
Durst has been held for nearly a week in a mental-health unit in a prison about 70 miles from New Orleans. Jail officials say he's at risk for suicide.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
High court rejects military contractors appeals
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away three appeals from military contractor KBR Inc. that seek to shut down lawsuits over a soldier's electrocution in Iraq and open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed.
One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim.
Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls.
The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military.
The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims.
The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed.
One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim.
Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls.
The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military.
The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims.
John Q. Kelly – Personal Injury Attorney
John Q. Kelly is a New York City attorney specializing in high-profile wrongful death cases, and whose clients are at the center of some of the biggest news stories in history. He is currently the personal injury department chair at Ivey, Barnum, & O’Mara, LLC.
• John Q. Kelly, one of the most renowned litigators in the country, has a proven track record in personal injury and wrongful death litigation.
• Mr. Kelly has handled some of the most widely publicized civil cases in recent history and has achieved some of the largest verdicts and settlements recorded.
• The national and international coverage of the matters he handles, and the results he has achieved, have made Mr. Kelly a media fixture both as a featured guest and as a legal commentator.
• John Q. Kelly, one of the most renowned litigators in the country, has a proven track record in personal injury and wrongful death litigation.
• Mr. Kelly has handled some of the most widely publicized civil cases in recent history and has achieved some of the largest verdicts and settlements recorded.
• The national and international coverage of the matters he handles, and the results he has achieved, have made Mr. Kelly a media fixture both as a featured guest and as a legal commentator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)