Search Results for ‘arpaio’

Feds to Arpaio: give back that Pentagon gear

Maricopa County (Phoenix) Sheriff and longtime Overlawyered mentionee Joe Arpaio did not keep close track of the military-grade gear the Pentagon gave him — in fact, his office seems to have lost some of it — and now the feds are lowering the boom: “Because of the agency’s continued failure to locate nine missing weapons issued by the Pentagon’s 1033 program, the Sheriff’s Office was terminated from the military-­surplus program, effective immediately. The agency is required to return its cache of issued firearms, helicopters and other gear within 120 days.” Arizona Republic reporter Megan Cassidy quotes me regarding the interesting timing of the announcement, following closely after events in Ferguson, Mo. helped stir a nationwide furor over the 1033 program. It’s not specified (h/t Lauren Galik) whether they’ll have to give back the hot dog machine and $3,500 popcorn machine.

A price tag for Arpaio’s journalist raid

Longtime Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio talks quite a game as a populist defender of the ordinary citizen. His actual record, however, has been one of grave abuse of power. One of the worst incidents has now come home to roost: The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has unanimously approved a $3.75 million settlement over an incident in which Arpaio’s deputies arrested two critical journalists at their homes in the middle of the night. [Phoenix New Times]

Maricopa County settles another Arpaio-Thomas raid case

Taxpayers of the Arizona county are shelling out millions in settlements to compensate victims of the systematic abuses committed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and D.A. Andrew Thomas. The latest settlement, $1.4 million, was to a developer whose office was ransacked as part of a series of raids conducted against Arpaio’s and Thomas’s political enemies, purportedly in search of evidence of political corruption. “Thomas was disbarred for his actions last year, but Arpaio was re-elected to a sixth term as sheriff in November.” When organized lawyers display higher ethical standards than an electorate, I’m not sure it reflects well on the electorate. [Aaron Kase, Lawyers.com, Phoenix New Times; earlier on Arpaio and on Thomas]

September 10 roundup

  • The beet grows on: some unintended consequences of mid-century sugar regulation [Chad Syverson via Bryan Caplan, EconLib]
  • Veteran Houston attorney charged with misdemeanor assault “for slapping a plaintiff’s attorney before a deposition.” [Angela Morris, Texas Lawyer, update]
  • I have a theory as to why Politico didn’t use a picture of Elena Kagan, Elizabeth Warren, Stephen Breyer, or Ruth Ginsburg speaking at Federalist Society events to illustrate Ted Olson’s piece comparing the Society’s activism heat index with that of the ABA;
  • Citing “misogynistic history,” state high court makes New Mexico first to abolish spousal testimonial privilege [ABA Journal, New Mexico v. Gutierrez]
  • Don’t go away angry, ex-sheriff Arpaio. Just go away [Jon Gabriel, Arizona Republic; our coverage over the years]
  • “Pro se allegation: After my friend got divorced, he refused to help set me up with his ex-wife. That’s intentional emotional abuse (also, he’s guilty of money laundering and tax evasion). Tenth Circuit: Yeah, we’re pretty sure the district court got this one right when it ruled against you.” [Institute for Justice “Short Circuit” on Anderson v. Pollard, 10th Circuit]

Free speech roundup

  • Repercussions of Supreme Court’s Janus ruling on bar associations’ compulsory extraction of dues from nonmembers [Maxine Bernstein, Oregonian] “State Supreme Court calls a ‘timeout’ for Washington Bar Association to review its rules” [Steve Miletich, Seattle Times] “ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) Cannot Survive the Supreme Court’s Recent Decisions in NIFLA and Matal” [Kim Colby, Federalist Society, earlier on rule banning some types of speech and expression by lawyers on anti-discrimination grounds]
  • Pardoned former sheriff Joe Arpaio sues New York Times for libel [Quint Forgey, Politico; Joe Setyon, Reason; over the years]
  • When may governments boycott private companies’ output because those companies promote disapproved ideas? [Eugene Volokh, more]
  • First Amendment has consistently foiled Donald Trump’s designs against critics’ speech [Jacob Sullum; related, David Henderson] “The culture of free speech has been deteriorating for long enough that politics, sadly and predictably, is catching up.” [Matt Welch] “Threats of violence discourage people from participating in civic life. This is an unusually good opportunity to deter them.” [Conor Friedersdorf during Ford-Kavanaugh episode]
  • “Fighting Words and Free Speech” [John Samples] “A New Podcast on Free Speech: Many Victories, Many Struggles” [same on Jacob Mchangama podcast series]
  • “U.K. Supreme Court: Baker Doesn’t Have to Place Pro-Gay Marriage Message on Cake” [Dale Carpenter, Peter Tatchell, Lee v. Ashers]

When prosecutors team up, and when they don’t

I’m in today’s New York Post. Excerpt:

“Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe,” Politico reported Wednesday. Commentators went wild.

What could be more exciting than for the special counsel investigating the Russian matter to team up with noted Trump foe Eric Schneiderman? Neither the president nor Congress can lay a glove on him; some of the legal weapons he wields go beyond what Mueller has at his disposal; and if Schneiderman obtains convictions in state court, Trump will have no pardon power. It’s like two superheroes with coordinating capes and powers!

Around liberal Twitter, it was a total game changer. “THIS IS BIG!!!!!!” typed Amy Siskind of New Agenda, hailing the sort of news for which four or five exclamation points won’t do. “What’s Russian for ‘Trump’s goose is cooked?’” crowed Harvard’s Laurence Tribe.

In the opposite camp, the Trumpian claque at Breitbart argued that with the combative New York AG on board — Schneiderman has long feuded with Trump, and is widely disliked by Republicans — the whole Russian probe can be dismissed as tainted. The connection “undermin[es] the integrity and impartiality of Mueller’s inquiry,” wrote Joel Pollak. “There could not be a more inappropriate person to be seen working with Mueller.”

Both sides should calm down….Federal and state prosecutors are supposed to cooperate when investigations overlap. That’s what they do.

I go on to discuss sharing of grand jury information, the ripples of dismay sent by Trump’s Joe Arpaio pardon (on which more from Josh Blackman here, see also and earlier), and New York’s Martin Act. Whole thing here.

Crime and punishment roundup

Election roundup

  • Does money rule politics? As of late October Trump campaign had been badly outspent by Clinton, with Super PAC money favoring her by more than 3-1 [Bloomberg]
  • Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), on whether private lawsuits can proceed against a President while in office, “potentially quite important again.” [Orin Kerr]
  • Related, from Ken White at Popehat a few days back: stop painting the civil suits against Donald Trump as worse than they are;
  • “Democrats, please: Do not respond by doubling down on identity politics. That is poison in a multi-ethnic democracy.” [Jonathan Haidt]
  • Maricopa County, Ariz. sheriff Joe Arpaio, a frequent target in this space, loses re-election bid [NPR]
  • Successful ballot measure will make Maine first state to adopt “ranked-choice” preferential voting [Ian Farrow, Tyler Cowen]
  • More: What Donald Trump’s election will mean for the Supreme Court [Josh Blackman, Ilya Shapiro]

Live-tweeting last night’s debate

As I’ve done a number of times, I live-tweeted last night’s Republican event under the #Cato2016 hashtag with some colleagues. Selections:

Free speech roundup