Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003
0 Kudos

votar para la renuncia de joe arpaio

http://www.change.org/petitions/demand-the-resignation-of-sheriff-joe-arpaio

 

vayan a change.con / petitions / demand-the-resignation-of-sheriff-joe-arpaio

 

hagan una diferencia en la vida de arizona!

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

Re: votar para la renuncia de joe arpaio

"TIME FOR ACTION: If you believe Sheriff Arpaio should resign for failing to investigate over 400 ***********///////********//////****** crimes then please join us on Wednesday at 8:45AM, 201 W Jefferson Street, at the Board of Supervisors' meeting. Meeting starts at 9:00AM. We need hundreds of people to stand together to send a powerful message. Please repost and encourage others to attend. RSVP at info@citizensforabetteraz.org or call 480-748-8991."

 

 

 

vamos gente despierten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! solo 2 visitas en varios dias!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  y los artistas estan llenos de temas

que patetico! 

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

brutalidad, enfermedad y muerte en las carceles de phoenix

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

en coma por ser arrestado!!!!

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

cual sera el futuro de joe ya que fue descubierto???

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

Re: votar para la renuncia de joe arpaio

gente contra joe:

‎"If the sheriff refuses to back down, experts on law-enforcement practices said, the result is likely to be a courtroom battle and a takeover of his agency.

'If he remains combative, he's highly likely to end his career with the department under federal oversight,' said Scott Greenwood, an attorney who handled a similar case in Cincinnati.

'Reasonable lawyers would not allow clients to take that step,' Greenwood said. 'The Department of Justice does not file a lawsuit until it has all of the evidence to prove these cases.'"


/////********//////******="line-height: 14px;">www azcentral com
Accused by the Justice Department of running an agency rife with civil-rights violations, Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces a difficult choice: agree to a long and possibly contentious process of federal monitoring or enter an unprecedented legal battle for control of his office.
Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

mas muerte por parte del shriff!!!

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

otro caso de demanda!

Her case is now the subject of a federal civil rightsl awsuit, naming Sheriff Arpaio as the lead defendant. 

The suit was filed Monday, and is drawing attention from national press in the wake of the U.S. Department of Justice's report on the MCSO's pattern and practice of discriminatory policing, racial profiling, and institutional bias toward Latinos in Arpaio's jails.

But such atrocities are only new to the world outside Arizona. Inside this state, the MCSO's penchant for shackling pregnant women is well-known to Arpaio-watchers.

My colleague Valeria Fernandez documented a far worse case in a 2009 article for New Times. 

In 2008, Alma Chacon was chained by her hands and feet to a hospital bed while in MCSO custody. You can read Chacon's story in full, here.

Shackling pregnant women is contrary to the policies of the Arizona Department of Corrections, ICE, the U.S. Marshal's Service, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, etc.

But the MCSO still treats pregnant women like animals, and crows about it. 

Proud to be a resident of Maricopa County? If so, the civilized world is wondering why.

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

Racial Profiling in U.S. History

/////********//////******="line-height: 14px;">Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office didn't just commit racial profiling of Latinos, according to the findings of the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation. Rather, Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling by a law enforcement agency in U.S. history, a DOJ expert concluded.

Arpaio and his commanders created a "culture" of abusing the rights of Latinos in the county, assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Perez told reporters in a news conference today.

The findings were a vindication of allegations by critics and profiling victims, despite the lack of punitive measures taken against Arpaio for knowingly creating this "culture of bias."

Some of damning findings in a report put out by the department today (you can find the entire document below) include:

* A study commissioned by the Justice Department found that "Latino drivers are four-to-nine times more likely to be stopped than similarly situated non-Latino drivers."

* A fifth of all the immigration-sweep traffic stops violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

* Arpaio's anti-immigration squads responded repeatedly with enforcement patrols to complaints about people with "dark skin" or Spanish speakers.

* Jail guards punished Spanish-speaking inmates for failing to understand their commands in English, sometimes putting them in solitary confinement for that reason.

* Jail guards refused to accept grievance forms and "tank orders," which allow inmates to request basic daily services, that are written in Spanish.

* Guards pressured Latino inmates to sign voluntary deportation forms. (That allegation helped lead to today's announcement by Homeland Security that the 287(g)cross-training program  was being taken out of the jails.

* Arpaio's office retaliated against its critics by subjecting them to "retaliatory detentions and arrests without cause, unfounded civil lawsuits, and other baseless complaints."

After the Justice Department informed Arpaio about the probe in March, 2009, the Sheriff's Office refused to cooperate. It took a lawsuit and court order to get Arpaio to budge.    

Hundreds of people were interviewed, thousands of documents were reviewed, and the county's jails were inspected in the Justice Department probe. Investigators discovered a "widespread pattern or practice of law enforcement and jail activities that discriminate against Latinos." The "typical characteristic" of the sheriff's Human Smuggling Unit is one of prejudicial harassment "rather than the effective enforcement of immigration law," the DOJ report says. 

Witness accounts of racial profiling were found to be consistent with the accusations against deputies. Two examples are given:

* A legal U.S. resident who allegedly failed to use his turn signal was made to sit on a curb for 15 minutes, then arrested and jailed for 13 days on a bogus charge that was dismissed in court.

* A legal U.S. resident and his U.S. citizen son invited deputies into their home during a raid on a suspect drop-house next door. The deputies proceeded to search the home without consent or a warrant, handcuffed the man and his son, then had them sit on the sidewalk next to the people being busted from the neighboring house. They were detained for an hour before being released without any citation.

The Justice Department says it gathered "many" similar examples. That's no surprise to close observers of the MCSO. We reported back in 2009, for instance, how one deputy enjoyed busting illegal immigrants for seat-belt violations that weren't really violations.

The way Arpaio and his deputies responded to bigoted complaints was another sign to the DOJ that racial discrimination was rampant in the office.

The Justice Department noted one time when Arpaio told his enforcement chief to check into a report that employees at a Sun City McDonald's were speaking Spanish. Another time, Arpaio thanked a racist letter-writer for his concern about illegal immigrants in Mesa. He 
forwarded the letter to Deputy Chief Brian Sands, who "later testified that he assumed that the letter's author correlated undocumented persons with 'dark-complected' people."

A sweep of Mesa soon ensued.

The latter examples show clearly that Arpaio personally oversees and directs some of the discriminatory behavior. Previous probes into allegations of abuse of power and unethical behavior in his office have concluded that Arpaio is a micro-manager of high-profile MCSO probes -- those that get him headlines. Yet when pressed for accountability, Arpaio's m.o.is to cast blame elsewhere, claiming he's far removed from the details of his operations.

Arpaio had a news conference at 4 p.m. today on the Justice Department's findings. Read what happened there here.

Papel
guy2003
Mensajes: 1,263
Registrado: ‎01-26-2003

Racial Profiling in U.S. History

Arpaio, the biggest un-indicted criminal in Arizona, is responsible for so much malfeasance, illegal activity and human misery, that his Teflon Don persona continues to amaze, even as the nearly 80 year-old autocrat is looking at running for re-election in 2012, yet again.

But there are signs that some of his shenanigans are finally being halted. 

Such could be the case with the now four year-old civil rights lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio, in which clients represented by the ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union) and MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) have charged Arpaio, his underlings and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office with a pattern of racial profiling during its Hispanic-hunting sweeps of Latino neighborhoods.

Yesterday, federal Judge G. Murray Snow ordered a hearing with two hours of oral arguments for December 22 in a motion for summary judgment and other pending motions. You can read the order, here

He's also asked for a supplemental briefing on various issues and pointed out things he wishes addressed in court. 

Based on these, were I one of Arpaio's lawyers, I would not be looking forward to the hearing. 

As you can see, many of Judge Snow's questions have to do with what inferences he should make regarding the MCSO's illegal destruction of thousands of documents requested by plaintiffs in the case.

Snow also instructs attorneys from both sides to address issues raised by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision earlier this year in United States vs. Arizonawhere the appeals court upheld a lower court's enjoinment of Arizona's breathing-while-brown-statute Senate Bill 1070.

Snow offers the following inquiries to the parties in the case, which I think are worth reproducing at length:

In United States v. Arizona...there is no "federal criminal statute making unlawful presence in the United States, alone, a federal crime"...Such violations, as well as other immigration "status" offenses according to the case, constitute civil violations of federal immigration law.

The Arizona case also makes clear two additional points: (1) "states do not have the inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law," and, (2) that "an alien's admission of illegal presence . . . does not, without more, provide probable cause of the criminal violation of illegal entry."

In light of these and the other holding of United States v. Arizona, and in light of the revocation of MCSO's 287(g) status for conducting field enforcement operations as of October 16, 2009:

 

1. What good faith legal basis is there, if any, for MCSO to assert that it has the authority going forward to enforce civil violations of the federal immigration law?

2. What good faith basis is there, if any, for MCSO to assert that it presently has the authority pursuant to any enforceable state or federal law to detain any person based upon a reasonable belief, without more, that the person is not legally present in the United States?

3. What good faith legal basis is there, if any, for the proposition that Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), justifies pretextual stops for the ancillary purpose of investigating civil immigration violations when the officer conducting the stop does not have the authority to enforce civil immigration violations?

4. What good faith legal basis is there, if any, for asserting that prior to the revocation of MCSO's field enforcement authority, an officer who was not 287(g) certified had authority to detain someone for any period on the reasonable belief that the person was not in compliance with the civil immigration laws of the United States?

5. On what basis, if any, did Officer DiPietro form a belief that Ortega-Melendrez was committing a criminal violation when he was sitting in the vehicle which Officer DiPietro stopped?

6. Does the MCSO continue to assert that it presently has the authority pursuant to any enforceable law to detain any person based upon a reasonable suspicion, without more, that the person is not legally present in the United States? Please identify the basis for that authority in light of United States v. Arizona.

7. What other good faith arguments are there that the Court either lacks the authority or otherwise should not enjoin the MCSO from seeking to enforce federal civil immigration law, or otherwise conduct stops of persons based only upon a reasonable suspicion, without more, that the person is not legally present within the United States?

Keep in mind that racial profiling is not just an objectionable practice, it is both unconstitutional and illegal. 

Which is no doubt why MCSO flunkies destroyed docs that would serve as evidence of their culpability.

Joe's boys in beige have already been busted for racial profiling: Specifically, in the case of father and son Julian and Julio Mora --- a legal resident and U.S. citizen respectively -- during a 2009 MCSO immigration raid on the Phoenix firm Handyman Maintenance, Inc.

The Moras' illegal arrests, detention and humiliation at the hands of sheriff's deputies -- all because the Moras were brown and the elder Mora spoke Spanish and wore a Mexican-***********///////********//////****** cowboy hat -- ended up costing the county $200,000 in a settlement

This, after the judge in the case ruled that the Moras' Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and the county was liable for damage....

 

Though such discrimination has been popular with some of Sand Land's redneck voters, it's becoming less so. 

Bigotry will not score you a job in a down market, pay your mortgage, or buy your kids groceries or Christmas gifts, folks are learning the hard way.

Moreover, to pay for his racial-profiling sweeps and raids, Arpaio illegally swiped $100 million from protected county funds. Some of that also went to bankroll Arpaio's vendettas against county officials and judges. 

Such corruption should be the focus of Arpaio's foes in the coming election, as should the ultimate cost in legal fees for defending Arpaio in Melendres. Particularly when he's forced to abide by the pending judgment of the court. 

Which at this point, does not seem inclined to rule his way.