Time to book my cell

Hi Stefan, this reply is only for your first paragraph.

I'd like to see someone try that crap here, it would and could not happen. I worked as a member of the State of Texas Criminal Justice system for four years, there is absolutely no chance of that "cushy" crap and bringing in prostitutes and having parties-or letting inmates having their own parties.

I don't know how prison officials are in your country but try that here-or at least in Texas-and they would literally fry your butt. Now, "cushyness" does happen but in the Federal Prison system--Martha Stewart is a prime example of this happening to.

 

TA, you said it all above in your first lines. That ""newspaper"" is more akin to being another "National Inquirer" kind of rag than a "real" newspaper. That being said on the position of where the people working in said rag are-meaning those who lean to the left, how can one honsetly believe anything that is published in that rag?

Now, if they also cover saya a story about an old building that was on fire-and then wrote an appropriate story about the fact-then that is something I can believe.

As for the seemingly mis-appropriation of County funds allegedly be Sheriff Joe Arpaio, then why in the hell does the County Judge and County Officials let him get away with wasting so much of tax-payers money? That is their job, as well as the tax-payers association-to keep a check on these things.

We just recently had two high profile cases of mis-appropriated funds, and the two individuals were quickly dealt with.

 

The main nemisis of Aripio in the New Times was a reporter named John Dohterty. The guy was both tenatious and one of those rare get the dirt under the fingernails type of investigative reporters. Many of his articles were later picked up on and made "news" by the MSM both locally and nationally.
One of the national ones was the imbrogolio surrounding his investigation into Sheriff Joe's millions of dollars in commercial property paid for in CASH where he published the sheriff's home address as part of the article. Leaving aside how Joe could pay millions out for land on a DEA pension and a county salary of just over $100,000 a year is anyone's guess. Doughtery had run an article exposing these purchases and the fact that Joe had exploited another Arizona law allowing law enforcement to redact home addresses from the paperwork. In Joe's case alot more than his address was redacted. In fact, most of the details of the purchases looked like something the CIA would give you on an FOIA (Doughtery did publish photos of the documents in the article).
But, the crux of this particular issue was that there is an obscure Arizona law that prohibits publishing law enforcement officer's home addresses on the Internet. Not in the paper, not in a book, just on the Internet. Needless to say, the New Times put the article on their website.
Joe pressed the county attorney's office to prosecute the New Times over this. The County Attorney initally wanted no part of what was a minor misdemonear of this issue. So, he passed it off to Pima County citing a conflict of interest. Pima County declined to take the case so it next went to Pinal County. There it languished for about a year unresolved when it went back to Maricopa County and a new County Attorney.
The new guy put a contract Attorney on the case. This guy issued supenoias in the name of a non-existant grand jury against the New Times wanting everything they ever published on Joe, all the reporters notes, and the names and brousing habits of everyone that had visited the New Times website in the last five years! No, I'm not making this up.
The New Times owners instead of complying wrote a lenghty article exposing the whole thing. Joe, on apparently his own volition then issued warrants (its illegal in Arizona to print the nature of a grand jury supoena...its a misdomenear too) for the two owner's arrest. Joe's "Special Enforcement Squad" went to their homes in unmarked cars bearing Sonora Mexico licsense plates and with 4 or 5 officers present arrested and took the two owners to jail where they sat for all of about two hours before a judge with more sanity bounced them out on their own recognisance.
The next day this whole thing when nationwide in the MSM. Joe and the attorney looked like complete fools, which they were. The County Attorney quickly fired the contract attorney and apologized. Joe was defiant as always. Now, the New Times has a mulit-million dollar lawsuit against the county and is calling for a federal investigation.
Doughtery, now works for the Arizona Republic the state's largest newspaper as an investigative reporter. The New Times (along with other parties) won a major lawsuit against Joe for failing to follow Arizona's freedom of information act. Joe's response? He openly and defiantly told the press nothing is going to change and he's going to withhold public records and information whenever he pleases.

Up until recently, Joe was the most popular politician in Arizona. The guy knows how to pander to the public, I'll give him that. He also has found that bureaucracies are very slow to do anything about his abuses of the system (my guess something he learned as a DEA agent). Anyway, the press locally on the whole is firmly against him now. He's running for re-election next year and every law enforcement agency, union, worker's group, and interest group in the state has already endorsed his opponet Dan Saban.
Last time Saban ran against him Arpiao had his deputies investigate charges by his alzheimer's effected step mother that he had molested and possibly raped her some 25+ years earlier. Arpaio actually tried to arrest Saban over this with nothing more than her word to go on. Saban has been the chief of police in both Mesa and Buckeye locally.

 

TA, forgive me for breaking up your posting. My question is, what is the purpose of publiching the Sheriffs home address? There is no viable reason to do so and, if the Sheriff does not want his address known, then it is nobody's business to know that. Back when I was a Correctional Officer, the inmates and the aclu tried their damnedest to have all Correctional Officers addresses listed in the Law Library for inmates perusal. That was total BS too and not one of those scalawags, had the right and or needed to know the address of any Correctional Officer. They (the inmates and the aclu) both tried suing the State of Texas to have the right to know where we lived. At any rate-I felt then and still do nbow, feel that them having our home addresses is none of their F*****G business to begin with. Hell, we (the Correctional Staff) had no way of getting some inmates home address-so why the hell should they have ours? Anyway, that Investigative Reporter, and the rag he workes for, are totally in the wrong about publishing the Sheriffs home address.

In case it iis not known, when a particular Law Enforcement agency finds an illegal stash of cash, basically, they can do with it as they please. However, of that Sheriff is using that money for his own gains, then he should be fired. If he is using this money and in a way that helps out the County in some way, the Department in some way, or and City and Town in his County in soem way; then it is legal for him to use these funds as he sees fit. What that reporter also failed to mention is that the Sheriff does have the right to sell and or buy land for the County; as he sees fit. Maybe some of the land he bought was to be used for training purposes or maybe even as a place where County employees could go to to hunt, fish or to camp out or just have a place to "get away from it all." That is totally legal and within a Sheriffs right to do so. Now if the monies he used were County monies-and he bought personal things with it-then that is NOT legal and he should be fined and fired.

Again I state, it's not the business of anyone to know where an Law Enforcement Official lives. I don't care where the Sheriff of Nueces County lives? and I don't have the right to know if i did care. I could care less where the Police Chief lives and don't have the right to know--unless they both wish to make it publically known-let alone--posted on the Internet. Doesn't that reporter even have an idea of who just might see the Sheriffs address???? If he publishes the Sheriffs addy, then he (the reporter) should also have to make his address know as well. However, I but you all the Gold in Fort Knoz, that that reporter does not want his address printed in the newspaper not listed on the internet. This is hypicritical, is it not?

As the Sheriff is fully within HIS rights to do so and more power to him for that. The Sheriffs Civil Rights were violated by said Investigative Reporter and said News Rag. And if I were Jury Forman on this case (if it went to trial?) I would have to side with the Sheriff on that account.

Okay and???? that is the Attorneys job to do such requesting.

this too, sounds awfully suspecious to me-in that they had fake plates on their cars. Again this must be more not so truthful stuff brought upon by that news rag.

I agree, they should not have been arrested and I agree with that Judges decision to have them released. The Sheriff appears to be getting a might "trivial" with this matter.

I think as I said above, that if this lawsuit is going to happen that it might come to nothing if the Sheriff presses the issue that his Civil Rights were violated by said news rag. In the least, there will be some deal made that will satisfy both sides

Again, if this still has something to do with having his address published either in newspapers and or oon the internet, then the Sheriff is in his onw rights to deny his address (which in case it is not known) is Private Information, and none of anybody's F*****G business to know. ANd no, im NOT siding with the SHeriff, but siding with him about having HIS Civil Rights violated. How would you like to be forced to publish in various news medias-YOUR home address??? I don't think you-and I kow I sure would not, I don't think you would like that very much? Since the Sheriff is a Law Enforcement Officer, does that reporter and that news rag not realise that by publishing his home address, that they might become targets for many people who might hate him and his family for some reason?

To make a long story short, I had something similar happen to me when I was a CO, it's been talked about here. An inmate was an inmate because that sum bitch, kidnapped and raped my Fieancee-Heather, back in 1995. He was tried and sent to prison. As Heather and I planned on getting maried, I got a job w/ the STate as a CO-so we could have a better inclome and get married. Anyway, I happen to get the job-and I had put in that I be placed statewide-which means that I could have been placed at any of their (at that time) 100 units but, I just happen to be placed in Beeville at Garza West Transfer Facility--where this bastard just happened to be incarcerated at. Well, on Dec 16th 1996, I was only working for about 6 months when I happened to be placed in the building which had the dorm containing the Pod in which this creep was "living."

We were short-handed and I was the sole Rover assigned to supervise 200 inmates. There should have been three more with me. SOmething happened when I was in the last pod trying to pass out the days mail-when an inmate claimed he knew who I was, and exactly where I had previously lived. Info like that, is platinum to an inmate. In the end, this inmate was pulled from this pod because he tried to assault me-and I almost broke his arm when I slammed the door shut. We had a General Court-in which he was going on trial-after being re-arested for trying to assauly me, and also trying to escape. He foolishly represented himself and was found guilty on all accounts. This turd threatened to kill me when he was released. I simply told him that if he ever found where I lived and tried soemthing-that I would indeed shoot him until he was dead-meaning, that I was going to defend myself by whatever means I found necessary-and that if I had one of my handguns at the time-that I would empty all 9 rounds from it's magazine into said inmates body. Being in Law Enforcement at that time, I would not have had any problems in protecting myself in such a manner.

To skim a bit on the above, what most of the people probably like about him is probably the same of what I like about him-which is his tough stance on Drug & Human smuggeling.

 

Why not read the rather lengthy article on this at this link:

Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution, page 1 - News - Phoenix New Times - Phoenix New Times

After all, the only ones that came out of this looking bad and with egg on their face were the County Attorney's Office and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. This story went national and ignited a minor fire storm of criticism against both departments resulting in the firing of the assigned attorney to the case, a major investigation into why it happened, and now a likely costly lawsuit that taxpayers are going to have to pick the tab up for.

Pay particular attention to how the supoena demanded the IP address of everyone that had visited the New Times website in more than the three previous years along with their brousing habits otherwise. Just visiting their website, for any reason, made you potentially the subject of a grand jury investigation! Talk about an overstepping of Constitutional rights of individuals!

All this over an original article several years before on how Sheriff Joe had millions in personally owned commercial properties and how he could have gotten the state to redact virtually all details of the cash transactions in buying them.

 

Why not read further? this is beginning to be one of those "beat-around-the-bush" things and is a waste of time. I made my case on this subject and don't need to make another.

To end this, if he (the Sheriff) is guilty of wrong-doing, then he (the Sheriff) should be spanked and sent to go stand in the corner; and have some quiet time.

I did pay particular attention to the supoena IP address thing. So what? if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear either.

I can only just wonder, how truthful that original article from several years ago; is?

 

Your crime being?