The Pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

"The conviction of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt is being serially misrepresented" [1] After days of research, personal thought and deliberation this is the ultimate/ugly truth of this situation that I am forced to accept. Why? Because after looking into the details and specifics regarding this case there is only "cold, ugly truth" at the end of the tunnel. Is/Was Sheriff Arpaio a bigot, racist, extreme conservative, and just about every other vile social label representing a former way of life we want out of this culture? Yes. The cold ugly truth " Your personal flaws do not matter, nor do they go into consideration when the US Due Process is applied to each citizen. Sheriff Arpaio may be a "bad person" by many people"s opinion " but being a "bad person" does not forfeit your rights protected under American Law. With this preamble complete I would like to explain and provide defense in the pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. 1 " Actual crime committed. Taking away the 24-hour news narrative and looking at the details of this case through strict/cold legal interpretation we learn the true crime that was documented against Sheriff Arpaio was that ultimately "he was ordered not to enforce federal law. In the underlying civil case, federal Judge G. Murray Snow did find that Arpaio had unconstitutionally used race in making traffic stops in an effort to find illegal immigrants. In fact, it was the central finding in the civil case. Snow"s remedial orders, however, went far beyond simply forbidding the use of race in initial traffic stops. He ordered Arpaio to get out of the immigration enforcement business altogether. Even with a legal stop, Arpaio was to either charge people with a state crime or let them go. No detaining them or turning them over to federal officials for immigration violations. [1]" For clarity " the Judge"s orders as a result of the civil case *which is NOT the crime Sheriff Arpaio is pardoned from, key point to remember* was for Sheriff Arpaio to "stand down unless a state crime was committed" thus ignoring US Federal law when handling immigration issues on stops [2]. Here we are " the key conflict Sheriff Arpaio was faced with. Personal opinions and feeling aside, his next 170 stops and turn-ins to ICE are the "crime" committed to be in "contempt of court orders." "Arpaio repeatedly said publicly he was still going to enforce federal immigration laws. He turned in more than 170 people to federal immigration officials without charging them with state crimes. He told a subordinate that if Immigration and Customs Enforcement wouldn"t take illegal immigrants that the sheriff"s office encountered, to take them to the Border Patrol. [1]" And this is it " the ugly truth. The crime of "contempt of court orders" is this " He turned in people, upholding federal law over state law, when ordered not to turn in any more people. The crime: Misdemeanor, Criminal Contempt of Court How did he commit this crime? By not charging any of the people he [legally/illegally] stopped of any state crimes and upheld the acting federal law [2] by turning in "suspicious persons" [2] to "appropriate authorities" [2]. Classic case of the "Supremacy Clause" (Art 6 Clause 2 " US Const.) in effect. Sheriff Arpaio was under oath stuck between a rock and hard place. "[Judge] Snow"s order was a gross overreach. Federal law grants local law enforcement the authority to check on the immigration status of individuals that come to their attention with federal officials. And state law " the provision of Senate Bill 1070 that has so far been upheld " mandates that local law enforcement follow-up on suspicion of illegal presence when practical to do so. [4]" 2 " Never Given a Trial This is easy and to the point " he was charged with a crime without having a trial by jury. Simple " this was a violation of his civil liberties (do I need to provide sources for this argument? 6th amendment?) There are no exceptions and no crime is too large/small " each citizen accused of a crime has the RIGHT to trial by jury. Sheriff Joe Arpaio did not receive one. He was not convicted by a jury [of his peers] but rather that of a single judge. "The Constitution says that there should be a jury in all criminal trials. The courts have invented an exception for cases with a penalty of six months or less in the hoosegow. The maximum penalty for Arpaio happens to be six months. So, Arpaio was cheated out of a jury trial, which might very well have yielded a different outcome. [4]" "The U.S. Constitution couldn"t be plainer on the subject. The Sixth Amendment states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury "" In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court found (Baldwin v. New York) that "all" didn"t really mean "all." The court found a magical line hidden in the text. "All" actually meant criminal cases in which the potential penalty was more than six months incarceration. Six months or less in the hoosegow, no right to a jury trial. Actually, only three of eight justices participating concluded that there was a magical six-month exception to the right to a jury trial. But because of the way the concurring and dissenting opinions split, the plurality six-month magical line became the controlling opinion, and remains so through to today. And guess what? The maximum penalty Arpaio is facing is six months. He falls short of Baldwin"s magical line. [5]" "From the start, this case has been a battle between the executive and judicial branches over proper immigration enforcement. The judge refused to grant the sheriff a jury to prove his innocence, even though the law clearly entitled him to one, assuring his conviction from the start. Sheriff Joe was forced to try a criminal contempt of court case with his hands tied behind his back. This was like trying a crime to the victim, since the court claimed to be the victim. [5]" Again"cold hard truth " for all the RIGHT reasons that may not feel right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was denied basic civil protections. Even if his conviction is for all the "correct reasons" there are proper ways in which we operate to enforce our laws " it is what separates us from others, and what makes Democracy, Justice, and Liberty so precious. The legal procedure failed here, and Sheriff Arpaio ultimately is a victim to this point " point blank simple: By being an American citizen charged with a crime, he was denied a trial by jury. We cannot allow this " it isn"t American Democratic Justice. Each citizen is allowed to defend their innocence " Sheriff Arpaio was not able to exercise that Right and was convicted of a crime against our founding policies. For argument"s sake " here is a Sheriff Arpaio going on the record requesting a Jury Trial (https://www.usnews.com...) 3 " Legality of the Pardon For this point, I explored the actual "legality" President Trump has in executing such an order for Sheriff Arpaio. What I found was, "Yes " Sheriff Arpaio receiving a presidential pardon was completely legal." [3] (Follow source 3 for a full explanation and processes of pardoning. This is the US Dept of Justice site for this exact thing " including information pertaining to Sheriff Arpaio"in fact (https://www.justice.gov...) What I am meaning by argument point number 3 is that " in the cold/hard facts of Law, pardoning Sheriff Arpaio is LEGAL. Since such action is permissible, and has been enforced " it is binding. It is the truth of our reality. To save myself from arguing in circles and including quite a few hypotheticals"I ultimately have to accept the Truth. 4 " Comparison to other presidential pardons and the implications against society"s security by those actions. To save time"I"ll just provide a brief list and link to follow. Let"s look at the nature of "perspective" in who has been given a presidential pardon. Keep in mind Sheriff Arpaio was charged with Misdemeanor Criminal Contempt of Court. http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com... Roger Clinton Jr " Pres. Clinton Aslam P. Adams " Pres. George H.W. Bush Marc Rich " Pres. Clinton Richard Nixon " Pres. Ford Mark Felt/ Ed Miller " Pres. Reagan Jimmy Hoffa " Pres. Nixon "can anybody argue in the same scope for/against Sheriff Arpaio and these men??? Is the pardoning of a 50 year law enforcement experienced veteran a greater act against security than who have been pardoned in the past? 5 " Root Cause to the Problem was in 2010, then 2012 with Justice Scalia foretelling these problems to come. In 2010 DHS released a detailed report regarding the cost of smuggling along the southwestern border of the USA. In this report the details show that along the Arizona border the cost are significantly greater than any other in the SW border. This report postulates that, "an increase in the cost of smuggling dictates an effective enforcement of immigration policy, making it more expensive for the smuggling industry to achieve their goal. [6]" (I"ll leave the entire report for your reading pleasure) In 2012 US vs Ariz dictated an outcome that Justice Scalia goes on the record in stating the "assault on logic" [7] that is imposed when "ignoring intelligence agencies statistics on immigration and law enforcement policies. [7]" Conclusion - Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a person that does not have any more service to our society. He Is, by all accounts, a vile and detestable human being"nevertheless, that does not disqualify him from his civil liberties and rights by being a citizen in this land. Considering all the FACTS and acknowledging the "devil is in the details" " regardless of my opinion, the presidential pardon for Sheriff Arpaio was correct and by all accounts an act of "Pure Justice" in our American Judicial/Legal System. Sources [1] http://www.azcentral.com... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov... *note, due to an executive order on Jan. 25, 2017 you have to click in archives to find the standing order for border security (during the time Sheriff Arpaio was in contempt of court) [3] https://www.justice.gov... *fun source - here is one of the actual qualifiers which puts Sheriff Arpaio into the approved category for pardons " Arpaio v Obama , et al. (Appeal from US Dist. Court) https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov... [4] http://www.azcentral.com... [5] http://www.azcentral.com... [6] https://www.dhs.gov... [7] https://www.law.cornell.edu...