Motion Filed To Remove Judge In Sheriff Arpaio Case For Prejudice

The federal district judge hearing a racial profiling case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been asked to remove himself due to “unethical misconduct and conflict of interest” by a whistleblower.

The move comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday refused to intervene and order his removal. Such an action would have been considered extraordinary.

The emergency petition filed with the 9th Circuit asked that Judge G. Murray Snow be disqualified “for alleged egregious and continuing ethical violations and extra-judicial bias and prejudice in the ongoing contempt proceedings.”

Snow is the judge, who two years ago ruled Sheriff Arpaio was guilty of racially profiling Latinos.

The judge now faces accusations that his wife blurted out in his courtroom her husband’s intentions to bring Arpaio down.

As reported by World Net Daily:

The new development took place as part of hearings to determine whether Arpaio and his top aides should be held in contempt of court for violating a judge’s order to stop conducting immigration patrols. Arpaio said his lawyer, Tim Casey, had hired someone to investigate Snow’s wife after she apparently told witnesses her husband didn’t want to see the sheriff re-elected.

According to a statement released with the motion to remove the federal judge, “Judge Snow has unethically turned the case into a personal vindictive ‘witch-hunt’ to allegedly cover up his wife’s statements quoting the judge as intending to harm Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s chances for reelection in 2016 as sheriff of Maricopa County through the contempt proceedings which Judge Snow has been holding.”

WND notes: “The spark that started the dispute came when ‘Judge Snow’s wife announced to the Grissom family, as acquaintances, in a Someburros restaurant In Arizona that … Judge Snow … was determined to conduct the litigation … in such a way as to ensure that Sheriff Joe Arpaio would not be re-elected as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in 2016.’”

The matter is now back in Judge Snow’s hands; however, judicial malfeasance or prejudice can be raised again if the case is appealed.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BREAKING: What Sheriff Joe Just Admitted Sends Shock Waves Through His Re-Election Campaign

Photo credit: Christopher Halloran /

In what one news source describes as a “stunning about face,” Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has reportedly agreed to admit to what he has long denied — that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has violated a federal court order concerning the racial profiling of Latino drivers in an attempt to determine their immigration status.

The Arizona Republic newspaper reports that Arpaio, in a legal motion filed by his attorneys, “will admit he violated a federal judge’s order in his long-running racial-profiling case and agree to accept sanctions by the court….”

Western Journalism has frequently reported on ways in which “America’s toughest sheriff” has taken on the Obama administration, including the filing of a lawsuit seeking to stop the president’s executive amnesty orders from taking effect. Arpaio and the administration have often clashed on the subject of illegal immigration and what to do about it.

Close to two years ago, a federal judge ruled that the sheriff and his department had broken the law by targeting Latino drivers.

“As part of that ruling, [Judge Murray] Snow mapped out the steps Arpaio had to take to ensure his department ended the unconstitutional practice.”

Now, according to reports, Sheriff Joe is no longer claiming that he and his deputies have been complying with the court order; and he is agreeing to a finding of civil contempt.

“Defendants acknowledge and appreciate that they have violated the Court’s orders and that there are consequences for these violations,” his attorney wrote in a court filling on Wednesday.

Possible consequences of Arpaio’s admission include a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing or the establishment of a fund to compensate those targeted in his department’s profiling campaign.

WND quotes from the court filing that Arpaio’s legal team just submitted:

There is nothing Defendants can do to change what has already been done, but through the entry of an order finding them in civil contempt and by implementing remedies discussed herein, Defendants can express sincere remorse to the Court and to Plaintiffs, begin to make amends to those who have been injured and take affirmative steps to ensure nothing like this occurs in the future.

If the federal court orders Arpaio to compensate Latinos who were illegally profiled, the sheriff could find that he has to come up with much, if not most, of that compensation fund himself — a penalty that would sorely deplete any resources he might have to direct toward his re-election campaign.

Western Journalism reported in January that the 82-year-old sheriff intended to run for a 7th term as the top lawman in Maricopa County. When he announced that he was preparing to do battle in “the toughest campaign I have ever run,” Arpaio made no mention of the just-announced development that is likely to have an impact on his hopes of remaining “America’s toughest sheriff.”

h/t: WND

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Judge Takes Action On Sheriff Joe’s Lawsuit Against Obama, And The WH Spins It In Absurd Way

Arpaio Court DC

It was the first courtroom battle over President Obama’s executive amnesty plan — a battle waged by a sheriff whose clashes with the federal government over immigration enforcement have often been contentious.

And this battle didn’t turn out as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio wanted, though his lawyer says the war is far from over.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night threw out Sheriff Joe’s lawsuit seeking to stop Obama’s unilateral action to remove the threat of deportation from close to 5 million illegal immigrants.

As reported on, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama nominee, tossed the case, saying that the role of the courts is not to engage in policy making:

The case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio “raises important questions regarding the impact of illegal immigration on this nation, but the questions amount to generalized grievances which are not proper for the judiciary to address,” Howell wrote.

It’s critical to note that, in rejecting Sheriff Joe’s suit against the president, the judge refused to rule on the merits of the case — there was no determination whether Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform are or are not constitutional.

But that didn’t stop White House spokesman Eric Schultz from spinning the court’s decision and attempting to portray it as a vindication for President Obama. Again, via Fox News:

“Judge Howell’s decision today confirms what the Department of Justice and scholars throughout the country have been saying all along: the president’s executive actions on immigration are lawful,” Schultz said.

According to the judge’s written opinion — and contrary to what Obama’s spokesman indicated — the court made no ruling on the constitutionality of Obama’s action. Essentially, Judge Howell said that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, as a county law enforcement official in Arizona, didn’t have legal standing to bring the lawsuit.

“Even an ongoing threat to Arpaio by undocumented immigrants would not provide him with standing to challenge the deferred action programs at issue,” Howell wrote.

“The plaintiff must not only show that he is injured, but that the plaintiff’s injury is fairly traceable to the challenged deferred action programs and that the injury is capable of redress by this court in this action.”

Following the court’s rejection of his lawsuit, Sheriff Joe filed a notice of appeal saying that he will pursue the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Here’s How Sheriff Joe Could Use A Drunk-Driving Case To Kill Obama’s Executive Amnesty

Photo Credit: Flickr (Gage Skidmore)

Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio has already acted to strengthen his lawsuit challenging President Obama’s executive action on amnesty — he’s already filed court papers citing Tuesday’s surprise ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania that Obama’s amnesty order is unconstitutional.

As Western Journalism reported yesterday, a federal court has determined that Obama’s unilateral action to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation violates the Constitution.

While that finding doesn’t mean that Obama’s controversial order is invalidated, it does provide powerful ammunition for others who want the courts to stop the president’s action from taking effect.

As reported at, the ruling is reverberating through court cases currently in process, including the multi-state challenge led by Texas as well as Sheriff Joe’s anti-amnesty fight:

Both Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio filed papers late Tuesday night in their respective challenges to Mr. Obama’s amnesty, saying the Pennsylvania judge’s ruling adds heft to their own attacks.

The D.C. court that’s considering Sheriff Joe’s case has scheduled a hearing for next week on the possible issuance of a preliminary injunction to halt the president’s amnesty order.

Curiously, the blockbuster opinion issued by the Pennsylvania federal judge was tucked in his findings regarding the drunk-driving case of an illegal immigrant.

National Journal notes that in researching the case, the court requested information from the federal government over whether Obama’s executive action applied.

…in [Judge] Schwab’s opinion, the first priority is to “determine whether the Executive Action is constitutional.” And he determined that it wasn’t.

“The Court holds that the Executive Action is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution,” he wrote.

This is reportedly the first federal court ruling on Obama’s executive action and the first new opinion that gives opponents of the president’s order a significant boost in their challenges.

There are currently 24 states suing the president over his executive action on amnesty.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Fires Back Against Obama’s Executive Order

Photo Credit: Flickr (Gage Skidmore)

Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio is no stranger to taking on the Obama administration. The man often referred to as “America’s Toughest Sheriff” has long held that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the office of the presidency, disputing the authenticity of his birth certificate. As a border state official, Arpaio has also taken exception to Obama’s lax enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.

In response to Obama’s announcement Thursday of executive action that will defer the deportation of more than five million illegal immigrants, the Maricopa County sheriff is once again setting his sights on the president.

Reports indicate Arpaio is filing a lawsuit intended to challenge Obama’s authority to enact such policy unilaterally. He explained the motivation behind the pursuit in an interview with KNXV.

“We have to understand whether this is constitutional or not, whether he is going around Congress is legal,” he said. “I’m going to send a message that we’re not going to give up, that this does affect the streets of Maricopa County.”

Arpaio did offer a modicum of consideration regarding Obama’s position; however, he lamented the fact that the nation’s chief executive chose to dismiss the shortcomings of his plan.

“He speaks a good game,” Arpaio conceded, “and I understand where he’s coming from in a way. On the other hand, let’s not con the American public. How are we going to keep track of these five million people?”

He continued by insisting this first step toward amnesty will only serve to invite even more illegals into the country.

“This is going to open the door,” he asserted. “Everybody in Mexico, Central America, thinks they will have a free pass when they come into our country because of what the president is issuing.”


Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom