Pardon ruling leaves Arpaio open to suits

[struggle4progress]

Associated Press
3:07 PM, Oct 20, 2017

PHOENIX - After failing to get his criminal conviction wiped off his record as a result of his pardon from President Donald Trump, former Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio could be targeted by lawsuits arising out of his acknowledged disobedience involving a 2011 court order to stop his immigration patrols ...

Latinos who were illegally detained by Arpaio's officers during the 17-month period in which the sheriff disobeyed the order will be able to apply for money from a taxpayer-funded compensation system for the harm they suffered.

Or they could file a lawsuit seeking damages from illegal detentions, though no such civil cases have yet been filed. Prosecutors and Arpaio's critics say at least 170 people were illegally detained because Arpaio didn't stop the patrols ...

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/latest-pardon-ruling-still-leaves-sheriff-joe-arpaio-open-to-suits

[eppur_se_muova]

1. Good. :) nt

[Takket]

2. Is it legal to sue someone...

For being so completely reprehensible and disgusting that their very existence causes you stress? If so I would like to sue him myself.

In all seriousness... hope the victims of his torture rip every penny from his miserable body and leave him destitute

[Me.]

3. Go For It

[ProudLib72]

4. That's your cue, ACLU

One MASSIVE class action lawsuit to completely ruin this asshole for all eternity.

[former9thward]

5. No, it doesn't work that way.

First, the charge was dismissed.

Judge dismisses guilty verdict against Arpaio

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/353897-judge-dismisses-guilty-verdict-against-arpaio

What the judge ruled is that the trial did happen. That is a fact and can't be erased.

Second, the statute of limitations has run on suits.

Third, Maricopa County is responsible for paying any suits and any defense of suits for its elected officials.

[struggle4progress]

6. The Hill is wrong; the verdict stands:

... He had been found guilty of criminal contempt of a federal court order after a five-day bench trial earlier this year and faced the possibility of up to six months in jail. After the pardon, the 85-year-old Arpaio petitioned the court to clear his record and prevent the ruling from being used in future litigation ... In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton said the pardon only freed Arpaio from possible punishment ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/20/federal-judge-refuses-to-erase-joe-arpaios-conviction-despite-trump-pardon/?utm_term=.4b056b6f8dfc

[Kingofalldems]

7. Good catch.

[former9thward]

8. No, The Hill is right.

And if you want to ignore reality concerning the judge tossing the conviction, go ahead.

Also you (or the Post) says: "Arpaio petitioned the court to clear his record and prevent the ruling from being used in future litigation " That is untrue. I submit the petition and readers can decide for themselves if the petition requests the ruling can't be used in future litigation.

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/2017-08-28%2520Doc%2520220%2520DEFs%2520Motion%2520for%2520Vacatur%2520and%2520Dismissal%2520with%2520Prejudice.pdf

BTW: As I said before the statute of limitations has run on other suits. If you don't believe that where are they? Do you really think lawyers are sitting around waiting for internet websites to encourage them to file?

[struggle4progress]

9. Bolton wrote:

... A presidential pardon must be accepted to be effective ... Once accepted, a full and absolute pardon "releases the wrongdoer from punishment and restores the offender's civil rights without qualification" ... It does not erase a judgment of conviction, or its underlying legal and factual findings ... Indeed, a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it" ... Therefore, the only matter mooted by the pardon was Defendant's sentencing and entry of judgment, the hearing for which was duly vacated ...With nothing left to vacate, dismissal with prejudice was all that remained to be ordered. Having already done so, the Court declines to order any further relief ... The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt. The President issued the pardon. Defendant accepted. The pardon undoubtedly spared Defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed. It did not, however, "revise the historical facts" of this case ... Dated this 19th day of October, 2017 ...

Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 251 Filed 10/19/17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, Defendant.
No. CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB
ORDER
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4113653/Bolton-Arpaio.pdf

[Jim Lane]

10. The Hill isn't completely wrong but the wording is sloppy.

After your post above, you and I discussed this in another thread. My interpretation is here and it was my understanding that you agreed with it: The sentencing won't happen but the underlying conviction stands.

You write, "I submit the petition and readers can decide for themselves if the petition requests the ruling can't be used in future litigation." I appreciate the link to the petition, which I hadn't seen before. In Arpaio's paper, I find this (page 4, lines 6-8):

Further, as a practical matter, if the Court does not vacate its orders then it will have the certain effect of causing Defendant to maintain his appeal to the United States Supreme Court for a trial by jury, and to pursue a direct appeal, because of the collateral consequences of a standing conviction.

I interpret "collateral consequences" as meaning that the ruling against Arpaio can be used against him in future litigation. That's still the case, given Judge Bolton's ruling against Arpaio on October 19.

As for the class actions, I don't know what the statute of limitations is, but I know that some class actions are already pending. Unfortunately, as you pointed out in #5, any damage award will be paid by Maricopa County. The County might have a legal right to seek indemnification from Arpaio personally, but even if there is such a right, it's unlikely to be exercised.