Skip to comments.Sheriff Joe Strikes Back: Asks Court to Dismiss Eric Holder DOJís Lawsuit
Posted on 06/12/2012 2:28:02 PM PDT by montag813
by John Hill
Stand With Arizona
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys have filed a "Motion to Dismiss" in response to Eric Holder's ridiculous lawsuit alleging racial discrimination by the Sheriff and his deputies against "Latinos" through their enforcement of existing Federal immigration laws.
Arpaio's lawyers have called on a Federal court in Phoenix to dismiss the DOJ's lawsuit, in a 23-page response, asserting that Holder failed to back his claims with "sufficient statistical evidence." Such evidence is required in Federal discrimination lawsuits, and the DOJ has provided none.
The filing also asserts that the DOJ has no ability to even sue the sheriff's office "because it is a nonjural entity incapable of suing or being sued," and asked for the sheriff's office to be dismissed as a defendant. This claim seems well-grounded in case law, and would provide a major hurdle for Holder & Co. if the judge agrees with Arpaio's claim.
In addition, the DOJ had accused the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office - the nation's 4th largest - with "racially profiling Latinos" and "punishing Hispanic jail inmates for speaking Spanish" - essentially not providing "adequate Spanish-language assistance" to such prisoners.
Arpaio's response specifically takes on the latter charge, asserting that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires proof of "discrimination" on the basis of "race, color, or national origin". However, the DOJ asserts a non-existent criteria of "limited English proficiency" in their lawsuit, and Arpaio uses case law to assert that such claims under the Civil Rights Act have been rejected in prior circuit court cases (see details in the full text of the Motion below).
Arpaio also asserts that additional DOJ's claims must be dismissed because they are made on behalf of unnamed individuals with no proof of harm whatsoever; and that the DOJ cannot obtain "oversight" or "supervision" as injunctive relief over MCSO, if it "interferes with jail operations", or "overrides the setting of law enforcement priorities" - citing a Supreme Court ruling to back it up.
It is an exceptional, muscular response to an arrogant DOJ used to pushing its weight around, particularly Holder and his La Raza-veteran Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez, who have tried to bully 5 states over commonsense Voter ID provisions, playing disgraceful racial politics at the expense of the rule of law.
Sometimes all it it takes is one person to stand up and say "NO," for others to see that the system can be fought, that tyranny can be opposed. As Thomas Jefferson said: "One man with courage is a majority."
We salute Sheriff Joe for refusing to back down in the face of the tyranny of Eric Holder - the man who Mark Levin has called "the most corrupt Attorney General in history" - who himself should be standing trial for the deaths of slain Border Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of Mexican civilians who died as a result of the guns he handed over to murderous cartel gunmen.
Justice is on the side of Sheriff Joe. He will prevail, and will stand with him.
Do YOU stand with Sheriff Joe? If so, then JOIN US in Support of Joe: Click HERE to Sign the Petition and Support this American Hero.
Full Arpaio "Motion to Dismiss" text below...
A true American Hero.
Sounds like Arpaio has better lawyers than the DOJ.
Should filed a motion to dismiss based on a lack of standing in Arizona. /sarc
If Romney had any sense, he would announce that if elected, he would appoint Sheriff Joe Arpaio as the new Attorney General with one and only one basic instruction:
Investigate all allegations of federal corruption, past or present, indict those believed to be guilty, and pursue vigorous prosecutions, and seek maximum sentences for all convicted, no exceptions.
Sheriff Joe IS a true American hero. He is incorruptible.
I’m no fan of Arpaio, having lived in Phoenix for 9 years and meeting him on several occasions. However, I hope he wins this one.
I read the brief. Motions to Dismiss pursuant to (b)(6) are rarely granted, but it looks like Arpaio has solid grounds for the motion and it may be granted in this case. I can’t wait to read the DOJ’s response.
Im no fan of Arpaio, having lived in Phoenix for 9 years and meeting him on several occasions.Yea, so?
You have only been here a week. By a majority of the members here Arpaio is likely the most respected person in government around here...I suggest you keep your underlying negative comments about him to yourself if you want to stay.
USD79 Since Jun 7, 2012.
We all kinda like Joe around here, so you may be sure that we'll be keepng an eye on you.
DITTO AGAMEMNON’S THOUGHTS....
Although the wording was not that specific(ie.. vs. arizona), they did state the claim that the DOJ has no standing at all. This was mentioned several times. Sweet Justice. i hope sheriff joe has his press conference on the Obama Fraud on the same day that holder resigns.
Gov. Walker of FL--take notes.
Good for Sheriff Joe. Anyone know when the press conference on Obama's documents is scheduled?
This is an open discussion forum. Who gave you the right to demand someone else conform to your opinion?
Hi, Mr. Holder!
If this doesn't sum up Sheriff Joe I don't know what would. (BTW, June 14 is his 80th birthday.)
“Im no fan of Arpaio...”
I’m a fan of many of the tactics he uses. On occasion, I have seen him act like...well...a jerk. But he seems to get results. Would you care to tell us what your issues are?
And welcome to FR. If you aren’t a troll, or Eric Holder, you should enjoy it here. ;-)
Or, the troublemaker in me wonders whether the incompetent top DOJ political appointees were sandbagged or sabotaged by some career DOJ employees having at least a shred of decency and integrity who understood that this was a phony political witch hunt from the get-go which had to be undermined even while superficially looking like the case that was filed was valid.
When is that press conference going to happen...almost the middle of June already.
Holder and his toadies have no idea. Joe Arpaio is a legal pitbull, and keeps a tidy office with no incriminating paperwork laying around. He has had close to 20 years of insuring that his supervisors are intensely loyal, and utterly unflappable. They do not bend before threats, bribes, or intimidation.
His attorneys do not make mistakes, either, and are very practiced at defending Joe and his office.
Holder has a solicitor general who sounds like he got his law degree mail order, as I suspect do many of the lickspittles, Affirmative Action tokens and bum boys that populate the upper echelons of the Department of Just Us.
They may have b.s.’ed their way through law school, but they are likely to look like fools in court against Joe and his boys.
...with no incriminating paperwork laying around.
Interesting when you look at what you posted. What would a straight arrow like Arpaio have that incriminates him or his office?
Wow! I get home from my Chamber of Commerce mixer to find a threat, a warning, an insult and a valid request to deliniate my issues with Sheriff Joe.
With regard to me being a “newbie”, yes I am new to posting. However, I have lurked on FR off and on for approximately 2 years. I know how popular Sheriff Joe is here, although I seriously doubt that “a majority of the members here (think) Arpaio is likely the most respected person in governmentr around here.” Indeed, I am surprised at how little attention this thread received.
Please note that I didn’t say anything negative about Arpaio; I simply said that I not an Arpaio fan. Indeed, I said that I hope he wins and, after reading the supporting brief, I believe that he has a good chance. As far as setting forth my issues with him, I see no need and it’s been my experience that noone would change their mind if I did. My Dad and my best friend (both are in Phoenix) are huge Arpaio supporters and while they acknowledge my points as valid, they aren’t even close to changing their opinion of Sheriff Joe. As long as Arpaio fights illegal immigration and treats prisoners harshly, they’re happy with him. BTW, my issues with him don’t have anything to do with those issues.
Anyway, I am a devout Christian conservative who has studied the Bible in depth as well as the writings of Deitrich Bonhoeffer and C.S. Lewis. Please note that 2 of my 3 first posts on FR quote Bonhoeffer.
I look forward to posting more often and don’t really care if you keep an eye on me.
Have a good evening.
Comprehension is your friend.
Yeah...there's a lot of that going around nowadays...
“As far as setting forth my issues with him, I see no need and its been my experience that noone would change their mind if I did.”
My mind has frequently been changed by FReepers with more information than I was aware of. In fact, that’s what I love about Free Republic - so many very knowledgeable people to provide additional context or more info on stories the media just brushes over. You may not change every mind, but you may provide some detail that no one else was aware of or gave consideration to. I would encourage you to post why you think the way you do.
I lurked on FR for about 4 years before finally starting to post. On occasion I’ve been singed by those with a short fuse. I could wish that everyone be a little more civil, or not assume that someone with a contrary opinion is a troll. Human Beings...what can you say? :-)
Is it just me, or is the Obama administration about to lose a slew of court cases?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.