Involuntary commitment isn't as bad as you think
Involuntary commitment isn't as bad as you think - well at least that what the police who love to use it to get around the Constitution and jail people they suspect are criminals, but don't have a sherd of evidence to jail them with.
The US Secret Service used this trick to jail Kevin Walsh when he said that "President Bush deserved to die", even though Kevin Walsh didn't make any threats against the President.
Kevin Walsh probably isn't a good example to use because he is a racist who hates Jews, Blacks and Mexicans. But everybody including racists deserves to have the same Constitutional rights.
And even though I support Kevin Walsh's Constitutional rights, I certainly don't agree with his racist views on Jews, Blacks and Mexicans.
Last I believe all it takes to use the "mentally ill card" to put somebody in jail is for 2 people to say the person is crazy and get a mental health judge to agree with them. And in Kevin Walsh's case it was pretty easy for the judge to agree with the two Secret Service cops who said Kevin was crazy, despite the fact that these cops had never met or seen Kevin Walsh.
Source
Involuntary commitment isn't as bad as you think
By Gretchen Alexander and Carol Olson Our Turn Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:13 PM
You are concerned about your son. He has changed over the last several months, rarely showering or leaving his room, blowing up over nothing and losing weight.
He was laid off from his job. He seems suspicious about the meals you cook for him and has put paper up over the windows in his room. This morning, you found him in the front yard, yelling across the street at the neighbor, accusing him of stealing items from his room; you know the neighbor has never entered your house. You have asked your son to go to the doctor to get checked out, but he says nothing is wrong and adamantly refuses to go.
Situations like this are challenging to address, partially because of barriers to the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness in our country.
A recent move by the White House to approve $100 million in funding to increase access to mental-health care in the U.S. is welcome news in the wake of a series of tragic shootings, some of which appear to have involved individuals with unrecognized or untreated mental illness. The majority of people who suffer from conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are not dangerous to others and may actually be more at risk of being victims of violence.
However, studies suggest that certain individuals with these illnesses can show an increased risk for aggression towards others, especially if they are not receiving treatment. This is only one of many reasons that improved quality and availability of mental-health treatment benefits all of us, not just those with mental illness.
Improving funding for mental-health services is not the only way in which access to services can and should be expanded. Also critically important is public education on the nature of illness and the availability of appropriate resources for treatment.
One of the most troubling aspects of mental illness is its tendency to rob its victims of insight — that is, the ability to recognize that they are suffering from a disease and could benefit from treatment. In such cases, the use of involuntary treatment can be essential, both to relieve the suffering of the person who is ill, as well as to decrease the risk of harm to the community.
3 big misconceptions
However, misconceptions about involuntary treatment persist and create barriers to access to care. One such perception is that involuntary treatment is only appropriate for individuals who are actively threatening to harm themselves or others.
Each state has its own laws for psychiatric commitment, so the requirements vary from state to state. Arizona is one of 27 states with a civil commitment statute that allows for involuntary evaluation and treatment in situations in which the person is suffering due to severe symptoms of mental illness, but lacks the capability to understand their condition and the potential benefits of treatment.
Involuntary evaluation can even occur on an outpatient basis, in cases in which the patient is not dangerous and willing to be evaluated as an outpatient. In addition, Arizona is one of 45 states with assisted outpatient treatment — laws that allow a person to be required to take medications when indicated and cooperate with monitoring by a mental-health clinic, even after discharge from a psychiatric hospital.
Another misconception that contributes to patients not receiving needed treatment is the belief that court orders for psychiatric treatment involves losing all civil liberties and becoming a ward of the state. Being placed on court-ordered treatment in Arizona means only that the person is legally required to attend clinic appointments and take medications as prescribed; there is also a provision that certain patients on court-ordered treatment are not allowed to buy firearms.
Becoming a ward of the state, on the other hand, involves having a guardian appointed by the public fiduciary. It is a completely separate and unrelated legal process and, in fact, is rarely applied for in the mental-health community.
Another common belief is that someone who is involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation will end up being “warehoused” in a psychiatric facility. In fact, the average length of stay for patients court-ordered for evaluation to Maricopa Medical Center, where almost all such evaluations are conducted, is about 14 days, and is much shorter for those cases in which the 72-hour evaluation period concludes with a finding that court-ordered treatment is not appropriate.
Most individuals with mental illness recognize their symptoms and want help to recover, and most treatment can occur on a voluntary basis. The goal of mental-health treatment is to provide care that improves a person’s ability to function independently and achieve the goals they set for themselves. In some cases, involuntary treatment can make a tremendous difference and can save lives.
As we go about our lives, interacting with family, friends and colleagues, it is important that we pay attention when those we encounter are struggling with mental-health issues, reach out to them and help them get treatment.
Dr. Gretchen B. Alexander is a past president of the Arizona Psychiatric Society and a physician in the Maricopa Medical Center Department of Psychiatry. Dr. Carol Olson is chairwoman of Maricopa Integrated Health System’s Psychiatry Department and executive chairwoman of the Psychiatry Department at University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.
Getting help
Referring someone for involuntary psychiatric evaluation can be initiated by any individual who is concerned, regardless of whether the person is a family member.
Information about initiating a petition for psychiatric evaluation in Arizona can be obtained by calling 800-631-1314 or visiting the Arizona Department of Health Services website.
General information about civil commitment and outcomes of involuntary treatment can be found at treatmentadvocacycenter.org.
Chicago police officer charged with battering senior citizen while off-duty
Source
Chicago police officer charged with battering senior citizen while off-duty
By Jeremy Gorner Tribune reporter
7:05 a.m. CST, December 21, 2013
A Chicago police officer will appear in court today after being arrested and charged with aggravated battery to a senior citizen, authorities said.
Details of the charge were scant. But it stems from a dispute between the officer, David Barrett, who was off-duty at the time, and an 84-year-old man who ended up getting hurt during the confrontation earlier this week in southwest suburban Oak Lawn.
Barrett, 58, who is assigned to the first deputy superintendent's office at Chicago Public Safety Headquarters, turned himself in to Oak Lawn police on Thursday, authorities said.
Oak Lawn police on Friday provided no information about the incident. But Stephen Campbell, a spokesman for the Cook County State's attorney's office, said the aggravated battery charge against Barrett is a Class 2 felony and he is scheduled to appear for bond hearing today at the Leighton Criminal Court Building at 26th Street and California Avenue.
Records show Barrett is a 20-year veteran of the Chicago Police Department.
jgorner@tribune.com
Arpaio: The gift that keeps on giving
Source
Arpaio: The gift that keeps on giving
Maricopa County Supervisors announced two big fat lawsuit settlements involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas on the Friday afternoon before Christmas week.
I hope the sheriff has put a nice little gift under the tree for the county board. Late Friday news has a way of dying over the weekend.
Certainly the board made Christmas special for Phoenix New Times founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, who were hauled away to jail by the sheriff in a vendetta move. For that, the county is handing over $3.75 million to the pair.
Nice.
In addition, a lawsuit by former County Supervisor Don Stapley was settled for $3.5 million. Stapley was one of the targets of a corruption case by Thomas and Arpaio.
Posting notice of such settlements on a Friday softens the blow of such news. Not that it matters. We’ve come to expect it. As long as the sheriff is in office just about every day is Christmas.
Arpaio is the gift that keeps on giving … away … our … money.
Canadian court strikes down anti-prostitution laws
Source
Canadian court strikes down anti-prostitution laws
Associated Press Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:10 PM
TORONTO — Canada’s highest court struck down the country’s anti-prostitution laws in their entirety Friday, including against keeping a brothel.
The 9-0 Supreme Court ruling is a victory for sex workers seeking safer working conditions because it found that the laws violated the guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person. But the ruling won’t take effect immediately because it gave Parliament a one-year reprieve to respond with new legislation.
Prostitution isn’t illegal in Canada, but many of the activities associated with prostitution are classified as criminal offences.
The high court struck down all three prostitution-related laws: against keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution, and street soliciting. The landmark ruling comes more than two decades after the Supreme Court last upheld the country’s anti-prostitution laws.
The decision upheld an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling last year that struck down the ban on brothels on the grounds that it endangered sex workers by forcing them onto the streets.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing on behalf of the court, said Canada’s social landscape has changed since 1990, when the Supreme Court upheld a ban on street solicitation.
“These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not,” she wrote. “They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not.”
A Vancouver sex worker who was part of a group that brought the case applauded the court’s decision.
“I’m shocked and pleased that our sex laws will not cause us harm in a year,” Amy Lebovitch said in a news conference.
Katrina Pacey, a lawyer for the group of downtown Vancouver prostitutes, called it “an unbelievably important day for the sex workers but also for human rights.”
“The court recognized that sex workers have the right to protect themselves and their safety,” she said.
In 1990, the two women on Canada’s Supreme Court dissented on the ruling upholding the ban on street solicitation. This time, all six men on the court justices sided with their three female colleagues.
“The harms identified by the courts below are grossly disproportionate to the deterrence of community disruption that is the object of the law,” McLachlin wrote. “Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes.”
Sex-trade workers argued that much has changed since the high court last considered prostitution, including the horrific serial killings of prostitutes by Robert Pickton in British Columbia.
Former Tempe officer charged in police pursuit
Source
Former Tempe officer charged in police pursuit
By Jim Walsh The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:16 PM
A former Tempe police officer who resigned this week has officially been charged in the latest of two police pursuits, the most recent of which ended Monday when he collided with a semi-truck west of Yuma, according to court records.
Former officer Garrett Peterson was charged in a criminal complaint in Wellton Court with four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (his car), unlawful flight from pursuing law enforcement and one count of criminal damage.
A judge set bond at $1 million and said Peterson would be held in custody until a preliminary hearing on Dec. 26.
Peterson was off-duty during both pursuit incidents. He is accused of threatening to kill his ex-wife, their children and her husband during the first incident, which began last Friday night and ended early Saturday morning at the Loop 202 and Alma School Road.
But after his release from jail Monday morning, Peterson’s father reported to Gilbert police that his son was still threatening to kill his ex-wife’s husband. The U.S. Border Patrol spotted Peterson’s car on 1-40, launching the second pursuit on Monday afternoon.
Peterson resigned Monday morning when Tempe police notified him that they were starting an Internal Affairs investigation based on charges stemming from the first incident. Those charges include threatening and intimidating, endangerment, unlawful flight and extreme driving under the influence.
Despite his off-duty problems dealing with a divorce, Peterson was praised for his work as a patrol officer in a series of reviews, which cited his strong report writing and his initiative. Tempe police said they worked with Peterson to get him help for his personal problems and were saddened by the incidents.
Phoenix Police support murderer Richard Chrisman
Source
Ex-Phoenix officer sentenced to 7 years in shooting case
By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:33 PM
Former Phoenix police Officer Richard Chrisman walked into court facing up to 15 years in prison for assaulting and killing an unarmed man during a 2010 domestic-violence call.
Chrisman walked out with a 7-year sentence and the vocal support of Phoenix police officers who again showed solidarity with their former colleague at Friday’s sentencing hearing.
The sentence handed down to Chrisman — the minimum the former officer was facing — was a disappointment to the surviving relatives of 29-year-old Danny Frank Rodriguez, who was killed in October 2010 following a brief altercation with Chrisman. Rodriguez’s family members pleaded with Superior Court Judge Warren Granville to impose the maximum sentence during Friday’s proceeding.
Granville’s decision also brought little satisfaction to Chrisman’s supporters, including a labor group representing Phoenix officers who believe Chrisman was a victim of a cowardly partner and a slanted court system.
“We feel that Rich was kind of an unfortunate victim of the justice system,” said Phoenix police Officer Ken Crane, a union administrator who spoke in support of Chrisman at Friday’s sentencing. “Clearly the judge saw that, based on everything presented, that it was worth trying to mitigate that sentence as low as he could.”
Officers filled the courtroom in support of Chrisman on Friday as they did throughout the trial, with a few screaming of their affection for the 91/2-year police veteran as he left the courtroom in a brown suit, bound for the Arizona Department of Corrections.
The trial pitted Chrisman’s version of events against that of his partner on the call, Officer Sergio Virgillo, whose report on what took place inside the south Phoenix trailer on Oct. 5, 2010, led to Chrisman’s arrest hours later.
Chrisman said he entered the home after Rodriguez resisted contact and pulled out his duty weapon to encourage Rodriguez to calm his dog.
Virgillo’s version of events had Chrisman barging into the trailer after Rodriguez asked for a warrant, putting his weapon to Rodriguez’s head and responding that the gun served as his warrant.
Virgillo told jurors he successfully de-escalated the situation toward the end of the call and was encouraging Rodriguez to leave on his bicycle when Chrisman shot Rodriguez twice in the chest.
Friday’s sentencing brought the raw emotions in the case back to the fore as relatives of Rodriguez and Chrisman alternately pleaded with Granville for a harsh sentence or for leniency.
The only opinion that mattered Friday belonged to Granville, who was a well-informed and calming presence during the six-week trial before sharing his first thoughts with 10-minute remarks at the end of the sentencing hearing.
The call and its deadly outcome hinged on the perceptions of two men, Granville said: Chrisman and Rodriguez.
The law gave Chrisman probable cause to detain Rodriguez so the officer could determine whether the 29-year-old methamphetamine user was a danger to his mother in the October 2010 call to the south Phoenix trailer park, Granville said, but the law did not give Chrisman permission to use more force than was necessary.
Where Chrisman thought he was progressing through the use-of-force protocol he learned in the Phoenix police academy — using physical force, pepper spray and a Taser in an attempt to subdue the domestic-violence suspect — Rodriguez saw an armed man who had barged into his home and was escalating his aggression, Granville said.
“Your disregard of Mr. Rodriguez’s perception led to a mismatch of a man with a gun and a man with a bicycle,” Granville said to Chrisman. “At its core, you walked in on an unarmed man in his own home and escalated the situation to a point where you felt compelled to shoot him dead.”
Granville also said, “You created the situation that caused you to believe you needed to use your gun.”
At that moment, it appeared Granville was considering a lengthy prison sentence for the former police officer.
But the judge then started detailing factors that weighed in Chrisman’s favor, including the support he has enjoyed from his former colleagues on the Phoenix Police Department and the fact that sentencing goals, such as deterrence and punishment, were accomplished in part when Chrisman forfeited his badge and was subject to public humiliation.
After Granville balanced those factors, he gave Chrisman the shortest sentence available according to Chrisman’s plea agreement.
Chrisman will report to the Department of Corrections, where he will be screened like every other inmate, said Doug Nick, a spokesman for the state prison system. Prison administrators typically consider the nature of the crime, inmates’ criminal records and whether they are subject to threats, such as by gang members, when considering where they are housed, Nick said.
And Chrisman’s law-enforcement background could play a role in where he is housed, just as any other inmate’s background would, he said.
“There’s not really a special category for ex-law enforcement,” Nick said.
Like any other inmate, Chrisman can also request some form of protective custody if he feels the need, he said.
“It’s not unusual for inmates to ask for that,” Nick said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean they will get it, but it’s definitely something we consider.”
A jury in September found Chrisman guilty of aggravated assault for placing a gun to Rodriguez’s head in the early moments of the police call that Chrisman answered with Virgillo. But the jury failed to reach a verdict on the questions of whether Chrisman committed second-degree murder when he shot Rodriguez or animal cruelty when Chrisman killed Rodriguez’s dog, Junior.
The animal-cruelty charge was dismissed in the plea deal Chrisman reached with prosecutors last week. The deal required him to plead guilty to manslaughter in Rodriguez’s death and virtually guaranteed that no additional time would be added to Chrisman’s aggravated-assault sentence.
Judge strikes down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban
Source
Judge strikes down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban
Associated Press Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:11 PM
SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban Friday in a decision that brings a growing shift toward allowing gay marriage to a conservative state where the Mormon church has long been against it.
The Salt Lake County clerk’s office started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Deputy Clerk Dahnelle Burton-Lee said the district attorney authorized her office to begin issuing the licenses but she couldn’t immediately say how many have been issued so far.
Just hours earlier, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a 53-page ruling saying Utah’s law passed by voters in 2004 violates gay and lesbian couples’ rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.
“In the absence of such evidence, the State’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens,” Shelby wrote.
Ryan Bruckman, a spokesman for the Utah attorney general’s office, said the office will appeal the ruling and is asking for a stay that would stop marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples in the meantime.
Meanwhile, dozens of same-sex couples lined up to get marriage licenses at the Salt Lake County clerk’s office. State Sen. Jim Dabakis, chairman of the Utah Democratic Party, was there with his longtime partner, Stephen Justesen.
“I waited 27 years,” Dabakis said. “We didn’t want to get married until we could get married in Utah.”
Dabakis said people were rushing to get marriage licenses, fearing that the state will win a court order blocking them from being issued.
The ruling in Utah comes the same week New Mexico’s highest court legalized gay marriage after declaring it unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A new law passed in Hawaii last month now allows gay couples to marry there.
During a nearly four-hour hearing earlier this month in Salt Lake City, attorneys for the state argued that Utah’s law promotes the state’s interest in “responsible procreation” and the “optimal mode of child-rearing.” They also asserted it is not the courts’ role to determine how a state defines marriage, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t give same-sex couples the universal right to marry.
Utah’s lawsuit was brought by three gay and lesbian couples. One of the couples was legally married in Iowa and just wants that license recognized in Utah.
Many similar challenges to same-sex marriage bans are pending in other states, but the Utah case has been closely watched because of the state’s history of staunch opposition to gay marriage as the home of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The church said in a statement Friday that it stands by its support for “traditional marriage.”
“We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court,” the church said.
During this month’s hearing, Tomsic contended marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. She said the case embodies the civil rights movement of our time, saying discrimination has gone on long enough.
She said Utah’s law, which passed with two-thirds of the vote, is “based on prejudice and bias that is religiously grounded in this state.”
In the ruling, Shelby wrote that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.
“These rights would be meaningless if the Constitution did not also prevent the government from interfering with the intensely personal choices an individual makes when that person decides to make a solemn commitment to another human being,” Shelby wrote.
Uganda lawmakers approve life sentence for gays
Source
Uganda lawmakers approve life sentence for gays
Associated Press Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:34 AM
KAMPALA, Uganda — Ugandan lawmakers on Friday passed an anti-gay bill that calls for life imprisonment for certain homosexual acts, drawing criticism from rights campaigners who called it “the worst in the world.”
When the bill was first introduced in 2009, it was widely condemned for including the death penalty, but that was removed from the revised version passed by parliament.
Instead it sets life imprisonment as the penalty for a homosexual act where one of the partners is infected with HIV, sex with minors and the disabled, as well as repeated sexual offenses among consenting adults, according to the office of a spokeswoman for Uganda’s parliament.
The bill also prescribes a seven-year jail term for a person who “conducts a marriage ceremony” for same-sex couples.
The bill was passed unanimously by the parliament, with no one voicing an objection.
President Yoweri Museveni must sign the bill within 30 days for it to become law. Although in the past he spoke disparagingly of gays, in recent times Museveni has softened his position on the matter, saying he is only opposed to gays who appear to “promote” themselves.
“In our society there were a few homosexuals,” Museveni said in March. “There was no persecution, no killings and no marginalization of these people but they were regarded as deviants. Sex among Africans including heterosexuals is confidential. If I am to kiss my wife in public, I would lose an election in Uganda.”
The passage of the bill makes it “a truly terrifying day for human rights in Uganda,” said Frank Mugisha, a prominent Ugandan gay activist, who called the legislation “the worst anti-gay law in the world.” He urged the country’s president not to sign the legislation into law.
“It will open a new era of fear and persecution,” he said. “If this law is signed by President Museveni, I’d be thrown in jail for life and in all likelihood killed.”
Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda under a colonial-era law that criminalized sexual acts “against the order of nature,” but the Ugandan lawmaker who wrote the new legislation argued that tougher legislation was needed because homosexuals from the West threatened to destroy Ugandan families and were allegedly “recruiting” Ugandan children into gay lifestyles.
Ugandan gays disputed this account, saying that Ugandan political and religious leaders had come under the influence of American evangelicals who wanted to spread their anti-gay campaign in Africa. Ugandan gays singled out Scott Lively, a Massachusetts evangelical, and sued him in March 2012 under the Alien Tort Statute that allows non-citizens to file suit in the United States if there is an alleged violation of international law.
Lively denied he wanted severe punishment for gays, and has previously told The Associated Press he never advocated violence against gays but advised therapy for them.
Ugandan gays had believed progress was being made to strengthen their rights in a country where prejudice against homosexuals is rampant. In 2012 they held their first gay pride parade and have sometimes joined street marches in support of all human rights.
Despite criticism of the anti-gay legislation abroad, it is highly popular among Ugandans who say the country has the right to pass laws that protect its children.
Amid international criticism, the bill was repeatedly shelved despite the protests of Ugandan lawmakers. Days before Christmas last year, the speaker of Uganda’s parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, said the anti-gay legislation would be passed as a “Christmas gift” to all Ugandans. She presided over the session Friday that passed the bill despite opposition from Ugandan Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi, who wanted the vote delayed.
David Bahati, the lawmaker who wrote the bill, said in a Facebook update Friday that the legislation was necessary “to defend our culture and to defend the future of our children.”
When the bill was first proposed, United States President Barack Obama called it “odious.”
Maria Burnett, a senior Africa researcher with Human Rights Watch, said the bill passed Friday is “still appalling” despite some amendments.
Homosexuality remains a taboo subject across many parts of Africa. Some 38 African countries — about 70 percent of the continent — criminalize homosexual activity, Amnesty International said in a report released earlier this year.
The rights group said of the new Ugandan law that it “would significantly hamper the work of human rights defenders and others who find themselves in conflict with the law merely by carrying out their legitimate activities.”
‘New Times’ journalists were arrested in dead of night
Usually when our crooked government masters make these out of court settlements the agreement always says the government is not admitting any guilt for what happened. I didn't see that in this article so I wonder if it is part of the settlement????
Source
‘New Times’ journalists were arrested in dead of night
By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:39 PM
A six-year process that would cost Maricopa County millions of dollars began on the night of Oct. 18, 2007, at about 8:30, when Phoenix New Times editor Mike Lacey heard someone pounding at the front door of his north-central Phoenix home.
Not knocking. Not ringing the doorbell.
Pounding.
When Lacey answered, he saw a burly man in plainclothes wearing a sheriff’s badge on a chain around his neck. He was standing safely back from the stoop; his partner was at a defensive distance in case of trouble.
The deputy asked Lacey to identify himself. Then, he cuffed Lacey in front of his girlfriend, led him to a dark SUV with tinted windows and drove him to a nearby parking lot, where the two deputies started making telephone calls.
Meanwhile, at another home in the Valley, Lacey’s longtime business partner, Jim Larkin, was being led into another dark-windowed SUV, this one with Mexican license plates.
Lacey and Larkin were founders of the Phoenix New Times newspaper, and by 2007, they had built a 13-paper empire of alternative newsweeklies, including the venerable Village Voice in New York. They have since sold the newspapers.
They had been sniping at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as long as Arpaio had been in office. In 2007, they were embroiled in litigation over charges that, three years earlier, they had illegally published Arpaio’s address online.
On the day they were arrested, they had published a story they co-authored, detailing how an independent prosecutor appointed by then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas had subpoenaed the names of everyone who read the New Times online and details about the websites they had browsed before and after reading the New Times.
The prosecutor, Dennis Wilenchik, had also attempted to arrange a secret meeting with the judge presiding over the case.
Lacey and Larkin decided to put the whole story on the record, even though they knew they could be violating the secrecy of grand-jury proceedings.
“Our attorneys were very clear on the fact that this was a dangerous thing to do, and they advised against it,” Lacey said.
The attorneys were not mistaken.
Larkin was taken to a lockup in the East Valley. Lacey was driven to the Fourth Avenue Jail in downtown Phoenix and placed in a holding cell with the night’s catch of perpetrators. He tried to make himself look very small, he told The Arizona Republic.
Then, in an eerie “Alice’s Restaurant” moment, one of the other men in the holding cell spoke to him.
“What are you in for, White boy?” the man asked.
Lacey answered.
“Writing.”
Thomas dropped the charges against the newspaper men five days after their arrest and fired Wilenchik. Wilenchik denied he had ordered the arrests, claiming he had no such authority, and Arpaio’s chief deputy, David Hendershott, filed an affidavit claiming that he had ordered the arrests himself.
Lacey and Larkin sued.
On Friday, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors settled their federal lawsuit for a reported $3.75 million, a large chunk of which is to cover attorneys fees.
The board also settled the lawsuit lodged by former Supervisor Don Stapley for $3.5 million, partly because the county’s insurance company did not want to continue covering the costs of litigation.
Stapley had been arrested by the Sheriff’s Office, and twice, the County Attorney’s Office had obtained indictments against him alleging crimes. They were subsequently dismissed.
Several of the county supervisors said they felt that the cases should ideally have gone before juries.
“Right and wrong sometimes have to go second to a business decision,” Supervisor Steve Chucri said.
County Manager Tom Manos also told The Republic that the county wanted to clear the last of the lawsuits brought on by the actions of Arpaio and Thomas during what they called a war on political corruption.
The Lacey-Larkin arrests came a year before Thomas and his deputies first filed criminal charges against Stapley for alleged omissions on his campaign-finance documents.
But the war on county officials and judges lasted longer.
The first case against Stapley fell apart in August 2009. A month later, sheriff’s deputies arrested Stapley without a warrant, but he wasn’t re-indicted until that December.
Fellow Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox was indicted on charges alleging conflict of interest, as well, and Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe was charged with bribery.
That same month, Thomas and Arpaio filed a federal racketeering charge against those people and other judges, supervisors and county officials. All those cases were dismissed by March 2010.
Thomas and one of his deputies were disbarred in 2012; a second former deputy was suspended from practicing law. Hendershott was fired.
Taxpayers are picking up almost the entire tab — more than $17 million, including the cost of defending the lawsuits.
Lacey and Larkin filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court against Arpaio, Wilenchik and Thomas in 2008, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution and numerous violations of their constitu- tional rights.
The case was bumped to federal court and was thrown out when a U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix ruled that the defendants had absolute immunity because they were law-enforcement officials.
Lacey and Larkin appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in separate rulings in 2011 and 2012 reinstated the case by ruling that Arpaio and Wilenchik could be held liable. They filed an amended version of the lawsuit, naming Arpaio and Wilenchik.
Thomas was allowed to keep his immunity because he had hired Wilenchik to handle it for the office. Nonetheless, in announcing the settlements, the supervisors placed blame squarely on Thomas.
“What brought us here today is the shameful, expensive, almost incomprehensible story of Andrew Thomas’ abuse of power,” board Chairman Andy Kunasek said as he opened the meeting Friday.
Neither Arpaio nor Wilenchik will have to pay anything toward the settlement.
Arpaio told The Republic that the settlement was a business decision.
Wilenchik denied responsibility and said the county did not ask for his input in reaching a settlement. “While I am pleased this unfortunate and undeserved litigation has been concluded, I have always denied and will continue to deny any responsibility whatsoever for the arrests of the plaintiffs,” he said in a prepared statement. “I do so because that is a fact.”
Then, he told The Republic, “I did not negotiate or settle this or the amount and have admitted no liability and would not.”
The dispute between the New Times and Arpaio heated up in 2004, when then-reporter John Dougherty wrote an article alleging that Arpaio was using a state statute to hide lucrative real-estate holdings.
The law makes it a misdemeanor to publish online the home addresses of lawmen, but Arpaio, according to Dougherty’s report, was using the statute to shield the addresses of several properties.
According to court documents, Arpaio did not bring the issue to the attention of then-County Attorney Rick Romley because he didn’t think Romley would follow up on it. Instead, he waited until Thomas took over. Thomas declined to prosecute, and so did the Pinal County Attorney’s Office.
Then, Thomas hired Wilenchik, a former employer and political ally, to prosecute the case.
As described in a 9th Circuit ruling, Wilenchik sent two subpoenas to the New Times in August 2007 demanding that the paper reveal confidential sources (which are protected under state law), notes and documents, and that they reveal the Internet identities of everyone who read the paper online.
A month later, Wilenchik subpoened information about another New Times story, about one of Arpaio’s political opponents who claimed he had been slandered.
And in October, when the parties arrived at court, Judge Anna Baca, the presiding criminal judge who was hearing the New Times case, exploded at Wilenchik.
A woman who was friends with Baca and married to an employee of the County Attorney’s Office had called Baca to try to arrange a private meeting with Wilenchik. Baca explained that she had hung up the phone immediately, and she took Wilenchik to task for the attempt.
All this information was supposed to be secret. Lacey and Larkin decided to put it on the record.
That night, there was pounding at their doors.
Republic reporter Michelle Ye Hee Lee contributed to this article.
Cost breakdown
The following costs relate to lawsuits or legal claims filed by political targets of former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Thomas’ former deputy Lisa Aubuchon, former Sheriff’s Chief Deputy David Hendershott and Maricopa County. All of these cases related to the bungled government-corruption investigation into judges, county supervisors and administrators between 2008 and 2010. Ultimately, all criminal charges and the federal racketeering lawsuit were dropped.
Gary Donahoe, retired Superior Court judge: $1,275,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $767,127.
Kenneth Fields, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $81,040.
Barbara Mundell, retired Superior Court judge: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $134,273.
Anna Baca, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $112,588.
Stephen Wetzel, former county technology director: $75,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $107,647.
Sandi Wilson, deputy county manager and county budget director: $122,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $458,318.
Don Stapley, former county supervisor: $3.5 million settlement. County legal expenses: $1,682,020.
Mary Rose Wilcox, county supervisor: $975,000 settlement, which is pending and under appeal. The county has paid her $9,938 in court-ordered legal costs. County legal expenses to date: $375,442.
Susan Schuerman, Stapley’s executive assistant: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $200,201.
Conley Wolfswinkel, Stapley’s business associate: $1,400,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $1,586,152.
Andy Kunasek, county supervisor: $123,110 settlement for his 2010 legal claim. County legal expenses: $1,150.
Source: Maricopa County
County settles suits over Arpaio, Thomas
Source
County settles suits over Arpaio, Thomas
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:37 PM
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a $3.5 million legal settlement with former Supervisor Don Stapley on Friday, ending a long and public legal standoff in which both sides vowed not to settle the case.
The board’s decision — along with the $3.75 million settlement of a federal lawsuit filed by Phoenix New Times founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin — marked a symbolic end to the legal battles fought by Stapley and nine other political targets of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and their deputies in a crusade to root out what they claimed was government corruption among county leaders.
The two agreements approved Friday bring the taxpayer bill to more than $17 million for settlements and legal costs related to political and legal maneuvers by Arpaio and Thomas.
All 10 plaintiffs who eventually settled legal disputes with the county — county supervisors, retired Superior Court judges and other county officials — claimed Arpaio, Thomas and their deputies wrongfully targeted them in retaliation for court rulings and budget cuts.
That tab does not include a $975,000 settlement approved for Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox that is under appeal, accruing interest and legal fees. Wilcox, who claimed she was wrongly investigated by Arpaio and Thomas, recused herself from the Stapley settlement discussions, citing a conflict of interest.
“I look at all the things we could do in the county with the amount of money we’re spending today, and I’m disappointed that’s how I have to use the taxpayers’ money,” County Manager Tom Manos told The Arizona Republic.
The settlement bill does not include tangential costs the county incurred defending itself, elected officials and other employees against lawsuits, investigations and legal claims related to the actions of Thomas, Arpaio and their deputies. An Arizona Republic analysis found that those additional costs added up to at least $24.9 million as of April 2012.
The cast of characters in charge of Maricopa County has changed since the period of political and legal tumult began around 2008, prompting discord among leaders and dissatisfaction among citizens and county employees.
Three of five board members who voted on Friday’s settlements took office in 2013. A new county manager took the helm in 2012.
Thomas and his deputy Lisa Aubuchon were disbarred in 2012 for ethical lapses over the course of their political-corruption probes. Another deputy county attorney, Rachel Alexander, was suspended from practice. David Hendershott, Arpaio’s former chief deputy who came to be known as the mastermind of the sheriff’s failed corruption investigations, was fired in 2011.
Bill Montgomery replaced Thomas. Jerry Sheridan replaced Hendershott. Supervisors hail those two as key figures who helped salve the wounds of years-long conflict.
“It was a dark time,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Andy Kunasek, who also was targeted. “But I think in the best interest of the county, and I think, everybody we serve, it’s time to move forward.”
Stapley case
The warfare was triggered by budget cuts made by the board during the recession.
Viewing the cuts as politically motivated restrictions on their power as elected officials, Arpaio and Thomas responded with what they considered government-corruption investigations.
They filed criminal charges and federal racketeering lawsuits against county supervisors, as well as retired judges involved in some of the cases.
By March 2010, all the charges and the racketeering suits were dismissed. One by one, the targets sued Arpaio, Thomas and their deputies.
Stapley was indicted in November 2008 on 118 criminal counts stemming from omissions on his annual financial-disclosure forms as county supervisor. But the case fell apart when his defense attorneys realized that Maricopa County had never formalized disclosure rules. The charges were dismissed in August 2009.
A month later, the Sheriff’s Office arrested Stapley without a warrant, alleging fraudulent schemes, perjury and theft, based on allegations that he committed mortgage-loan and campaign-account fraud. He was indicted on some of those charges.
Thomas, in March 2010, asked Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores to review the charges against Stapley. She terminated the second prosecution. She concluded that there was “sufficient evidence to prove that Stapley committed seven separate felony offenses of false swearing” but that the investigation had been so mismanaged that it would be impossible to take to court.
Stapley sued the county before year’s end.
Settlement
The Board of Supervisors consistently has said it wanted to fight Stapley’s case in a jury trial scheduled for January, saying it would not approve a fellow county supervisor’s settlement. That sentiment contributed to the county’s current appeal of Wilcox’s settlement.
Wilcox said she believes the board should honor her settlement.
“I’m just really glad that he’s (Stapley’s) now completed, and it’s over for him,” Wilcox said. “And I would hope that the county would do the same for me. I don’t think you should put a double standard. If you want to put this all behind us, you have to do everything.”
The board said it decided to settle the Stapley case because it faced the risk of an expensive jury verdict, compounded by pressure from the county’s insurance company.
“I still think it’s a good deal for the family (of Stapley), but I think we would have gotten more out of a jury,” said Michael Manning, attorney for Stapley, Lacey, Larkin and several of the other plaintiffs who sued the county.
The size of Stapley’s settlement is partially due to out-of-pocket attorneys fees, totaling more than $1.6 million, Manning said. Stapley, who took a job in the private sector, was not available for comment.
Arpaio said he would not criticize the Board of Supervisors for making what amounted to a business decision to settle the cases.
Manos said the Stapley case incurred more costs than similar lawsuits because the county was preparing for a trial. The county also paid five outside law firms to represent each of the five defendants in Stapley’s case.
The county’s settlement and legal costs in the Stapley case were projected to exceed the $5 million deductible set by an outside insurance carrier, giving the insurance company discretion over settlement decisions, Manos said. The company opted to settle.
The county has insurance carriers that cover legal claims that exceed the $5 million limit on payouts from its self-insured risk trust fund.
“If there’s any good news today, it’s that we’re getting just about the last two cases behind us,” Manos said. “This has been a long and painful process and journey for the county.”
Republic reporter Michael Kiefer contributed to this article.
Phoenix woman sentenced in teenage sex case
Don't these pigs have any real criminals to hunt down??? You know criminals that hurt people like robbers and rapists???
And wow 17 years in prison certainly sounds like a draconian sentence for the victimless crime of humping two horny teenage boys who probably loved every minute of it!!!!
Source
Phoenix woman sentenced in teenage sex case
Associated Press Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:17 PM
A Phoenix woman accused of engaging in sex acts with teenage boys has been sentenced to 17 years in prison.
Maricopa County prosecutors say 36-year-old Jennifer Dempsey also was sentenced Friday to lifetime supervised probation with sex offender terms.
Dempsey pleaded guilty in September to molestation of a child, attempted sexual conduct with a minor and sexual conduct with a minor.
She was accused of contacting 14-year-old to 16-year-old boys online and then meeting them for sex acts. Phoenix police say she allegedly portrayed herself to at least two victims as a 16-year-old pregnant girl.
Police also say Dempsey convinced her family that she had cancer for the past five years to avoid arrest.
She allegedly shaved her head, bought wigs and had a fake chemotherapy port in her chest.
Previous
articles
on the
Bad, Incompetent, Lousy Government.
More
articles
on the
Bad, Incompetent, Lousy Government.