June 27, 2017 by Jerome Corsi
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Infowars.com was given exclusive permission by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to publish for the first time the “Background Letter” Arpaio’s attorneys sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week, arguing that Obama’s Department of Justice charged Arpaio under the wrong statute, because the statute of limitations had already run out under the correct statute provisions.
The letter makes clear that, similar to the instance where former FBI Director James Comey declared he would not recommend prosecution of then-candidate Hillary Clinton, the Obama DOJ timed announcements accusing Arpaio of criminal attempt in a manner designed to cause Arpaio to lose his bid for re-election.
The letter notes Arpaio had petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with a writ of mandamus asking SCOTUS to rule on various substantive issues, including the fact the federal judge hearing the criminal contempt case refused to allow Arpaio a jury trial, as well as the fact Arpaio had been charged under the wrong statute.
On Monday, June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied Sheriff Arpaio’s request to expedite consideration of his petition for a writ of mandamus.With this order, SCOTUS has allowed Sheriff Arpaio’s trial for criminal contempt to proceed unimpeded.
SCOTUS, however, did not rule on the substantive issues raised by Arpaio in his petition.
This means the substantive issues – including whether Arpaio should have been afforded a jury trial, and whether Arpaio was charged under the wrong statute simply because the statute of limitations had expired on the correct statute – to be raised again should Arpaio appeal to SCOTUS the District Court’s decision in the case.
To date, Attorney General Sessions has not responded to the “Background Letter.”
Arpaio’s attorneys believe Attorney General Sessions has the authority to stop Arpaio, now 85 years-old, from suffering the indignity of a political trial at the end of his distinguished decades-long law enforcement career.
If Sessions instructed DOJ prosecutors that the bench trial would be suspended until SCOTUS has an opportunity to rule on the substantive issues presented in the “Background Letter,” Arpaio’s attorneys believe Arpaio will win on the questions of law raised.
This outcome would result in the case against Arpaio being dismissed, obviating the need for Arpaio to suffer a political trial engineered by Tom Perez, a LaRaza “open borders” attorney in the Obama administration DOJ who vowed publicly a vengeance against Arpaio aimed at destroying his law enforcement career and ruining his reputation.
Here is the “Background Letter” in its entirety (minus 73 pages of legal appendices):
Goldman & Zwillinger, PLLC, Attorneys at Law
17851 North 85th Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
Mark D. Goldman
June 22, 2017
Via: First Class, U.S. Mail, Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Re: United States of America vs. Joseph M. Arpaio,
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona Case No. 2:16-cr-01012-SRB
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
The Department of Justice is presently prosecuting the above referenced criminal contempt charge against former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A bench trial is scheduled to begin in Phoenix on Monday, June 26, 2017. The action was improperly brought by the DOJ under 18 U.S.C. Section 401 as more particularly described in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus that is presently pending before the United States Supreme Court (the “Petition”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. We request that you review this matter prior to the commencement of the trial, and at the very least, you request the trial court to stay the trial pending the review of the Petition by the United States Supreme Court that was filed on May 24, 2017.
The criminal contempt allegations stem from an alleged failure of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Offices (MCSO) to comply with an Order of the Court (preliminary injunction) dated December 23, 2011. This charge relates back to the prior Obama administration and a time when the Sheriff’s practices were in direct opposition to the Obama administration in regards to immigration policy. The Sheriff was enforcing the law. The Obama administration appears to have been interested in doing the opposite for apparent political reasons.
8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g)(10) allows political subdivisions of a state to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States. This is precisely the activity that MCSO was involved in that allegedly violated the Court’s order. Sheriff Arpaio is being prosecuted for criminal contempt for allowing this lawful activity to occur in MCSO.
The political actions taken against Sheriff Arpaio are not unlike the apparent political actions taken by Former FBI Director Comey in relation to his pronouncements regarding then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and the investigation of her. Whether Director Comey intended to influence the election is irrelevant. The impact on candidate Clinton was clear.
In the case of Sheriff Arpaio, there were certain announcements by the Court or Department of Justice officials that occurred coincident with Arizona voting deadlines in 2016. The announcements influenced the election. The announcements involved the Court’s referral of the matter for criminal contempt and the Department of Justice’s announcement that it would, in fact, proceed with the prosecution. These announcements had an undeniable effect upon Sheriff Arpaio’s campaign to be elected to a seventh term in office. The impact on Sheriff Arpaio’s re-election campaign is clear. He is no longer Sheriff. (I have attached two timelines of certain actions, by certain parties, and the media, in relation to occurrences in the case. See Exhibit “B” attached hereto.)
In regards to other aspects of the prosecution, we request that you reconsider the DOJ’s prosecution of this matter because it was incorrectly brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 401. Section 401 relates to a simple criminal contempt of a lawful order. The matter should have been brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 402. Section 402 applies to contumacious conduct that is also a separate crime as more particularly described in the attached Petition. The allegations in this matter compel it to be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 402 that entitles the offender to a jury trial in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 3691. Additionally, Section 402 offenses come with a one year statute of limitations. Given that the matter was not charged under the correct statute, and consequently the Department of Justice has deprived Sheriff Arpaio of his jury trial right and the applicable statute of limitations, in the interest of justice we request that you move the Court to dismiss the criminal contempt proceedings or, at the very least, move the Court to stay the trial pending a full review of this matter by your office.
Time is of the essence for the reason that this matter is set to commence trial on June 26, 2017. We request that you, at a minimum, move to adjourn this trial so that your office may review the genesis of this prosecution, the incorrect application by the DOJ of 18 USC Section 401 in lieu of Section 402, and the pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus that is presently pending at the Supreme Court of the United States.
GOLDMAN & ZWILLINGER PLLC
Mark D. Goldman