RECALL RUSSEL PEARCE!!!!!

In many ways, the political enemies of Russell Pearce have already struck a victorious blow to his rabid and obsessively anti-immigration platform.  There will be a recall election, which is a first for a sitting legislator in Arizona’s nearly 100 year history.  It does not happen often.  In fact, it has never happened.  So, it is obvious that Pearce’s radicalism is not, contrary to popular belief, a belief shared by all Arizonans (or at least those Arizonans in Pearce’s district). 

I guess people are just sick of his hate politics.  When Arizonans were losing their homes and jobs at an alarming rate, Pearce, as Senate President, decided to pursue those issues which are important to him (like even more stringent immigration laws which make SB1070 look like immigration amnesty in comparison).  Arizona’s business community finally stood up for itself and argued against the economic masochism of these ever-increasing immigration-hostile laws.  Those new laws, thankfully, did not pass.  Arizona’s economy would be better now if those same businesses stood up to prevent SB1070 from passing as well.

Now that SB1070 is the law in Arizona, I would like to see one study that shows the economic benefit of that brain child of Pearce.   I’ve looked.  I can see some, particularly from the tourism industry, that have espoused the view that SB1070, even in its limited form, has hurt Arizona.  Interestingly, I have not seen one that has shown that it has improved the economy.  Perhaps that is because Arizona’s economy has not improved.  As it turns out, it’s not great to have a costly anti-immigration policy when the economy stinks. 

But to declare victory is premature.  Despite my cynicism that Pearce’s powerful and unethical political machine can be defeated tomorrow (November 8, 2011) (see the fiasco over the pretend candidacy of Olivia Cortes), it is not a victory until he is out of office.  Once out of office, perhaps his replacement, indeed perhaps the government of Arizona, which is de facto run by Pearce, can focus not on blaming every problem under the sun on the neighborhood Mexican hot dog vendor, but rather focusing on real issues. 

It’s easy to blame the undocumented.  They’re rather easily spotted (though that’s becoming less true every day).  But it is clear that Pearce had it all wrong when he targeted illegal immigration.  Using the economy as an excuse, he blamed immigration for Arizona’s woes.  Now that illegal immigration has been greatly reduced in Arizona, and its economy is still in the toilet, perhaps more intelligent people can go after the real culprit(s).

Once Pearce is out of office, perhaps the debate in Arizona can go away from hate and onto more productive and effective strategies.  Or perhaps the recall election has accomplished that already?  I believe to go forward, we need Pearce out.  If you can vote, do it.  Make Arizona a better place by turning Pearce into a private citizen where his hate will have less detrimental effect on the citizens of this State.

 Dan Ballecer, Esq.

@dballecer on Twitter

As much I try to ignore Sheriff Joe, here's a news morsel which I must blog about:

 http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/12/02/20091202courtdisrupted02-ON.html

 The full article gives the sordid history of this recent and, in my opinion, purposeful disruption of the Maricopa County Superior Court system by the Sheriff's department.  However, encapsulated it goes like this:

1.  Sheriff's deputy skims through a defense attorney's file, while the defense attorney wasn't looking, picks out a piece of paper, tells another deputy to copy it and place it back into the file (without informing the judge, the attorney or anybody else what he was doing); 

2.  Sheriff's deputy weakly tries to explain away this blatant violation of the Attorney-Client privilege (arguably, theft, as well), by stating it was all for "court security".  [like you can hide a gun on a piece of paper which is later photocopied].

 3. Judge Donohoe finds this Deputy in contempt, but, incredibly, orders the Deputy to apologize to the defense attorney whose file he pilfered, if the defense attorney is not satisfied with the apology, then he goes to jail. [yeah, I know, is this really how "law" is practiced here in Maricopa County?].

4.  Sheriff's deputy refuses to apologize and he reports to jail.

5. The same day that he reports to jail, about 20 other deputies called in "sick" thereby preventing the court from conducting an untold number of proceedings.

6.  Then, on the same day, today, a "bomb threat" was "allegedly" made from, of all places, the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office.  [who made the allegation: Coincidentally, the Sheriff's Office, of course].  

7.  Large areas of Downtown Phoenix are closed off now (as I write this) with Phoenix police taking over in riot gear.

Is there a Coup d'Etat going on in Phoenix right now?  Is Sheriff Joe trying to exert his power by expressing his displeasure about the contempt ruling and sentence for one of his deputies by purposefully disrupting the very Court system which he is charged with protecting?  How many victims were screwed today by not having their court cases heard?  How many prosecution cases might be jeopardized by the Government's failure to transport Defendants to court? 

Have we really fallen this far in this County?

I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm buying that 20 deputies coincidentally call in sick on a Wednesday (which also happens to be the same day where their fellow deputy reports to jail).  What we need is a reputable news reporter to do an in-depth investigative piece on the potential abuse of power happening here in Phoenix.  There have been other instances of the Sheriff trying to exert power over Superior Court. If nothing else, for a talented writer, there has to be a good book in here somewhere.  Somebody get on it.  Just my .02.

 @dballecer on Twitter

To all those who've given their lives, gave their lives, risked their lives and are risking their lives, we, as Americans thank you.  The men and women of our military put their necks on the line so that Americans can continue to govern themselves, as opposed to, for example, the Taliban governing us.  It is an honorable purpose, and they accomplish it honorably.

Now contrast that with our politicians.  Check out this link from my cousin's website, thetechstop.net. 

http://www.thetechstop.net/?p=3688

The purpose of our politicians is to govern our country.  However, this embarassing example of non-governance makes the fights between my 9 and 6 year old look sophisticated, effective and mature in comparison.   Is it any wonder why they can't seem to get anything accomplished?

Are our vets putting their lives on the line for this?  Really?  Let's remember your purpose.  It's not just to get re-elected.  It's not just to satisfy your special interests.  Act like adults.  Have some self-respect.  Govern us.  Make this country better. 

@dballecer on Twitter.

I don't normally post twice in one week, but I just couldn't resist this delicious morsel of a story:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/16/20091016arpaio1016.html

So, here's the thing.  The only other area of law that I practice (other than immigration) is criminal defense.  I've been practicing criminal law for about 14 years now both as a prosecutor and for the last 11 years, as a defense attorney.  I've tried hundreds (and maybe thousands) of cases and dealt with countless numbers of different police officers.  While I OFTEN disagree with officers' interpretations of statutes, or the way in which those statutes are applied, we always agree on one thing:  that a particular statute exists.

A police officer, almost without exception in my experience, has an almost photographic memory on citing statutes.  Out of the blue ask a Phoenix Police officer what statute covers DUI (23-1381) or suspended license (28-3473) or no proof of insurance (28-4135c), etc., he/she will be able to tell you instantly as if it was stamped in his/her brain.   Which brings us to what is so amazing about this story.

NEVER, NOT ONCE has a police officer arrested one of my clients on a statute that doesn't exist.  That's because a police officer knows that it is his duty to enforce the law.  Maybe he'll try to finagle an incident into an existing statute, but at least, there is a statute.  So there must be a LAW which must be enforced.  That's the starting point, a law.  From there, the officer acts.  

However, here, Sheriff Joe stood before a news conference and boldly let the world know what we (both attorneys and non-attorneys) already knew:  that Sheriff Joe is just not up on the law.  For years, many of us personally know of anecdotal, if not actual cases, where people have been stopped for DWB (Driving While Brown).  Now we have proof, from the horse's mouth, as to why.  You see, Sheriff Joe feels (note how I still use the present tense despite his office's admission of the non-existence of the law), that a person's dress, speech, appearance or presence in an area known for a high concentration of undocumented immigrants is reason enough to detain that person. Of course even in those anecdotal cases, other reasons were cited for those stops (such inconsequential issues as broken windshields, white light to the rear, etc.).  Those deputies didn't put down on any report that they stopped the person because they had an accent, had salsa music playing on the radio, or wore a T-Shirt saying "Si Se Puede".  Obviously, they put alternate justifications for the stop because they KNEW and KNOW that racial profiling is illegal.

But Sheriff Joe doesn't.

However, the hilarity doesn't stop there.  Did an in-house counsel draw up a legal memorandum, supported by research and case law, and give it to Sheriff Joe?  After all, if he's going to present himself at a news conference, he would need to be prepared right?  Wrong.  According to the story, it was pulled "by a staff member from the internet".  Unfortunately there's no video of me writing this article, because otherwise you'd see me rolling on the floor laughing.  If it came from the internet, it must be true, right? [break while I recover from an uncontrollable laughing spell].

Wait, there's more.  When called on it, Sheriff Joe initially denied knowing which website it came from, but he later claimed it came from, wait for it....from the Cornell Law website.  Cornell Law is one of our bastions of legal knowledge, an Ivy League law school of the first order.  So, if it came from there, it must have legitimacy right?  One problem, it didn't come from there! [another laughing spell].  In fact, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr a teacher from Cornell stated that not only is that statute not on the Cornell website, it doesn't even exist.  [sorry, but more laughter now].

As it turns out, it came from a "legal" interpretation from FAIR, a group opposed to not only illegal, but legal immigration.  They have also been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Hate group or not, the credibility of any "legal" opinion from that group has to be judged within the context of their core ideals, that is, no immigration, legal or not. Of course, while they might wish their interpretation to be correct, that doesn't make it so.  In fact, their interpretation is so wrong that the Sheriff's office is now being sued for implementing the racial profiling justification for their stops.  They might, in their minds, have a good faith basis for a change in the law to justify such stops, but, well, it's obvious the slippery slope that would follow from that line of reasoning.  That is why racial profiling is ILLEGAL.

Thankfully Sheriff Joe gives us another point of hilarity in this story.  Even while acknowledging the non-existence of his "law", through a spokesman, Sheriff Joe still justifies his continued immigration enforcement with "Although the citation and language does not appear in the U.S. code, Title 8 does exist..."  Yes, Sheriff Joe you're right on both counts, however, you're so wrong on what your statement means.  First, yes, your citation and legal opinion on this issue does not exist.  It's like the mythical Phoenix Suns Championship Banner.  There's no such thing. You're right about that.  Second, again, yes, you're right.  Title 8 does exist.  Folks, Title 8 is otherwise known as the Immigration and Nationality Act.  You're right. There are immigration laws that govern this country.

However, nowhere in Title 8 does it justify what you did or what you will continue to do, no matter what FAIR says.  Suddenly, I no longer think this story is so funny....

@dballecer on Twitter.