"Civil Disobedience": You're doing it wrong.

Michael Bryan's "Blog for Arizona"--a quality source of leftist commentary, thanks to contributor David Safier--also employs an anonymous character called "AZ Blue Meanie" who's partisan in a trite way and often simply a slob who discredits the others by association. Today, he hit a new low. Regarding arrests of protesters chaining themselves to rails and blocking the streets he had this to say:

The First Amendment is under assault in Arizona today...

Blocking the street, lying down in the street, chaining one's self to a rail, none of these are First Amendment protected activities. The First Amendment is not understood as protecting any and all acts so long as one can spin a tale claiming that they are a mode of expression.

"Civil disobedience" in particular is not usually protected by the First Amendment--unless it is disobedience of an official who is infringing First Amendment-protected activity. Civil disobedience is by definition the defiance of legal authority and inherently involves breaking statutory or common law.

What we are seeing from protesters today barely qualifies as civil disobedience. It's more a bully tactic than anything else. Incapable of expressing themselves in a responsible fashion (e.g. in writing) or of legitimately attracting the attention of the press, and perhaps ideologically opposed to (horror of horrors) buying advertising time or space they instead attract attention to themselves through disruption. Some are likely doing it as a "macho" thing. Next to mixing passable Lemon Drops and Cosmopolitans, few things make college-age panties drop faster than "Gee, aren't I the stud. I got arrested 'protesting against injustice'".

This bullying/posturing activity is, from a semiotic point of view, quite far from the civil disobedience of Thoreau, of Ghandi, and of SNCC and other 'Civil Rights' groups. Thoreau quite nearly defined the practice as forcing the authorities to shame themselves enforcing an unjust law. Lunch-counter sit-ins perhaps epitomized this: forcing the authorities to brutalize peaceful people to enforce the trespassing laws that made segregation possible. And the marches and blockades of Ghandi and King were no mere disruption, no mere bullying, and not in any way tantrums: they were demonstrations of the humanity of people treated as an underclass.

Every illegal immigrant engages in an act of civil disobedience when he crosses the border, when he goes to work without a visa, and when he fights to stay here. Ask "Why is that man (or woman) being taken away from his livelihood and community?" and the State is left to answer "He doesn't have the required permission slip. We don't issue those."

The "civil disobedience" we saw today, that has become a ritual on the far left, a rite of passage and perhaps one way young would-be radicals get laid, is a shameful mockery of the semiotically meaningful civil disobedience of the past and of the everyday civil disobedience of the illegal immigrant. And to assert that it is protected by the First Amendment when the point of civil disobedience is to demonstrate the injustice of a law is simply a sick joke.

Respect rule of law. Prosecute Sheriff Joe.

18 U.S.C. § 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(from Cornell's Legal Information Institute.)

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his goons deputies are supposedly going to conduct yet another sweep today. These inevitably end in civil rights violations, of which the case of Julian and Julio Mora is about the best-known. They inevitably depend on civil rights violations--arrests without probable cause--to operate.

This from this morning's ACLU-AZ e-mail:

In mid-June, a teenaged Latina girl was driving home. Near the entrance to her gated community, she was pulled over by a police officer for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. When asked to produce identification, she showed the officer her valid Arizona driver's license. The officer said the driver's license was not enough and stated "he was required by law to ask for further documentation as proof of citizenship." The girl, a high school senior, is a US citizen and speaks perfect English without an accent. Although the girl knew that SB 1070 hadn't yet gone into effect, she was so frightened and confused by his request that she agreed to have the officer follow her to her home (around the corner), where she went in and got her US Passport for him to review. The officer left without issuing a warning or ticket. Because she was extremely nervous, the girl was unable to write down his name or badge number. The student was (and still is) shaken by the incident. It's the example of someone being humiliated and treated like a criminal solely because of the color of her skin.

There we have it again: No probable cause, not even reasonable suspicion.

It needs to stop, and (successful) civil suit after (successful) civil suit has not stopped it. Joe Arpaio and any deputy who so much as violates one person's protected civil liberties and any of these sweeps must be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Sheriff Joe "fans" might recall that last year former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias remarked that if it were up to him, he'd seek an indictment of Joe Arpaio over civil liberties violations committed in the course of harassing his enemies, including the ACLU-AZ's Dan Pochoda, Maricopa County Manager David Smith, and Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon. U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke still hasn't developed the guts or the integrity to do what needs to be done. Now that Arizona immigration policy has the White House's attention, it's time for Eric Holder to put his foot down. I'm not expecting it to happen, but it's the sensible thing to do.

For what it's worth, my "pop sociology" conjecture--no, I can't cite any literature!--has Sheriff Joe's popularity dropping after he makes the perp walk on camera. The sort of people who support him are the sort who'd support Putin or Mussolini and perhaps the sort who support Barack Obama in his giving of extralegal orders to BP or his wiping out of GM shareholders. They're the Authoritarian Personality Disorder types who'd support any strongman just because he is a strongman. A bit of humiliation of the strongman will fix that. U.S. Marshalls at his Fountain Hills home will be best.

Clarification: I am not advocating 18 U.S.C. § 242 prosecution due to the actions in the specific incident mentioned in the ACLU morning e-mail; it would appear to be a very weak case. I am advocating prosecution for any "winning" incident of deprivation of rights under color of law and most certainly for any documented violations today or in the future.

The Maricopa County tantrum continues.

Via the Phoenix New Times, Andrew Thomas files criminal charges against Gary Donahoe.

Donahoe is the judge who ordered Adam Stoddard to jail.

The excuse: involvement in the supposed conspiracy involving the new court building. The evidence?: a series of rulings with which Thomas and Arpaio disagreed. Chances of indictment?: Minuscule.

Anyone closer to this care to weigh in? Thane?

Deputy Stoddard did not pass "Go", did not collect $200

Last week (via Matt Brown), Sheriff Joe was blustering that Detention Officer Adam Stoddard, who helped himself to a defense lawyer's privileged documents, would not be going to jail.

He's in jail now, albeit probably at the 'Mesa Hilton' facility.

The ABC 15 article contains Stoddard's statement to the press:

Recently, Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe ordered me to hold a press conference to publicly apologize for doing the job I have been trained to do.

Part of my job in providing security to the court is to inspect documents brought into the courtroom. On October 19th, I saw a document that I had not yet screened, and that raised security concerns. I retrieved that document in plain sight and had court personnel copy it to preserve it as evidence in case it was a security breach.

It was a split second decision and I do not regret my actions.

If the job Stoddard was trained to do includes taking privileged documents from defendants' attorneys, the problem is much more serious than just a "bad egg". And there's no reason for split-second decisions in that context. Defendant attacks a witness, that's time for split-second thinking. Removing a paper from an attorney's file after a split-second of consideration, that's called "kleptomania".

Word is that twenty officers of the MCSO engaged in a solidarity sickout this morning. Solidarity with violation of attorney-client privilege?--as in "we'd do it too!"? And on the taxpayer dime? Pink slips all around are appropriate. But in Sheriff Joe's Maricopa County, that'll never happen.

Note that Stoddard is being represented by an assistant county attorney. Maricopa County voters: What are you paying to keep Sheriff Joe? Add this to the total.

"No legitimate penological purpose": The Sheriff Joe bill keeps adding up.

Maricopa County taxpayers: Your elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio becomes more expensive by the month. How much is enough--how long will you be willing to fund his private crusades?

Back in 2005, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the Maricopa County Jail could not require women inmates to have to obtain a court order before receiving an abortion. Both the Arizona and United States Supreme Courts declined to hear appeals.

Sheriff Joe, never one to take "no" seriously, simply refused to change the policy; last year the ACLU-AZ asked that he and the MCSO be held in contempt of court. Sheriff Joe responded with a change in policy; instead of requiring a court order, he'd require that inmates prepay security and transportation costs.

Back to court, then, and according to Tuesday's ACLU-AZ press release, Arpaio loses again. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig granted ACLU-AZ's motion for summary judgement. I'd provide a link to the arguments, but Oberbillig's order indicates that no court recorder was present and, instead, the matter was recorded electronically. ACLU-AZ's motion is probably indicitave.

Oberbillig cites the 1987 Turner v. Safley precedent, in which the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion (in a case concerning marriage) stipulated that restrictions of inmates' 14th Amendment-protected rights must serve a legitimate penological purpose. The ruling was unanimous and the opinion, nearly so. This is settled law, in other words--that the motion for summary judgement was granted also reflects this--and supposing one wished to overturn abortion's legally protected status, given the Turner precedent, restricting inmate access to the service is an unintelligent way to go about it.

No word yet on whether or not the ACLU-AZ will seek attorney fees; I don't know them not to do so. There's no casual way to estimate how much Maricopa County spent on the case, either, but I can confidently say that once again Sheriff Joe spent taxpayer money on a sure loser.

HT: Alessandra Soler Meetze

Congressmen Franks and Smith: doubleplusgood doublespeakers about Sheriff Joe

"Hugh Nuze", 'blogging on Sonoran Alliance, reports a joint statement by Congressmen Trent Franks (AZ-2) and Lamar Smith (TX-21) on ICE/Homeland Security's nonrenewal of their enforcement agreement with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Despite the odd formatting (it seems like everyone who covered this forgot what the <blockquote> tag is for) what you are seeing on the Alliance page is the full text of the announcement. Let's examine it more closely:

This unbelievable move by the Obama Administration represents a politicized attempt to hinder one of our most effective illegal immigration enforcement mechanisms, the 287(g) program.

"Unbelievable?" "Politicized?" I suppose everything is politicized these days, But I'd hesitate to call established 4th/14th Amendment constitutional law "politicized". If DHS/ICE's decision is beyond the pale (what people usually mean when they say "unbelievable") we can conclude that Franks and Smith really don't care about Fourth Amendment protections. Perhaps it'd be better to take them literally and infer that they are having difficulty believing what happened. In that case, they should avail themselves of psychiatric services in D.C.

The key to combating illegal immigration is federal, state, and local cooperation.

Right-wingers are like old-fashioned libertarians. When abstractions start being tossed about, they're up to no good.

This is why we believe it is crucial for the federal government to continue to support individuals like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the implementation of agreements under section 287(g), which provides for the Department of Homeland Security to delegate authority to enforce federal immigration laws to state and local officials. To date, hundreds of local officers have been trained in enforcing U.S. immigration laws, and nowhere in the country is this more critical than in Maricopa County. Currently, over 33% of inmates in Maricopa County Sheriff facilities are illegal, and more than 53% of violent crimes in Maricopa County are committed by illegal immigrants.

53% According to whom? According to what study? That would contradict the experience of the rest of the U.S.A.--since Franks doesn't even allude to a source we can consider this as one of those 43.7% of statistics that are simply made up.

The fact is, the 287(g) program works. Thousands of illegal immigrants apprehended for other crimes are being identified and deported.

The fact is, only jackasses trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes actually write "the fact is". In speech, it's an obnoxious, arrogant, insulting tic in speech, as though that isn't bad enough. And more to the point, under the new agreement, the MCSO can still check the immigration status of those apprehended for other crimes.

Claims that the program was supposed to focus only on serious crimes are false. In fact, the program was created to let state and local law enforcement officials help enforce all immigration laws, not a select few. We must not forget that we live in a post-9/11 world and have a profound responsibility to secure the borders of this nation to prevent another terrorist attack.

The race to the bottom! The rest of us are concerned about being able to go about our daily lives without being herded into a Third World scene like Julian and Julio Mora, and Franks is appealing to the September 2001 terrorist attacks and trying to stir up irrational fear. And think about it: if you're a foreigner intent on some sort of kamikaze act of terror, wouldn't you rather have a visa, like the 11 Sept 2001 goons?

Terrorists are looking for our weakest link and will exploit such weaknesses at any cost. Border security and national security are inextricably linked.

Divert immigration back to the roads, where it belongs, and you wouldn't have this problem. Moreover: A shall-issue policy for visas would make it safe to presume that anyone without one is up to no good. Contrast this with the current situation, where the presumption is that the individual without the right visas--an illegal immigrant--is a victim of a broken system.

“Local law enforcement agencies deserve the thanks, and not punishment, of the federal government for helping to address the problem of rampant illegal immigration, especially in area like Maricopa County that see an increase in crime, drug trafficking, and other issues because of it.

This talk of an increase in crime is, again, suspicious, and the proper counterfactual to consider is not "immigrants obey the law" but rather "illegal immigrants are made legal."

"Punishment" would be making every single MCSO officer who violated 4th Amendment protections in the course of 287(g) street level enforcement pay up. To take an abused power away from local law enforcement, that's not punishment. Government agencies are not objects of moral consideration. To speak of their dignity is absurd--it is to make people subordinate to institutions.

Instead of launching a politicized attack against a local law official who has yielded great success with the 287(g) program

By "success", according to the Arizona Republic's numbers, they mean fewer than 300 suspected illegal immigrants caught by the enforcement actions that will soon be prohibited. Contast that to the 30,000 caught by screening of those arrested for other offenses.

the Obama Administration should replicate the success we have experienced in Maricopa County in other areas that are desperately in need of similar solutions. It is reprehensible for DHS to bull

Again, a regulatory change is "bullying", as though government agencies are entitled to their current powers due to some moral considerations, as though they are ends in themselves.

law enforcement officials who have honorably served this nation and the state of Arizona by enforcing federal and state laws and who are continuing to work to protect the American people.”

If what Sheriff Joe and his goons did to Julian and Julio Mora is honorable, if workplace raids are honorable, if willfully violating the U.S. Constitution is honorable, then Franks's and Smith's ideas of honor is very different than mine, and, I suspect, yours.

Given their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we can conclude that Franks's and Smith's sense of "honor" renders them dishonorable.

The obligatory Sherrif Joe post

Via the Arizona Republic and the Wall Street Journal (HT: Justyn Dillingham), word that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office agreement with (federal) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorizing street-level immigration enforcement by the department has ended. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has signed a new agreement with ICE allowing only screening of arrestees and jail inmates.

Arpaio is already blustering about there being no change--"I am free of the Federal Government". According to a second Republic article, Arpaio intends to continue charging undocumented immigrants as conspirators in their own smuggling--this despite Arpaio's deputies having no reason to believe any particular individual without the correct visas has been smuggled. Andrew Thomas's extremely creative interpretation of the state's human smuggling law has been upheld in appeals court but has yet to be tested at the Arizona Supreme Court.

The newspapers have avoided giving details as to why ICE might want Arpaio & Co.'s powers rolled back. (It wouldn't be editorializing, but who cares?--Republic reporters editorialize all the time!) Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputies routinely violate Fourth Amendment guarantees in their immigration enforcement operations. They're not in the "grey area" like the officers in the Evan Lisull chalking case. They're so clearly in the wrong that they could be said to disregard the law.

Consider, for example, the case of Julian and Julio Mora. Julian, a legal resident, and Julio, a U.S. citizen, were driving to Julian's place of work by their usual route. An MCSO car cut out abruptly in front of them; they were arrested and transported to the site of a workplace raid (itself of dubious legality), where they were detained for hours without contact with the outside world. The entire complaint is worth reading. The lack of reasonable suspicion for the preliminary search or probable cause for detention obvious, and the manner of detention will give you chills:

Upon arrival at H.M.I., Plaintiffs observed a scene that resembled a heavily guarded armed camp, with nearly as many uniformed MCSO personnel as detainees. It appeared that all of the employees [emphasis mine] who showed up to work at H.M.I. that morning were being detained. Some of the MCSO deputies were wearing masks over their faces and carrying semiautomatic rifles. Others surrounded H.M.I. employees who had been herded into two long lines for interrogation. Detainees were not provided with any food or water at any point while detained. They were ordered not to use their cell phones to speak with anyone on the outside, nor were they permitted to talk with other employees.

ACLU-AZ counsel Dan Pochoda seems to agree in spirit with the line of thought I presented yesterday:

Exemplary damages are required as punishment and to deter Defendants from repeating these abusive and illegal actions in the future.

The calculus in Sheriff Joe's head--and that of MCSO supervisor Joe Sousa and the other participating officers--should be a weighing of political grandstanding against the prospect of being left indigent (and probably unemployable as peace officers) due to the awarding of damages to those whose rights they violated under color of law.

---

For a long time I have favored a shall-issue policy for visas, letting the market decide who comes to the U.S. and who stays, and finding the "welfare state" cop-out to be overstated if one actually cares about quantitative information.

But suppose I didn't. Suppose I was a nativist, or someone who preferred that the people I encountered each day were of strictly European descent. Suppose I was someone who held it against undocumented immigrants that they didn't wait in a queue that didn't exist, who recognized that there was no means for them to simply fill out paperwork, wait for processing, and get a visa, and then cited this as a reason for them to never receive visas. Suppose, à la George Squyres's infamous August 2004 LP News article, which seems no longer to be on the Internet, that I considered being an illegal immigrant "prima facie evidence" for rejection of rule of law and was bigoted enough to not look beyond the prima facie and consider whether or not this was corroborated by the pattern of conduct in total.

Suppose that, like Russell Pearce, I thought that "illegal aliens have no rights", in either sense of the term. Suppose, to give the position its most charitable description, I out of peculiar aversion to "outsiders" or peculiar need for homogeneity just didn't like having Mexicans or Mexican-Americans around, wished they'd disappear, and didn't give a damn about their maltreatment.

I still wouldn't support Joe Arpaio's workplace raids and profiling, for no other reason than that his policies are patently unconstitutional and will cost the taxpayer's millions. There must be cheaper ways of actualizing one's bigotry. Regardless of one's position on immigration, to support grandstanding politicians who invite sure-win Fourth Amemdment civil liberties lawsuits is, independently, fiscally irresponsible lunacy.

Richard Epstein: use Federal antidiscrimination laws to go after Sheriff Joe

My favorite contemporary political-philosophical thinker talks civil rights law in Forbes (HT: Reason Hit and Run), and recommends using it against one of my least favorite people:

So just what is left for the revitalized Civil Rights Division to do? The division should target state and local governments that, free of any competitive market pressures, pose genuine risks of unchecked discrimination. A quick read of William Finnegan's "Profile: Sheriff Joe [Arpaio]" in The New Yorker certainly counts in my book as probable cause for a DOJ investigation. Remember, on race relations the libertarian insight still holds true. Race discrimination does not survive in competitive markets. But it does flourish when public officials exercise monopoly power without external supervision.

Think this talk is bombast? Read up on the case of Julian and Julio Mora. Driving while appearing to be of Mexican descent appears now to constitute reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause, for MCSO purposes.

Miscellaneous Endorsements: Maricopa County and Central Arizona

Four more endorsements, then sleep, work, and the polls, all the while anxious about the eventual disposition of Proposition 101:

• Elect Dan Saban Maricopa County Sheriff.
  
  Joe Arpaio's PR men promote him as "America's Toughest Sheriff". What does having America's Toughest Sheriff get the people of Maricopa County? Publicity stunts, money wasted pursuing immigration paperwork offenders instead of criminals, civil liberties violations, extradition refusals, and quite a few sure-loser lawsuits. If they end up spending a night in his "Tent City" jail, it may even cost them their lives. The Wikipedia article on the man is a good place to start for those unfamiliar with his record, or just search for his name on Google.
  
  The County's authoritarian-leaning electorate has been predisposed to view Arpaio's detractors as "whiners", "supporters of criminals", and other such nonsense. Reflect for a moment on why our Constitution has e.g. the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and if that doesn't convince you he has to go, consider how much those lawsuits are costing the taxpayer. If you're still not convinced he has to go, let me remind you that he has been using his office to harass and intimidate< critical journalists, leading to a standoff with Phoenix police when his deputies threatened to arrest a New Times reporter for the offense of searching public records, and also to a lawsuit over the retaliatory arrest and false imprisonment of New Times executives. If you don't think that behavior crosses the line, you likely think that the First Amendment is for whiners and that mere mortals ought never question any behavior by any "authority figure". But if you believed that, you wouldn't be reading my endorsements.
  
  Dan Saban is running to restore the respectability of the Sheriff's office and department, to end the stream of lawsuits, the posturing, the gimmicks, and the publicity stunts--none of which have made Maricopa county a safer place to live--replacing them with modern practices that work. Joining with the Arizona Republic and most of the area's policemen's organizations--again, strange company!--I encourage you to give him your vote.
  
  
• Elect Judah Nativio to the AZ Senate, district 18
  
  Russell Pearce, more than anyone else, "poisoned the waters" at the Capital, whipping up xenophobia, even declaring illegal immigrants to "have no rights", as if to incite the people to a Rwandan solution.
  
  Term-limited out of the State House of Representatives, he's running for the State Senate. Judah Nativio, a cardboard-cutout Democrat, is his opponent. Don't send Pearce back to the Capitol; vote Nativio. Better to elect a mediocre Democrat than the State's major instigator of anti-immigrant hysteria.
  
  
• Vote Joe Cobb in Congressional District 4
  
  I haven't much to say about incumbent Ed Pastor. (This is why I need a co-blogger in Maricopa County.) As far as I've been able to discern, the long-serving Democrat has a voting record that's "middle of the road" given his Party affiliation.
  
  What I do know, however, is that in any given room it's likely that (Libertarian) Joe Cobb can think circles around 99% of the other people present. Unlike most of the Libertarian Party's candidates he demonstrates an understanding of subtlety and that public policy is a balancing act. He demonstrates a genuine intellectual curiosity, an even temper, a courteous modesty, and the humane liberal values that characterize the libertarian movement but are all too absent from the Libertarian Party. More importantly, although he has not served in elected office, his past experience in government makes him well-qualified to serve in Congress, perhaps more so than any other Congressional challenger in the State.
  
  When I recommend voting for a Libertarian or a Green, it's usually as a protest vote. Don't vote for Joe Cobb as a protest vote. Vote for Joe Cobb because he's the best man for the job and, in a just world, would be a shoo-in.
  
  
• Re-elect Jeff Flake in Congressional District 6. If any incumbent Congressman, anywhere in the USA, deserves re-election, it is Jeff Flake. Since leaving the Goldwater Institute for Congress eight years ago, Flake has become the House's premier advocate of fiscal restraint and one of its foremost champions of civil liberties. The "Flake Hour" set off the fight against earmarks. Party leadership made him pay for it, but he's stood firm. Perhaps if they'd have listened to Flake, they wouldn't be set to lose the House to the Democrats, again, despite low overall Congressional approval ratings.
  
  Contrast this with Democratic challenger Rebecca Schneider, who gripes that "people are tired of Jeff Flake not helping them. Need I explain to you, Ms. Schneider, how disingenous it is to call B slipping an earmark at the end of a bill to spend A's taxes for the benefit of C "help"? Or perhaps she really thinks that the job of a Congressman is to drive around the Valley and assist people stuck on the highway in changing their tires, or coax cats down from trees. Schneider's website reads like a third party candidate's thoughtless rant (and full of greengrocers' apostrophes and similar errors, too!), and her statements to the press show her to be similarly out of her league. Give her a few years on a school board or water board to learn to think about policy, perhaps then she'll be worth considering. The only reason she even has a hair of a chance this year is because of general anger at the Republican Party.
  
  That a Libertarian newcomer (with a website creepily reminiscent of the LaRouchies), Rick Biondi, is running against Flake is startling. Flake is easily the most libertarian member of the House. He voted against Sarb-Ox, voted against Medicare Part D, supported comprehensive immigration reform, and while he may have initially supported the PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq, came to oppose both, and vote accordingly, in little time. Perhaps Biondi's run is an exercise in vanity?; surely there was room for a Libertarian on the State Senate ballot! Libertarians: look up Flake's record--he's not the "lesser of two evils"--and pass on Biondi.
  

Are dangerous predators like Andrew Thomas or Joe Arpaio living in your neighborhood? Check these public records.

Joe Arpaio, "America's Toughest Sheriff", has blustered on occasion that his address is a matter of public record, and that he travels without guard, so that if anyone--such as mothers of his victims--wants to take him out, they could.

When someone publishes that address in a newspaper, however, chief goon (and bigot enabler) Andrew Thomas goes on the warpath. He's learned, however, that attempts to intimidate a major city's weekly are politically perilous. We still take freedom of the press seriously here in the States.

Now Thomas is upset--crocodile tears, if you ask me--that Azcentral.com, the website run by the Arizona Republic and Phoenix channel 12, published links to public documents giving his home address, complaining that it put him and his family in peril. The paper, as a courtesy, deleted the links.

I don't advocate doing anything to anyone's wife and children, nor do I believe that assassinations are an appropriate way to take even folks as low as Thomas and Arpaio out of office. However, Thomas, for the prosecution of Matt Bandy, for the failure to prosecute Patrick Haab, and for numerous offenses against the public trust and the liberty of the people, is beneath the courtesy shown to him by the Republic. For well-known reasons--including the attempt to intimidate the New Times--the same applies to Arpaio.

Both men's addresses are public record, on the Maricopa County Recorder's website. Both of Thomas's and Arpaio's residences may be found on their 2004 Financial Disclosure Statements.

Kids, if you go trick-or-treating to the addresses given, have your parents check things over. The homes are known for harboring bad apples.