On Monday, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton found Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt of court, finding that he willfully violated a federal judge's order.

The sentencing phase will begin Oct. 5. Arpaio faces up to six months in confinement, a sentence equivalent to that of a misdemeanor.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3689388&forum_id=2#33891977)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ex-sheriff-joe-arpaio-convicted-of-criminal-contempt/2017/07/31/26d9572e-7620-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3689388&forum_id=2#33892989)

http://www.azbar.org/FindALawyer.aspx?firstname=John&lastname=Wilenchik

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3689388&forum_id=2#33893008)

Fuck this prick

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3689388&forum_id=2#33894050)

in illinois, a state judge would get told to fuck off if he told a jailer, for example, how to run the jail

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3689388&forum_id=2#33894091)

I'm honestly uncertain about the merits of the underlying 2011 (?) order: I don't know whether the judge ruled that (a) a sheriff's office simply lacks authority to stop illegal aliens, and thus those arrests are simple 4th Am. violations; or (b) even if the sheriff has the authority in the abstract, sheriff joe was engaged in racial profiling (sufficient to constitute a pattern/practice/policy in violation of the EPC), and enjoining such enforcement was a necessary remedy to stop the constitutional violation. Option (b) seems like a grossly overbroad remedy to me, and an uncomfortable one under federalism principles. Option (a) is a little weird because (1) it's indisputable that state LEOs can arrest for federal crimes; and (2) while a civilly deportable alien might not have committed a crime -- e.g., overstaying a visa makes you deportable, but not a criminal (you have to have "entered" illegally) -- I have to imagine that if you have "actual knowledge" that a person is an unauthorized foreign national, in 99% of cases you at least have PC to believe a misdemeanor federal illegal-entry crime has been committed.

Regardless of whether the original federal order was well reasoned or shitlib bullshit, once it's issued your only recourse is to appeal it, and in fact sheriff joe will almost certainly be barred from making the "yeah well that injunction was fucking bullshit anyway" argument on appeal under the collateral bar rule. You can argue that the injunction was insufficiently clear, but my recollection is that clarity challenges are assessed in the context of the allegedly contemptuous *acts*; so even if the injunction's a little fuzzy around the edges, if your conduct was clearly in the core of what the injunction forbids, you're fucked.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3689388&forum_id=2#33894235)

Heh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3689388&forum_id=2#34070672)