ABOVE: ARPAIO WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP
BELOW: JUDGE BOLTON
EX SHERIFF ARPAIO FIGHTS CLAIM THAT TRUMP'S PARDON WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DOJ urges federal judge to vacate Arpaio’s guilty verdict in Oct. 4 hearing
BY JEROME CORSI
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Attorneys for former Sheriff Joe Arpaio
have filed a motion with Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court
in Arizona, seeking to block amicus briefs challenging the
constitutionality of President Trump’s pardon filed by two groups,
including one staffed by former Obama administration lawyers.Reuters reported on Tuesday that Protect Democracy Project, an advocacy group that includes the Obama administration lawyers, filed a separate brief urging Bolton to first decide whether the pardon was constitutional before dismissing the case.
Arpaio’s attorney, Mark Goldman, Goldman & Zillinger PLLC in Scottsdale, Ariz., provided Infowars.com with a copy of the motion his firm filed with Judge Bolton on Tuesday, petitioning Judge Bolton to dismiss the amicus briefs on argument that the rule in American criminal law jurisprudence is that private citizens “lack a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution” of another private citizen.
“These filings by third parties in a criminal trial matter should have been immediately rejected or stricken by the court,” Goldman insisted in an email sent exclusively to Infowars.com.
“The fact that these filings were not immediately rejected and/or stricken by the court is shocking,” Goldman’s email continued. “The rule of law should apply to Sheriff Arpaio as well as anyone else. The fact that he’s now been forced to reply to these filings places an inappropriate and unconstitutional burden on Sheriff Arpaio.”
Goldman explained to Infowars.com why the filing of an amicus brief is considered inappropriate in American jurisprudence.
“Can you imagine if non-prosecutors were able to file motions and briefs in criminal trial matters in courts in America?” Goldman asked rhetorically.
There would be utter chaos and a complete breakdown of the criminal justice system along with placing unconstitutional burdens on defendants,” he explained.
“Criminal defendants would not only have to brief, argue and defend against the government prosecutors, but also be forced to brief, argue and defend against perhaps thousands of other parties in defending their criminal cases,” he continued. “The very idea of a court accepting these filing is outrageous.”
Goldman was dismayed Judge Bolton did not dismiss these two amicus briefs immediately.
“The failure of this court to immediately reject these filings and sanction the parties and attorneys submitting these filings is now encouraging more of these filings,” Goldman stressed.
“The irony is that this court found Sheriff Arpaio in contempt of court, a finding that was so baseless and lacking in merit that the President of the United States had to step in and correct this injustice, yet this court appears to sanction these unprecedented third-party filings,” he said.
On Monday, the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the U. S. Department of Justice filed a petition with Judge Bolton asking the U.S. District Court at Arpaio’s sentencing hearing scheduled for Oct. 4 in Phoenix, to vacate the verdict in which Judge Bolton found on July 6, 2017, that Arpaio was guilty of a criminal misdemeanor for disobeying a preliminary injunction issued in a civil case involving a Maricopa County traffic stop.
“A pardon issued before entry of final judgment moots a criminal case because the defendant will face no consequences that result from the guilty verdict,” the Justice Department argued to Judge Bolton. “Accordingly, the government agrees the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”
