Sheriff Penzone welcomes illegals, evicts disabled vet

July 18, 2019

Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone is a man with little to recommend him. As a police officer separated from his first wife, he roughed her up when she didn’t have their son’s hockey gear beside the door when he arrived to pick the boy up. The redacted Glendale police report, previously available online, was removed when he took his second stab at running for sheriff after losing to popular six-term Sheriff Joe Arpaio in 2012. 

Democrat Penzone won in 2016, thanks to socialist multi-billionaire George Soros, who pumped nearly $3 Million into Penzone’s campaign as he made overhauling the U.S. criminal justice system a priority. Penzone was also the beneficiary of relentless hammering of Sheriff Arpaio by the failing daily newspaper where Arpaio’s anything-for-a-buck son-in-law Phil Boas, the editorial page editor, oversaw the daily assault on his wife’s father.

Back in 2011, Human Events listed the “Top 10 Reasons George Soros Is Dangerous,” referring to him as “the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country.” Soros is also a globalist who despises national borders.

Soon after Penzone took office, he gave a nod to his open border supporting benefactor Soros, by referring to illegal invaders flooding Arizona as “guests.”

With these facts as background it’s not difficult to grasp the callousness of Penzone’s actions in seizing and auctioning off the mobile home belonging to a disabled military veteran — for “outstanding back taxes.” In fact, the $405.70 tax payment was made by owner Jim Boerner a full week before the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office sold his home.

Penzone claimed his officers who seized the property weren’t aware of the payment until after the home was put up for auction and sold to a buyer on June 20. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery is currently reviewing the legality of the sale of the vet’s mobile home.

The Maricopa County Treasurer’s Office, which collects and administers taxes, says the payment was legally processed and the outstanding debt was paid on June 13, by Jim Boerner whether the sheriff knew about it or not.

Ignorance is no defense for acting reprehensively.  Most importantly, the buck stops with Penzone.

Advertisements

Of course, Census citizenship question matters*

July 6, 2019

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts mimics Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy as swing vote

On Friday, the Justice Department said it will continue researching for legal grounds to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. Earlier President Trump said he is “very seriously” considering an executive order to get the question on the form.

Although the Dems are hard at work attempting to politicize it, the issue of incorporating the citizenship question on the U.S. Census form, has far reaching ramifications that affect us all.

Congressional districts are apportioned based on the number of voting citizens as opposed to residents.

The Hill released the findings of a Hill-HarrisX survey conducted in late April, showing 60% of Americans support having the citizenship question included on the census form. Support cut across all demographics.

The U.S. Census Bureau explains the history of place of birth, citizenship, year of entry questions, noting the citizenship question originated with the 1820 Census, place of birth originated with the 1850 Census, and year of entry originated with the 1890 Census. In 2005, the USCB transferred to the American Community Survey replacing the decennial census long form.

The citizenship question should not be controversial. Most nations ask it, including Mexico and Canada. The United Nations recommends the practice. The United States previously asked about citizenship as well, but since 1950 the question has not been included in the census forms that most people receive. (A much longer, more detailed questionnaire sent to a small sample of households chosen at random includes the question, which has not previously been a hotly debated topic revving up the ACLU and Democrat presidential candidates until the advent of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Last week, a divided Supreme Court — with Chief Justice John Roberts disappointingly swinging left again and joining four Democrats — ruled that the Trump administration’s stated reason for including a question about citizenship on the 2020 census — to help the Department of Justice better enforce federal voting rights laws — was a pretext. The “evidence,” Chief Roberts wrote, “tells a story that does not match the explanation that” Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross provided. The case has been sent back to the Department of Commerce.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissent joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that Ross’ decision “was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion.”

When his vote holds massive and long-ranging implications such as with the 2012 opinion upholding Obamacare, Roberts caves.

President Trump said his administration is exploring a number of legal options, including issuing an executive order which have been used by all presidents — with Bill Clinton topping the list at 364.

Take the single minute required to read, “Of Course the Census Should Ask a Citizenship Question,”* by Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer, now Senior Legal Fellow with The Heritage Foundation.


Agendized lawyers pushing border detention farce

July 5, 2019

Do the crime, you do the time…without your family

Two local lawyers who draw their salaries from a tax-exempt corporation known as Abolish Private Prisons, have written an op-ed in the Hillary-endorsing, homeless vagrant newspaper, condemning border detention centers.

Under the guise of “criminal justice reform,” the now sacred cow of the left, John Dacey and Robert Craig, are in reality, working to lodge a legal challenge to the constitutionality of prison privatization in the United States. Socialist billionaire George Soros has been funding the overturning the U.S. criminal justice system for years as noted by Politico.

They inventively link the 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence to holding illegal invaders in border facilities, which they disdain. They focus on children, since that fulfills the heartstrings tugging aspect of their lengthy screed.

The word pictures they paint are more preposterous than disturbing. This is an example: “Babies on cold concrete floors, not being allowed to sleep, shower or wash themselves.”

They write of “distraught parents having loved ones ripped from their arms.” as they ignore the facts. Many of these children are not traveling with their parents. Our lax laws allow invaders traveling with children priority processing status. They know the drill, bringing often exploited children, as they falsely claim asylum status.

If asylum is actually what Central Americans are seeking, why didn’t they make that claim when they set foot in Spanish-speaking Mexico?  American benefits are generous and the Democrat presidential candidates are promising them even more, along with the right to determine our congressional representation, by being counted in the 2020 U.S. Census.

American citizens who commit crimes are separated from their children during their incarceration. It happens every day in every state in the nation. If the crimes are egregious enough, the parents and children are permanently separated.

Then comes the ax wielded by the Abolish Private Prisons profiteers: “Most detainees are in private facilities.” What the duo is looking for is launching a money-making challenge to the constitutionality of private for-profit prisons at the SCOTUS level. They are on the same page as the radically left Southern Poverty Law Center, which places people and organization it reviles on a hate group list. Their allegations are on par with radical Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who falsely alleged that detained women were told to drink out of the toilet.

Claiming to care about babies “unable to shower,” they actually care about money lining their own pockets.

The duo opines that “the evils” of private detention “enable the current atmosphere of over-enforcement” — as if were it not for incarceration there would be no crime.

Disingenuously alleging basic hygienic amenities like toothbrushes and soap is denied to the illegals, Dacey and Craig actually write that the conditions have prompted former prisoners of the Taliban and Somali pirates to speak out, saying that such basic items were provided even while they were held captive — placing the U.S. below terrorists.

They urge voting for legislators who will end this. “We need active citizens to demand so much more than we are getting from our elected leaders. Support leaders and organizations that demand moral solutions. But unless we are willing to fight for change, by voting for policies and legislators that would end these practices, we are complicit in these cruelties.”

Guess who Dacey and Craig will be voting for? Hint: it won’t be Republicans. That’s why the leftist newspaper provided undeserved space.


Trump appointees to SCOTUS having major impact

June 23, 2019

The Daily Caller headlines its post by Kevin Daley, “Kagan Seethes As High Court Conservatives Deliver Property Rights Win.”

It contains less legalese than the SCOTUSblog, but they each cover this significant case and Justice Elena Kagan’s searing rebuke of her conservative colleagues, accusing them of smashing “a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens.”

The dissent noted Friday’s case was the second time this term that the conservative justices have overturned a controlling precedent, prompting Kagan to ask, forebodingly, which precedent the high court will overrule next.

“Just last month, when the Court overturned another longstanding precedent, Justice [Stephen] Breyer penned a dissent,” Kagan wrote. “He wrote of the dangers of reversing legal course ‘only because five members of a later Court’ decide that an earlier ruling was incorrect. He concluded: ‘Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.’”

“Well, that didn’t take long,” Kagan added. “Now one may wonder yet again.”

Kagan was referencing Breyer’s May dissent in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which asked whether states are immune from lawsuits in the courts of other states. In Hyatt, the five-justice conservative majority overturned a 1979 decision and said the states do indeed have sovereign immunity in the courts of their sister states.

Friday’s property rights dispute arose when a small town in Pennsylvania adopted an ordinance requiring that cemeteries “be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” The town told Rose Mary Knick, whose 90-acre property includes a small family cemetery, that she must comply with the rule. Knick sued, saying the ordinance violates the takings clause of the Constitution. The takings clause says the government must compensate property owners for any land seized for public use.

 A 1985 Supreme Court case called Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank required Knick to seek compensation at the state level before going to federal court. Indeed, that ruling required Knick and plaintiffs like her to exhaust all possible state compensation remedies before turning to the federal judiciary.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Williamson County decision was wrong and Knick can go to a federal judge right away.

“Williamson County was not just wrong,” the chief wrote. “Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of our takings jurisprudence.”

The Williamson County ruling, Roberts said elsewhere, imposes “an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it.”

The chief justice noted the Court considers several factors when deciding to overrule a prior decision. In that connection, he cited the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, which said government unions cannot force non-members to pay so-called agency fees. The citation to Janus drew a sharp rebuke from Kagan.

“If that is the way the majority means to proceed — relying on one subversion of stare decisis to support another — we may as well not have principles about precedents at all,” Kagan wrote. “Stare decisis” is a Latin legal term meaning “to stand by things decided.” Janus overturned the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ruling.

Friday’s case is No. 17-647, Knick v. Township of Scott.

This was the Aug. 5, 2010 senate roll call vote on Elena Kagen’s confirmation.


Mark DeSimone: from Dem AZ lawmaker to lifer

June 18, 2019

Mark DeSimone, 56, a former Arizona legislator convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of a man at a remote cabin site in Alaska in 2016 was sentenced Monday to 65 years in prison, with 20 years suspended.

DeSimone was a dichotomy. On one hand he was a hot-head, with drinking problems whose violence toward his then-wife in 2008, escalated eight yeas later to the murder of an acquaintance during a hunting and fishing trip in Alaska. The Anchorage Daily News carries the complete report, including a photo of the now unrecognizable DeSimone.

Previously, DeSimone was a well-presented businessman. The Phoenix bar owner was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2006, representing then-District 11, a GOP stronghold. He was considered genial by his colleagues. His interest in politics initially piqued as he opposed a ballot Initiative known as Proposition 201 or the “Smoke-Free Arizona Act.” It banned smoking in public buildings, bars and restaurants, which he believed would hurt business. Despite his opposition, it passed 54.8% to 45.2%.

After his arrest for spousal abuse, DeSimone resigned his legislative seat, ultimately moving to Juneau where he had attended high school. Unable find employment, he advertised his services as a handyman and slept in his car or bunked with friends. Then came the unexplained two shots to the back of the victim’s head, resulting in the life sentence of the assailant, a widow and two sets of fatherless children.


Pres. Trump’s legal shakedown from Dem DC judge

May 21, 2019

Obama appointed Judge upholds Dem subpoena for president’s tax records

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued this 41-page order in favor of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Oversight sub-committee* seeking President Donald Trump’s personal and business tax records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP.

The flamboyant opinion filled with inflammatory quotes, opens with an 1860 statement of protest from President James Buchanan which Mehta parallels to President Trump, writing, “Some 160 years later, President Donald J. Trump has taken up the fight of his predecessor.” Mehta gives cover to the partisan committee writing, it “has shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the President’s financial records,” disingenuously adding that “the documents might assist Congress in passing laws and performing other core functions.”

“Might”? In Mehta’s convoluted, partisan thinking, that meets a sufficient legal standard.

Judge Mehta also denied a request to stay his decision pending an appeal. Additionally, Mehta provocatively asserted that Congress can investigate President Trump without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.

These are the Judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (appointed by Bill Clinton: 1994)

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Bill Clinton: 1997)

District Judge James E. Boasberg (Barack Obama: 2011)

District Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Barack Obama: 2011)

District Judge Rudolph Contreras (Barack Obama: 2012)

District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (Barack Obama: 2013)

District Judge Christopher R. Cooper (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Randolph D. Moss (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Amit P. Mehta (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Timothy J. Kelly (Donald Trump: 2017)

District Judge Trevor N. McFadden (Donald Trump: 2017)

District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Donald Trump: 2017)

 

* Scroll through to see the committee members and their party affiliations.


Socialist $oros, MC Sheriff Paul Penzone ties exposed

May 16, 2019

Multi-billionaire Soros, a dedicated Socialist, has long been behind organizations that fund leftwing candidates, causes and groups*

A disturbing article published in Law Enforcement Today inextricably links the election of Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone to his high dollar campaign funder, socialist multi-billionaire George Soros. Titled, “Is Maricopa County Controlled by George Soros?”  the must read report pulls no punches regarding Soros’ extreme agenda. Penzone’s Chief of Staff and Special Counsel, Stephanie Fleischman Cherny, who has direct ties to Soros, the ACLU and La Raza. wields extraordinary power in the office.      

During the 2016 election cycle, Soros’ radical tentacles extended over the entire country, as he attempted to exert his extremist influence liberalizing the criminal justice system in county attorney’s races (called district attorneys in some jurisdictions outside of Arizona) and law enforcement arenas. In 2016 SRAZ posted,“By George! McCain & Hillary have a lot in common,” detailing Soros’ disturbing relationships with John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Soros’ presence was definitely felt in the high profile Maricopa County Sheriff’s race where he shoveled $millions into defeating 6-term Sheriff Joe Arpaio. His influence was also evident in the Maricopa County Attorney’s race as he targeted Bill Montgomery, who was reelected despite Soros‘ efforts. Working under the radar, through his numerous networks, he channeled $millions into national campaigns, an effort which is expected to intensify in the future due to determined planning and vigorous candidate recruitment.

Chicago’s Cook County top prosecutor Kim Foxx — who dropped 16 felony counts against “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett following the revelation that he had staged an elaborate hoax hate-crime attack against himself to generate publicity — was elected with $408,000 donated by Soros. Foxx had little to recommend her for the position other than the fact that she was suitable for doing the billionaire’s bidding. She lacked trial experience and was hit with nearly $20,000 in fines for errors in campaign finance filings, but Soros’ money worked like a charm…as it did for Sheriff Paul Penzone.

Soros, who disdains national borders found another willing cohort in Paul Penzone. Shortly after being elected sheriff, Penzone referred to illegal alien invaders as “guests.”

 * Acquaint yourself with Discover the Networks