PHOENIX (AP) — The federal government issued a scathing report Thursday that outlines how Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office has committed a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos, including a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged citizen complaints.
The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its release, is a result of the U.S. Justice Department's three-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level.
The Justice Department's conclusions in the civil probe mark the federal government's harshest rebuke of a national political fixture who has risen to prominence for his immigration crackdowns and became coveted endorsement among candidates in the GOP presidential field.
Apart from the civil rights probe, a federal grand jury also has been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and is specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.
The civil rights report said federal authorities will continue to investigate complaints of deputies using excessive force against Latinos, whether the sheriff's office failed to provide adequately police services in Hispanic communities and a large number of sex-crimes cases that were assigned to the agency but weren't followed up on or investigated at all.
The report took the sheriff's office to task for launching immigration patrols, known as "sweeps," based on complaints that Latinos were merely gathering near a business without committing crimes. Federal authorities single out Arpaio himself and said his office, known as MCSO, has no clear policies to guard against the violations, even after he changed some of his top aides earlier this year.
"Arpaio's own actions have helped nurture MCSO's culture of bias," wrote Thomas Perez, who heads the Justice Department's civil rights division, adding that the sheriff frequently gave such racially charged letters to some of his top aides and saved them in his own files.
(Bill’s Note: J. Christopher Adams in his book “Injustice”, which exposes the rampant corruption and law breaking of the Holder Justice Department, states the following about Tom Perez—Perez “is a long-term advocate for legal aliens who served as president of Casa de Maryland, a radical open borders advocacy organization that encourages illegal aliens not to speak with the police and urges local governments not to enforce federal fugitive warrants against them. He also fouoght to mandate that Mexican identification be recognized as valid photo ID in the United States, even though the documents are so rife with fraud that twenty-two of Mexico’s thirty-two states and districts refuse to recognize the documents.”)
"MCSO is broken in a number of critical respects. The problems are deeply rooted in MCSO's culture," he said Thursday.
The Justice Department's expert on measuring racial profiling said it's the most egregious case of racial profiling in the nation that he has seen or reviewed in professional literature, Perez said. (Bill’s Note: Which given the now aberrant characteristic of Holder’s DOJ, means nothing).
Investigators interviewed more than 400 people, including Arpaio, reviewed thousands of documents and toured county jails as part of its probe, he said.
If the sheriff's office doesn't turn around its policies and practices, the federal government could pull millions of dollars of federal funding. (Bill’s Note: And Arpaio would say like Harry Cunningham of SFPD “Make my day.”)
Arpaio's office did not immediately respond to AP requests for comment.
The report will require Arpaio to set up effective policies against discrimination, improve training and make other changes that would be monitored for compliance by a judge. Arpaio faces a Jan. 4 deadline for saying whether he wants to work out an agreement. If not, the federal government will sue him and let a judge decide the complaint.
Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America, has long denied the racial profiling allegation, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they have committed crimes and that deputies later find many of them are illegal immigrants.
Arpaio has built his reputation on jailing inmates in tents and dressing them in pink underwear, selling himself to voters as unceasingly tough on crime and pushing the bounds of how far local police can go to confront illegal immigration.
The report also said he and some top staffers tried to silence people who have spoken out against the sheriff's office by arresting people without cause, filing meritless lawsuits against opponents and starting investigations of critics. (Bill’s Note: Given the many examples of fraudulent activities rampant in the Holder DOJ, as discussed in Injustice, this is probably a total setup. Adams notes that every time DOJ has been sued for fraudulent claims, the courts have ruled against the DOJ and the department has had to pay out significant monies to defendants in such cases)
One example cited by the Justice Department is former top Arpaio aide David Hendershott, who filed bar complaints against attorneys critical of the agency along with bringing judicial complaints against judges who were at odds with the sheriff. All complaints were dismissed.
The anti-corruption squad's cases against two county officials and a judge collapsed in court before going to trial and have been criticized by politicians at odds with the sheriff as trumped up. Arpaio has defended the investigations as a valid attempt at rooting out corruption in county government.
The civil rights report said Latinos are four to nine times more likely to be stopped in traffic stops in Maricopa County than non-Latinos and that the agency's immigration policies treat Latinos as if they are all in the country illegally. Deputies on the immigrant-smuggling squad stop and arrest Latino drivers without good cause, the investigation found.
A review done as part of the investigation found that 20 percent of traffic reports handled by Arpaio's immigrant-smuggling squad from March 2006 to March 2009 were stops — almost all involving Latino drivers — that were done without reasonable suspicion. The squad's stops rarely led to smuggling arrests.
Deputies are encouraged to make high-volume traffic stops in targeted locations. There were Latinos who were in the U.S. legally who were arrested or detained without cause during the sweeps, according to the report.
During the sweeps, deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases, heavily Latino areas — over several days to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders. Illegal immigrants accounted for 57 percent of the 1,500 people arrested in the 20 sweeps conducted by his office since January 2008, according to figures provided by Arpaio's office.
Police supervisors, including at least one smuggling-squad supervisor, often used county accounts to send emails that demeaned Latinos to fellow sheriff's managers, deputies and volunteers in the sheriff's posse. One such email had a photo of a mock driver's license for a fictional state called "Mexifornia."
The report said that the sheriff's office launched an immigration operation two weeks after the sheriff received a letter in August 2009 letter about a person's dismay over employees of a McDonald's in the Phoenix suburb of Sun City who didn't speak English. The tip laid out no criminal allegations. The sheriff wrote back to thank the writer "for the info," said he would look into it and forwarded it to a top aide with a note of "for our operation."
Federal investigatorsfocused heavily on the language barriers in Arpaio's jails.
Latino inmates with limited English skills were punished for failing to understand commands in English by being put in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day or keeping prisoners locked down in their jail pods for as long as 72 hours without a trip to the canteen area or making nonlegal phone calls.
The report said some jail officers used racial slurs for Latinos when talking among themselves and speaking to inmates.
Detention officers refused to accept forms requesting basic daily services and reporting mistreatment when the documents were completed in Spanish and pressured Latinos with limited English skills to sign forms that implicate their legal rights without language assistance.
The agency pressures Latinos with limited English skills to sign forms by yelling at them and keeping them in uncomfortably cold cells for long periods of time.
The Justice Department said it hadn't yet established a pattern of alleged wrongdoing by the sheriff's office in the three areas where they will continue to investigation: complaints of excessive force against Latinos, botched sex-crimes cases and immigration efforts that have hurt the agency's trust with the Hispanic community.
Federal authorities will continue to investigate whether the sheriff's office has limited the willingness of witnesses and victims to report crimes or talk to Arpaio's office.
"MCSO has done almost nothing to build such a relationship with Mariciopa County's Latino residents," Perez wrote.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Obama's Justice Department joins Britain's 'Climategate' leaker manhunt
By: | 12/15/11 7:57 AM
OpEd Contributor
I have seen apparent proof that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 “Climategate” emails. (Bill’s Comment: These actions provided the public all over the world with the facts that the proponents of Global Warming/Climate Change are frauds).
I have learned that last week DOJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three climate-change "skeptic" blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment. (Bill’s Comment: Big Government, which is all in on the faux science of CO2/Man Made Global Warming, are using their strong armed tactics to make sure the leak of critical information regarding climate scientists whose financial future is that of governmental grants—buying the Scientific Conclusions they demand—never happens again. The Holder DOJ tactics reminds me of Al Capone’s methods to get his way in the 1930’s)
The leaked records derailed “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, as well as talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and state FOIA laws. (Bill’s Comment: Holder’s DOJ is moving quickly to change the Freedom of Information Act to protect from scrutiny correspondence and records it does not want the public to ever see)
They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the U.S. (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including stonewalling me for two years, and three other requesters for longer).
The hunt involving U.S. and UK law enforcement agencies is now escalating. On Wednesday night UK time, six detectives with the UK police (Norfolk Police Department) raided the home of at least one blogger, removing his equipment to look for clues to the identity of leaker “FOIA 2011.”
On December 9, DOJ sent a preservation letter under 18 U.S.C 2703(f) to the publication platform (website host) Wordpress. This authority authorizes the government to request an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to preserve all records of a specific account for 90 days while the feds work on a warrant. (Unbelievable-We are truly/quickly turning into a Police State)
Norfolk PD affirmed to the subject of at least one of their raids that this international law enforcement hunt is for the leaker, meaning not for those whose acts the leaker exposed by making public emails containing admissions in their own words.
In the U.S., the academic and political Left have had fits about Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli exercising even more specific, anti-fraud authority to seek further records from University of Virginia in following up on indications from the first Climategate release of possible fraud against the taxpayer.
Apparently, that represented an abuse of the police power. No word yet if they are outraged by DOJ’s current foray or that of the UK raiding team.
The DOJ attorney sending the preservation letters, as it happens in this small world, a graduate of the University of Virginia (UVA). And UVA is also the subject of litigation a group I am associated with, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), that has filed suit on behalf of Virginia taxpayers seeking Climategate-related emails the school holds. (The battle lines are drawn. Big Government vs. the people)
This is a case which has members of the Virginia faculty and establishment beside themselves and demanding an all-out effort to oppose production of the requested documents in an effort to wear us and Cuccinelli down.
So far UVA has spent upwards of $1 million fighting Cuccinelli’s request, and school officials continue to fight us in court every step of the way.
Clearly, this is no small matter in the quarters insisting that this taxpayer-financed information never see the light of day. Even the criminal legal apparatus of the U.S. and UK must be invoked against this threat, apparently.
To review: The UK police and the US DOJ, Criminal Division, are pursuing a leaker of public records subject to one or more FOIA, records that were unlawfully withheld under those laws, which leaks indicate apparent civil violations (tortious interference by seeking dismissal of certain “skeptics”), and raising reasonable questions of fraud against taxpayers.
And they are pursuing the leaker.
Here’s the text of the DOJ request to the ISP:
“Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(f), this letter is a formal request for the preservation of all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession regarding the following domain name(s) pending further legal process: [DELETED] (“the Accounts”) from 00:01 GMT Monday 21 November 2011 to 23:59 GMT Wednesday 23 November 2011.
“I request that you not disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber or any other person, other than as necessary to comply with this request. If compliance with this request might result in a permanent or temporary termination of service to the Accounts, or otherwise alert any user of the Accounts as to your actions to preserve the information described below, please contact me as soon as possible and before taking action.
“I request that you preserve, for a period of 90 days, the information described below currently in your possession in a form that includes the complete record. This request applies only retrospectively. It does not in any way obligate you to capture and preserve new information that arises after the date of this request. This request applies to the following items, whether in electronic or other form, including information stored on backup media, if available:
“1. The contents of any communication or file stored by or for the Accounts and any associated accounts, and any information associated with those communications or files, such as the source and destination email addresses or IP addresses.
“2. All records and other information relating to the Accounts and any associated accounts including the following:
a. Names (including subscriber names, user names, and screen names);
b. Addresses (including mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, and e-mail addresses);
c. Local and long distance telephone connection records;
d. Records of session times and durations, and the temporarily assigned network addresses (such as Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses) associated with those sessions, including any log history of when username “FOIA” uploaded posts to the Accounts;
e. Length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
f. Telephone or instrument numbers (including MAC addresses);
g. Other subscriber numbers or identities (including the registration Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses); and
h. Means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.”
Christopher C. Horner is an attorney in Washington, DC, pursuing several "climate" related freedom of information requests.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/12/obamas-justice-department-joins-britains-climategate-leaker-manhunt/2006206#ixzz1ge1FIOA3
____________________________________________________________Bank of America Must Pay Excess Settlement Funds To Acorn Clones
By PAUL SPERRY, FOR INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 01/04/2012 03:46 PM ET
Featured Stocks
Bank of America (BAC) must turn over excess funds from a record $335 million discrimination fine to community organizing groups. Critics say it's a "political backdoor" to subsidize Democrat-tied Acorn "clones."
The unusual mandate is buried in a Justice Department filing last month detailing settlement terms with the nation's largest bank. Prosecutors had alleged BOA's Countrywide Financial mortgage unit discriminated against minority home buyers in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
Funds not passed out to alleged victims after two years will be handed out to "qualified" groups unconnected to the case that provide credit and housing counseling and similar services to blacks and Hispanics in areas where the discrimination allegedly occurred.
Prosecutors say the more than 200,000 alleged victims of Countrywide subprime loans reside chiefly in Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Washington, D.C. Community organizing groups have large operations in these cities.
The order further states that recipients of such funds can't be tied to Bank of America. But they can include nonprofits that offer financial education, counseling and other aid related to mortgage programs to which BOA has "furnished substantial support."
In 2008, BOA donated $2 million to Acorn Housing Corp. of Chicago. It also gave $500,000 to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition of Washington and $300,000 to the National Urban League of New York.
The government must OK the selection of nonprofit groups benefiting from money left over from the $335 million interest-bearing escrow fund — the largest U.S. residential fair-lending settlement ever.
Millions of dollars could end up at housing-rights groups that pressure banks to lower underwriting standards for uncreditworthy borrowers, critics say.
Justice is improperly using banks to subsidize Democratic-aligned groups, Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook says.
"It's a shakedown," the former GOP Oklahoma congressman told IBD. "This is another political backdoor to use the government to channel money to your friends."
Under the settlement, BOA can not discuss details of the case. But in court papers, it denied all the discrimination charges and argued that it had pledged "substantial" sums to such community organizers before the crisis.
Countrywide's Other Bill
When BOA bought Countrywide in 2008, it committed a record $1.5 trillion to minority lending and urban reinvestment. The 10-year accord replaced the bank's half-finished $750 billion goal set in 2004, when it acquired Fleet Bank.
A key recipient of that earlier deal was Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, certified by HUD to counsel delinquent borrowers.
NACA founder Bruce Marks has called mortgage standards requiring down payments and good credit "patronizing and racist." He has also demanded banks stop foreclosures on subprime homes.
In 2004, Marks threatened to blow up the BOA-Fleet deal by complaining to regulators that the banks were not making enough loans to minorities under the Community Reinvestment Act. The banks, in turn, pledged to make $6 billion in mortgages for borrowers with weak credit, along with other funding.
That year, U.S. banks promised a record $1.6 trillion in loan commitments to CRA lobbyists — who, all told, have wrung $6.1 trillion in CRA agreements and commitments since the anti-redlining law was enacted in 1977.
Such accords also often include pledges to provide flexible terms, including lower down payments with a waiver of higher interest rates and fees to cover the added default risk. Also, banks typically agree to a second review of minority applicants with marginal credit scores.
Bank mergers had become "a major point of leverage — and source of funding — for community activist groups," said Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst Michelle Minton.
Nonprofits Exact Bank M&A Fees
Federal regulators must consider complaints from such groups in issuing CRA ratings and ruling on merger deals, giving banks a strong incentive to bow to their demands.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, one in five financial institutions was acquired in a merger or acquisition. But banking M&A has slowed, and so have banks' loan pledges to these nonprofits, from 2004's peak $1.6 trillion to just $12 billion in 2007. (Analysts say BOA -Countrywide's 2008 commitment of $1.5 trillion was an exception.)
BOA and Wells Fargo (WFC) are close to the 10% deposit cap. Each owns about 10% of U.S. deposits, which means they can't legally acquire other banks without divesting branches.
CRA lobbyists have expressed frustration with the lack of opportunities to hold banks "accountable."
"A dwindling number of mergers and acquisitions deflates the opportunity for consumers to comment on CRA ratings," Greenlining Institute executive director Orson Aguilar recently testified.
Istook believes Attorney General Eric Holder is stepping in on their behalf to "extort" money from banks.
"They are creating a grant program, unsupervised by Congress, unconstrained by any government safeguards or accountability and with no guidelines to control or restrict the Department of Justice in giving or withholding approval of who gets the money," he said.
Last year, Justice ordered two AIG bank subsidiaries to finance such organizations as part of their punishment for allegedly discriminating against black borrowers. Under a March 2010 consent decree, Federal Savings Bank of Delaware and Wilmington Finance of Pennsylvania must pay a minimum of $1 million to "qualified organizations" that help "African-American borrowers."
While Justice would not provide a complete list of approved nonprofits, a spokeswoman told IBD that the National Urban League and Operation Hope are eligible for AIG settlement funding.
The National Urban League has aggressively opposed stricter credit standards. It argues that requiring 20% down payments "stifles homeownership for communities of color."
Operation Hope's founder, John Bryant, is a CRA activist and major Democratic donor who serves on President Obama's financial advisory council.
At least some of the Obama administration's record number of bank discrimination cases seem to be coming from the same types of community activists that Justice is ordering banks to financially support.
Justice last year sued Midwest Bank Centre of St. Louis for failing to offer enough credit to the city's poor and African-American residents after the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance began writing complaints to federal regulators.
