digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Sheriff tries to silence critics by issuing subpoenas to local papers

blog.stealthmode.com — In a breathtaking abuse of the United States Constitution, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, and special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik used the grand jury to subpoena "all documents related to articles and other content published by Phoenix New Times newspaper in print and on the website about the Sheriff.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • youstra, on 10/22/2007, -1/+65Original article that annoyed the sheriff: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-07-01/news/she ...
    • gernblansted, on 10/22/2007, -0/+14New Information from the Phoenix New Times:

      "At a press conference on Friday afternoon, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced that all charges against New Times, its owners, editors and writers have been dropped — and that special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik has been removed."

      Now, about the potentially millions in real estate deals that the sheriff has been hiding...


    • d1rtfarm, on 10/21/2007, -0/+15Joe Arpaio deserves to be more than annoyed. I remember years back he was the Grand Marshall of the Christmas parade in Phoenix. He rode on top of some armored SWAT vehicle, like Stalin riding through Red Square. There are lots of people waiting for the day that the good sheriff ends up wearing the pink prison uniform he instituted in Tent City
    • vinwal, on 10/21/2007, -0/+11That was an excellent article and Arpaio definitely needs to be investigated further.
  • Siraf, on 10/22/2007, -4/+72How many cops even know what the bill of rights are?
    • warriorscot, on 10/21/2007, -2/+17Sherrifs as far as I understand it are politicians in the US, they are elected officials not trained law enforcement officers.
      • Bdog2g2, on 10/21/2007, -0/+14Doesn't mean they know the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Look what happens in Executive and Legislative branches now.
      • smacksaw, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2The Sheriff, just not the Sheriff's deputies.
    • consonance, on 10/21/2007, -1/+20This is limited purely to Joe Arpaio. Trust me, if you live in Arizona you know who he is. He's a bigger ***** than any ***** you can name.
      • brad3378, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5I've listened to him being interviewed on the radio a few months ago and I got the impression that he thinks he's some sort of John Wayne cowboy. I found it funny that the article also makes a John Wayne reference.
    • fixedcoma, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Great, more people acting like the president!!
  • xuanyan, on 10/21/2007, -2/+57Sherriff Joe is the worst hack poser politician there is. He cares for nothing other than getting his face on TV. Check out other stories from the New Times in youstra's link, and here's some more for your amusement:
    Sheriff Joe jumps on the anti-Michael Vick dogfighting bandwagon: http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=550510
    Sheriff Joe's file at prison planet: http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/arpaio/index. ...
    WHY do we in Maricopa County, AZ keep re-electing this douche? Because his knack for getting himself on the news a couple times a week makes all the old folks in Sun City think that he's "tough on crime," when he is in fact the criminal.
    • KanchoBukkakeku, on 10/20/2007, -8/+6Old people suck.
      • webcite1, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2What? ......When you get old are you only going to sip?
        • kindrobot, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1He's a lick it around the edges kind of girl.
    • valkyries, on 10/20/2007, -13/+2do u even live in our maricopa county, he's saved a ***** ton of money. i really dont want my tax money being wasted on some low life who commits crimes....
      • MWeather, on 10/20/2007, -0/+8He has never saved money.
      • xuanyan, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7Sure he saves money. He gives his inmates bologna sandwiches and pink underwear. That saves a few cents here and there. Although I'm not sure the savings adds up to $9 million plus another $8.5 million in payouts to settle the lawsuits against him. And yes I do live in Maricopa county.
      • brad3378, on 10/20/2007, -0/+8

        Lawsuits brought against Arpaio by employees, former employees, inmates, and the families of dead inmates have cost the county millions and Arpaio has misled the public about the cost to taxpayers of lawsuits.

        The case of Scott Norberg, who died in jail, is a good example. Arpaio has frequently said the $8.25 million settlement cost the county nothing and was covered by insurance. What he does not say is that, at the time of the settlement, the county had a $1 million deductible.

        Because of these lawsuits, the deductible for the sheriff's office insurance coverage has increase from $1 million to $5 million per incident.

        Source: http://www.arpaio.com/top-ten/index.php
  • 2bees, on 10/24/2007, -35/+5These so called professionals BROKE THE LAW. They put local law enforcement officials at risk by posting their addresses on the web. That is in direct violation of the law. You break the law you go to jail. I don't give a rats patoot who you are. It's as simple as that. Joe has his faults but these a**holes are in the wrong. Don't go to some blog to get your "facts" either. You're just being told what the new times WANT'S you to hear. New Times is in the wrong here. I live in AZ and Believe me this is all over the news and we're getting the story from all angles.
    • SiNN4R, on 10/24/2007, -5/+25Its our right as American's to intrude on the privacy of the police even if its a detriment to their safety. I pay taxes and as a taxpayer I own all public servants.
    • prioret, on 10/20/2007, -1/+20Um, if you break the law, you usually don't go to jail. I broke at least half a dozen laws today, and probably that many a day since I've had a drivers license, yet I have never spent an hour in jail.

      Have you ever sped? blew a redlight? please report to jail then you red neck hypocrite.
    • nblsavage, on 10/20/2007, -0/+15"I live in AZ and Believe me this is all over the news and we're getting the story from all angles."
      Then I suppose you wouldn't be adverse to posting for substantive information about the various sides in this issue?
      • 2bees, on 10/22/2007, -13/+0Sorry but I don't do someone elses "digging" for them. :-) Do a google search.
        • nblsavage, on 10/20/2007, -0/+12If you post a claim it's your responsibility to back it up. Otherwise I get to call you just another loudmouth loser :)
    • pentak, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7I smell bacon
    • mrurc, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3If the address is such a secret, how did the journalists ever manage to find it? Here's a clue-- on the internet just like everybody else. It is not illegal to disseminate information that is already in the domain of public info. Sorry. I hope they like their get out of jail free card.
    • riffic, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2http://maps.google.com/maps?q=12808+North+Via+Del+ ...

      Sheriff Joe Arpaio
      12808 N Via Del Sol
      Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
  • mbrane, on 10/22/2007, -3/+41I'm sure FOX News will find a way to justify and support Sherrif Joe's actions, which of course are crucial to the war on terror.
    • bingobongony, on 10/20/2007, -12/+3I'm sure mbrane has sex with sheep!

      See...I said it. that makes it a fact based on your logic.
  • Frostman3D, on 10/20/2007, -5/+6WTF?
  • oboredone, on 10/20/2007, -14/+6Don't tase me bro!
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4That's run its course, thanks. And so have any references to Chris Crocker.
  • heystoopid, on 10/22/2007, -1/+35So this is how the cheap ass Sheriff Joe "Pinky Pants" silences his critics buries them in meaningless legal garbage that in twelve to eighteen months the appeal court dismisses all charges and the critics are in debt to their eyeballs in legal fees !
    It is an absolute scandal that he abuses the law and wastes tax payers money on these frivolous charges in the court system !
    • webcite1, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2That's how cops work.......they make you PAY for the false charges that they file without reason! It's called a, You just pissed me off penalty!
  • thenixedreport, on 10/21/2007, -1/+11To the one giving the link from PrisonPlanet, you got it broken off for some reason. I decided to put it in tinyurl format below:
    http://tinyurl.com/3btcyp
  • yaryarhumphump, on 10/22/2007, -2/+30Welcome to the future america......
  • thinman1189, on 10/22/2007, -1/+25I really wonder if these idiots know the internet exists. These days you can't get away with ***** like this because within 24-48 hours it's all over the world.
    • Frostman3D, on 10/20/2007, -1/+16But they don't give a ***** because our government/media are so corrupt that it'll never hit the mainstream media, and the government wants ***** like this to happen. Our freedom is falling, just like dominoes. One atrocity at a time.
      • williamdyer, on 10/21/2007, -0/+9Which is why the tasering roid-rage thug ***** cops should all have their contact information posted to they can feel the hate, direct and retail from the customers of their "services."
    • TomRitchford, on 10/20/2007, -0/+12His voters don't care. He's "tough on crime"! They don't care whether he obeys the law, whether he acts like a little Hitler or not.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5"I really wonder if these idiots know the internet exists. These days you can't get away with ***** like this because within 24-48 hours it's all over the world."

      Come back to reality, please. It would be great if it were true, but it's not. The internet is doing quite a bit of good on things like this, but there's a long, long way to go.
  • AARTARTHUR, on 10/20/2007, -1/+18"Congress shall make no law" why is this so hard to grasp?
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/21/2007, -0/+8its not that is hard to grasp...its that ***** "no" in the sentence...some just have the itch to white it out.
  • phnx0221, on 10/20/2007, -1/+20Here is the New Times article on the case, it has some really good information, as well in information pertaining to the history with NT and the Sheriff.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/bre ...
  • jakejeffries, on 10/21/2007, -2/+33Charges were dropped.
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1019new-tim ...
  • irishredneck, on 10/21/2007, -30/+3The Sheriff has his faults, obviously, but I give him points for setting up an illegal immigrant reporting hotline. He also doesn't baby his prisoners with the luxuries of other prisons, his logic being that prisoners shouldn't have better living conditions than soldiers in Iraq. Besides, if he is making money from books, etc....who gives a *****? If he's stealing taxpayer money, then okay that needs to be dealt with for sure. If not, then him getting rich by marketing his own image is free and legal in the U.S.
    • valkyries, on 10/21/2007, -9/+2i dont understand why people are digging u down.
    • mrurc, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5The problem is, he is disallowing anyone to investigate whether or not he is stealing taxpayer money. There has not been an audit for the 12 years that he has been in that position. He has had hidden the price that he paid for his numerous properties, including commercial properties, and whether he paid cash for the properties or took out loans. He has stonewalled media investigations into his finances to the point of requiring a legal judgment against him for him tfor an investigation by any third party to proceed. If the Sheriff is embezzling and the Sheriff blocks all third party investigations that try to figure out how much money he has and whether or not that amount is so large that it implies embezzling, WHO WILL INVESTIGATE? I am not claiming that he is embezzling but if he isn't, why hide the price of the properties?

      Oh and green bologna sandwiches are not even close to the daily hot meals that our soldiers have, so you shouldn't rely on that whole "his logic is" thing. His logic is that prisoners should be forced to live in horrible conditions, which is pretty much illegal in this country. Hence the numerous legal judgments against the Sheriff's Office. I especially wouldn't believe that this is his logic since he instituted the policies in question long before we went to Iraq.

      And that is why you are getting dugg down.
    • ldog, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Did you also give him props a few years ago when he set up his fat-assed retired buddy with a huge taxpayer funded payroll concurrently with his pension?
      Does he get props for posting suspects,not convicted felons, on his website as though the cases are closed?
      Does he now get props for making ridiculous demands to Newtimes for Newtimes and non-Newtimes website viewership information?

      Really funny that two days ago Alfredo Gutierrez was crucified by the right-wing media for calling Arpaio's tactics nazi-like, and the next day Arpaio goes and pulls a gestapo move like this.

      It's unfortunate that so many people have such short memories and are so easily entertained. Sheriff Joe will go and introduce more tents, green baloney, and pink panties and the knuckleheads in my state are gonna vote him in yet again.
  • wushu18t, on 10/20/2007, -1/+22wow the dropped charges happened quick. i just saw this story this morning, and now it's over. seems things got too hot for douche bag andrew.
  • neurosynapsis, on 10/20/2007, -1/+11we should digg that sheriff a new grave
    • Manneroth, on 10/21/2007, -2/+4i see what you did there
    • mrurc, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1Don't give him an excuse to avoid exposure for this case by claiming that mad internet weirdos are threatening him, mk? If you read all of the articles he has made more ridiculous claims than that in order to move the spotlight away from his questionable activities.
  • macgecko, on 10/20/2007, -20/+3If they are not doing any thing illegal then they have nothing to worry about and can go about the business of reporting on news. Furthermore if the Sheriff is breaking the law he will be in trouble and I am sure some one will bring legal action.

    Also from what I know about how Joe Arpaijo runs his jails its a good thing. Yes, think about it jail should be an awful place and not some thing you look forward to. The very thought of going to jail should make you have some real fear. Why if that were true it may even make someone about to commit a crime think twice about it before they rob, rape or murder. The goal should be to keep people from going to jail and not some badge of honor. All in all a good thing if you ask me...
    • eviltandem, on 10/20/2007, -2/+13ahahahahahahahaah *breathe* ahahahahahahaha

      "Yes, think about it jail should be an awful place and not some thing you look forward to."

      Yeah, all those posh prisons... you know... like... um... well... Personally I've been trying to break into prison for years. Getting raped by gangs of men, eating crap food, and sharing a small cell with several people is the life most of us can only dream of...

      Your arrogance leaves me breathless. Since when is the purpose of prison to humiliate and degrade people? Phones ringing, the middle ages want their "ideas" back...

      Maybe... someday I can go to prison too? Promise?
      • oldhick, on 10/20/2007, -7/+1Just to be clear, I hope Joe and his douche bag prosecutor go to "jail", but I have to address some utter blindness or ignorance in your comment. Since when was prison not meant to humiliate and degrade? Its prison dude. It sucks. You go there because society can't trust you. Anyone with an ounce of dignity would be humiliated and degraded by going...
        • EricSchC1, on 10/20/2007, -1/+10Self imposed humiliation is different than an external source imposing it on a person. Punishment is one thing. needless psychological degradation from a person or people not ethically or morally in the right, themselves, is inhumane.
        • eviltandem, on 10/20/2007, -1/+10You are deeply and profoundly wrong, on many many levels. The purpose of prison is to reabilitate you for release back into the general population. The general idea being you are paying a penalty to society for wrongs you have done to it. What you are describing creates more crime, because you basically debase and degrade these people to the point they have nothing left to try to reach for.

          You take a person who was participating in a non-violent "illegal" activity. Say smoking pot. We can all argue about whether or not it should be illegal, but the fact is, it is. You send this guy to prison. Now he gets raped by fellow inmates, beaten/degraded/abused by the police and system. Do you really think now he feels:

          a) bad for his crime (smoking pot, the HORROR)
          b) hates you, society, sherrif joe, the jurors that put him there, the men that raped him, the society that won't give him a job, and now is not allowed to vote.

          I'll wait while you choose.

          Do you think he's actually going to leave the prison a better person than when he went in? Now he gets out and you've psychologically really screwed him. You then further punish him by making work hard to find. He's also not allowed to vote anymore. Boy, big stake he has in this "system" you think he should support...
          • oldhick, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Didin't you just spend four paragraphs proving my point? What you are saying is that we should CHANGE the prison system. Right now, it is meant to humiliate/degrade/and punish, which is exactly what you spelled out in your argument. Changing it is a different thing.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6"Since when was prison not meant to humiliate and degrade? Its prison dude. It sucks. You go there because society can't trust you."
          I won't comment on differing views of what a "justice system" is supposed to achieve. Rehabilitation, punishment, etc.
          However, your point there gets terribly diluted when people are put in prison for things like smoking weed. So, I'd really like to agree with you, but the prison population today isn't the same batch of people it was in 1920. Back then, it was pretty much full of people who'd committed crimes against real victims. That's not today's prison.
          • oldhick, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I agree that our laws suck. I am pro legalization of nearly everything. However, that is a different issue. I'm not going to make prisons better because we are sendign the wrong people there. Lets fix who we send to prison first by changing the laws.
      • FunkyNuts, on 10/21/2007, -9/+1Could you be any more of an idiot? Society gave up that kumbaya ***** a long time ago about prison being rehabilitative. You know Communism was also an "ideal" existence. It simply doesn't work. Society has become so lopsided in favor of the criminals that the average homeless American gets less entitlement for FOLLOWING THE LAW.

        What leaves ME breathless is the prospect for society's future because your vote counts as much as a smart guy's.
        • eviltandem, on 10/20/2007, -0/+9Actually, what you are describing is what we gave up. That eye for an eye nonsense doesn't work. It breeds professional, life-long, criminals.

          It didn't work in the middle ages, which is why we have less harsh modern prisons. The reason we have all these pesky rights that so annoy you, is so that idiots like this sheriff cannot ruin you and your life on a whim.

          Not that being under a king didn't work out well for most of the world.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6Rehabilitation isn't all "kumbaya *****." Some of it, yeah. Some of it, not. Do ya really have to make a black and white dividing line for everything?
        • mrurc, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Wow! You and I are so similar! I also am left breathless by the prospect for society's future because your vote counts as much as mine! I mean a smart person's! I mean mine!

          This is where the "I see what you did there" goes, just in case you couldn't figure that out for yourself.
    • Tenlow, on 10/20/2007, -0/+14Remember, this is the same Sheriff who's prostitution sting had to be thrown out when the officers actually had sex with the prostitutes. He is not competent.
    • mrurc, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Alright, since you are completely positive that if the Sheriff is doing something illegal that someone will bring legal action-- that is the whole point here. The Sheriff was attempting to intimidate reporters into dropping their investigation of his finances, an investigation that seeks to find out whether he is doing anything illegal and for which the reporters have been stymied at every turn. The information that the sheriff has hidden "for his protection" does not include his home address but does include the price that he paid for commercial properties that he rents out to beauticians, a detail that the law was not intended to cover and probably does not cover.

      So tell me, please. If the Sheriff isn't going to investigate himself, haha, and the media is not allowed to investigate and get attacked by illegal maneuvers like were pulled in this case, and the prosecutor is one of the people pulling illegal and unethical actions in the recently dismissed grand jury investigation, pray tell WHO is it that is going to investigate and bring legal action? Let's see, no sheriff, no prosecutor, no grand jury, no media, hmmmm, who does that leave.... um, the Sheriff's wife? That seems to be about the only option.

      Now to your other point. Do you honestly think that a rapist sees a woman that he wants to rape and he gets all worked up to do it and then he says to himself "You know, sir, if you rape this woman and get caught, you will be sent to that jail where it was hot and they made you wear pink underwear and by the way, do you have any Grey Poupon?" and he decides to not rape the woman? No, he decides to rape her, kill her, and dump the body in the middle of nowhere so he doesn't get caught. There's a lot of middle of nowhere in Arizona.

      If you think that being forced to wear pink underwear or even being hot is going to deter a murder or rapist, you have serious reality issues. A guy who stole a dollar from a tip jar? Yeah. A guy who was prosecuted for beating up his wife? Hasn't seemed to work yet. How about one of the Baseline Road serial killers? Do you think that if somehow they got released that the threat of pink underwear would keep them from killing again? Seriously? It's one of those arguments that looks really good on paper but if you bother to think about it, is really stupid. It only applies to low-level petty criminals who won't be in jail for long anyway, not muggers, rapists and murderers, like you claim. Maybe people who break into unoccupied houses. Maybe.

      On related note, I recommend Dean Man's Wash for body dumps because people might not think that a body there is a weird thing. Besides, there has to be like 12 of those in Arizona alone. I'm just saying. Don't sue me.
  • BM5k, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5Ugh. And I live in the Phoenix area :(
  • rYno, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5unreal.... what a douchebag
  • FunkyNuts, on 10/21/2007, -21/+2Jesus, you guys look for ANY opportunity to support the criminals and lambast civil or federal government. This country NEEDS more people like Sheriff Arpaio because he doesn't empathize with all the criminals who are usually the ONLY ones with "rights" under the eyes of the law. How many times have you read in the news that some victim is raped by the justice system because a "technicality" regarding rights has freed the perpetrator being tried? Does it not make you SICK that criminals are entitled to free medical care, free law libraries, free cable, and 3-hots-and-a-cot, while law-abiding Americans are not entitled to the same benefits? And these are the assholes who were found GUILTY in a court of law. Yet you Digg liberals sit here whining about the "rights of those poor prisoners" who have to wear pink underwear. The reason they lose all their comforts in prison is because Sheriff Joe doesn't think they should be entitled to things you and I don't also get for free as law-abiding citizens. The pink prison garb was started because inmates were smuggling out the orange garb as "gang wear".

    So next time you cry a river for the poor law breakers, how about thinking about your fellow American who is on hard times but ISN'T getting free cable, computer access, a law library, and free health care.

    Why does he keep getting re-elected? Because most of Maricopa county is smarter than you and they want him there. You liberal ***** make me sick.
    • Angostura, on 10/20/2007, -2/+13You're trolling right? Right? OK, I'll bite.

      "all the criminals who are usually the ONLY ones with "rights" under the eyes of the law". No. The law extends rights to everyone be they victims or convicted criminals. Many of the criminals' rights are quite rightly removed as part of their punishement, but not all. "Technicalities" are there to stop slip-shod abuses of the law. Yes releases based on technicalities occur. You hear them reported because they are big news. Despite whay you may wish to believe, they are relatively rare and would be rarer still if people did their jobs properly.
      Who's crying a for the law-breakers? Or do you simply believe that public officials should not be subject to public scrutiny?

      • FunkyNuts, on 10/20/2007, -12/+3Since when does a criminal have a RIGHT to free cable, free internet, and a nice, air-conditioned cell with porn? Tell me how he deserves those things while the guy down the street begging for dollar bills on the corner isn't entitled to the same things. Rare technicalities? It happens every day all over the country. Statistically, that's no longer considered "rare". Either you have your head in the sand, or you spend all your time at liberal fanboy galas.
        • shadomynd, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7You seem to have no common sense.
        • mrurc, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3Wait, prisoners have tvs in their rooms, free cable, and PORN? Holy *****! How can I get arrested? Seriously, you have never been to jail, that is clear. You seem to be equating all jails with the country club jails that some multi-millionaire white color criminals get. At least I hear they get them. Could be as made up and insane as your post!
    • kingtriumph, on 10/20/2007, -0/+12Wow. I don't consider myself a liberal, but when people like you use the term "liberal"as an insult, as you clearly did, it takes away from the impact of the point you're trying to make. Having lived in Phoenix for 8 years durring Arpaio's reign (which unfortunately isn't over yet), I can say that many people don't like how he handles the law.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3Actually, since I've lived in Arizona for 25 years, I can tell you, it's ALL the ***** old people in Sun City and through out the Valley. Time after time they vote for him, "just because" they think he's a good guy. This man does [this] ***** on a monthly basis...... http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content ...
  • HiFiGuy, on 10/20/2007, -1/+19Setting aside the sheriff vs. the paper for a second. The sheriff wanted IP addresses of everyone who visited the paper's website? Seems like an abuse of power and a threat to the people the sheriff is sworn to serve and protect.
    • ldog, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Not to mention it's a demand that couldn't be fulfilled.
      The idiot also wanted the Newtimes to give him a list of all other websites the people behind those IPs visited.
      Someone in his posse must also be under the impression that public IP addresses are a unique 1-to-1 match for social security numbers.
    • mrurc, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Also their browser type and version, cause you know, nothing says "criminal mischiefmaker" like Firefox.
  • DarkReign16, on 10/21/2007, -1/+14I saw this on the news this morning, and since have been ashamed to say that I live in Maricopa county. This guy is a hack, even the police here know it. My great uncle is an ex-mesa cop, and he hates this piece of garbage sheriff, for more than just this reason.
  • pentak, on 10/20/2007, -0/+10Arpaio is a sadist pig - burn in hell
  • protogenxl, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4This guy just might beat John Edwards (the psychic) For Biggest Douche In The Universe this Year.

    http://www.arpaio.com
  • icewalker, on 10/20/2007, -0/+9Shouldn't a Federal Grand Jury start an investigation into the County Attorney, the Sherrif, and that special prosecutor. There is no doubt that they overstepped the bounds of the Constitution. Where is the investigation? Oh yeah, I forgot, the Government never really investigates itself, thus the reason for the FREE PRESS!

    Keep it up guys!
  • protogenxl, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6This guy might just beat John Edward in this year's Biggest Douche In The Universe contest.

    http://www.arpaio.com
  • protogenxl, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3Well them Griffin boys better grow some wings or start flapping their arms.
  • ne0shell, on 10/20/2007, -7/+2Can we stop posting blog spam which REFERS to the original story and provides very little if any original content. (And no, citing opinion in this case is not valid enough to stand on it's own). Here's a tip - if the submission cannot stand on it's own, explaining the entire story then it is not news its an editorial ABOUT news. Enjoy the bump in traffic, it'll be history tomorrow.
  • kongdong, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6Just so you know, the case was dismissed due to "foolishness". That was the real reason too...
  • DroogInPhoenix, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7Sheriff Joe has NO ***** RIGHT AT ALL to subpoena information about me, they wanted to know the IP address of every person that read the New Times online, along WITH what sites they were at before, and what sites they went to after, along with what ads appeared on the page. People have called him a nazi, I think that is an over exaduration.......Untill today.
    Both the NT and Joe R-Pie-Hole have been at it for years. But when you want to see my viewing habits after reading an article... ***** THAT PERIOD! He didnt just go after the NT he went after the public.
    • ldog, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1I guess it's possible that Newtimes logs all http REFERRER headers and can divulge that info. But it will be a real neat trick getting Newtimes to tell sheriff Joe where people went to after they left the newtimes website.
    • mrurc, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3You know, if you had made a little more sense grammatically and spelling wise, as well as avoiding some curse words, I think that your post would have at least 50 diggs by now. You have a point, I just wish that you would make it in a way that other people would pay more attention too. Here, let's try:

      Sheriff Joe has NO RIGHT to subpoena information about me for simply reading a news website! They filed legal papers saying that the newspaper had to turn over full HTTP logs for the last 4 years, including the IP address, browser and version, HTTP referrer, and cookie values of everyone who visited any page on the site. This was a clear intimidation tactic aimed at getting a default legal judgment when the paper was unable to fulfill the request, unreasonable as it may be. The referrer information may have additionally been used to try to intimidate sites like digg for linking to the newspaper's site! They even specified that the paper should list any items in the user's shopping cart. Really? The paper has a shopping cart?

      Besides, it is impossible to list all sites that the users went to after that site or the site that users visited before going to the paper's site, since the referrer only shows up when someone follows a link to that server and there is no equivalent data passed to the web server when a visitor leaves the site. That's really trying to pull a fast one in the courts, asking for information that they should know ahead of time is impossible for anyone to produce. They just wanted the paper to look bad in front of the grand jury so they could continue to harass the paper and drag its name through the mud! There is mud here. Every time someone irrigates. Like EVERY DAY. Really.

      I have heard people call this Sheriff a Nazi before, but until now, I thought that it was gross exaggeration! But they want to investigate me because I visited the site of a newspaper that he doesn't like? If they are willing to stoop so low as to threaten to investigate every visitor to the site, including many innocent citizens that he represents, they are willing to do just about anything. All of these men, as well as the woman who called the judge at home should be removed from office and held legally accountable for their despicable actions.

      I am truly perturbed!
  • weebit, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6Here is the news update! Case Against New Times Dropped At a press conference on Friday afternoon, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced that all charges against New Times, its owners, editors and writers have been dropped — and that special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik has been dismissed.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/cas ...
  • dougbarrett, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5Is this the same sherrif that shot up a house and burned it down with a dog stuck inside? I remember the story on Digg, and I remembered how mad it made me.
  • mrurc, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5I saw the headline and I thought to myself, "it's not that nutjob in Phoenix, is it?" And lo and behold, it was. And I guess that I will now be arrested for having said that the next time I go to Phoenix. Sorry Grandma!
  • riffic, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6http://maps.google.com/maps?q=12808+North+Via+Del+ ...

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio
    12808 N Via Del Sol
    Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
    • supermanred, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4If I lived around the corner, I'd piss on his lawn.

      Instead, maybe someone can send him a copy of the constitution of the US?
  • skews13, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4maricopa county.the other guantanamo.
  • samkline, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5If I could, I would digg this again. That is ***** up.
  • vervalsing, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5As soon as I saw the headline on the top 10 diggs, I knew it was Maricopa County. That guy is King of the Douchebags.
  • webcite1, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4It's funny how I would get beat down on Internet postings, five years ago, for saying that Cops are getting and have to much power! They, as a group, are becoming the real abusers of POWER, personal rights and public freedoms in the USA, in general. They are seldom pro-active in stopping crimes, other than speed traps! They are just reactive in nature. An attempt to solve a crime after the fact and even then only attempt to solve the high profile crimes. Most of the cops, in the area that I live in, will have four or five back-up cars on scene for a speeding violation involving a 65 year old lady! They will also bring out swat teams for non-payment of child support payment arrests! A "Man with a gun" call will get 20 cop cars in the "area" but nothing is done until someone is found dead on the hood of the cop car or the "Perp" is long gone. Go to a peace rally and the ***** are out with tanks and riot gear! Starting to get a clue? Cops no longer work for the common good of all people! They have become puppets for the electives use to ensure the control of the masses that just might revolt in regard insane government acts against the people!
  • webcite1, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Another thing that I should add here! If you really need help like "Right Now"! Call for fire/rescue, an ambulance or Medics. They will be at your doorstep ASAP! No paying Waite for back-up or "I don't want to the paperwork" game!
  • clayasaurus, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4he should be immediately fired
  • macabresg, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1silly! don't they know the power of internet?
  • johnpaul, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Check out this development -- Alt-weekly papers band together in solidarity with the New Times: http://digg.com/politics/Alt_Weeklies_Post_Links_t ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.