I have to give you credit for attempting to dodge and deflect on every issue. Who are you accusing of asking for money? You are correct that you have no power to address, so why are you being so vocal. You still have nothing but an opinion with no power. You have zero integrity in the accusation of arrests under false pretense. You simply do not factually know that.
Elect Sheriff Joe Arpaio
- Thread starter mneilmont
- Start date
I don't think either of us can argue the facts since the insurance company elected to settle. What facts do you have that you can share about the object of the thread? Out of court settlement by a third party insurance company offers no fact other than making a business decision that may cut their costs. If it was assigned to the 9th, history would suggest their decision was wise.
I'm not dodging and deflecting anything.
On the one hand you provide an address and talk about sending donations to Sheriff Joe's campaign, and then turn around and tell me that I shouldn't get involved because I'm posting on a message board.
Then after providing the address to send donations to Sheriff Joe, you just ask me who I'm accusing of asking for money ... Is that somehow not clear?
Why am I so vocal? This is a message board ... that could be the most ridiculous accusation to make on a message board that I've ever seen.
"I have nothing but an opinion with no power ... I have zero integrity in the accusation of arrests under false pretense ... I simply factually don't know that." Mog provided links from multiple sources that chronicle those very things. The facts are there. It isn't opinion that they had to pay out nearly $9M in settlements in those cases.
It's funny how you reject all evidence that you don't like. If you don't like it, then the source isn't credible.
This will be my last response to this one. If you want to donate, great. If not, that too is OK.
To alter the subject on several occasions, you suggest/state that there is no connection in my position. Then, you offer as "fact" of guilt that the 3rd party insurance company agrees to out of court settlement. I have been involved in similar cases and know for a fact that the insurance has zero interest in innocent of guilty. It is simply a business decision to cut loss. What is the cost of a negotiated settlement vs. cost of going to trial. Cost of atty fee, and time, and cost of professional witness, etc. If offered settlement is in or near the ballpark, the insurance company is going to settle and not depend on the way a jury may decide. Innocent or guilty never enters into that equation.
Your offer of "fact' of guilty falls thru the crack. In this case, you sign off on the settlement that includes "without Prejudice". It has been some time, and that required phrase could be "with Prejudice". Don't absolutely recall.
Sign off. Move on.
"Lacey and Larkin sued, and after a federal appeals court condemned the arrests and the subpoenas, the two men last year won a $3.75 million settlement from Maricopa County."
A federal appeals court had found wrong doing.
How does something make it to a federal appeals court that had never gone to court? What was there to appeal?
Case Closed.
"Wilcox's payout will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars already spent on the county's politically charged investigations and legal disputes with elected officials. Such infighting amounted to a $44.4 million tab from fiscal year 2008 through January 2014, according to an Arizona Republic investigation.
...
Wilcox faced criminal charges as a result of an investigative team orchestrated by Arpaio and Thomas, ostensibly created to snuff out political corruption. A federal racketeering lawsuit was additionally filed against Wilcox, the other supervisors, judges and various county officials, which alleged misconduct in the construction of the South Tower of the Maricopa County Courthouse.
A Superior Court judge later deemed the attacks to be politically motivated, and the criminal charges lawsuit were ultimately dismissed.
Thomas, who had resigned as county attorney in 2010, was disbarred two years later for unethical behavior. The abuse of power allegations triggered a U.S. Department of Justice investigation on Thomas and Arpaio, but no charges were ever filed.
According to a statement released Monday, Wilcox's team in March testified in front of the Court of Appeals that Wilcox "received intense and unlawful harassment by the Sheriff's office," and said county advisors predict that 100 or more people may pursue similar claims.
A Superior Court judge later deemed the attacks to be politically motivated
A Superior Court judge later deemed the attacks to be politically motivated
A Superior Court judge later deemed the attacks to be politically motivated
A superior court judge had already ruled, BEFORE the settlement. It wasn't simply a business decision to avoid the costs of trials. Those things were underway and took place and they LOST and therefore had to pay.
Really Neil. Mog provided the links, that apparently you refused to even read or didn't understand. In today's day and age when everything you could possibly want to know is at your fingertips, there is really no excuse for not getting the facts right. Especially when somebody spoon feeds them to you. And even more inexcusable is to turn around and tell those that provided the facts that they have no proof of anything.
Confirmation bias to the nth degree. Don't like the information, just ignore it or attack the source.