WASHINGTON, D.C. – Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court in Arizona is scheduled to hold a hearing in Phoenix on Oct. 4 in which she appears ready to go rogue by declaring President Trump’s pardon unconstitutional and sentencing Sheriff Arpaio to jail time after refusing to vacate her bench trial guilty verdict.
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. Then, on April 27, President Trump pardoned Sheriff Arpaio of the criminal misdemeanor charges.
On Sept. 29, thirty Democratic members of Congress submitted an amici curiae brief to Judge Bolton arguing that President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers by asserting “an encroachment by the Executive on the independence of the Judiciary.”
To sentence Arpaio to jail time, Bolton first will have to agree with the Democratic members of Congress, ruling form the federal bench that President Trump’s pardon was. unconstitutional – a move that would create a constitutional crisis requiring Arpaio’s attorneys to file an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Department of Justice to order the U.S. Marshalls to stand down in any attempt Bolton might make to arrest and incarcerate Arpaio.
After concluding that Bolton’s attempt to sentence him is meaningless after President Trump’s pardon, Arpaio does not plan to attend Judge Bolton’s sentencing hearing tomorrow.
The move on the political left to utilize Arpaio’s case to challenge President Trump’s pardon authority is being viewed in Washington as a pre-emptive challenge from attorneys loyal to President Obama and Hillary Clinton to prevent President Trump from short-circuiting Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s investigation by Trump issuing presidential pardons to key Mueller targets, including former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former Trump national security advisor General Michael Flynn.
As Infowars.com has previously reported, various leftist legal advocates are pushing Bolton to declare Trump’s pardon of Arpaio unconstitutional, in a move designed to legitimate President Obama’s use of the Justice Department to seek court orders restraining law enforcement officers like Arpaio from enforcing immigration laws already on the books.
Arpaio’s Arpaio’s attorney, Mark Goldman, Goldman & Zillinger PLLC in Scottsdale, AZ, 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.
On Sept. 11, 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.”
In response for Judge Bolton’s request for additional arguments, the Public Integrity Division filed a second brief dated Sept. 21, 2017, arguing that Judge Bolton should vacate Arpaio’s conviction because President Trump’s pardon was issued prior to a sentencing that would have made the conviction final.
“The Defendant’s verdict should be vacated and the case dismissed as moot,” the Justice Department argued to Judge Bolton in this second legal brief. “No further action is requested or required, and the presidential pardon does not require the alteration, destruction, erasure, expungement, or sealing of the record in this case.”