Category Archives: Courts

Stand Down a success despite the weather

Posted on by

Arizona Veterans Standdown Alliance photo.

Arizona Veterans Standdown Alliance photo.

FLAGSTAFF — The third High Country Stand Down at the Flagstaff National Guard Armory seems to have been a success. Despite the weather, District 4 Supervisor Mandy Metzger said that about 125 veterans came through the door just after opening. The event is organized by Philan Tree, assistant to Mandy.

The High Country Stand Down is a branch of the larger Arizona Veterans StandDown Alliance (Facebook). For the last three years the High Country Stand Down has been growing.

The event this year is dedicated to Flagstaff Marine Lance Davison, who suffered from PTSD and traumatic brain injury and took his own life in February 2014. Davison is one of the roughly 22 veterans who commit suicide in this country each day, or one every 65 minutes, according to a 2013 study by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Stand Down is a collection of services and gifts for homeless veterans and veterans in need. The tables and services all reflect the services available to veterans all year around.

Some of the services, such as the pet care provided at the event, are not just for veterans. Aspen Veterinary Clinic provided check-ups and medical services for pets. The Low Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic of Flagstaff gave free vaccines. Many of the local veterans seemed to be taking advantage of this service. One family brought in two dogs and about five cats to be vaccinated.

Another service that anyone who resided in Coconino County should be aware of, and take advantage of, is the Downwinder’s Program. The North Count Healthcare system presented their radiation exposure screening and education (RESEP) program. If you lived in Coconino County—and other certain areas of Nevada, Utah or Arizona—from 1959 to 1962, you may be eligible for compensation due to the nuclear weapons testing in Nevada. The Northern Arizona Health Care system provides free screening for people who lived in those regions during that period for cancer and other anomalies that might have been a result of those tests. They even help you file the paperwork.

Northern Arizona University provided dental technicians for dental screening and to assist veterans in filing paperwork for dental work needed.
StandDown-15-05-15-04
The Salvation Army provided hamburgers, hotdogs and chips for the event. They also gave out sack lunches.

One important feature of the event for the last two-years was the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court is called a therapeutic court in the legal system and is available to veterans all year round. This special court was set up at the event solely to quash pending warrants and allow veterans to get their cases moving in the Veterans Court system. This is not the way the normal court works.

Judge Cathleen Nichols, of Coconino Superior Court Division 5, is the coordinator for the Veterans Court. There are two other therapeutic courts for DUIs and mental health issues which work in similar fashion.

Judge Nichols explained that in the normal course of an arrest, the fact that a defendant is a veteran may enter into the paperwork. If it does not, the veteran may identify himself. Self-identification does require the veteran to prove service, such as a DD-214 or retired identification card. This is particularly useful in misdemeanor cases where a defendant is usually not represented by a lawyer.

Once a veteran is identified, the case is reviewed by the office of the County Attorney to see if they can allow it to be referred to the Veterans Court. The attorney of the defendant is also consulted if he has one. It is up to the defendant to decide if they choose to take this course. It does not allow the veteran to “get away” with anything. The veteran will have to agree to probation with all that entails. They may also be required to attend certain classes or programs and report their progress to the court.

Judge Nichols pointed out two unusual features of this therapeutic court in the Coconino County Superior Court system. First is that the veteran does not necessarily have to have an honorable discharge. A person with a convenience of the government or other type discharge may be considered for the Veterans Court. The second feature is that this is the only court system in the State that currently considers felony cases.

The High Country Stand Down also provided back packs stocked with sleeping bags and hygiene kits. They also provided new shoes and the Goodwill Industries provided free clothing for the homeless veterans.

Any organization or corporation which may be able to provide services or products to veterans may participate in the program. To be involved in the Fourth Annual High Country Stand Down, contact Philan Tree at the office of Mandy Metzger at 928-679-7154. For other areas you can consult the Arizona Stand Down Alliance web site.

Williams Justice Center holds Law Day event

Posted on by

640-LawDay05-07-01WILLIAMS — All of the law enforcement agencies of the State represented themselves, yesterday, in gathering to celebrate Law Day.

Law Day is May 1. Justice Robert Krombeen explained that several events were being held in Flagstaff, so he decided to hold the Williams event yesterday.

Representatives were available for questions from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Coconino County Sheriff’s Department, Arizona Game and Fish, and Williams Police Department.

The Coconino County Sheriff set up a display for the Coconino Emergency Response Team. The Law Enforcement agencies also brought in a few of the vehicles they use in the performance of their duties including the DPS helicopter.

The idea of Law Day was originally proposed by the American Bar Association in 1957. In 1958 on May 1, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made a proclamation declaring May 1 of that year as Law Day to honor the role of law in the creation of the United States. Congress created the the observance of the date annually in 1961.

Officers of Arizona Game and Fish and Department of Public Safety at the Game and Fish display.

Officers of Arizona Game and Fish and Department of Public Safety at the Game and Fish display.


CERT display by Sheriff's Department.

CERT display by Sheriff’s Department.


640-LawDay05-07-06

High Country Stand Down for Veterans next Friday

Posted on by

stand-down-logoFLAGSTAFF — The 3rd Annual High Country Stand Down for Veterans will be held Friday, May 15, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. The event provides services to homeless and at-risk veterans and their families.

Along with a hot meal, the volunteers of the event will provide hygiene kits, Haircuts, clothing and survival gear. For pets they will provide pet food and pet care. Legal assistance, notary services will also be available along with dental, vision and medical care.

The High Country Stand Down will be held at the Flagstaff Armory, 320 N. Thorpe Road in Flagstaff next to Thorpe Park.

Coconino County Board of Supervisors meet tomorrow in support of illegal immigration

Posted on by

300-illegal-alienFLAGSTAFF — The Coconino County Board of Supervisors will be conducting a special executive session (PDF) tomorrow at 10 a.m. on the first floor board room in Flagstaff. The location is 219 E. Cherry Avenue.

In this session the Board of Supervisors will discuss the possibility of filing an amicus brief in support of President Obama and the defendants in Texas v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-254 (PDF). This is case in which a Texas federal judge ordered a cease to executive orders stopping deportation of illegal aliens. The case is in the 5th Circuit Court while Arizona is part of the 9th Circuit Court.

The session is an executive session, which means there will be no discussion allowed by the public.

Texas and 13 other States and several governors have filed suit against the United States representatives who have decided not to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress.

Arizona never denied licenses to immigrants

Posted on by

Across the country headlines are reading that the Ninth Circuit court blocked Arizona from denying licenses to immigrants. This is, of course, a lie. The decision of ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION V. JANICE BREWER (PDF) blocks the executive order of Jan Brewer ordering the Arizona Department of Transportation not to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

Brewer noted in a response to the Ninth Circuit court ruling that Arizona Revised Statute 28-3153, Subsection D forbids the Arizona Department of Transportation from issuing licenses to anyone who cannot prove they are here in accordance with federal law. Immigrants — who are those here legally applying for citizenship or by other authorized means such as a work visa — can get a license in Arizona. The law forbids issuing licenses to illegal aliens.

The Ninth Circuit Court stated in their decision:

The federal government has enacted a program called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (“DACA”), which authorizes certain immigrants who came to the United States as children, without permission, to remain in the United States. In response, Arizona officials — Defendants here — implemented a policy that prevents DACA recipients from obtaining Arizona driver’s licenses.

The “federal government” — so-called by the Ninth Circuit court. They are referring to the national government in Washington D. C. — never enacted such a program. The Department of Homeland Security page on DACA states:

Over the past three years, this Administration has undertaken an unprecedented effort to transform the immigration enforcement system…

The DACA program was started by Executive Order to contravene United States Code. It is not based on law authorized by Congress. On July 2d, 33 Republican lawmakers sent a letter (PDF) to the Obama administration demanding that he stop this program and start deporting illegal aliens.

The reponse of Governor Brewer also read, in part:

In 2012, based on President Obama’s lawless directive, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made an administrative policy choice to defer removal proceedings of illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children, a program referred to as DACA. This policy choice is not federal law authorizing an illegal alien’s presence in the country – it simply is a choice by the executive branch not to enforce deportation proceedings as required under existing federal statute. DHS itself has expressly acknowledged that the DACA Program does not grant any substantive rights and that only Congress can do that.

The DACA Program, the decision to not enforce federal law, has directly led to the massive influx of illegal crossings and the crisis we are witnessing today. If the Ninth Circuit ruling is allowed to stand, the President, as he has already threatened, can contrive a new program refusing to deport the latest arrivals, issue employment authorization cards, and Arizona would have to issue licenses to them as well.

. . .

Lawless decrees by the President demonstrate animus to Congress, states and the Constitution. It is outrageous, though not entirely surprising, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again dealt a blow to Arizona’s ability to enforce its laws. With today’s decision, a three judge appellate panel, appointed by Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama, disregarded judicial precedent and procedure. This continues us down a dangerous path in which the courts and the President – not Congress – make our nation’s laws.

Executive Orders were first issued by President George Washington to explain to cabinet members how to enforce the laws enacted by Congress; not how to circumvent enforcement.

The Constitution give Congress no authority to regulate the issuance of drivers licenses within a State which makes it a Tenth Amendment issue. A law or “order” that violates the Constitution of the United States of America can safely be ignored by States. The policing power of the sovereign States has been established since the Supreme Court decision of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The decision would mean that Arizona would have to issue licenses to terrorist group members who have come through the Mexican border illegally and are now waiting for “comprehensive immigration reform.” This is especially troubling since Arizona moved to “real ID” licenses which they claimed they would never do. This will give terrorists groups access to airports and flights.

Abramski conviction upheld by Supreme Court.

Posted on by

WASHINGTON D.C. – The Supreme Court decided in the case of Abramski v. United States (PDF) that straw purchases—such as those orchestrated by the Eric Holder BATFE for Operation Fast and Furious which took the life of Arizona Border Patrol agent Brian Terry—are illegal. The 5-4 decision was split along party line with Justice Kennedy again being the swing vote.

Mike Gangloff of the The Roanake Times in Virginia wrote a detail account in December of 2010 on the background of Bruce Abramski, Jr.—the defendant in the case. The basic line is that Abramski purchased a Glock 19 fully intending to transfer the weapon to his uncle in Pennsylvania for cash. He purchased the weapon using a police discount on an identification he held after he was released by the police department two years earlier. They transferred the weapon using the background check required by law which revealed that his uncle was legally eligible to receive the weapon.

Abramski was charged with lying on line 11a of ATF Form 4473 which is a felony under United State Code 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). He checked the box indicating that he was the purchaser of the weapon. He was sentenced to probation instead of the ten-years imprisonment he faced. He maintains a felony conviction, however.

atf-4473-question11a

The problem in the case was what constitutes a “straw purchase.” In essence a straw purchase is when a straw purchases a weapon for another person using the intended receivers money even if both are eligible to purchase firearms. This apparently does not apply to a person purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift.

In a January article on Guns.com NRA Spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen told them via email:

This is another case of the BATFE attempting to criminalize the legal activity of law-abiding gun owners. In this case, both the buyer and his uncle submitted to and passed the requisite background checks to own the firearm in question. Congress did not criminalize the transfer of firearms between persons who are both legally entitled to purchase the firearm. Rather, Congress’ objective was to prevent individuals from purchasing firearms on behalf of prohibited persons and that is – in fact – what the law provides.

Justice Kagan, writing the decision for the majority, stated:

Abramski also challenges his §922(a)(6) conviction on a narrower ground. For purposes of this argument, he assumes that the Government can make its case when a straw hides the name of an underlying purchaser who is legally ineligible to own a gun. But, Abramski reminds us, that is not true here, because Alvarez could have bought a gun for himself. In such circumstances, Abramski claims that a false response to Question 11.a. is not material. … Essentially, Abramski contends, when the hidden purchaser is eligible anyway to own a gun, all’s well that ends well, and all should be forgiven.

But we think what we have already said shows the fallacy of that claim: Abramski’s false statement was material because had he revealed that he was purchasing the gun on Alvarez’s behalf, the sale could not have proceeded under the law—even though Alvarez turned out to be an eligible gun owner.

…

If the dealer here, Town Police Supply, had realized it was in fact selling a gun to Alvarez, it would have had to stop the transaction for failure to comply with those conditions. Yet more, the sale could not have gone forward because the dealer would have lacked the information needed to verify and record Alvarez’s identity and check his background.

The dissenters made the argument that this particular purchase constituted a gift more than a straw purchase. This decision seems to keep in tact the provision that a person can purchase a weapon as a gift for another—provided both are legally eligible to possess firearms. A husband can purchase a weapon for his wife as a gift, for example, provided that he knows that she is legally allowed to own firearms. This does not necessarily mean a felony conviction, but if the receiver has certain mental instability, drug abuse problems or the like, they may not be legally allowed to possess firearms.

See also: Federal Firearms “Cheatsheet” PDF

High court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Posted on by

MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

council-prayerWASHINGTON (AP) — A narrowly divided Supreme Court upheld decidedly Christian prayers at the start of local council meetings on Monday, declaring them in line with long national traditions though the country has grown more religiously diverse.

The content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts, the court said in a 5-4 decision backed by its conservative majority.

Though the decision split the court along ideological lines, the Obama administration backed the winning side, the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester.

The outcome relied heavily on a 1983 decision in which the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska Legislature and said prayer is part of the nation’s fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

Read more at WTOP 103.5 FM, Washington

Scam Emails About Phony Court Cases Carry Computer Virus

Posted on by

In January, the federal judiciary learned of an email scam, in which emails purporting to come from federal and state courts are infecting recipients with computer viruses.

According to the Security Operations Center of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the emails are instructing recipients to report to a hearing on a specified day and time. The emails also instruct recipients to review an attached document for detailed case information. When the attachments or links in the email are opened, a malicious program is launched that infects the recipient’s computer. Several state courts have reported similar schemes, and also are warning the public about potential viruses.

Unless you are actively involved in a case in federal court and have consented to receive court notifications electronically, you generally will not be served with court documents electronically.

If you receive an email and are not involved in a court case or have not given your email to a court, do not open it. Contact the court in question. If your virus scanner checks emails, ensure that it is set up properly to detect viruses in emails.

Senate approves Friedland’s nomination to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted on by

freidland-connorThe U.S. Senate voted Monday to approve the nomination of San Francisco lawyer Michelle Friedland to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. With Friedland’s confirmation on a 51-40 vote, the highest federal court to serve California will be fully staffed for the first time in decades.

Friedland is a Stanford Law School grad who works with Munger, Tolles & Olson. Her expertise is in antitrust and higher education litigation, but she also worked pro bono on the legal challenge to California’s anti-gay marriage measure Proposition 8.

University of Richmond Law School professor Carl Tobias calls Friedland “extremely well qualified” — so much so that retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor showed up at her confirmation hearing. Friedland clerked for the nation’s first female justice when she was on the high court.

It’s been a long time since the nation’s busiest appeals court has been fully staffed. How long? Tobias says “maybe as far back as the Reagan administration.” At times, as many as a third of the seats were vacant due to partisan battles between the White House and the Senate. Tobias says the 9th became one of the slowest appeals courts in the country, with a case load that overwhelmed the judges.

Read more at KPCC

Supreme Court skeptical of greenhouse gas permits

Posted on by

Justices appear to be leaning toward a ruling that would eliminate just one method the Environmental Protection Agency uses to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources

1372376433000-ourviewWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared headed toward restricting the federal government’s authority to require permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Such a ruling from the court’s conservative wing wouldn’t affect an effort by the Obama administration to regulate the sources of global warming, but it would eliminate one method of doing so.

At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to change the threshold in the Clean Air Act for the amount of emissions from a power plant, refinery or other stationary source that requires a permit. Liberal justices said it was a reasonable move to avoid an absurd over-regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, but conservatives said it went too far.

Read more at USA Today.