Main Menu

Hearing in Arpaio v. Obama slated for Monday

Update: News reports say that U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell greeted Arpaio’s motion with skepticism today. She stated that deferred deportation policies have been around since the 1970’s and it was unclear how Sheriff Arpaio had standing to bring the suit.

A hearing is scheduled for December 22, in an immigration lawsuit [Justia.com link to 1:2014cv01966] filed by Joe Arpaio and his birther attorney Larry Klayman. I’m waiting for the inevitable dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Yesterday Klayman filed a supplemental declaration by Arpaio, repeating pretty much what they filed before.

I continue to wonder exactly who is filing the lawsuit. It is Joe Arpaio (who is named) or is it the Sheriff of Maricopa County. This latest filing plays with the latter, saying:

The unconstitutional act of the President’s Executive Actions must be enjoined  by a court of law on behalf of not only just myself and my Office which represents the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, but all of the American people.

Klayman had previously requested that Arpaio be allowed to testify live at the hearing and I think I read that this request was denied.

Arpaio seeks a preliminary injunction against Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

List of documents:

, ,

54 Responses to Hearing in Arpaio v. Obama slated for Monday

  1. avatar
    Rickey December 20, 2014 at 12:29 pm #

    These lawsuits are fascinating. Klayman knows that in order to have standing he has to demonstrate that his client has suffered a particularized injury which is not shared by the country as a whole, but then he goes on to say that Arpaio’s office “represents” all of the people of Maricopa County (when did a Sheriff become a representative?) and that Obama’s actions affect “all of the American people.”

    It’s almost as if Klayman is asking for a quick dismissal on standing.

    Arpaio is suing as a private citizen but he is trying to shoehorn his office into it without actually involving the County. If the County wanted to be a party, it surely would not hire Larry Klayman.

  2. avatar
    Curious George December 20, 2014 at 4:17 pm #

    Arpaio & Klayman. The new comedy team that has no equal.

  3. avatar
    Dave December 20, 2014 at 8:57 pm #

    I think you failed to mention that Klayman already scored a “victory” over Obama in this lawsuit, as reported by WND and dutifully echoed by The Stupidest Man on the Internet.

    I gather the nature of this victory was that the DoJ lawyers requested an a extension of a filing deadline for some motion, and the judge denied it.

  4. avatar
    Keith December 20, 2014 at 9:59 pm #

    Rickey: These lawsuits are fascinating.

    The only thing as fascinating to me is the question of how Arpaio could think it was a good idea to let Klayman within 100 miles of being his legal representation in anything.

    And by “fascinating” I mean utterly bewildering, completely devoid of reason, and downright stupid.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 20, 2014 at 10:09 pm #

    I find it generally true that when birthers publish documents from a lawsuit, they only include their own, and do not publish responses from the opposition. This was true of the PixelPatriot Scribd collection where I got most of the documents listed in the article. I had to download ECF-13 myself.

  6. avatar
    RanTalbott December 20, 2014 at 11:20 pm #

    Keith: how Arpaio could think it was a good idea to let Klayman within 100 miles of being his legal representation in anything.

    Orly’s busy (and, possibly, contagious), and almost everyone else has either retired or been cast out of the profession, so it was pretty much a choice between Klayman and Sibley.

    And Arpaio knows what’s left of his vanishing chances of (re)election to anything would disappear in a RWNJ haboob if he appeared at a news conference with a guy in a kilt.

  7. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 21, 2014 at 12:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I find it generally true that when birthers publish documents from a lawsuit, they only include their own, and do not publish responses from the opposition.


    Yes, Orly has often annoyed me by doing that.

    Of course, she publishes her own motions/briefs. And, she also publishes her unfiled-drafts (which are privileged-attorney-workproduct; who does that?!) And, she also publishes email from opposing counsel (that’s tacky, that email is a professional courtesy–not a public filing; who does that?!) Then, she fails to publish defendant’s/opposing counsel’s actual filings, and then again fails to publish the inevitable court opinion dismissing her case… So annoying.

  8. avatar
    Rickey December 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm #

    Keith:

    And by “fascinating” I mean utterly bewildering, completely devoid of reason, and downright stupid.

    Your definition and my definition are pretty much the same!

  9. avatar
    RanTalbott December 21, 2014 at 9:01 pm #

    J.D. Sue: And, she also publishes her unfiled-drafts (which are privileged-attorney-workproduct; who does that?!)

    But, since she’s usually appearing pro se, she gets to waive privilege without asking her client (though it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that she’s been having noisy out-loud discussions with her…).

    Plus, don’t attorneys often share such drafts with their investigators to ask them to find supporting evidence? Since Orly’s flying monkeysteam of crack investigators communicate with her through her website, it only makes sense that she would use it to pass along requests that they google/make up stuff to put in her zibbits. 😉

  10. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 21, 2014 at 9:23 pm #

    RanTalbott: Plus, don’t attorneys often share such drafts with their investigators to ask them to find supporting evidence?

    —-
    Sharing with an investigator or your legal team is one thing; sharing all your thoughts/drafts with the whole planet is different…

  11. avatar
    The Magic M December 22, 2014 at 4:22 am #

    J.D. Sue: and then again fails to publish the inevitable court opinion dismissing her case…

    Well, obviously because Orly *never* loses a case, all her cases are “still ongoing” and she’s still “waiting for a decision for 2 years now” as she occasionally points out.

  12. avatar
    Curious George December 22, 2014 at 7:57 am #

    Some pre-hearing funnies are happening at GR with TheWIZ and Birdboy……..

    TheWlZ

    “My 1st choice for POTUS/VP – Sheriff Joe, Mike Zullo. Both of these men are ‘REAL MEN’. They understand the threats to our country probably better than anyone else in gov’t/law enforcement, and they are as courageous/honorable as you’ll find anywhere on the planet.”

    Quote
    ★FALCON★

    “Wiz – you make a great point – you don’t need to understand every absolute of the Constitution. But, you need to understand the most vital.”

    Sage, Birther advice by *FALCON* it would seem at first glance……but under “Birther Law” ShurfJoke is not eligible to be president as both of his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Under “Birther Law,” ShurfJoke is not a “natural born citizen.” And as for “The Boy Blunder,” his recent “courageous” CBS interview with Morgan Loew was not a confidence builder for him attaining any public office, except possibly court jester.

  13. avatar
    alg December 22, 2014 at 8:22 am #

    Then there’s this little jewel from TheWIZ:


    “I forgot to mention my pick for Speaker of the House …. and that would be Mr. Volin. I can’t think of anybody better.”

    Makes about as much sense as having a bigot and car salesman in the White House.

  14. avatar
    Arthur December 22, 2014 at 9:55 am #

    Curious George: Some pre-hearing funnies are happening at GR with TheWIZ and Birdboy……..

    My mind reeled at the poorly veiled homoeroticism in this jewel from Birdboy:

    “I don’t have any favorite for the Republican nominee because they are all morons and faggots, Carson included. There isn’t one person in that bloc that you can say is a true Conservative. I want my candidate to look like Charles Kerchner. That’s a man’s man. I want someone with balls. And knows how to use those balls.”

    The poor thing. How many times has he joined gay dating sites only to cancel his subscription as soon as someone expressed interest in him? I hope that some day he can embrace his true nature and be happy.

  15. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 22, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    When I checked Gerbil Report this morning, the admin posted a story, whinging about how the news media never has anything nice to say about birthers.
    Warms my heart to see them having a good cry.

  16. avatar
    Curious George December 22, 2014 at 10:52 am #

    Andrew Vrba PmG

    December 22, 2014
    “When I checked Gerbil Report this morning, the admin posted a story, whinging about how the news media never has anything nice to say about birthers.”

    When the head Birther Zoo-Low is asked why he won’t answer questions from the media and whines like a three year old stomping his feet saying “I don’t have to,” is it any wonder Birthers get bad press?

  17. avatar
    Rickey December 22, 2014 at 12:02 pm #

    It sounds like the judge is getting ready to toss Arpaio’s lawsuit.

    “[Judge] Howell repeatedly questioned whether Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has legal standing to challenge Obama’s action. She told Apraio’s attorney Larry Klayman that Congress is in a better position to question the president’s authority rather than a federal court.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/ariz-sheriff-aims-halt-obama-immigration-order-080501122–politics.html

  18. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 22, 2014 at 12:32 pm #

    Uh oh! Looks like Shurfjoke is gonna lose some face in the eyes of RWNJs everywhere. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/joe-arpaio-immigrants_n_6349204.html

  19. avatar
    Curious George December 22, 2014 at 1:16 pm #

    And from the HUFFPOST we read…..
    “The sheriff’s office didn’t respond to a request Thursday to interview Arpaio.”

    I can here Zoo-Low coaching ShurfJoke…..Just say, “Because I don’t haaavve tooooo.”

  20. avatar
    Gerry December 22, 2014 at 1:26 pm #

    Will Arpaio have to pay legal expenses for filing a bogus suit in Federal Court?

  21. avatar
    Arthur December 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm #

    And here’s another little slap to the Sheriff’s sagging jowls: “The courts have ruled and, starting at 8 a.m. Monday, the Arizona Department of Transportation will accept driver’s-license applications from young, undocumented immigrants known as ‘dreamers’ who qualify under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.”
    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/12/22/dreamers-drivers-licenses-what-it-means/20747795/

    Take that, Joe. Hope you choke on it.

  22. avatar
    Rickey December 22, 2014 at 2:07 pm #

    The story about Arpaio’s hearing has been updated:

    Howell at times seemed exasperated with Klayman, a longtime conservative activist who has filed hundreds of lawsuits against the federal government, including challenges to Obama’s U.S. citizenship. When Klayman said his client has been threatened because of his tough views on Obama’s immigration policy, Howell responded: “That just doesn’t cut it for me.”

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 22, 2014 at 2:19 pm #

    My understanding is that in a suit against the federal government recovery is limited to collecting costs, should that be appropriate. Costs do not include legal fees, and typically doesn’t amount to much.

    Gerry:
    Will Arpaio have to pay legal expenses for filing a bogus suit in Federal Court?

  24. avatar
    Jim December 22, 2014 at 3:06 pm #

    “Klayman, a colorful litigator who in December 2013 won the first and thus far only ruling against the National Security Agency’s bulk phone record collection, wrapped up his arguments by telling the judge that ruling in his favor might “make you more famous.” The courtroom erupted in laughter.”

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/22/judge-considers-arpaio-lawsuit-against-obama-immigration-action

    Is telling a judge that ruling your way might “make you more famous” a new legal tactic I’ve never heard of? 😆

  25. avatar
    Rickey December 22, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My understanding is that in a suit against the federal government recovery is limited to collecting costs, should that be appropriate. Costs do not include legal fees, and typically doesn’t amount to much.

    An early dismissal, which seems likely, guarantees that costs will be negligible.

  26. avatar
    donna December 22, 2014 at 4:42 pm #

    Judge seems skeptical of challenge to immigration plan

    A federal judge on Monday appeared deeply skeptical of an Arizona sheriff’s lawsuit seeking to halt President Barack Obama’s plan to spare nearly 5 million people from deportation.

    Howell at times seemed exasperated with Klayman, a longtime conservative activist who has filed hundreds of lawsuits against the federal government, including challenges to Obama’s U.S. citizenship. When Klayman said his client has been threatened because of his tough views on Obama’s immigration policy, Howell responded: “That just doesn’t cut it for me.”

    Howell also said it did not appear that Arpaio could show a “concrete” injury he has suffered from the new policy, especially since it will take months before the bulk of it actually goes into effect.

    “If Congress doesn’t like it, doesn’t Congress have the power to step in?” she asked.

    Howell said she would issue a ruling in the case soon.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/22/immigration-arizona/20751997/

  27. avatar
    Curious George December 22, 2014 at 9:30 pm #

    Prediction: Klayman strikes out. (Reality)

    Prediction: Gerbil Report: “Huge Klayman Victory for Arpaio. Court Action Saves Nation.” ( Fiction )

  28. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 22, 2014 at 10:26 pm #

    donna: Howell said she would issue a ruling in the case soon.

    As annoyed as this judge sounds, the ruling could very well end up being a hastily scrawled note telling Klayman and Shurfjoke where to go, and how to get there.

  29. avatar
    alg December 22, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

    Larry Klayman’s legal massacre

    Dana Milbank tells it like it is.

  30. avatar
    James M December 23, 2014 at 12:36 am #

    Does anyone actually identify an unlawful Executive Order? That is, a specific regulation or statute that would necessarily be violated by some party carrying out some particular order? Without that minimal, necessary and sufficient information, I cannot regard the opposition as genuine.

  31. avatar
    The Magic M December 23, 2014 at 4:09 am #

    donna: When Klayman said his client has been threatened because of his tough views on Obama’s immigration policy, Howell responded: “That just doesn’t cut it for me.”

    Would be the first time that “I’ve been threatened” excuses not having standing, or evidence, or anything.
    It shows KKKlayman doesn’t think much like a lawyer but more like a (KKK-) layman (how apt) who thinks that handwaving and making appeals to emotion is a replacement for legal argument.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 23, 2014 at 8:33 am #

    The immigration program was done by executive action, not executive order. The general form of it is to exercise prosecutorial discretion to prioritize deportations based on limited resources insufficient to deport everyone.

    I noticed that the government’s response (ECF 13) specifically states that the deferral was made on a case-by-case basis, perhaps specifically responding to the decision by District Judge Arthur J. Schwab who said that the executive action went beyond constitutional authority because it was a general rule and not a case-by-case review.

    I am speculating that the Supreme Court won’t get involved unless there is a difference in decisions between the circuits. Schwab’s decision in Pennsylvania won’t be appealed because it doesn’t actually decide the question. Meanwhile there are cases in Texas including one by Taitz.

    James M: Does anyone actually identify an unlawful Executive Order?

  33. avatar
    john December 23, 2014 at 9:22 am #

    Judge Howell is an OBAMA APPOINTED judge. This suit will no go anywhere and will be dismissed.

  34. avatar
    Jim December 23, 2014 at 9:54 am #

    Wow john, and what about all those cases that were dismissed by non-Democratic judges? Or maybe they’re all following the real constitution, not the one in your imagination.

  35. avatar
    roadburner December 23, 2014 at 10:24 am #

    john:
    Judge Howell is an OBAMA APPOINTED judge.This suit will no go anywhere and will be dismissed.

    oh dear!

    realising that this case is going nowhere, john starts with the excuses!

    maybe one day you’ll recognise the difference between the law and a birfoons wet dream.

  36. avatar
    Northland10 December 23, 2014 at 10:44 am #

    RanTalbott: Orly’s busy (and, possibly, contagious), and almost everyone else has either retired or been cast out of the profession, so it was pretty much a choice between Klayman and Sibley.

    Sibley is still under suspension in DC (he does not appear to have worked toward reinstatement), not eligible-lapsed in Florida after his suspension there, and is disbarred for SCOTUS. The Sheriff is stuck with Klayman.

  37. avatar
    Northland10 December 23, 2014 at 10:46 am #

    john:
    Judge Howell is an OBAMA APPOINTED judge.This suit will no go anywhere and will be dismissed.

    Because Reagan and Bush appointed judges worked out so well for Orly.

  38. avatar
    Rickey December 23, 2014 at 11:49 am #

    john:
    Judge Howell is an OBAMA APPOINTED judge.This suit will no go anywhere and will be dismissed.

    The lawsuit could be before Judge Judy and it would still be dismissed. Arpaio cannot show that he has standing. To show standing, a plaintiff has to demonstrate that he has a concrete, particularized injury, yet Klayman filed a declaration which states that Arpaio is representing all of the residents of Maricopa County and that Obama’s executive action affects all American citizens. If it affects all Americans, then by definition the effects of the executive action cannot be particularized.

    Even you should be able to comprehend that.

  39. avatar
    wrecking ball December 23, 2014 at 11:56 am #

    john:
    Judge Howell is an OBAMA APPOINTED judge.This suit will no go anywhere and will be dismissed.

    yes and yes.

    yet klayman seems to think there will be “a positive ruling in the near future”. do you think he’s unaware that the judge is an obama appointee?

  40. avatar
    Bob December 23, 2014 at 11:56 am #

    When someone says “They were laughed out of court” it’s usually not literal.

  41. avatar
    Jim December 23, 2014 at 12:13 pm #

    Bob: When someone says “They were laughed out of court” it’s usually not literal.

    Except in the case of birthers…and KKKman.

  42. avatar
    James M December 23, 2014 at 12:25 pm #

    Northland10: Sibley is still under suspension in DC (he does not appear to have worked toward reinstatement), not eligible-lapsed in Florida after his suspension there, and is disbarred for SCOTUS. The Sheriff is stuck with Klayman.

    What does it say about your case, if you have money and *still* can’t buy a lawyer?

  43. avatar
    Northland10 December 23, 2014 at 3:12 pm #

    James M: What does it say about your case, if you have money and *still* can’t buy a lawyer?

    I suspect that this case is as much Klayman’s as it is Arpaio’s. Arpaio can have his PR buzz and try to redirect from his Arizona court problems, while Klayman continues in his quest to continuously harangue and harass the government along with anybody he does not like.

  44. avatar
    Northland10 December 23, 2014 at 3:13 pm #

    Rickey: Even you (John) should be able to comprehend that

    ROTFL

  45. avatar
    bob December 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My understanding is that in a suit against the federal government recovery is limited to collecting costs, should that be appropriate. Costs do not include legal fees, and typically doesn’t amount to much.

    The federal government (as a litigant) could seek sanctions. There are, however, legitimate First Amendment policy reasons (beyond any particular frivolous lawsuit) for not doing so.

  46. avatar
    Nancy R Owens December 23, 2014 at 7:43 pm #

    So, what happened to this case yesterday?

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 23, 2014 at 7:54 pm #

    Nothing. We are waiting for the Judge’s decision.

    Nancy R Owens: So, what happened to this case yesterday?

  48. avatar
    Dave B. December 23, 2014 at 10:19 pm #

    Well she’d never let a little thing like that get in her way.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Nothing. We are waiting for the Judge’s decision.

  49. avatar
    RanTalbott December 23, 2014 at 11:15 pm #

    Gerbil Report™ just posted a story saying the suit was tossed for lack of standing.

  50. avatar
    Rickey December 23, 2014 at 11:30 pm #

    The judge’s dismissal order is here:

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1966-23

  51. avatar
    Curious George December 24, 2014 at 12:35 am #

    Back to the drawing board. It really sucks being a a birther.

  52. avatar
    Notorial Dissent December 24, 2014 at 3:00 am #

    Well, it certainly sucks to be KKKlayman right about now, guess there’ll be no under the table fee for him here.

  53. avatar
    realist December 24, 2014 at 7:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Nothing. We are waiting for the Judge’s decision.

    Case was dismissed in a well-written 33-page opinion. Link at Jack Ryan Twitter and at Fogbow.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 24, 2014 at 8:20 am #

    Must have been posted shortly after I checked the docket.

    realist: Case was dismissed in a well-written 33-page opinion. Link at Jack Ryan Twitter and at Fogbow.