SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DISMISSED!
"... 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...."
It is entirely possible Sheriff Joe mis-under-estimated his actual power this time. According to the Feathered Bastard (our new favorite liberal site) there was such a public uproar against the county attorney, etc. that they were forced to dismiss charges against the Phoenix New Times!
"... And despite this egregious violation of the First Amendment by his office, he offered no apology to New Times' founders, and instead demanded an apology from the New Times for publishing Arpaio's address.
Asked if Thomas would go after the many Web sites that have published Arpaio's address online, he made a major legal flub.
"There's a big difference between that and putting his name and address on the front cover," as the New Times did late in 2006. This reporter had to point out to Thomas that the law in question did not apply to print publication of such addresses, only Internet publication of same.
Thomas mumbled a response, to which I shot back: "So the law doesn't matter to you?"
"That's not what I said," he frowned.
The extent of Thomas' retreat became apparent when MCAO flack Barnett Lottstein later admitted that attorney Wilenchik will no longer serve the MCAO in criminal matters, though he will continue to represent the County in civil matters when someone like Arpaio requests him.
Obviously, Wilenchik this week crossed the line into political liability territory, and Thomas threw him under the bus. Interestingly, New Times reporter Ray Stern's disorderly conduct citation for looking at public documents has not been dismissed. Stern was viewing MCSO press releases at the PHX law offices of Michelle Iafrate, press releases the MCSO refuses to e-mail to New Times. Stern took some digital snaps of these public docs, they asked him to leave, there were words between he and Iafrate, and he left. Then they hit him with a citation later in the evening as part of this mess...."
Asked if Thomas would go after the many Web sites that have published Arpaio's address online, he made a major legal flub.
"There's a big difference between that and putting his name and address on the front cover," as the New Times did late in 2006. This reporter had to point out to Thomas that the law in question did not apply to print publication of such addresses, only Internet publication of same.
Thomas mumbled a response, to which I shot back: "So the law doesn't matter to you?"
"That's not what I said," he frowned.
The extent of Thomas' retreat became apparent when MCAO flack Barnett Lottstein later admitted that attorney Wilenchik will no longer serve the MCAO in criminal matters, though he will continue to represent the County in civil matters when someone like Arpaio requests him.
Obviously, Wilenchik this week crossed the line into political liability territory, and Thomas threw him under the bus. Interestingly, New Times reporter Ray Stern's disorderly conduct citation for looking at public documents has not been dismissed. Stern was viewing MCSO press releases at the PHX law offices of Michelle Iafrate, press releases the MCSO refuses to e-mail to New Times. Stern took some digital snaps of these public docs, they asked him to leave, there were words between he and Iafrate, and he left. Then they hit him with a citation later in the evening as part of this mess...."
NEW TIMES EDITORS ARRESTED
Last night Sheriff Joe and his minions arrested the editorial staff of the Phoenix New Times for revealing Grand Jury deliberations.
The Feathered Bastard
"...Village Voice Media Executive Editor Michael Lacey was released from PHX's 4th Avenue Jail around 4 a.m. this morning after being arrested Thursday evening by plainclothes agents of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Charged with the misdemeanor of revealing grand jury information in this week's cover story Grand Jury Targets New Times and Its Readers, Lacey was released on a $500 bond. His co-author on that story, VVM Chairman and CEO Jim Larkin was arrested on an identical misdemeanor charge Thursday evening and released hours prior to Lacey.
Unbowed and surprisingly lucid for a man who's just spent the night in jail, Lacey spoke with a gaggle of reporters including yours truly and Channel 3's Mike Watkiss. The journalist and alt-newspaper titan, who along with Larkin founded New Times in 1970 as a reaction to the war in Vietnam, vowed to continue the fight against abuses of power by County Attorney Andy Thomas, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Thomas' paid attack hound, lawyer Dennis Wilenchik.
"We're going to keep publishing, and with God's help, we're going to keep printing," he declared. Lacey explained the background of his arrest, and how special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik had attempted ex parte communications with the judge overseeing a grand jury investigation of Phoenix New Times. The investigation stems from the paper publishing Sheriff Arpaio's home address online three years ago in reporter John Dougherty's column. Lacey stated that Wilenchik's brazen attempt to influence the judge in this case forced New Times' hand, resulting in Thursday's revelation of the broad grand jury subpoena.
"We're being arrested for raising hell," Lacey remarked. "It's sort of a tradition journalism has."
Lacey went on to place in context the online revelation of Arpaio's address, pointing out that Dougherty was at the time inquiring into parcels of land Arpaio paid for in cash, sometimes close to a million dollars in cash. Arpaio's real estate records were being hidden from the public, even though the Sheriff's home address was readily available in county public records and on numerous sites online.
"Our question during the election cycle was: How is it that a guy [the Sheriff] who's making $72,000 a year has nearly a million dollars in cash to invest in these parcels?" wondered Lacey.
Asked if he believed more arrests were likely, Lacey said he didn't think so.
"The way that this operates is that they select someone to make an example out of, and they selected our organization," he replied. "Hopefully, other media organizations will begin to speak up and speak out about what's going on here.
"The problem is that it takes me being arrested for you guys to show up," he continued. "This is a story we're all involved in. Those subpoenas are what you should be writing about. The sources they want from us on all of these stories is what you should be writing about. The fact that they want to have the identity, the browsing habits, the buying habits, what shopping carts people have filled, what sites people have visited on the Web before they came to us, what sites they visited after they left us. The fact that they have subpoenaed that kind of information, all of which is in our paper and on our Web site is what the story's about. It's not about me getting out of jail at four in the morning."..."
Unbowed and surprisingly lucid for a man who's just spent the night in jail, Lacey spoke with a gaggle of reporters including yours truly and Channel 3's Mike Watkiss. The journalist and alt-newspaper titan, who along with Larkin founded New Times in 1970 as a reaction to the war in Vietnam, vowed to continue the fight against abuses of power by County Attorney Andy Thomas, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Thomas' paid attack hound, lawyer Dennis Wilenchik.
"We're going to keep publishing, and with God's help, we're going to keep printing," he declared. Lacey explained the background of his arrest, and how special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik had attempted ex parte communications with the judge overseeing a grand jury investigation of Phoenix New Times. The investigation stems from the paper publishing Sheriff Arpaio's home address online three years ago in reporter John Dougherty's column. Lacey stated that Wilenchik's brazen attempt to influence the judge in this case forced New Times' hand, resulting in Thursday's revelation of the broad grand jury subpoena.
"We're being arrested for raising hell," Lacey remarked. "It's sort of a tradition journalism has."
Lacey went on to place in context the online revelation of Arpaio's address, pointing out that Dougherty was at the time inquiring into parcels of land Arpaio paid for in cash, sometimes close to a million dollars in cash. Arpaio's real estate records were being hidden from the public, even though the Sheriff's home address was readily available in county public records and on numerous sites online.
"Our question during the election cycle was: How is it that a guy [the Sheriff] who's making $72,000 a year has nearly a million dollars in cash to invest in these parcels?" wondered Lacey.
Asked if he believed more arrests were likely, Lacey said he didn't think so.
"The way that this operates is that they select someone to make an example out of, and they selected our organization," he replied. "Hopefully, other media organizations will begin to speak up and speak out about what's going on here.
"The problem is that it takes me being arrested for you guys to show up," he continued. "This is a story we're all involved in. Those subpoenas are what you should be writing about. The sources they want from us on all of these stories is what you should be writing about. The fact that they want to have the identity, the browsing habits, the buying habits, what shopping carts people have filled, what sites people have visited on the Web before they came to us, what sites they visited after they left us. The fact that they have subpoenaed that kind of information, all of which is in our paper and on our Web site is what the story's about. It's not about me getting out of jail at four in the morning."..."
HAS SHERIFF JOE MISCALCULATED?
Even FOX is now in the act as the owners of the New Times, also owners of The Village Voice, were released from the county lock-up.
From the AZ Central:
"...Outside the jail this morning, New Times editor Rick Barrs told assembled media that the arrests had been an attack by Thomas' attorney.
"They're trying to muzzle us," Barrs said. "This is retaliation against us. And it's not just retaliation against us, it's retaliation against the press."
"I think that what has gone on here legally is without precedent," Lacey told the Republic earlier in the day, before the arrests. Lacey is executive editor of Village Voice Media, which owns Phoenix New Times and several other papers across the country.
It attempts to put a chill on reporters doing their jobs, he said, and invades the privacy of readers. Lacey says he didn't intend to turn over the information.
The architect of the unprecedented online dragnet is the same private attorney at the center of other recent controversies in the County Attorney's Office.
Dennis Wilenchik has helped Thomas launch a war against Superior Court judges over differences on cases dealing with undocumented immigrants, last week staging an unheard-of confrontation with the court's assistant presiding criminal judge.
The State Bar reports that it is investigating possible ethical complaints against Thomas and Wilenchik in the wake of that incident.
A county attorney spokesman on Thursday night said he could not confirm if Wilenchik had sought the arrests.
The New Times subpoena originates from a series of articles published in 2004 and 2005. Underlying the subpoena is an allegation that the paper had published Arpaio's home address, which the County Attorney's Office alleges is a crime.
The subpoena specifically asks for documents and Web-traffic details related to:
• An article about a defamation suit filed against the sheriff by a political rival.
• An article detailing the history of antagonism between New Times and Arpaio.
• An article alleging that Arpaio had abused a law allowing public officials to keep home addresses private to shield nearly $1 million in cash real-estate transactions.
But the subpoena then went from requesting specific information to general information about the paper's online readers. The subpoena did not specify why that information was being sought.
The subpoena was not the only unusual tactic used by Wilenchik in the New Times case.
According to Lacey, Wilenchik used a politically important intermediary to try to set up a private meeting with the Superior Court's presiding criminal judge, Anna Baca, whose responsibilities include oversight of the grand jury. It is improper for judges to comment on cases before them, especially when only one of the parties is present.
Baca, Lacey claims, ended the conversation with the intermediary, whose husband works for Thomas, and then dragged all the players - reporters, editors, lawyers on both sides - into her chambers to make a record of the matter. .
Lacey said that, during the hearing, Wilenchik denied he intended to talk to Baca about the New Times investigation and, instead, wanted to talk about the court's relationship with Thomas' office.
Baca said that legal ethics prevent her from talking publicly about the case.
Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell also declined to comment on the case, as did Barnett Lotstein, speaking on behalf of the County Attorney's Office, and Wilenchik. Attorneys are similarly barred from commenting on grand-jury proceedings.
Wilenchik has been at the center of several recent controversies.
He defended the Sheriff's Office in a defamation suit brought by Arpaio's political opponent in his past election, and last week leveled bias charges against the superior court's assistant presiding criminal judge. Wilenchik asked that Judge Timothy Ryan be removed from all cases involving the County Attorney's Office.
The motion was denied Thursday by another Superior Court judge.
But Wilenchik's actions have created a furor, and the State Bar of Arizona confirms that both Wilenchik and Thomas are the subjects of Bar investigations into ethical conduct over the interaction with Ryan.
Legal experts described the subpoena of New Times records and computer information as frightening, over-reaching and unconstitutional.
"It really is overbroad," said Kenneth Fields, a retired Superior Court judge. "And it touches on privacy issues of a lot of people who cannot be the subject of a grand-jury investigation. This is potentially thousands of people."..."
Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist,
Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, third world county, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe."They're trying to muzzle us," Barrs said. "This is retaliation against us. And it's not just retaliation against us, it's retaliation against the press."
"I think that what has gone on here legally is without precedent," Lacey told the Republic earlier in the day, before the arrests. Lacey is executive editor of Village Voice Media, which owns Phoenix New Times and several other papers across the country.
It attempts to put a chill on reporters doing their jobs, he said, and invades the privacy of readers. Lacey says he didn't intend to turn over the information.
The architect of the unprecedented online dragnet is the same private attorney at the center of other recent controversies in the County Attorney's Office.
Dennis Wilenchik has helped Thomas launch a war against Superior Court judges over differences on cases dealing with undocumented immigrants, last week staging an unheard-of confrontation with the court's assistant presiding criminal judge.
The State Bar reports that it is investigating possible ethical complaints against Thomas and Wilenchik in the wake of that incident.
A county attorney spokesman on Thursday night said he could not confirm if Wilenchik had sought the arrests.
The New Times subpoena originates from a series of articles published in 2004 and 2005. Underlying the subpoena is an allegation that the paper had published Arpaio's home address, which the County Attorney's Office alleges is a crime.
The subpoena specifically asks for documents and Web-traffic details related to:
• An article about a defamation suit filed against the sheriff by a political rival.
• An article detailing the history of antagonism between New Times and Arpaio.
• An article alleging that Arpaio had abused a law allowing public officials to keep home addresses private to shield nearly $1 million in cash real-estate transactions.
But the subpoena then went from requesting specific information to general information about the paper's online readers. The subpoena did not specify why that information was being sought.
The subpoena was not the only unusual tactic used by Wilenchik in the New Times case.
According to Lacey, Wilenchik used a politically important intermediary to try to set up a private meeting with the Superior Court's presiding criminal judge, Anna Baca, whose responsibilities include oversight of the grand jury. It is improper for judges to comment on cases before them, especially when only one of the parties is present.
Baca, Lacey claims, ended the conversation with the intermediary, whose husband works for Thomas, and then dragged all the players - reporters, editors, lawyers on both sides - into her chambers to make a record of the matter. .
Lacey said that, during the hearing, Wilenchik denied he intended to talk to Baca about the New Times investigation and, instead, wanted to talk about the court's relationship with Thomas' office.
Baca said that legal ethics prevent her from talking publicly about the case.
Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell also declined to comment on the case, as did Barnett Lotstein, speaking on behalf of the County Attorney's Office, and Wilenchik. Attorneys are similarly barred from commenting on grand-jury proceedings.
Wilenchik has been at the center of several recent controversies.
He defended the Sheriff's Office in a defamation suit brought by Arpaio's political opponent in his past election, and last week leveled bias charges against the superior court's assistant presiding criminal judge. Wilenchik asked that Judge Timothy Ryan be removed from all cases involving the County Attorney's Office.
The motion was denied Thursday by another Superior Court judge.
But Wilenchik's actions have created a furor, and the State Bar of Arizona confirms that both Wilenchik and Thomas are the subjects of Bar investigations into ethical conduct over the interaction with Ryan.
Legal experts described the subpoena of New Times records and computer information as frightening, over-reaching and unconstitutional.
"It really is overbroad," said Kenneth Fields, a retired Superior Court judge. "And it touches on privacy issues of a lot of people who cannot be the subject of a grand-jury investigation. This is potentially thousands of people."..."
">
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
