Hulstedt v Scottsdale: Cops lied; Scottsdale/MCAO still prosecuting innocence

On N0vember 7, 2008 Scottsdale cops shot, brutally dragged, and permanently paralyzed a seriously mentally ill man who called them to ask for the Attorney General to come to his home. They had a come SWAT team help him out instead of allowing his family to talk him down from an agitated, distressed state, and he was holding his baby girl in his arms who was consequently injured when he was shot. 

Sound familiar?

Another Scottsdale cop, James Peters, just retired with full disability pension after shooting and killing John Loxas while he held his grandchild in his arms...sure am glad I don't live in Scottsdale these days.

Here's the original post on David's shooting: 

PROSECUTING INNOCENCE: The shooting of David Hulstedt

A year later a grand jury returned an indictment of David, alleging he had kidnapped and abused his child himself the day the cops shot him. Unfortunately, it appears as if David is still being prosecuted for the alleged crimes that "justified" his shooting. That despite his serious mental illness (he was very delusional when the cops attacked him in his yard), and the findings yesterday by federal judge G. Murray Snow that the cops lied repeatedly in order to justify their shooting, which was all screwed up to begin with (thank god for the video of the whole thing). 

Why is David still being prosecuted? From the file I just read, the cops who shot him are the ones who should be facing prosecution.

David's guardian sued on his behalf, and yesterday was a hearing on several motions re: Hulstedt v Scottsdale. News on that front is mostly good; below are some excerpts from the court record. Read the whole thing if you can - it's fascinating and the arguments apply to not only police brutality/ excessive force cases, but also searches.

First, these are the civil claims for damages that were filed on David's behalf:

"Plaintiffs’ complaint contains nine claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seven supplemental claims under Arizona state law.3 (Doc. 28).

In Claim One, Plaintiffs allege that Officer Dorer and Officer Slavin violated David Hulstedt’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him when they shot him.

In Claim Two, they allege that Officer Fellows and Officer Garcia violated David Hulstedt’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force when they handcuffed him and dragged him across the asphalt, that Sgt. Dorer is liable for ordering that David be handcuffed, and that Sgt. Slavin is liable for ordering the officers to drag David to the ambulance.

Counts Three through Six, along with certain allegations in Count Seven, have already been dismissed on the pleadings by the original judge in this matter. (Doc.182).4

In the remaining portions of Claim Seven, Plaintiffs allege that officers searched the Hulstedt home in violation of the Fourth Amendment after the shooting, and that Det. Lockerby procured a search warrant for the home through judicial deception.

In Claim Eight, Plaintiffs allege that Lt. O’Halloran, Sergeant Scott Smith, Sergeant Dorer, and Sergeant Slavin bear supervisory responsibility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for directing their subordinates to act in ways that deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.

Claim Nine(a) argues that the City is liable based on two theories of municipal liability: a failure to train officers and a ratification of the officers’ decisions by the Chief of Police.

The remaining claims arise under Arizona state tort law.

Claim Nine(b) is for Battery against Sgt. Slavin, Sgt. Dorer, Officer Fellows, Officer Garcia, and the City.

Claim Ten is for Negligence by Sgt. Dorer, Sgt. Slavin, Det. Lockerby, and the City.

Claim Eleven is for Negligence against Operator Trott and the City of Scottsdale.

Claim Twelve is for Defamation against Officer Greene, Det. Lockerby, Officer Scritchfield, and the City.

Claim Thirteen is for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) against Sgt. Slavin, Officer Scritchfield, Officer Clark, Officer Greene, Det. Lockerby, Officer Fellows, Officer Garcia and others.

Claim Fourteen is for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against Sgt. Slavin and Sgt. Dorer, and

Claim Fifteen is for Loss of Consortium against Sgt. Slavin and Sgt. Dorer.

Defendants move for summary judgment on every claim. (Doc. 271). Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on Claim One, Claim Two, the remaining portion of Claim Seven, Claim Nine(a), Claim Nine(b), and Claim Ten. (Doc. 265)."

Now, some remarks and observations made by the judge in reflecting on these claims (DH refers to David's 3 year old daughter): 

"One cannot pay “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of [this] particular case” and still conclude that the officers were free to fire at David and D.H. as soon the negotiators had coaxed him out of his front door. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-1 at 6)...."

"Once the family members’ cell phones had been confiscated, Officer Antrim continued to speak to David over the telephone, stating that “we’re working on getting your brother but you do know as well as I do that this is not a real common practice to send someone into a home like that.” (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 5). After fifteen minutes of negotiation, David apparently once again expressed concern that the police were there to shoot him. Officer Antrim continued to negotiate, and learned more about David’s anxiety and his medication. (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 8).

Five minutes later, David told the negotiation team that he was ready to leave the house. (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 14). When Sgt. Slavin, who was still putting on his SWAT team gear, heard over the radio that the subject was going to leave the house, he “started running down towards the command post.” (Doc. 269, Ex. PP at 144). When Sgt. Slavin reached the command post, he told the officers there that he wanted to go to the scene, obtained directions from them, and continued running towards the house. (Id.). Sgt. Slavin
had heard the previous radio transmissions, but was not aware of any operational plan, did not know how many officers were on the scene, and did not know if any officers had firearms at the ready or deployed. (Doc. 266-3, Ex. L-3 at 169–70). He made the decision to go to the scene on his own, passing through residential yards containing vegetation and cacti to reachthe house. (Id.)..."

"Neither Sgt. Slavin nor Sgt. Dorer warned David that they would shoot him if he did not comply with their commands, and both of them shot him in the back as he was walking away from them and towards the house. (Doc. 313-1, Ex. B at 57, Pospisil video). Sgt. Dorer, when asked if he ever perceived at any particular moment that David was going to “piledrive” D.H., responded, “I did not.” (Doc. 267, Ex. S at 44). Instead, he shot David “to prevent him from going back into the house.” (Id. at 43). When David was shot, he released D.H. as he collapsed and she fell forward onto the concrete walkway from a height of approximately six feet. (Pospisil video).

After David fell, officers converged on D.H. and David. (Pospisil video). Sgt. Dorer and Sgt. Slavin approached David on the ground; Sgt. Dorer ordered him handcuffed and Sgt. Slavin “ordered him to be dragged away from the scene.” (Doc. 269, Ex. PP at 145). Officer Deven Fellows and Officer Marcos Garcia handcuffed David and dragged him approximately 400 feet to where the medics were stationed. (Doc. 266-2, Ex. E at 136). The officers held David under his arms with his face pointed downward, so that his bare knees were in contact with the asphalt and gravel. The dragging resulted in “gaping wounds in David’s knees” that required extensive medical attention."

"The Ninth Circuit has written that summary judgment is rare in cases of police misconduct, because “police misconduct cases almost always turn on a jury’s credibility determinations.” Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 853 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). This case is an exception to that general caution. Almost everything the officers heard was recorded and transcribed, and the shooting itself was recorded on video. The officers fired at an unarmed man who was walking away from them. Although he had issued threats against D.H. earlier, nothing he did after walking outside would suggest to a reasonable officer that he was placing D.H. in imminent danger of suffering any more harm than falling to the ground. By shooting David, the officers caused the very harm that a reasonable officer could believe that David posed to D.H. Considering “the totality of the facts and circumstances in the particular case,” no reasonable officer could have believed that shooting David without warning, while he calmly walked back towards his house with D.H. over his head, was a proper means of protecting D.H.’s safety. Blanford, 406 F.3d at1115...."

And the judge's order: 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 265) is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 271) is granted in part and denied in part.

3. The remaining claims are as follows:

A. On Claim One, summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs.

B. On Claim Two, summary judgment is entered for Defendants on thehandcuffing claim and denied to both parties on the dragging claim.

C. On Claim Seven, summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs on the warrantless search allegations. (Doc. 28 ¶¶ 290–296). Summary judgment is entered for Defendants on the judicial deception claim. (Doc. 28 ¶¶ 297–301).

D. On Claim Eight, summary judgment is entered for Defendant on the claims against Sgt. Slavin, and Lt. O’Halloran, and for Sgt. Dorer regarding the handcuffing. Summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs against Sgt. Dorer regarding the warrantless search. Summary judgment is denied to both parties with regards to the dragging claims. Summary judgement is denied to both parties with regards to Sgt. Slavin.

E. Claim Nine(a) survives only with regards to the ratification claim (Doc. 28 ¶308) and is otherwise dismissed.

F. On Claim Nine(b), summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs against Dorer and Slavin regarding the shooting. Summary judgment is denied to both parties regarding Officer Fellows’ and Garcia’s dragging David to the ambulance.

G. Claim Ten is dismissed.

H. Claim Eleven survives.

I. Claim Twelve survives

J. Claim Thirteen survives only with regards to Officer Greene and Sgt. Slavin, and is otherwise dismissed.

K. Claim Fourteen is dismissed.

L. Claim Fifteen survives.

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 333) and Motion for Certification of Issue for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 333-34) are both denied.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2012.

-------------

If David's family is out there reading this now, please get in touch with me - I want to connect you with folks who have been advocating for the mentally ill in the criminal justice system for awhile. They want to offer your family support. My name is Peggy Plews; my number is 480-580-6807; my email is arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com

Prosecuting innocence: the liberation of Debra Brown.

Excellent article; sad story. Wrongful conviction is all too common, and justice for the innocent is not common enough...witness what happened to Courtney Bisbee.

-------------------------------------

Logan woman convicted of murder in 1995 deemed innocent

Deseret News
Tuesday, May 3, 2011 12:49 a.m. MDT
By Emiley Morgan,

OGDEN — She has spent 17 years sitting behind bars, and all Debra Brown really wants is a bicycle.

On Monday, an Ogden judge found the Logan woman — who has been in prison for murder since 1995 — "factually innocent."

"The court now determines by clear and convincing evidence that (Debra Brown) did not engage in the conduct for which she was convicted and is, therefore, factually innocent of the aggravated murder of Lael Brown," 2nd District Judge Michael DiReda wrote in a decision released Monday.

And when Debra Brown is released, her brother Dave Scott will be waiting. She wrote to him from prison some time ago about a dream she'd had in which she was riding a nice, expensive bicycle. Her brother spent a couple of years looking for the exact bike she had described.

"Her bike is ready, and as soon as I get the word, I'll head that way," Scott said.

The judge's decision came after a first-of-its-kind evidentiary hearing that spanned six days during which attorneys presented evidence to show that Brown, 53, could not have murdered Lael Brown, her boss and friend, in 1993.

Debra Brown's daughter, Alana Williams, was so emotional upon hearing the news Monday that she had to speak through her tears. "I can't even tell you (how excited I am)," she said.

Debra Brown was the one who found Lael Brown dead with three gunshot wounds to his head. Police said there was no sign of forced entry and Debra Brown was the only person with a key to Lael Brown's home. They also said she had forged more than $3,500 in checks and had a motive to kill him.

Debra Brown was charged months later and convicted by a jury in 1995.

The woman long defended her innocence, and in 2002 the Rocky Mountain Innocence Project began an investigation into her case, which culminated in the hearing to determine whether Debra Brown was, in fact, innocent. The team of attorneys that championed her cause went to tell her the news in person Monday.

"She was overwhelmed," attorney Alan Sullivan said. "She was emotionally overwhelmed and very grateful for this ruling."

The woman who has been described as "extremely strong" and "inherently happy" was so excited, hugging attorneys and trying to lift them in the air, that Sullivan said she had to be told to sit down.

"It was too much for her," he said, noting that the woman saw the opportunity to tell her side of the story to a judge as liberation enough.

But Debra Brown's case carries a precedent far beyond her own case. Hers was the first factual-innocence case to be filed after a 2008 change in state statute that allows for such a hearing when new evidence in a case — even if it is not DNA evidence — is found.

Katie Monroe, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Innocence Project, said Utah is one of only a few states that allows for a determination of innocence without DNA evidence. She said data suggests as many as 3 to 5 percent of those convicted on felony rape and murder charges are innocent, a statistic she called "conservative."

"This is incredibly important to our work because the majority of cases with people who are innocent and in prison don't have DNA evidence," she said.

For DiReda, the deciding issue was Lael Brown's time of death and Debra Brown's alibi. During Debra Brown's trial, prosecutors had argued that Lael Brown had been killed the morning of Nov. 6, 1993 — a Saturday — and a full day before his body was discovered. Debra Brown had no alibi for that morning.

Two new witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing in March of this year that they saw Lael Brown alive that Saturday night, leading DiReda to determine that there is clear and convincing evidence that Lael Brown was still alive Saturday morning, the one time when Debra Brown would not have had an alibi. The judge said, based on testimony given by the medical examiner, that it was most likely Lael Brown actually died sometime between 9 p.m. Saturday and 3 a.m. Sunday.

DiReda wrote that the facts show that Debra Brown's whereabouts were "firmly established" from 10 a.m. Saturday through Sunday morning.

Under the factual-innocence statute, DiReda had to find that there was new evidence in Debra Brown's case that met the clear and convincing standard — not the legal innocence standard, which only requires that there be reasonable doubt.

Debra Brown's attorneys argued that their client had been convicted on circumstantial evidence and that Logan police failed to follow other leads in the case. That said, they say she continued to maintain a belief in the justice system.

"She believes in the process," Sullivan said.

The woman's family, which was characterized as "unwavering" in their support, said they had to believe that the same system that put Debra Brown behind bars would help her find a way out, Scott said. He said they also never once questioned whether or not his sister was innocent.

"Ours is a great system. We just had to hold faith. We just had to hang in the trenches."

He said he hopes his sister's case gives hope to others in a similar situation. Those in her family and the attorneys who worked with her said she was the source of optimism throughout the process.

"My mom is the one who kept all of us going," her daughter Alana Williams said. "We rooted for her from day one, but she's strongest one out of all of us. We can't even say thank you enough."

Both Williams and Scott had nothing but kind words for DiReda, who Scott said gave the family "a miracle" with his ruling.

"I'm just so grateful for Judge DiReda for his wisdom, his knowledge of the law and how he handled this because I knew he knew what needed to be done," Scott said.

An automatic five-day stay has been issued to allow the state to determine whether they will appeal the judge's decision. While he said he could not comment on the ruling, assistant attorney general Scott Reed said those in his office will be meeting with the "appropriate people" to determine what to do next.

If they choose to file an appeal in the five-day time frame, they will then have 30 days to formally file an appeal. The Logan Police Department will wait for the decision by the state and the Cache County Attorney's Office to determine what action, if any, to take next in the Lael Brown case, Assistant Logan Police Chief Jeff Curtis said.

"It's awful preliminary for us to make any kind of statement as to where we're going now until we can meet with the Cache County Attorneys Office," he said. "It's really in their court right now."

If there is no appeal, Monroe said Debra Brown will have her record expunged and will receive automatic monetary restitution. In 2008, the amount was $32,000 for each year spent in prison for up to 15 years.

Regardless, Monroe expressed her hope that Brown will be released as soon as the five-day stay expires on May 7.

"The state certainly has a right to appeal," Monroe said. "It wouldn't be unheard of, but we hope very much they choose not to."

Sullivan said he expects that even if the state should appeal, Brown will still be released for the time being. And her family will wait until the moment when they'll see Debra Brown as a free woman again.

"It's still kind of surreal," Alana Williams. "I still don't even know what to think until I can walk with her and say: 'She's out.' "

Email: emorgan@desnews.com Twitter: DNewsCrimeTeam

Charges dismissed against the Arpaio 5.

Been battling dental oppression lately which derailed me early into Garyn and Claire's trial today, so I missed the grand finale, personally, and haven't seen much of a write up yet from others. As court was getting underway this AM - the prosecution having rested yesterday on the conflicting testimony of several cops - the defense was busy working on photographs and videos they had to submit into evidence. (If you ever need that for your own trial, bring a back-up machine - they don't have prompt service if their own projector or other equipment fails). The judge heard "Rule 20" motions from both defense attorneys. Rule 20 states the following:

Rule 20. Judgment of Acquittal

a. Before Verdict. On motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in an indictment, information or complaint after the evidence on either side is closed, if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. In an aggravation hearing, after the evidence on either side is closed, on a motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment that an aggravating circumstance was not proven if there is no substantial evidence to warrant the allegation. The court's decision on a defendant's motion shall not be reserved, but shall be made with all possible speed.

b. After Verdict. A motion for judgment of acquittal made before verdict may be renewed by a defendant within 10 days after the verdict was returned.

The defense put up their first witness, a photographer who was present at the rally on January 16, 2010. They adjourned for lunch to research a few things, then reconvened and the judge dismissed charges due to lack of evidence that the state could obtain a conviction on any count if they proceeded. In other words, we ended up with a fair and honest judge, this time, and the cops who could have so easily compared their stories and lied to make for a better case, didn't. Maybe they were all satisfied with the jail time they nailed Grace with in her plea bargain.

I had to leave before lunch, but it's my understanding that the charges are all dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the state can't turn around and charge Claire or Garyn again. YAY!!! Way to hang in there, you two.

I learned a lot from the cops about riot control procedures during this trial, and about their own vulnerabilities when it comes to making arrests that can actually be prosecuted. The cops couldn't even identify each other in the march, much less individual protestors. They were disoriented and confused when the pepper spray hit, even the ones in gas maks. Their testimony was conflicting, except that all indicated pepper spray was deployed, it was a chaotic atmosphere, it was hard to hear and see, and no one identified themselves as police to Garyn or Claire until after they were in custody.

Garyn was arrested on the word and gesture of a cop whose glimpse of a similarly-dressed bottle-thrower was immediately obscured by pepper spray; an officer who couldn't even identify him as the thrower in the aftermath. He was handed off to several other officers for detention, arrest, and booking, such that it sounds as if the booking officer never even heard the integrity of the direct testimony of the witness. That was how the cops were organized out there to function, too - the front line would hand suspects out to the arrest team with a brief synopsis of what happened, then fall back in line, not follow through with the booking themselves - not really even know who was doing it, apparently.

The myth that made Claire an accomplice to Garyn's non-act of resisting arrest - supposedly chaining herself by the neck to his body in an attempt to obstruct police - was repeated by every cop that testified about her yesterday, but no one had any evidence of such a chain or leash, no did any of them see Claire wearing anything resembling a collar. The only possible explanation for this phenomena seems to be that Claire's purse strap got caught on Garyn somehow and when the police tried to take him town, they dragged her down on top of him, kicking and screaming with no idea of what was happening. It's a wonder no one got seriously hurt.

It was also clear from police testimony that they were expecting "trouble" from the anarchists by the time the marchers reached the site where the pepper spray was deployed - it sounds like they were trying to provoke it along the route. I saw photos and heard testimony myself that cops were punching people in the black bloc crowd before any bottles were thrown.

That all said, I think Stephen Lemons and the Phoenix New Times owe the Arpaio 5 a big apology for convicting them before trial last year, and not showing up to see how the real thing turned out.

Trial of the Arpaio 5: This is what an anarchist looks like.

Hey Phoenix PD:
















This is what an anarchist looks like.

So is this...

------------From the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition list-serve--------

The trial will continue Wednesday, Feb. 2nd at 10:30 AM on the sixth floor (Rm. 612) of the East Court Bldg located at 101 W. Jefferson. It will open with the defense motioning for a Rule 20, meaning that the state is left with the burden of providing evidence that could lead to Garyn and Claire's convictions. If they can't, then the cases get dismissed, to my understanding. If they don't, trial will continue with witnesses for the defense. Today, trial kicked off with the state's witnesses, four cops, who pretty much punched holes through the state's case and the police reports with the assistance of the defense attorneys, the judge and even the prosecutor, ironically! Unfortunately, the police did ID the defendants, so their cases weren't dismissed today.

http://arpaiofive.blogspot.com/2011/02/garyn-and-claires-trial-reconvenes.html

------------------------------------------

Also, Brian Wilkins was at the trial from the get-go today (I stumbled in with no pen half an hour late), so follow his Operation Nation blog posts for the details on the trial. Really, go read it; you won't find a better account anywhere else. What a huge waste of our time and money the MCAO is responsible for here.

One for the good guys: Arpaio loses again.

YAY!!!!

The good guys won this one!!!!

(When are the people of this county going to finally just run that man out of office?)

Anti-Arpaio protesters awarded settlement from 2008 arrests

by Craig Harris and Yvonne Wingett - Jul. 9, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Seven political activists claiming their civil rights were violated after they were arrested and cited for protesting against Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration policies recently were awarded nearly $475,000 by Maricopa County.

The settlement, reached this week, was nine times more than what the county's self-insured trust had originally authorized in February, and significantly higher than what the county planned to offer just days before the settlement, according to memos obtained by The Arizona Republic.

The settlements skyrocketed during negotiations because two lawyers working for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and a county risk manager persuaded the trust's board to pay up to $100,000 per plaintiff, records show. The money will come from the county's general fund, whose reduction this year caused layoffs and budget cuts.

Cari Gerchick, a county spokeswoman, said the earlier authorization "was an unreasonable amount" for the plaintiffs, and it would not have settled the case. She said the county's goal was to "minimize taxpayer exposure," and settling the case was far less expensive than going to trial.

But Chief Deputy David Hendershott of the Sheriff's Office called the settlement a "fraud on the taxpayers." He said the county should have settled for far less or forced the activists to go to court. Hendershott accused the county of settling to keep supervisors from being questioned in depositions.

The Sheriff's Office, he said, would have been allowed to participate in the depositions and would have questioned Supervisors Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox about criminal investigations the Sheriff's Office had conducted against them. Investigations into questionable financial dealings by Stapley and Wilcox resulted in indictments, but all charges have been dropped.

Gerchick called Hendershott's allegation "ridiculous" and said the settlement had nothing to do with the ongoing battle between the Sheriff's Office and the supervisors. The settlement stems from the arrests and citation of protesters on Dec. 15, 2008, on the 10th floor of Maricopa County's administration building and two days later at a Board of Supervisors meeting. Some protesters wore animal masks and pig snouts.

All were later acquitted. They sued the county for wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and civil-rights violations. The activists have been vocal critics of Arpaio and his immigration policies.

The settlements, reached Tuesday evening, will pay:

• Monica Sandschafer and Kristy Theilen each $99,999.

• Jason Odhner and Joel Nelson each $75,000.

• Guillermina Bethancourt and Ayensa Millan each $50,000.

• Raquel Teran $24,700.

County Manager David Smith said the settlement was a business decision. He estimated that going to trial on the cases could cost "at least $1 million in the first six months, just to defend them."

"You'd end up going round and round, grinding up all kinds of resources and spending two to three times the amount," Smith said. "Once again, the Sheriff's Office is creating these liabilities against the county. If it's 'fraud,' it's a fraud committed by virtue of bad acts."

The county expects to make the payouts within the next few weeks.

Records obtained by The Republic show the county intended to pay much less.

Maria Brandon is an attorney who works in the county's office of special-litigation services. She was appointed to represent the Sheriff's Office.

In memos sent to the Sheriff's Office days before the July 6 mediation hearing, Brandon stated that the county intended to start discussions with an offer of $2,000 per person and had no intention of giving away a lot of money. She indicated she received approval from the county trust in February to pay only up to $7,500 per plaintiff.

The county increased the payouts because, according to one of Brandon's memos, attorneys Brad Keogh and Wade Swanson, who report to the Board of Supervisors, and Assistant Risk Manager Rocky Armfield later went to the trust without her knowledge and received authority to pay up to $100,000 per plaintiff.

"I don't know why they did what they did, and I'm sure they have their reasons," Brandon said in an interview.

Swanson and Keogh declined to answer questions. Armfield could not be reached regarding Brandon's claim.

In a July 2 memo, Brandon stated that she and Armfield argued about the protesters, and he said it was OK to protest at the county's headquarters.

"He says the animal masks and pig snouts are for 'fun.' I said, 'Will they like it the next time if it is skinheads and neo Nazis?' " Brandon wrote.

Randy Parraz is another activist who filed a claim and is asking for $500,000. He withdrew from mediation and said negotiations are ongoing.

"In the event it doesn't get resolved, we have a lawsuit that's ready to be filed," Parraz said. "We're still engaged; we're still talking."

The Truth About AndrewThomas

This is an interesting website link that was forwarded to me this week by a friend in the Movement...check it out. For those of you who don't know, Andy Thomas is the vindictive former Maricopa County Attorney who is now running for the AZ Attorney General's office. He maliciously prosecutes his political enemies. That's largely what this website is about:

http://theandythomastruth.com/