Thread: AZ: Battle brewing over employer sanctions lawsuit

Battle brewing over employer sanctions lawsuit
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.27.2007

PHOENIX — The state Attorney General’s Office and Arizona’s 15 county attorneys want business groups suing to block the state’s new employer sanctions law to reveal the names of three employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

The business groups’ lawsuit seeks to keep the employer’s names secret, a request that brought a sharp response from the state. The businesses were added to the suit to show that the new law could cause harm, attorneys said.

The county attorneys and the Attorney General filed a motion Friday asking U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake to deny the business groups’ request to keep the names private.

“A strong presumption exists in favor of openness in court proceedings, including identification of parties and witnesses by their real names,â€

Last week, Wake declined to block the law with a temporary restraining order, clearing the way for it to go into effect Tuesday.

I'm humming along my head is ringing
And I just can't stop singing now cause it makes me happy.

And so it begins. Corporate America, seeking to keep making their greedy
profits by hiring cheap illegal alien labor, while dumping American citizen employees, & unfairly competing against businesses that hire only citizens or legal residents, use their ill gotten gains to use the courts to legislate from the bench & undermine American law!

How can any business be deemed a credible party to this action when they try to use the law to hide behind since they know they are already breaking the law? This judge ruled correctly the laws cannot be restrained or stayed just because these businesses "claim" financial harm.

And financial harm alone cannot be permitted to be used to justify breaking laws the citizens have voted to enact. Worse is to claim financial harm for breaking a law, yet trying to hide behind the law so they remain undiscovered, to avoid prosecution.

It is finally time our courts acted to actually protect Americans from the actions of greedy corporate actors. This lawsuit & the attempt to hide who they are clearly shows the illegal alien debate is all about money & corporate profits. Whether they are Mom & Pop businesses or huge corporations, their actions harm the nations & in Arizona, they break the laws of that state. The entire time we have been told this is a compassion issue, it has really been about profits & the desire of those greedy profiteers to make more & more, while their actions harm a nation.

Citizens have been called racists, bigots, xenophobes, and every other disparaging name one can imagine. Those calling out those names have been financed by business profits from cheap illegal alien labor & at the expense of living wages for American citizens & legal residents. So called "rights" groups have been using business profits to push their ideological partisan political agenda, while also serving business masters seeking higher profits by paying lower wages.

The irony is, the "rights" groups allow those businesses to use & abuse the illegal alien population. They facilitate low wages, poor working conditions, and permit those businesses to dump illegals like dirt when their use is no longer required. They pay no benefits since taxpayers supplement those costs for health care, welfare, and other social costs. The greedy businesses get away with this, and they want to do so anonymously because they are ashamed of their despicable actions.

I hope this judge sticks to his guns & demands the names of the businesses or he removes them from the lawsuits as unacceptable disinterested parties. And if we learn the names I want the businesses prosecuted if they do employ illegal aliens. Beyond that I hope this judge rules against the lawsuit & permits the laws to go forward unimpeded!

Perhaps we finally have a judge who will rule according to the laws of the people & help to preserve & protect this nation for us all!

The irony is, the "rights" groups allow those businesses to use & abuse the illegal alien population. They facilitate low wages, poor working conditions, and permit those businesses to dump illegals like dirt when their use is no longer required. They pay no benefits since taxpayers supplement those costs for health care, welfare, and other social costs. The greedy businesses get away with this, and they want to do so anonymously because they are ashamed of their despicable actions.

[quote]Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, the prime force behind the employer-sanctions law, objected to the attempt to keep the names secret.
“This is so egregious,â€

For those interested in learning how most Arizonans feel about this issue, go to this terrific link zeezil provided. I did & was most encouraged that many citizens of that state also agree with most of us & most of the American public.

In fact, the folks posting at the Arizona Star newspaper website listed below desperately want to know the names of those companies so they can boycott them & make them pay for their illegal ill-gotten gains that they are using to pay to file their anonymous lawsuit.

From all I have read, the real fear is the reaction or action that the 9th Federal Court may take. Some have said that court has oftentimes ruled for liberal causes, based on social responsibility positions despite laws on the books.

Initially I said the laws would work "if" Arizonans insisted their officials enforce the laws. In truth I should have also said the laws would work "IF" the federal courts also got out of the way & allowed the will of the voters of Arizona to stand. Unfortunately, there is apparently a history of the 9th Circuit ruling against the will of voters. So these laws must pass muster in Arizona, but also at the 9th Circuit level if they are to be effective. I think once the lawsuits get dumped at the 9th Circuit level, the businesses will back down & start to abide by the laws voters enacted.

However, based on what I have read, the law that was passed, so far I am excited & hopeful we are finally about to make some real progress on the issues legally!!! Lets all keep our fingers crossed!!!

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/217995.php

[quote]“The John Doe Members do not wish to invite prosecution of their businesses and themselves under federal law by identifying themselves in the state proceedings,â€

I was interested in finding out a little bit about this incredibly amazing judge and found this article from the AZ Republic.

It's a really good piece offering some insight into a genuinely fair judge and outstanding human being!





Will hiring law take effect Jan. 1? He will decide


Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 29, 2007 12:00 AM

The man who holds the fate of Arizona's employer-sanctions law in his hands is, by all accounts, a rigorous, brainy jurist with a reputation for fairness.

Neil Wake also is a Phoenix native who went to law school at Harvard and returned home to practice business and appellate law for 30 years before being tapped for the federal bench by President Bush.

Today, Wake is presiding over a case that could have profound ramifications for the Arizona business community, the Arizona workforce and, potentially, public policy nationwide.





Arizona's employer-sanctions law gives the state a role in employment law that, up to now, has been the exclusive domain of the federal government. Businesses that are found to have "knowingly" or "intentionally" hired illegal workers stand to have their state-issued licenses suspended or, ultimately, revoked.

The law was thrown into court in June, just 11 days after Gov. Janet Napolitano signed it. Business groups, later joined by civil-rights and Latino groups, sued, and Wake drew the case.

He conducted a 3 1/2-hour hearing earlier this month and has promised a ruling before Jan. 1, the date the new law takes effect.

During the hearing, he grilled the attorneys for the business organizations, pressing them for details on why they think the law is unconstitutional. He asked how they can prove they've been damaged by a law that hasn't yet taken effect, and he even questioned whether they sued the right people.


'What the law allows'

Some observers saw this as a sign that the state law will be upheld, but people who have known Wake over the years say that is an unfounded leap.

It's simply Wake being his diligent self, friends and former law colleagues say.

"You're not going to be able to peg him," said U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, who practiced law with Wake and recommended him for the federal bench. Kyl paused for a moment, then reconsidered. "Here's how you peg him: It's what the law allows."

That theme was repeated over and over in discussions about the judge, who, in line with court policy, does not grant interviews.

"It wouldn't matter if Neil Wake's own mother were before him as a litigant," said Jay Heiler, who worked with Wake on legal matters for Gov. Fife Symington's administration. "She'd better have her case grounded in law."

Even critics of the law say it would be hard to connect Wake's long legal history representing business interests to a positive outcome for the business community.

"He has the right background for the business community to like him," said Leo Beus, a former law partner. "But that doesn't mean he'll rule that way. He'll call it as he sees it."

In fact, it may be the business community's bad luck that the case was assigned to Wake, said Beus, who is critical of the sanctions law.

"This is one of the cases where you might hope for an activist judge," he said. "Neil's not an activist."

That was underscored by Wake's testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2004.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, asked Wake how he would act if presented with a Supreme Court ruling that he felt was erroneous. Would Wake follow that precedent, Craig asked, or use his own judgment?

"It is essential to the system that lower-court judges follow the controlling authority from higher courts. So, of course, if I were confirmed as a judge, I would follow the letter and the spirit of the precedents that are laid down, regardless of my own views," Wake responded, according to a transcript of the hearing.


Conservative tendencies

Wake's views, although not worn on his sleeve, are generally seen as conservative.

He is a registered Republican.

During Symington's tenure, Wake handled challenges of state gaming laws that helped usher in Indian casinos.

Wake also represented Symington in a challenge to the Constitutional Defense Fund, which Symington created to advance states-rights issues.

The Republican Party hired Wake to represent its interests in legislative and congressional redistricting earlier this decade, and in the early 1990s, Wake represented the state's four GOP congressmen as redistricting proceeded.

Records show he has contributed to Republican candidates over the years, but he also gave to then-Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell's re-election campaign in 1986. Mitchell is now a Democratic congressman from Arizona.

Wake's background gave attorney Dan Pochoda pause when his challenge to a new state law dealing with the publication of dead soldiers' names was assigned to Wake earlier this year.

The law made it illegal to use the names of dead soldiers without permission from a soldier's family.

Pochoda, with the Arizona branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, sued on behalf of a Flagstaff T-shirt maker who uses the names of dead soldiers as the background on an anti-war shirt.

"There was some concern, based on his background," Pochoda said. "He's a longtime backer of the Republican Party."

But, as Pochoda learned, the case had been assigned to a meticulous judge who left no detail to chance.

"He read all the briefs, as opposed to some courts I've been in," Pochoda said.

In the end, Wake ruled in the T-shirt makers' favor, striking down the state law as a violation of free speech.

Among other things, Wake wrote: "The nation's debt to its fallen soldiers may not be paid by giving their families a toll on free speech. The debt must be paid in other ways."

Pochoda was impressed; his clients were delighted.

"He wrote one of the best First Amendment opinions I've ever seen in my 30 years of litigating," Pochoda said, calling the judge's ruling "devastating" to the arguments presented by state attorneys.

Today, Pochoda expects similar rigorous attention to detail as he joins with business attorneys in arguing against the sanctions law.

Ian Macpherson knows Wake as a courtroom opponent and as a fellow season-ticket holder for the Arizona State University football team. In both venues, Wake is reserved but engaged, Macpherson said.

"No, Neil is not a twirl-the-towel guy," Macpherson said.

But he's not without a sense of humor.

Earlier this year, Macpherson got a jury summons for federal court, and as luck would have it, Wake presided over jury selection.

"He recognizes me and he starts grilling me in front of everybody," he said. " 'Mr. Macpherson, despite your training, would you follow my instructions?' "

It was all in good humor, and Macpherson was eventually disqualified, but not without a few laughs at his expense.

The prospect of Neil Wake in black judicial robes struck Rick DeGraw as odd the first time he heard someone refer to "Judge Wake."

"I just had to laugh," he said. "I saw him with a life jacket on."


The raft trip


Thirty years ago, Wake was on board a Colorado River rafting journey dubbed the "Moderation Sucks" trip. He was one of 15 people, many of them legislative staffers, blowing off steam after a long legislative session.

The name was a reference to rebellion against the Legislature's rules and regulations, not a political statement, said DeGraw, who went on to become a Democratic consultant.

Wake was the "conservative anchor" of the rowdy nine-day trip, DeGraw said, adding that the "150 pounds of beer and seven cases of liquors and wine" that were put aboard the rafts didn't have to be carried out of the Grand Canyon at trip's end.

"I recall Neil being appalled when the oarsman told us to stand on the edge of the boat to pee," DeGraw said.

Wake was on the trip with his wife, Shari Capra, who had connections with many of the legislative staffers.


'Devoted parents'


The Wakes have three sons, one with serious physical disabilities. Beus said that, through his son's friendship with the Wake boys, he got a glimpse into their family life.

"They are very devoted parents," Beus said.

During Wake's confirmation hearing, Kyl, who sits on the Judiciary panel, asked Wake to talk about events that have deepened his life experience.

Wake mentioned a support group for parents of critically ill newborns that he and his wife founded 20 years ago. It later merged with a group called Pilot Parents, which he described as "a broader organization for handicapped children and the parents of handicapped children."

The couple also were involved with the Sojourner Center, a shelter for abused women and children. Capra was a founding board member, and Wake handled some legal matters for the group.

"Through those activities, we've been able to share many things with many people in our community that I hope would give me . . . wisdom to bear," Wake told the senators.

During his hearing, Wake also was asked to identify what he thought were the most important traits in a judge. He named patience and open-mindedness.

"That patience and open-mindedness is what can leave people with a sense that whether they won or lost, they were treated fairly and that the system works," he said.

rom all I have read, the real fear is the reaction or action that the 9th Federal Court may take. Some have said that court has oftentimes ruled for liberal causes, based on social responsibility positions despite laws on the books.

scary as it is, the 9th court has had some sane rulings lately. From what I have read about Wake in a number of places, I think the lawyers are going to have an up hill battle to keep the names silent.

Originally Posted by cayla99

rom all I have read, the real fear is the reaction or action that the 9th Federal Court may take. Some have said that court has oftentimes ruled for liberal causes, based on social responsibility positions despite laws on the books.

scary as it is, the 9th court has had some sane rulings lately. From what I have read about Wake in a number of places, I think the lawyers are going to have an up hill battle to keep the names silent.

I agree. I cannot quite see Judge Wake allowing that. These people are openly admitting to a criminal offense.....Federal, and now, under AZ state law......and are not only asking him to continue to allow them to commit these crimes but to assist them in evading law enforcement.

What's so funny about this is that I'll bet anything that not in their wildest dreams did they even consider the possibility that they would lose thereby opening the door to a demand by the AG and all 15 county attorneys to demand to know the names of the criminal employers they are aidng, abetting, and now harboring from the authorities!!!!

I suspect that this is a big ol' Can-O-Worms they are now wishing they hadn't opened.

But, since they did, I hope every last one of those lawyers is punished to the fullest extent and disbarred.