On August 26, 2024, Our America Hometown Heroes made their voices heard at the Phoenix City Council meeting, standing up for local control and the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department (PPD). Wearing their signature yellow T-shirts, several Hometown Heroes rallied and spoke during the public comment period, advocating for the city’s ability to manage its own police force without federal intervention.
In stark contrast, a smaller group of Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists attended the same meeting, calling for a DOJ Consent Decree that would place the PPD under court-ordered oversight. Their demands stemmed from a controversial June report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which criticized the PPD and pushed for federal oversight despite the department’s voluntary efforts to implement sweeping reforms.
Our America’s presence at the meeting was bolstered by leaders of organizations representing minority communities, such as BLEXIT Arizona, the Hispanic Liberty Alliance, and the Independent Women’s Network. This coalition underscores the broad support for local control.
During the meeting, four speakers from Our America took to the podium, urging the Phoenix mayor and council to continue the reforms that have already significantly reduced crime while safeguarding all citizens’ civil rights.
Reflecting on her long history of positive engagement with law enforcement, Bella Ceballos-Viner shared, “For over 25 years, I have had nothing but great experiences, and I speak on behalf of my Hispanic community and many African-Americans who support the police.” Her words resonated with the room, highlighting the importance of community trust and collaboration with local law enforcement.
Christy Narsi, another Hometown Hero and part of Independent’s Women’s Network spoke passionately about the failures of DOJ Consent Decrees in other cities, warning the council against relinquishing local control.
Christy emphasized, “I urge you not to surrender local autonomy by allowing federal overreach to steal control of our local law enforcement and the city they serve.” Her argument underscored the belief that decisions about local policing should be made by those who know the community best.
The debate over the future of the PPD is a microcosm of a larger national conversation about the balance between federal oversight and local autonomy in law enforcement. Our America firmly believes that the best way to achieve safer streets and a brighter future is through a combination of police and criminal justice reforms tailored to the unique needs of each community. The reforms that the PPD has already implemented are a testament to the power of local action and the effectiveness of community-driven solutions.
As the City of Phoenix faces pressure from the DOJ to enter into a Consent Decree, the voices of local residents and activists like those from Our America will play a crucial role in determining the path forward.
By continuing to advocate for local control, Our America Hometown Heroes are not only standing up for the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department but also for the principle that communities are best served when they have a direct say in how they are governed.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought a lawsuit against Southwest Key, a non-profit organization based in Texas operating eight shelters for illegal immigrant children in Arizona. In the lawsuit, the DOJ alleges that the firm, through its employees, “has engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual abuse and harassment of the unaccompanied children.”
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, Southwest Key has profited greatly from operating the shelters through lucrative federal government grants in excess of $5.6 billion paid out from the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement since 2003. The lawsuit from the DOJ is rooted in the company’s alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas alleges that from 2015 through at least 2023, several Southwest Key employees “subjected children in their care to severe or pervasive sexual harassment that has included, among other things, sexual contact and inappropriate touching, solicitation of sex acts, solicitation of nude photos, entreaties for inappropriate relationships and sexual comments.”
The lawsuit charges Southwest Key with taking insufficient action to protect the children it was contracted to care for and furthermore failed to follow federal requirements for the prevention, detection, and reporting of abuse despite the Office of Refugee Relocation reportedly issuing several corrective actions against them.
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in the release, “Sexual harassment of children in residential shelters, where a child should be safe and secure, is abusive, dehumanizing and unlawful. Sexual abuse of children is a crisis that we can’t ignore or turn a blind eye to. This lawsuit seeks relief for children who have been abused and harmed, and meaningful reforms to ensure no child in these shelters is ever subjected to sexual abuse again.”
U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani of the Southern District of Texas wrote, “In search of the American Dream, children often endure perilous journeys on their migration north to the southern border. The sexual harassment alleged in the complaint would destroy any child’s sense of safety turning what was an American Dream into a nightmare.”
“We look forward to working together with the Civil Rights Division (CRD) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) to provide justice for the victims who allegedly suffered harm in Southwest Key’s shelters.”
As noted by the Arizona Daily Independent, the outlet has reported on Southwest Key for more than ten years with cofounder and longtime contributor Loretta Hunnicutt citing her concerns publicly in reports and in meetings with public officials as early as 2014. Per the ADI, these efforts were met with “indifference or outright contempt for the minors.”
The ADI recapped the lengthy reports implicating Southwest Key writing in part:
“Hunnicutt met with former Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas in 2015 to ask that Southwest Key be directed to remove the fencing around their shelters in accordance with ORR policy, which prohibits fencing around the places where refugees reside. Fenced in by an organization paid billions to house them, America’s youngest refugees have had no escape. Douglas declined.”
“In December 2015, the Arizona Daily Independentreported on former Southwest Key employee whistleblowers who testified to running a corrupt, prison-like environment.”
“In response, then-Arizona State Rep. Bob Thorpe, who chaired the House Federalism, Property Rights and Public Policy Committee, called for an investigation into the Southwest Key facilities under contract by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).”
Sources within the company gave the ADI several startling reports as well telling the outlet:
“Children were viewed as commodities.”
“Under the constant directive of keeping costs down, staff were directed to ignore children’s complaints of hunger.”
Furthermore, they were “to give the children only a quarter-sized dollop of soap for bathing.”
Staff were also instructed to “give one child’s underwear to be reused for another.”
Through the lawsuit, the Department of Justice is seeking to exact monetary damages from Southwest Key in order to compensate the children victimized in the shelter and obtain a court order compelling Southwest Key to take the necessary steps to avoid future abuse.
The DOJ has requested that anyone who believe that they may have been victims of sexual harassment or abuse at Southwest Key shelters or who has information that may be relevant to this case, please contact the Justice Department’s housing discrimination tip line at 1-833-591-0291.
On June 13, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) released a critical report following a nearly three-year investigation into the Phoenix Police Department (PPD), alleging misconduct including excessive force, discrimination, and violations of homeless people’s rights. This report has prompted the DOJ to push the City of Phoenix to sign a consent decree, which would subject the PPD to court-ordered monitoring.
The report has stirred considerable debate among Phoenix city officials and residents. The DOJ’s findings have cast a spotlight on the PPD’s practices, while the proposed consent decree has raised concerns about federal overreach and its potential impact on local law enforcement.
Phoenix City Council members have voiced their concerns about the report and the implications of entering into a consent decree. Councilwoman Ann O’Brien emphasized the DOJ’s poor track record and the high costs associated with such agreements. She pointed to Seattle, where violent crime increased by 37% during its 10-year DOJ monitoring period, and Albuquerque, which saw a 53% rise in violent crime since 2015 under federal oversight.
Closer to home, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has incurred nearly $300 million in taxpayer costs since 2015 due to federal monitoring. This undue cost to the taxpayer equates to “defunding the police.”
Consent decrees for police departments began in 1994 with the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act,” a legislative response to the nationally publicized police beating of Rodney King. While police brutality is unequivocally unacceptable, there is significant debate over whether federal oversight through consent decrees is the best solution. Critics argue that such measures often lead to increased bureaucracy and hinder effective policing, ultimately harming the communities they aim to protect.
Despite the DOJ’s allegations, the City of Phoenix has taken proactive steps to address issues within its police department. The PPD has implemented significant reforms, including revising use-of-force practices, purchasing body cameras, and adopting a robust accountability program. Additionally, PPD officers are the highest paid in Arizona, a strategy aimed at recruiting and retaining top talent.
The Phoenix mayor and city council, elected by local voters, have demonstrated their accountability to the community through these reforms. They have succeeded in reducing crime while training police officers in modern policing practices. This local control and responsiveness to community needs are seen by many as preferable to federal intervention.
Community support for the PPD is strong. Phoenix residents, who are intimately familiar with their community’s unique needs and challenges, overwhelmingly favor local control over federal oversight. Ronald Reagan’s famous quote, “The most terrifying words in the English language: I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” resonates with many who fear that federal intervention could do more harm than good.
Phoenix has gone out of its way to cooperate with the DOJ, making sweeping reforms on its own. The PPD’s efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and community relations demonstrate a commitment to policing excellence without the need for federal intervention.
The City of Phoenix must now decide whether to voluntarily submit to a consent decree that mandates court-ordered control of the PPD or face the possibility of being taken to federal court by the DOJ. There they will be forced to plead their case to a federal judge.
The debate over the DOJ’s proposed consent decree is not just about police reform; it is also about maintaining local autonomy and ensuring that the residents of Phoenix have a say in how their city is governed. As Phoenix grapples with this issue, the city’s leaders and residents are urging the mayor and council to reject federal overreach and continue striving for safer streets and brighter futures through local control and community-based policing.
As the city moves forward, it remains to be seen whether the DOJ consent decree will be adopted or if Phoenix will be allowed to chart its own course, confident in its ability to manage and reform its police department without outside interference.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
An Arizona State University (ASU) professor is among the 38 law professors petitioning the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the release of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
ASU law professor Gregg Leslie and 37 other professors submitted their petition days ahead of Tuesday’s hearing on Assange’s extradition from the U.K. Should the court deny his request to block his extradition, Assange will be taken to the U.S. to face 17 espionage charges over his 2010 publication of classified materials.
Among the leaked materials were footage of a 2007 airstrike in Baghdad revealing that soldiers shot 18 civilians from a helicopter, including a Reuters journalist and his assistant; nearly 391,900 Iraq War logs spanning 2004 to 2009; and the “Cablegate” files consisting of diplomatic cables revealing U.S. espionage against the United Nations and other world leaders, tensions with allies, and corruption in other countries.
The DOJ accused Assange of working with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain classified information. The DOJ charged Assange with espionage in 2019, alleging that he used Manning to secure certain sets of classified Secret documents: about 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 State Department cables.
In 2020, the DOJ issued a second superseding indictment broadening the scope of the charges to include allegations that Assange recruited computer hackers to benefit Wikileaks. The indictment cited an alleged unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country in 2010, and a contract with a hacking group to obtain materials from the CIA, NSA, or New York Times.
Last week’s letter from the 38 law professors made the case that Assange qualified as a journalist and, therefore, the First Amendment protected Assange’s actions. The law professors countered that Wikileaks’ openness to receiving information didn’t qualify as Assange recruiting sources or soliciting confidential documents
“Award-winning journalists everywhere also regularly ‘recruit’ and speak with sources, use encrypted or anonymous communications channels, receive and accept confidential information, ask questions to sources about it, and publish it,” said the professors. “That is not a crime — it’s investigative journalism. As long as they don’t participate in their source’s illegality, their conduct is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment.”
The law professors further warned that Assange’s prosecution served as an “existential threat” to the First Amendment and would, in time, enable the prosecution of other reporters. They cited the police raid of a local Kansas newspaper that occurred last August based on verbal allegations of identity theft.
“It could enable prosecution of routine newsgathering under any number of ambiguous laws and untested legal theories,” said the professors.
In that case, a disgruntled local restaurant owner had told the city council and the county attorney — the brother-in-law of the hotel owner housing her restaurant — that the local newspaper had illegally obtained documentation of an unresolved DUI charge that proved she had been driving without a valid license for over a decade. At the time, the newspaper had also been investigating claims of sexual misconduct by the police chief. Within days, the police conducted their unlawful raid. The newspaper had obtained the documentation legally through public records.
Similarly, editors and publishers of a number of news outlets, including The New York Times and The Guardian, argued that Assange engaged in journalism by obtaining and disclosing sensitive information for the public interest.
In a 2019 press release announcing Assange’s charges, the DOJ dismissed the claim that Assange qualified as a journalist.
“Julian Assange is no journalist. This is made plain by the totality of his conduct as alleged in the indictment — i.e., his conspiring with and assisting a security clearance holder to acquire classified information, and his publishing the names of human sources,” stated the DOJ.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes wants the Department of Justice (DOJ) to crack down more aggressively on threats to election officials.
Fontes revealed his dissatisfaction with the Biden administration in an exclusive interview with The Rolling Stone. He said that prosecutors ought to hit harder and treat the threats as domestic terrorism.
“We’ve got people who are threatening violence or committing acts of violence to achieve a political end,” said Fontes. “How are these people not being treated like terrorists?”
Fontes said that DOJ Attorney General Merrick Garland is endangering Americans because has been “far too cautious” when handling threats against election workers and officials.
“I have a lot of respect for the attorney general, but he is not being nearly aggressive enough on this threat, which is imperiling our democracy, and he and the department are not devoting nearly enough resources to it,” said Fontes. “It’s a crying shame when they put the physical health of their agency up against their actual duties to protect people and to protect our democracy.”
The secretary of state further accused the Biden administration of taking election officials for granted, and implied that entities like the DOJ owed election workers for getting them elected.
“They have the capacity to serve with honor because we have changes in administration at the White House, different people doing investigations and oversight in Congress,” said Fontes. “They need to prioritize those folks who administer the democracy that gives them that warm blanket that they serve under.”
According to the DOJ, Fontes and federal agents have engaged at least four times over the past 18 months. DOJ deputy chief John Keller told Rolling Stone that the agency has been aggressive in its response to threats against election workers and officials.
“The Justice Department will continue to aggressively prosecute cases involving threats to election workers to the fullest extent of the law,” said Keller. “Recent convictions and sentences demonstrate that federal courts and the department are taking threats to the election community extremely seriously, and there will be consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the activity.”
The Biden administration launched the Election Threats Task Force in mid-2021. In 2022, the DOJ announced its investigations into over 100 cases out of over 1,000 complaints reviewed.
Since the ETTF’s launch, the DOJ has charged four individuals for making threats to Arizona election officials concerning the 2020 election: James Clark, Walter Lee Hoornstra, Mark Rissi, and Joshua Russell. Several major threats made by critics against GOP election audit efforts, however, were overlooked.
Fontes also said that he and other election workers were risking their lives every day due to lies about the recent past elections and the elections system.
“[S]omeone who’s listening to that lie, believing it, is so upset about it that they literally want to go kill you. It’s a very very strange place to be as a civilized society,” said Fontes.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
