Puente - Arizona - Et - Al - v. - Arpai Defendants' Amended Joint Controverting Statement of Facts

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
By: DOUGLAS L. IRISH (002288)
J. KENNETH MANGUM (003077)
ANN THOMPSON UGLIETTA (013696)
Deputy County Attorneys
CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION
222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Telephone No. (602) 506-8541
Facsimile No. (602) 506-8567
irishd@mcao.maricopa.gov
mangumk@mcao.maricopa.gov
uglietta@mcao.maricopa.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County and William Montgomery
IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES
649 North Second Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 234-9775
Michele M. Iafrate, #015115
Renee J. Waters, #031691
miafrate@iafratelaw.com
rwaters@iafratelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio
18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
20
Puente Arizona, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
21
22
vs.
23
24
25
Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of

Maricopa County, Arizona, et
al.,
NO. 14-cv-01356-PHX-DGC
COUNTY DEFENDANTS AMENDED
JOINT CONTROVERTING
STATEMENT OF FACTS
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT RESPONSE
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
26
27
Defendants.
28
-1-
1
2
Pursuant to Rule 56(c) and LRCiv 56.1(b), Defendants Maricopa County, Maricopa
County Attorney William Montgomery and Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio1 (collectively,
County Defendants) provide their Controverting Statement of Facts (CDCSOF) in
Support of Their Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary
6
7
Judgment, filed concurrently herewith. Per LRCiv 56.1(b)(1), CDCSOF 1 223 provide
County Defendants responses to Plaintiffs Statement of Facts (PSOF).
Where
Defendants indicate that an alleged fact is undisputed, they do so for purposes of summary
8
9
judgment only and reserve the right to later contest those facts in subsequent proceedings or
in other litigation. The indication that a fact is undisputed is for summary judgment purposes
10
only and is not intended or offered as an admission. Per LRCiv 56.1(2), CDCSOF 224 -
11
254 provide County Defendants Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts in
12
response to Plaintiffs PSJM and PSOF.

Plaintiffs and County Attorney Montgomery/Maricopa County have filed motions for
13
14
15
leave to file their respective proposed statements of fact in support of their summary
judgment motions in excess of the 10-page limit established in the Courts Case
Management Order. [Doc. ## 516, 518, 520, 521, 523, 540, 541, 543] As of this filing,
16
the Court has not yet ruled on the motions for leave, and these two parties proposed
17
statements of fact are not yet accepted for filing. Because they have no reason to believe
18
that the motions for leave will be denied, County Defendants are providing responses to
19
Plaintiffs proposed statement of facts [Doc. 520, 521, 523] and they are citing to County
20
Attorney Montgomery/Maricopa Countys proposed statement of facts [Doc. 516, 518] in
21
22
23
24
25
this CDCSOF.
1
These Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to conflate and confuse the issues by
presenting their motion as though these Defendants essentially are the same legal entity
disregarding their separate constitutional, statutory and jural status and ignoring their
separate enforcement responsibilities over violations of state criminal laws. In the interest of
judicial economy while protecting their due process rights, County Defendants have
presented combined Responses on common issues and individual Responses on separate
issues in this single Controverting Statement of Facts.
26
27
28
-2-
To the extent that facts are supported by evidence in the record submitted to the Court
in prior filings in the official docket of this case, the CDCSOF refers to that evidence by
docket number and other identifying information.
Certain information has been designated Attorneys Eyes Only Confidential
Information under the Courts Protective Order, Doc. 250. Exhibits to the CDCSOF that
contain designated Attorneys Eyes-Only Confidential Information are submitted in
7
8
9
10
Volume II of the Exhibits to the CDCSOF. Where applicable, these Exhibits bear the
Attorneys Eyes-Only Confidential Information designation.
Because the CDCSOF
contains certain designated Attorneys Eyes-Only Confidential Information, County

Defendants are filing a LRCiv 5.6(c) Motion requesting that the CDCSOF be filed under
seal.
11
COUNTY DEFENDANTS JOINT RESPONSE
12
TO PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF FACTS PER LRCIV 56.1(B)(1)
13
14
PSOF
County Defendants Response
15
No.
16
Undisputed but:
17
Immaterial. Lai Ex. 1 does not demonstrate any congressional intent to preempt state
enforcement against use of anothers identity in employment circumstances not regulated
by IRCAs federal employment verification system, 8 U.S.C. 1324a and 8 C.F.R. 274a
(I-9 System or I-9 Requirements).
18
19
20
2
21
22
Immaterial. Cited statement is limited to document fraud committed for purposes of

satisfying the I-9 Requirements, 8 USC 1324a. Lai Ex. 2 does not demonstrate any
congressional intent to preempt state enforcement against use of anothers identity in
employment circumstances not regulated by I-9 Requirements.
23
24
25
Partly Disputed because argumentative, misstatement of Lai Ex. 2, lack of foundation. Lai
Ex. 2 is not Congress statement; it is INS Directors statement.
Undisputed but:
26
27
28
-3-
PSOF
No.
Argumentative.
Immaterial. Cited statement does not demonstrate any congressional intent to preempt
state enforcement against use of anothers identity in employment circumstances not
regulated by I-9 Requirements.
5
6
Inadmissible hearsay, misstatement of Lai Ex. 4, lack of foundation, incomplete. Lai Ex. 4
states that ICE interprets IRCA to allow for administrative fines on employers,
administrative arrests on employees (non-citizens) and criminal arrests on both employers
and employees. Per Lai Ex. 4, 72% - 46% of ICEs criminal arrests over the reported time
frame were employee arrests. See pages 5 7 and Tables 2 and 3, Lai Ex. 4. Lai Ex. 4
states that ICE criminal arrests represent a very small percentage of potential criminal
violators in the employment context. It does not state that it is ICEs position that states
are prohibited from enforcing state laws against criminal violators in the employment
context.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Immaterial. Cited document does not demonstrate congressional intent to preempt state
by I-9 Requirements.
14
15
16
Partly Disputed because:

Argumentative, misstatement of cited document, lack of foundation, irrelevant, incomplete.
Lai Ex. 5 regulates only administrative worksite investigations between DHS and DOL. It
does not address criminal worksite enforcement. It does not regulate the relationship
between federal and state enforcement of their respective criminal laws. Further, there is
no evidence showing that any of the offenders arrested/prosecuted for violation of ARS
13-2002, 13-2008(A) and/or 13-2009(A)(3) were persons who were actively engaged in a
labor dispute as defined in Lai Ex. 5.
17
18
19
20
21
Immaterial. Cited document does not demonstrate any congressional intent to preempt
22
23
24
25

Argumentative, misstatement of Lai Ex. 6, lack of foundation, irrelevant. There is no
evidence showing that any of the offenders arrested/prosecuted for violation of ARS 13-
26
27
28
-4-
PSOF
No.
2002, 13-2008(A) and/or 13-2009(A)(3) were persons who applied and established the
federal statutory requirements for obtaining federal T or U Visas from 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(T) and (U), 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(a)(16) and (20), (c)(25), or were actively
engaged in a labor dispute per page 2 of Lai Ex. 6. The U-Visa application, Form I-918,
consists of required forms and information. One of those forms is the Supplement B form,
Form I-918B, which may be certified by the law enforcement agency, the prosecuting agency,
or the judge. The information on the Supp. B form requiring certification includes (1) the
person is the victim of a listed qualifying criminal activity; (2) the person has substantial
physical or mental abuse from the criminal activity; (3) the person possesses information
about the criminal activity; (4) a government official investigating or prosecuting the criminal
activity certifies that the person was helpful, is helpful, or is likely to be helpful to law
enforcement in investigating and prosecuting the crime; and (5) the criminal activity violated
the laws of the United States or occurred in the United States. The Supp. B certifying agency
must be a Federal, State or local law enforcement agency, prosecutor or Federal or State judge
that is responsible for the investigation or prosecution, conviction or sentencing of the
qualifying criminal activity.
[See also Supp. B. Certification Form,
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-918supb.pdf]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Federal removal laws, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i), 1127(a)(2)(A)(i), incorporate state

convictions for crimes of moral turpitude including the state identity theft and forgery
crimes here. U.S. DOJ removal actions rely on MCAOs prosecutions of identity theft and
forgery in the employment context. See, e.g., Ibarra-Hernandez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 1280,
1281-82 (9th Cir. 2014) (identity theft conviction); Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d
861 (9th Cir. 2014) (forgery conviction). [See also Doc. ## 516, 518, County
Attorney/County Statement of Facts (CASOF), 40]
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Disputed because misstatement of Lai Ex. 7, lack of foundation, irrelevant. Lai Ex. 7 does
not contain the quoted statement nor does it contain any discussion of the alleged federal
working group.
There is no evidence showing that any of the offenders
arrested/prosecuted for violation of ARS 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and/or 13-2009(A)(3)
were persons who applied and established the federal statutory requirements for obtaining
federal T or U Visas, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T) and (U), 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(a)(16) and
(20), (c)(25), or were persons who actively were engaged in labor disputes with their
26
27
28
-5-
PSOF
No.
employers. See also CDCSOF, 6.
5
6
Not Disputed but:

Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that any of the offenders arrested/prosecuted for
violation of ARS 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and/or 13-2009(A)(3) were persons who applied
and established the federal statutory requirements for obtaining federal T or U Visas, 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T) and (U), 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(a)(16) and (20), (c)(25), or were
persons who actively were engaged in a labor dispute with their employers. See also
CDCSOF, 6.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Immaterial because cited document does not demonstrate any congressional intent to
preempt state enforcement against use of anothers identity in employment circumstances
not regulated by I-9 Requirements.
23
24
25
Disputed because Incorrect legal argument; irrelevant. NAFTAs implementing statute

precludes private parties such as Plaintiffs from challenging a State law on the basis of
NAFTA. 19 USC 3312(c); 3312(b)(2). There is no evidence showing that County
Defendants enforcement of offenders for violations of ARS 13-2002, 13-2008(A)
and/or 13-2009(A)(3) caused any breach or other impact on the United States compliance
with the cited treaty. There is no evidence showing that the U.S. government has a foreign
policy (or domestic policy) in favor of identity theft being committed by foreign nationals
(or anyone else).
There is no evidence showing that any of the offenders
arrested/prosecuted for violation of ARS 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and/or 13-2009(A)(3)
were persons who applied and established the federal statutory requirements for obtaining
federal T or U Visas, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T) and (U), 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(a)(16) and
(20), (c)(25), or were persons who actively were engaged in labor disputes with their
employers.
10
Undisputed.
26
27
28
-6-
PSOF
No.
11
Lack of foundation; Lai Ex. 11 does not contain any information supportive of PSOF 11.
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that any State legislator acted on behalf of the
County Defendants in sponsoring and enacting HB 2779. There is no evidence showing
that County Defendants adopted or ratified statements made by any State legislator in
sponsoring and enacting HB 2779.
6
7
8
12
Calls for legal conclusions and is argumentative. HB 2745 and ARS 13-2008(A) speak
for themselves.
10
11
13
13
14
15
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that any State legislator was acting on behalf of
the County Defendants in sponsoring and enacting HB 2745. There is no evidence
showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the statements made by any State
legislator in sponsoring and enacting HB 2745.
16
17
14
19
21
23
24
25
Undisputed but:
the County Defendants in sponsoring and enacting HB 2745. There is no evidence
showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the statements made by any State
legislator in sponsoring and enacting HB 2745.
20
22

Lack of foundation. The Arizona Legal Workers Act contained many provisions other than
those involving identity theft which are the only ones relevant to this case. Without any
support for their argumentation, Plaintiffs here attempt to make a general statement about
the employer sanctions portion of the Act appear to be a statement about the identity theft
provisions of the Act.
12
18
Undisputed but:
15

26
27
28
-7-
PSOF
No.
Incomplete. Per Lai Ex. 14 at 3 - 4, Pearce also spoke about public safety concerns during
the hearing on HB 2779 on February 20, 2007. See also Doc. 512, States Statement of
Facts (AZSOF), 1 7, 11, 12; CASOF, 4 39, 48, 77 - 82; Doc. 526, Arpaios
Statement of Facts (ASOF), 1, 12, 15, 31, 35, describing public safety concerns arising
out of elevated incidence of identity theft in Arizona. These public safety concerns are
supportive of the states exercise of its traditional police powers in enacting and enforcing
the identity theft amendments.
5
6
7
8
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Pearce was acting on behalf of the County
Defendants in making the statements cited in Lai Ex. 14. There is no evidence showing
that County Defendants adopted or ratified the statements made by Pearce cited in Lai Ex.
14. Statements made by an individual state legislator during debate of proposed legislation
are not legislative history. There is no evidence showing that state enactment of HB 2779
and HB 2745 proximately caused an objectively verifiable, statistically significant number
of unauthorized aliens to leave Arizona.
9
10
11
12
13
14
16

Inadmissible hearsay, lack of foundation, irrelevant. The cited article/Pearce email Lai Ex.
15 is not a statement by Pearce and it is not an official legislative record for HB 2779 or
HB 2745 and it is not legislative history for HB 2779 or HB 2745.
15
16
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that the author of the cited article Lai Ex. 15 (or
Pearce) was speaking on behalf of the County Defendants in making/circulating the
statements in the cited article Lai Ex. 15. There is no evidence showing that County
Defendants adopted or ratified the statements made/circulated in the cited article Lai Ex.
15.
17
18
19
20
17
21
22
23
24
25
Inadmissible hearsay, lack of foundation, irrelevant. The cited article Lai Ex. 25 15 is after
the date of enactment of legislation, is not an official legislative record for HB 2779 or HB
2745 and it is not legislative history for HB 2779 or HB 2745.
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Pearce was speaking on behalf of the
County Defendants in making the statements in the cited article Lai Ex. 25. There is no
evidence showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the statements made by
26
27
28
-8-
PSOF
No.
3
4
Pearce in the cited article Lai Ex. 25.

18

Lack of Foundation, Incomplete. A different/separate section of the cited Fact Sheet Lai
Ex. 16 describes the portion of HB 2779 enacting aggravated identity theft amendments.
See page 2, Lai Ex. 16. The Arizona Legal Workers Act contained many provisions other
than those involving identity theft which are the only ones relevant to this case. Without
any support for their argumentation, Plaintiffs here attempt to make a general statement
about the employer sanctions portion of the Act appear to be a statement about the identity
theft provisions of the Act.
6
7
8
9
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that the Fact Sheet Lai Ex. 16 speaks on behalf
of the County Defendants. There is no evidence showing that County Defendants
specifically adopted or ratified the statements made in the Fact Sheet Lai Ex. 16.
10
11
12
19
13

Inadmissible hearsay, lack of foundation, irrelevant. The cited email is dated after
enactment of legislation and is not an official legislative record for HB 2779 or HB 2745.
It is not legislative history for HB 2779 or HB 2745.
14
15
County Defendants in making the statements in the cited email Lai Ex. 26. There is no
evidence showing that County Defendants specifically adopted or ratified the statements
made by Pearce in the cited email Lai Ex. 26.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20

PSOF 20 calls for legal conclusions, is argumentative, and is irrelevant. HB 2745, HB
2639 and ARS 13-2009(B) speak for themselves. Plaintiffs have not asserted any claims
arising out of enactment or enforcement of ARS 13-2009(B).
the County Defendants in sponsoring and enacting HB 2745, HB 2639 or ARS 13-9-
PSOF
No.
2009(B). There is no evidence showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the
statements made by any State legislator in sponsoring and enacting HB 2745, HB 2639 or
ARS 13-2009(B).
4
5
21

Incomplete: See same objection, CDCSOF, 15.
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Burns was speaking on behalf of the
County Defendants in making the statements in the cited transcript Lai Ex. 18. There is no
Burns in the cited transcript Lai Ex. 18. Statements made by an individual legislator
during debate of proposed legislation are not legislative history. There is no evidence
showing that state enactment of HB 2779 and HB 2745 proximately caused an objectively
verifiable, statistically significant number of unauthorized aliens to leave Arizona.
8
9
10
11
12
22
13
Incomplete: See same objection, CDCSOF, 15.
14
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that OHalloran was speaking on behalf of the
OHalloran in the cited transcript. Statements made by an individual legislator during
legislative debate are not legislative history. There is no evidence showing that state
enactment of HB 2779 and HB 2745 proximately caused an objectively verifiable,
statistically significant number of unauthorized aliens to leave Arizona.
15
16
17
18
19
23
20
First sentence: incomplete. See same objection, CDCSOF, 15.
21
First Sentence: immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Pearce was speaking on
behalf of the County Defendants in making the statements in the cited transcript Lai Ex.
20. There is no evidence showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the
statements made by Pearce in the cited transcript. Statements made by an individual
legislator during legislative debate are not legislative history. There is no evidence
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Second sentence: inadmissible hearsay; lack of foundation; irrelevant. The cited email Lai
-10-
PSOF
No.
Ex. 162 is after the enactment of legislation, is not an official record of the legislature and
it is not legislative history for HB 2779 or HB 2745.
Second sentence: immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Pearce was speaking on
behalf of the County Defendants in making the statements in the email Lai Ex. 162. There
is no evidence showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the statements made by
Pearce in the cited email Lai Ex. 162.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
24
12

13
14
15
Incomplete. See same objection, CDCSOF, 15
16
Pearce in the cited transcript Lai Ex. 14. Statements made by an individual legislator
during legislative debate are not legislative history. There is no evidence showing that
state enactment of HB 2779 and HB 2745 proximately caused an objectively verifiable,
17
18
19
20
21
25
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-
PSOF
No.
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Gray was speaking on behalf of the County
Defendants in making the statements in the cited transcript Lai Ex. 18. There is no
evidence showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the statements made by Gray
in the cited transcript Lai Ex. 18. Statements made by an individual legislator during
legislative debate are not legislative history. There is no evidence showing that state
5
6
7
8
9
26

10
11
12
13
14
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Napolitano was speaking on behalf of the
County Defendants in making the statements in the cited letter Lai Ex. 21. There is no
Napolitano in the cited letter Lai Ex. 21. There is no evidence showing that state
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
Undisputed but:
Irrelevant. Failed legislation such as HB 2577 is not legislative history for HB 2779 or HB
2745.
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that Pearce or the State Legislature was acting
or speaking on behalf of the County Defendants in making the statements in the cited
26
27
28
-12-
PSOF
No.
transcript Lai Ex. 14 or in proposing the cited failed legislation (HB 2577). There is no
evidence showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the actions or statements of
Pearce or the State Legislature in statements in the cited transcript Lai Ex. 14 or in
proposing the cited failed legislation (HB 2577). Statements made by an individual
legislator during legislative debate are not legislative history. There is no evidence
4
5
6
7
8
28
Undisputed but:
Calls for legal conclusions and is argumentative. HB 2557 speaks for itself.
Lack of foundation; Irrelevant. Failed legislation such as HB 2577 is not legislative

history for HB 2779 or HB 2745.
10
11
Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that the State Legislature was acting on behalf
of the County Defendants in proposing the cited failed legislation (HB 2577). There is no
evidence showing that County Defendants adopted or ratified the actions of the State
Legislature in proposing the cited failed legislation (HB 2577). HB 2779 and HB 2745 do
not contain the quoted language re: proposed amendment to forgery law quoted in PSOF
28. The failure of HB 2577 and the lack of any similar language in HB 2779 or HB 2745
show that the Legislature did not support such proposed amendment to the forgery law.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Disputed because:
Lack of foundation, because Kratovils misstates testimony. See CDCSOF, 224.
Immaterial. The Ninth Circuit held that the critical question is whether an alleged state
purpose/state action has a practical effect on immigration. Puente Arizona v. Arpaio,
821 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 2016). Interactions between two criminal justice agencies
such as MCSO and MCAO regarding enforcement of newly enacted state criminal laws do
not prove that County Defendants enforcement of the identity theft laws had a practical
effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System. This evidence does not demonstrate that
Congress intended to preempt County Defendants enforcement against use of anothers
identity in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System. Such enforcement
addresses traditional state police power concerns relating to elevated rates of identity theft
and serious victim harms resulting from identity theft. [CASOF, 4 39, 48, 77 82;
ASOF, 1, 12, 15, 31, 35]
26
27
28
-13-
PSOF
No.
30
purpose/state action has a practical effect on immigration. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d
at1106. Interactions such as the referenced meetings between two criminal justice
agencies such as MCSO and MCAO regarding enforcement of newly enacted state
criminal laws does not prove that County Defendants enforcement of the identity theft
laws had a practical effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System. This evidence does
not demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt enforcement against use of anothers
and serious victim harms resulting from identity theft. See same objection, CDCSOF,
29; See also, CASOF, 83 -84; ASOF, 20, 23, 25 29, 31, 35.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
31
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not disputed but:

Irrelevant: There is no evidence showing that Montgomery restarted the referenced regular
meetings after he began his term in Office in November 2010. [CASOF, 84]
13
Not Disputed but:

Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 30.
32

Argumentative and mischaracterization of evidence re: PSOF 32s use of the term
targeting; this term does not appear in the documents or depositions cited in PSOF 32.
Mischaracterizes worksite enforcement procedure; incomplete: Fails to accurately or
completely describe worksite enforcement procedure. See Lai Ex. 76 at MCAO-025762
69 and Lai Ex. 77 for Kratovils description of the worksite enforcement procedure from
approximately January 2008 May 2010. See also, CASOF, 83 -84; ASOF, 20, 23,
25 29, 31, 35.
at1106. Worksite enforcement procedures for the enforcement of newly enacted state laws
do not prove that County Defendants enforcement of the identity theft laws had a
practical effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System. This evidence does not
demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt enforcement against use of anothers
-14-
PSOF
No.
and serious victim harms resulting from identity theft. See same objection, CDCSOF,
30.
4
5
33

Disputed to the extent that PSOF 33 implies that County Defendants controlled the content
of tips sent by the general public, or they adopted or ratified the content of tips sent by the
general public. Also, disputed to the extent that PSOF 33 implies that County Defendants
arrested/prosecuted suspects solely on the basis of tips sent by the general public without
establishing probable cause/reasonable likelihood of conviction. No such evidence exists.
6
7
8
9
Mischaracterizes procedure; incomplete:

Only non-frivolous tips led to further
investigatory processes per the worksite enforcement procedure. [CDCSOF, 225] See
also same objection, CDCSOF, 32.
10
11
at1106. Review/follow-up on tips pertaining to alleged unlawful activity is a generally
accepted and well-established criminal law enforcement investigatory procedure and is part
of the statutorily-mandated employer sanctions enforcement process under the employer
sanctions law, ARS 23-212 (B) - (D). Such review/follow-up does not show that County
Defendants enforcement of the identity theft laws had a practical effect on federal
regulation over the I-9 System. This evidence does not demonstrate that Congress
intended to preempt enforcement against use of anothers identity in employment
circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System. See also same objection, CDCSOF, 30.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34

Lack of foundation. Lai Ex. 37 does not contain the April 1, 2010 tip quoted in PSOF 34.
of tips sent by the general public, or that they adopted or ratified the content of tips sent by
the general public. Also, disputed to the extent that PSOF 34 implies that County
Defendants arrested/prosecuted suspects solely on the basis of tips sent by the general
public without establishing probable cause/reasonable likelihood of conviction. No such
evidence exists.
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that MCSO submitted or MCAO filed identity
theft/forgery charges in connection with the quoted April 1, 2010 tip.
26
27
28
-15-
PSOF
No.
Mischaracterizes procedure; incomplete: See same objection, CDCSOF, 33, 225.
Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 33, 225.
35
Lack of foundation. Lai Ex. 37 does not contain the July 1, 2010 tip quoted in PSOF 35.
8
9
10
theft/forgery charges in connection with the quoted July 1, 2010 tip.
11
12
13
14

36
15

Lack of foundation. Lai Ex. 37 does not contain the October 14, 2010 tip quoted in PSOF
36.
16
17
general public. Also, disputed to the extent that PSOF 36 implies that MCSO arrested
suspects solely on the basis of tips sent by the general public without establishing probable
cause. The undisputed evidence does not support this implication. CDCSOF, 225, 226.
18
19
20
21

CDCSOF, 225, 226.
22
Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 33. See CDCSOF, 225, 226.
23
24
25
37

26
27
28
See same objection, CDCSOF, 33, and
-16-
PSOF
No.
theft/forgery charges in connection with the referenced tip in Lai Ex. 60.
5
6
7

CDCSOF, 225.
Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 33 and CDCSOF, 225.
38
10
See same objection, CDCSOF, 33 and

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

39

23

24

25
26
27
28
-17-
PSOF
No.
40

5
6
7
theft/forgery charges in connection with the referenced tips in Lai Ex. 133.
8
9
10
11

41
12

13
14
15
theft/forgery charges in connection with the referenced tips in Lai Ex. 82.
16
17

18

19
42
Not Disputed but:
20

21
22
43
Mischaracterizes procedure; incomplete: See same objection, CDCSOF, 32, 33 and

CDCSOF, 225.
23
24
25
Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 32, 33 and CDCSOF, 225.

44
26
27
28
-18-
PSOF
No.
Disputed to extent that PSOF 44 implies that every employee file would be seized, every
employee at a worksite would be arrested during a worksite operation, and/or that every
employee would be submitted on identity theft/forgery charges to MCAO. There is no
such evidence.
Mischaracterizes procedure; incomplete: See same objection, CDCSOF, 32.
at1106. Execution of search warrants approved by State Court, seizure of evidence
pursuant to such search warrants, and arrests of persons who law enforcement officers
reasonably believe are violating state identity theft/forgery laws are generally accepted and
well-established criminal law enforcement investigatory procedures. See ASOF, 20, 23,
25 29, 31, 35. PSOF 44s cited evidence does not show that County Defendants
enforcement of the identity theft laws had a practical effect on federal regulation over the
I-9 System. This evidence does not demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt
by the I-9 System.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
45

Disputed to the extent that PSOF 45 implies that MCAO files charges against employees
as opposed to persons who use the identity of another for work in violation of A.R.S.
13-2008(A), 13-2009(A)(3) and/or 13-2002. Those statutes do not have an element
requiring proof that the offender is an employee. They are employee neutral. There is
no evidence showing that MCAO prosecutors made charging decisions depending upon an
offenders status as an employee. The evidence is to the contrary; MCAO prosecutors
charge violations of identity theft/forgery upon their determination of the reasonable
likelihood of conviction based upon the evidence submitted and specific elements of the
statutes. [CASOF, 46 - 57]
Disputed to the extent that PSOF 45 implies that MCAO filed charges on every MCSO
submittal proposing charges for employment-related violations of A.R.S. 13-2008(A),
13-2009(A)(3) and/or 13-2002. MCAO exercises prosecutorial discretion pursuant to
MCAOs charging standard. MCAO prosecutors file charges only when they determine
there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction based on the evidence submitted pursuant to
the specific elements of the crime. [CASOF, 43] Dr. Cohen found that MCAO declined
to file charges as to approximately 9% of offenders submitted for employment-related
violations of A.R.S. 13-2008(A), 13-2009(A)(3) and/or 13-2002. [CDCSOF, 227]
-19-
PSOF
No.
There is no evidence showing that MCAO prosecutors rubberstamp law enforcement
submittals on identity theft/forgery.
3
4
There is no evidence showing that law enforcement (including MCSO) as a matter of

policy and practice submitted such charges without probable cause.
5
6
Immaterial. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress did not intend to preempt state
enforcement of employment-related identity theft against any person who uses anothers
identity for non-immigration reasons. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at 1106. Congress did
not establish a preemptive identity theft/forgery safe harbor for employee offenders who
use anothers identity outside the I-9 System.
7
8
9
10
46
Undisputed regarding the content of the press release. However, the statement to the
media is not a material fact. Further, Defendants object to Plaintiffs characterization.
47
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Incomplete. The undisputed evidence shows that MCAO prosecuted violations of the
identity theft and forgery laws to address elevated rates of these crimes, protect the people
of Maricopa County, and address harms to victims. These public safety concerns support
non-preempted exercise of traditional state police powers. [CASOF, 4 39, 48, 77
82]
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that Montgomery adopted or ratified statements
made in the cited September 2008 summary report Lai Ex. 28, which is dated more than
two years before Montgomery began his term in Office. Montgomerys uncontroverted
testimony is no ratification/adoption of Lai Ex. 28. [CDCSOF, 228]
purpose/state action has a practical effect on immigration. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at
1106. There is no evidence showing that Thomass political positions on immigration
problems proximately caused an objectively verifiable, statistically significant number of
unauthorized aliens to leave Arizona. Further, there is no evidence showing that Thomas
political positions on immigration problems proximately caused disparate prosecutorial
practices towards identity theft/forgery offenders who were unauthorized aliens. The
undisputed evidence is the opposite. MCAO prosecution policy never mentions
immigration status or immigration consequences as factors for prosecutorial decisions on
charging/pleas. MCAO prosecutors specifically are directed not to consider such factors.
There is no evidence showing that MCAO prosecutors violate those polices and directions.
Dr. Cohens uncontroverted objective data analyses show that MCAOs employment-20-
PSOF
No.
related identity theft/forgery charging is similar regardless of immigration status.

Plaintiffs expert has identified no contrary facts or opinions. [CASOF, 46 - 57]
4
5
48

Incomplete. See same objection, CDCSOF, 47.
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that Montgomery adopted or ratified the

statements in the cited press release from the Thomas administration Lai Ex. 75, which is
dated more than a year before he began his term in Office.
10
49
Undisputed but:
11
Calls for a legal conclusion. The cited laws speak for themselves.
12
1106. There is no evidence showing that acceptance of LAWA funding had a practical
effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System. This evidence does not demonstrate that
Congress intended to preempt enforcement against use of anothers identity in employment
circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
13
14
15
16
50
17
Undisputed but:
19
Irrelevant. The IDAs terminated on or before June 30, 2010, five months before
Montgomery began his term in Office. See Lai Ex. 103, II; Lai Ex. 104, II. There is no
evidence showing that Montgomery entered into any similar IDA with MCSO during his
term in Office.
20
18
21
22
51
24
Incomplete; misstatement of fact. The IDAs terminated on or before June 30, 2010, five
months before Montgomery began his term in Office. See Lai Ex. 103, II; Lai Ex. 104,
II. There is no evidence showing that Montgomery entered into any similar IDA with
MCSO during his term in Office.
25
23
26
27
28
-21-
PSOF
No.
52
Undisputed but not material.
53
Undisputed but:
1106. There is no evidence of any practical effect on immigration when MCAO uses
LAWA funding to pay for salaries and benefits of prosecutors who prosecute offenders
who use anothers identity in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
6
7
8
9
54

Incomplete. State legislators enacted the identity theft amendments and appropriated
county-level funding for the enforcement of those amendments to address public safety
concerns arising out of elevated rates of identity theft in Arizona. See same objection,
CDCSOF, 15.
10
11
12
1106. There is no evidence of any practical effect on immigration when the State
Legislature appropriates funding to County Defendants for enforcement against offenders
who use anothers identity in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
There is no evidence showing that appropriation of LAWA funding proximately caused an
objectively verifiable, statistically significant number of unauthorized aliens to leave
Arizona. There is no evidence showing that appropriation of LAWA funding proximately
caused County Defendants to enforce the identity theft amendments in a disparate manner
towards unauthorized aliens. The uncontroverted evidence is the opposite. MCAO
prosecution policy never mentions immigration status or immigration consequences as
factors for prosecutorial decisions on charging/pleas. MCAO prosecutors specifically are
directed not to consider such factors. There is no evidence showing that they violate those
polices and directions. Dr. Cohens uncontroverted objective data analyses show that
MCAOs employment-related identity theft/forgery charging is similar regardless of
immigration status. Plaintiffs expert identified no contrary facts or opinions. [CASOF,
46 57; ASOF, 38, 39, 40; AZSOF, 17 - 20]
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
Undisputed but:
Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 47 54.
26
27
28
-22-
PSOF
No.
56
Undisputed but not a material fact.
57
Undisputed but:
1106. There is no evidence of any practical effect on immigration when Maricopa
County appropriates funding to MCAO and MCSO for their criminal justice operations
such as enforcement against offenders who use anothers identity in employment
6
7
8
9
58
10
11
12
13
Undisputed that worksite investigations failed to generate the necessary evidence required
to satisfy the elements of the employer sanctions laws or criminal laws in many cases,
thereby precluding civil or criminal filings against many employers. While efforts were
made to obtain such evidence from employee witnesses, those efforts usually came to
nothing because the employees claimed lack of knowledge or refused to cooperate with the
investigation. [ASOF, 24]
1106. There is no evidence of any practical effect on immigration when Maricopa
County appropriates funding to MCAO and MCSO for their criminal justice operations
such as enforcement against offenders who use anothers identity in employment
14
15
16
17
59
To the extent Plaintiffs SOF describes statistics from worksite operations, it is undisputed.
The cited exhibit does not support Plaintiffs characterization of individualsthat it could
not detain on state charges.
60
Partially disputed. The cited press release actually reads, In the previous 55 employer
sanctions/identity theft operations, 100% of all suspects found to be committing identity
theft to gain employment were illegal aliens. [Lai Decl. Ex. 44]
22
61
23
62
Undisputed to the extent that MCSO had a valid search warrant, ultimately arrested 65
individuals, and temporarily detained additional people until service of the search warrant
was complete.
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
-23-
PSOF
No.
63
Disputed but not a material fact. The cited exhibit does not support Plaintiffs SOF.
64
65
Disputed as to Dr. Earls findings/opinions. Defense statistics and criminal justice

economics expert Dr. Cohen provided his expert findings, opinions and conclusions with
regard to his analyses of MCAOs case management system data, as well as his rebuttal of
Dr. Earls opinions, including his rebuttal of her trend and pattern opinions. See Ex. 1
- 4 to CASOF.
6
7
8
9
Irrelevant and Immaterial:
13
The Ninth Circuit held that the critical question is whether an alleged state purpose/state
action has a practical effect on immigration. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at1106. Earls
opinions on trends and patterns do not establish that County Defendants enforcement
of the identity theft laws had a practical effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System.
Those opinions do not demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt enforcement against
use of anothers identity in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
14
Trends Opinions:
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Earl acknowledged that her trends analysis was limited to identifying whether the
number of cases increased, decreased or remained stable over time. She testified that she
did not analyze and does not have an opinion as to any cause for the numbers going up,
down or stabilizing over time. [CASOF, 54; AZSOF, 17, 18]
Dr. Cohen found that annual trends showing an increase in enforcement are to be
expected for any new law such as the identity theft amendments. Dr. Cohen found that it
would not be surprising to see a ramp up and growth over the first few years of a new
statute as law enforcement agencies and prosecutors begin to incorporate this new statute
into their portfolio of statutes they need to enforce. When a new statute is enacted, there
will be a huge spike in the first year or two as the pipeline of cases begin to make their way
into the criminal justice system. He found that the increase in use of forgery with ARS 132009(A)(3) starting in 2007 was the result of the new enactment of the latter law.
[CDCSOF, 229]
Similarly, Dr. Cohen found that downward trends in enforcement occur when criminal
activity/victim complaints decrease in response to active enforcement of criminal laws
(deterrence). Dr. Cohen found that FTC victim complaints dropped after County
Defendants active enforcement of employment-related identity theft/forgery began.
-24-
PSOF
No.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Subsequent to drops in criminal activity/complaints, enforcement numbers correspondingly

drop. [CDCSOF, 230]
Disproportionate Opinions:
Earl testified that in using the term disproportionate in her report, she means a category
is numerically greater than another category. She testified that disproportionate in her
report is not meant to argue that Defendants enforcement of the Laws is disproportionate
to unauthorized alien (or Hispanic) offender groups rate of offending. She testified that
she did not make any such comparison and does not know of any facts or data available to
make any such comparison. She did not have access to any facts and she does not have
any opinion that the race or immigration status of an offender motivated arrests or
prosecutions for violations of the Identity Theft Laws. [CASOF, 54; ASOF, 38;
AZSOF, 19, 20]
Dr. Cohen conducted comparative analyses of charging data and found that MCAOs
declination/addition rates for employment-related identity theft/forgery charges are
statistically similar as between unauthorized alien offenders and other offenders. [CASOF,
55, 56] He testified that that his comparative analyses findings show that MCAO
charges offenders consistently no matter their immigration status. [CASOF, 57] He also
compared charging data between MCAO prosecutors, Grand Jury and federal prosecutors
in Arizona and found that unauthorized alien offenders are charged at similar rates. He
found that these data and findings show MCAO does not charge unauthorized alien
offenders in a disparate manner. His comparative charging analyses are uncontroverted.
[CASOF, 52, 53; ASOF, 39]
Evidence Charged in Actual Filed Cases:
Earl testified that she did not review actual employment-related identity theft/forgery
submittals or filings made by County Defendants. She did not disclose any findings or
opinions on what specific evidence was relied upon for such submittals/case filings. She
testified that her findings on trends in submittals and filings do not attempt to address
what evidence was relied upon for submitting and filing those cases. [CASOF, 63]
Dr. Cohen conducted analysis of the evidence charged in employment-related identity
theft/forgery direct complaints filed in Maricopa County Superior Court. He found that
90% of these filings did not rely on the Form I-9. [CASOF, 59] He found that these
90% relied on employment applications, state Form A-4s, federal Form W-4s, state
drivers licenses, social security cards and other non-Form I-9 documents. [CASOF, 60]
26
27
28
-25-
PSOF
No.
Approximately 10% of these filings relied on Form I-9s either alone (0.5%) or in
combination with a non-Form I-9 document (9.5%). [CASOF, 71, 73] 3% of cases
relied on a Form I-9 in combination with a social security card; 2% of cases relied on a
Form I-9 in combination with a state drivers license/identification card. [CDCSOF,
231]
4
5
6
Dr. Cohens findings are further supported by law enforcement submittal records in
employment-related identity theft/forgery cases. [CASOF, 12, 62, 69, 77 - 80]
Plaintiffs
also used anothers identity on non-Form I-9 documents
including state Form A-4s, federal Form W-4s and job applications. [CASOF, 66, 67,
68, 70]
7
8
9
10
66
11
Disputed as to Earls findings/opinions, See Dr. Cohens findings, opinions, conclusions

and rebuttal, Ex. 1 - 4 to CASOF.
Irrelevant and Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 65.
12
13
67
Disputed as to Earls findings/opinions, See Dr. Cohens findings, opinions, conclusions

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MCAO prosecuted employment-related identity theft/forgery Non-Worksite Cases which

were submitted by numerous law enforcement agencies, including MCSO. MCAO filed
Identity Theft and Forgery Charges submitted upon evidence of use of anothers identity
for non-Form I-9 reasons where the underlying police investigations originate from victim
complaints, traffic stops, traffic accidents, drug screenings, thefts, shoplifting, and other
traditional state police power concerns (Non-Worksite Cases). [CASOF, 80] Dr.
Cohen found that approximately 791 offenders were charged with employment-related
identity theft/forgery in Non-Worksite Cases. [CASOF, 81] Non-Worksite Cases are the
majority (56%) of MCAOs employment-related identity theft/forgery filings. [Id.] 99%
of the Non-Worksite Cases did not rely on evidence of a Form I-9. [Id.] Approximately
75% of Non-Worksite Cases involved at least one individual victim. [CASOF, 82] NonWorksite Cases were submitted by almost every law enforcement agency in Maricopa
County including Phoenix Police (199), ADOT (79), Scottsdale Police (78), Mesa Police
(76), Chandler Police (67) and MCSO (46). [CASOF, 81]
23
24
25
at1106. There is no evidence showing that MCAO charging decisions in Non-Worksite
Cases turn on immigration status or immigration consequences. See CDCSOF, 47, 54,
26
27
28
-26-
PSOF
No.
65, and CASOF, 41 - 57 showing that MCAOs prosecutions do not turn on
immigration status or immigration consequences, and do not treat unauthorized aliens in a
disparate manner.
3
4
5
6
68
Undisputed.
69
Disputed as to Earls findings/conclusions, See Dr. Cohens findings, opinions,

conclusions and rebuttal, Ex. 1 - 4 to CASOF.
Irrelevant and Immaterial. Dr. Cohen found that Earls methodology was flawed and that
her findings were not reliable when she attempted to use the forgery statute as a baseline to
compare annual trends in enforcement of employment-related identity theft/forgery cases
before and after 2008. Dr. Cohen found that there is no reason to believe that the growth
or decline in the incidence of employment-related ID theft/forgery is necessarily related to
the growth or decline in forgery in general. He found that they are different crimes both
in terms of the elements of the crime and the motivations. As such, he found that they
might be subject to different macro and micro economic factors none of which Dr. Earl
attempted to establish in any way. For example, at the macro-economic level,
employment-related ID theft might be positively related to economic growth as the
opportunities to engage in this type crime increase with the availability of jobs, whereas
forgery might be negatively related to economic growth as people with jobs are less likely
to commit crimes of forgery monetary instruments such as checks or credit applications. At
the micro-economic level, employment-related ID theft/forgery is likely to be motivated by
an individuals desire to obtain employment he or she is not otherwise qualified for for a
variety of potential reasons such as lack of professional credentials, prior convictions,
illegal alien status, etc. However, the crime of forgery might be motivated by completely
different set of circumstances such as economic fraud or domestic disputes. Thus, there is
no reason to believe that trends in forgery and identity theft in general would be related
to trends in employment-related ID theft/forgery. [CDCSOF, 232]
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Earl testified that she did nothing to objectively test her forgery as a baseline
methodology. [CDCSOF, 233]
21
22
See also same objections, CDCSOF, 65 re: Earls trend and pattern opinions and Dr.
Cohens rebuttals thereof.
23
24
25
70
Not Disputed but:

Immaterial.
The Ninth Circuit held that Congress did not intend to preempt state
26
27
28
-27-
PSOF
No.
enforcement of employment-related identity theft against any person who uses the
identity of another for non-immigration reasons. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at 1106.
Any person includes unauthorized alien offenders. Accordingly, County Defendants
enforcement is not preempted when it enforces against unauthorized alien offenders who
use the identity of another in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
3
4
5
6
See CDCSOF, 47, 54, 65 and CASOF, 41 - 57 showing that MCAOs prosecutions
do not turn on immigration status or immigration consequences, and do not treat
unauthorized aliens in a disparate manner.
7
8
9
71
Disputed as to Earls findings and conclusions, See Dr. Cohens findings, opinions,
10
However, Undisputed that the majority of offenders in employment-related identity

theft/forgery prosecutions were identified as unauthorized aliens. [CASOF, 41, 45]
11
12
Immaterial. The Ninth Circuit held that Congress did not intend to preempt state
identity of another for non-immigration reasons. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at 1106.
Any person includes unauthorized alien offenders. Accordingly, County Defendants
enforcement is not preempted when it enforces against unauthorized alien offenders who
use the identity of another in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
See also CDCSOF, 47, 54, 65 and CASOF, 41 - 57 showing that MCAOs
prosecutions do not turn on immigration status or immigration consequences, and do not
treat unauthorized aliens in a disparate manner.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
72
Undisputed but:
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that Kratovils alleged personal opinions cited in
PSOF 72 were adopted or ratified as MCAO policy by Montgomery (or his predecessors in
Office).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Immaterial. The Ninth Circuit held that Congress did not intend to preempt state
identity of another for non-immigration reasons. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at 1106. The
Ninth Circuit held that the critical question is whether an alleged state purpose/state
action has a practical effect on immigration. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at1106.
Kratovils alleged personal opinions cited in PSOF 72 do not show that County
Defendants enforcement of the identity theft laws had a practical effect on federal
regulation over the I-9 System. Unauthorized aliens and other offenders use the identity of
-28-
PSOF
No.
another in a wide variety of employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
[CASOF, 12, 59 62, 64 70, 77 - 80] Enforcement against such identity theft/forgery
conduct is not preempted by immigration policy.
4
5
73
8
9
10
11
12
13
See CASOF, 12, 59 62, 64 70, 77 - 80 showing offenders use the identity of another
in a wide variety of employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Not Disputed but:

at1106. The relative number of employment-related identity theft/forgery cases filed by
Montgomery versus his predecessors in Office does not show that Montgomerys
I-9 System. Whether only one case or hundreds of cases, the case is not preempted where
the offender used anothers identity in employment circumstances is not regulated by the I9 System.
16
74

However, Undisputed that MCSO submitted employment-related identity theft/forgery
charges to MCAO.
Dr. Cohen found that MCSO submitted employment-related identity theft/forgery charges
against 662 offenders in 2005 2015. [CDCSOF, 234]
Earl replicated Dr. Cohens data analyses without identifying any errors. [CDCSOF,
234]
MCSO versus other law enforcement agencies does not show that MCSOs enforcement of
the identity theft laws had a practical effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System.
Whether only one case or hundreds of cases, the submittal is not preempted where the
26
27
28
-29-
PSOF
No.
offender used anothers identity in employment circumstances is not regulated by the I-9
System.
3
4
5
75
Also, Disputed as to Earl findings/conclusions, See Dr. Cohens findings, opinions,

8
9
However, Undisputed that MCAO filed employment-related identity theft/forgery charges,

as follows.
10
Dr. Cohen found that MCAO filed a total of 1,390 employment-related identity
theft/forgery cases in 2005 2015. [CASOF, 9]
11
12
Earl replicated Dr. Cohens data analyses without identifying any errors. [CDCSOF,
234]
13
MCAO does not show that MCAOs enforcement of the identity theft laws had a practical
effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System. Whether only one case or hundreds of
cases, the case is not preempted where the offender used anothers identity in employment
circumstances is not regulated by the I-9 System.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25

Misstatement of fact: law enforcement agencies submit charges, not MCAO. [CASOF,
42]
23
76

Misstatement of fact: There is no evidence showing that MCAO has a co-charging
policy in employment-related cases. There is no evidence showing that MCAO requires
that every employment-related case must charge both identity theft and forgery. The
objective data disprove this notion. Dr. Cohen found that MCAO charged violations of the
26
27
28
-30-
PSOF
No.
Identity Theft Laws and Forgery Law as to 1,176 (85%) of the 1390 offenders charged
with violations of these Laws in employment circumstances in 2005 2015. [CASOF,
9, 10] These data therefore show that approximately 15% of the offenders were not
charged with both crimes. Further, forgery and identity theft are different crimes and they
are not elements of each other. A.R.S. 13-2002; 13-2008(A); 13-2009(A)(3). MCAO
charging policy requires that prosecutors determine the reasonable likelihood of conviction
based on the evidence submitted per the specific elements of the crime. [CASOF, 46
51] When the evidence shows that the charging policy is satisfied as to the elements of
both crimes, it is MCAO policy to charge both crimes in the same case so as to resolve as
many crimes as possible without delay. [CASOF, 11] There is no evidence showing
that MCAO prosecutors as a matter of policy or practice charged employment-related
identity theft and forgery in violation of the charging standard.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Irrelevant/Immaterial. See CDCSOF, 65, 69, 229, 230, 232 re: Dr. Cohens rebuttal
regarding Earls flawed methodology and resulting unreliable findings re: number of preamendment employment-related identity theft/forgery cases and her impertinent trend
and pattern opinions.
11
12
13
MCAO does not show that MCAOs enforcement of the identity theft laws had a practical
effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System. Whether only one case or hundreds of
cases, the case is not preempted where the offender used anothers identity in employment
circumstances is not regulated by the I-9 System.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
77
Objection: Plaintiffs characterization that Sheriff Arapio underst[ood] the] identity theft
laws as an immigration enforcement tool is not a fact. Otherwise undisputed, though
lacking in context, and not a material fact.
78
Undisputed but:
23
24
25
26
27
28
-31-
PSOF
No.
at1106. The Ninth Circuit also held that Congress did not intend to preempt state
enforcement of empyment-related identity theft against any person who uses the identity
of another for non-immigration reasons. Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d at 1106. Any
person includes unauthorized alien offenders. The quoted language from the cited
webpage Lai Ex. 74 merely describes a fact pattern involving an unauthorized alien
offender which would support prosecution of the offender for using anothers identity to
work in violation of the identity theft/forgery statutes. Offenders use anothers social
security number and/or identification information on employment applications, tax forms,
payroll deposit forms and other documents not regulated by the I-9 System. [CASOF,
12, 59 62, 64 70, 77 - 80] Enforcement against such conduct does not show that
County Defendants enforcement of the identity theft laws had a practical effect on
federal regulation over the I-9 System. Such enforcement is not preempted by immigration
policy.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
79
13
14
Undisputed but:
80
Undisputed that MCSO sometimes seized Form I-9s during worksite search warrant
operations. However, MCSO did not submit cases to the County Attorneys Office on the
sole basis of the Form I-9.
81
Undisputed that MCSO investigated DES records as part of its worksite operations, but
remainder is Disputed because misrepresents DES documents/process.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Qualifying employers are required by state law to pay unemployment taxes on wages paid
to each qualifying employee in a calendar year. These employers are required to report all
gross wages and unemployment taxes paid to DES on a quarterly Unemployment Tax and
Wage Report. See, e.g., ARS 23 601 et seq., Employment Security Statutes; ARS
23-721 et seq., Contribution Statutes; DES Unemployment Insurance Administration
Employer
Handbook,
Part
400,
https://des.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/Employer%2520Handbook%2520(v3)%5B1%5
D.pdf. Failure to duly report to DES is sanctioned by state law. ARS 23-723.
[CDCSOF, 235]
One of the investigatory procedures for worksite investigations discussed in Lai Ex. 76
was MCSOs review of employer wage/tax reports to DES. Employer wage/tax reports to
DES are required by state law and are not regulated by the I-9 System. See supra. See
26
27
28
-32-
PSOF
No.
also CASOF, 18, 20- 23, 27, 34, 35, 60 - 62, 65 70 regarding relationship between use
of anothers identity on state tax forms and serious harms to victims.
3
4
Plaintiffs admit that Form A-4s, Form W-4s, job applications, criminal background forms,
employer policy documents, employee benefits forms, employee badges, bank direct
deposit forms, drug testing forms, and state food handler forms charged by MCAO are not
regulated by the I-9 Requirements. [CASOF, 64, 65, 70]
5
6
7
at1106. The cited DES evidence does not show that County Defendants enforcement of
the identity theft laws had a practical effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System.
This evidence does not demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt enforcement
against use of anothers identity in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9
System.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
Undisputed that Dr. Cohen conducted analysis of the evidence charged in employmentrelated identity theft/forgery direct complaints filed in Maricopa County Superior Court.
He found that 90% of these filings did not rely on the Form I-9. [CASOF, 59] He found
that these 90% relied on employment applications, state Form A-4s, federal Form W-4s,
state drivers licenses, social security cards and other non-Form I-9 documents. [CASOF,
60] Approximately 10% of these filings relied on Form I-9s either alone (0.5%) or in
combination with a non-Form I-9 document (9.5%). [CASOF, 71, 73] 3% of cases
relied on a Form I-9 in combination with a social security card; 2% of cases relied on a
Form I-9 in combination with a state drivers license/identification card. [CDCSOF,
231] Dr. Cohens analyses of evidence relied upon for employment-related identity
theft/forgery case filings is uncontroverted.
Dr. Cohens findings are further supported by law enforcement submittal records in
employment-related identity theft/forgery cases. [CASOF, 12, 62, 69, 77 - 80]
Plaintiffs
also used anothers identity on non-Form I-9 documents
including state Form A-4s, federal Form W-4s and job applications. [CASOF, 66, 67,
68, 70]
26
27
28
-33-
PSOF
No.
83
Partly misrepresents MCAO policy and related evidence.
Before entry of the preliminary injunction, on September 17, 2014, Montgomery

established formal written policy prohibiting any prosecutorial reliance on the Form I-9 for
charging or trial. This policy speaks for itself. [CASOF, 74]
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
84
13
14
15
Undisputed that MCAO prosecutors strictly complied with Montgomerys formal written
prohibition on I-9 charging by actively Seeking the dismissal of then-pending charges
relying on the I-9. [CASOF, 74, 75] Direct complaints filed in Maricopa County
Superior Court charging employment-related forgery in 2015 and 2016 show no Form I-9
charges. [CASOF, 76]
at1106. The offender in the case cited in PSOF 84 was charged with using the identity of
another on numerous Non-Form I-9 documents including a job application, Form W-4 and
Form A-4 as shown in the direct complaint Lai Ex. 113. These Non-Form I-9 documents
are not regulated by the I-9 System.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
85

Lack of foundation. None of the cited documents contain statements from the offenders
establishing that they would not have used anothers identity on the state/federal tax forms
-34-
PSOF
No.
and other non-Form I-9 documents in the absence of I-9 Requirements. There is no
foundation for PSOF 85s contentions about offender motivations.
Mischaracterization of evidence. The cited documents establish that the offenders used the
identity of another on Form A-4s, Form W-4s, and other Non-Form I-9 documents to
comply with employer business requirements (job application, etc.) and/or state/federal tax
requirements (Form A-4, Form W-4). See also CASOF, 12, 59 62, 64 70, 77 - 80.
5
6
7
Immaterial. Whatever alleged motivation is claimed by an offender for violating IRCA,

there is no evidence showing that Congress intended that such motivation controls the
constitutionality of state enforcement against violations of identity theft/forgery laws as to
the offenders conduct not regulated by the I-9 System.
8
9
10
86
87
88
The SOF mischaracterizes the testimony cited to support it. Allen said, Thats a pretty
serious area. I mean, you call it immigration enforcement. For us, it was more it was an
awful lot of, you know, identity theft and so forth.Its a problem in a border state. And
we take it very seriously.
89
Undisputed but lacking context and not a material fact. Sheriff Arpaio clarified, Excuse
me one minute. Not today, and referenced the change in the States enforcement
authority. [Lai Decl. Ex. 62, 93:7-94:2]
18
90
19
91
Undisputed but not a material fact. Defendants note that the statement dates back to 2009,
when MCSO deputies had 287(g) authority.
92
The cited exhibit does not support the SOF; therefore, paragraph 92 should be stricken.
93
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mischaracterization of evidence. Lai Ex. 97 is not a statement from Montgomery. It is an

email from a MCAO employee to a MCSO employee.
Incomplete: PSOF 93 omits the following statement in Lai Ex. 97: While pretending to
address the concerns of people admittedly violating the law, the victims of identity theft
are deprived of the State of Arizonas protection. Appealing the grant of a PI is under
26
27
28
-35-
PSOF
No.
review. This statement underscores Montgomerys prioritization of harms to victims

from employment-related identity theft which are traditional state police power concerns.
See also, CASOF, 2 7, 13 39. See also CDCSOF, 234, 235.
3
4
5
at1106. Lai Ex. 97 does not establish that County Defendants enforcement of the identity
theft laws had a practical effect on federal regulation over the I-9 System. This evidence
does not demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt enforcement against use of
anothers identity in employment circumstances not regulated by the I-9 System.
6
7
8
9
94
Undisputed.
95
Undisputed.
96
Disputed but not material. Plaintiffs cite the Goals section of the document, not the
separate section titled, Mission Statement. Further, Defendants note that this unit has
been disbanded. See Plaintiffs SOF No. 95.
97
Undisputed, but lacking in context. The cited mission statements clearly differentiates
between tips that are credible and can be verified and those that are not.
98
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
99
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Undisputed that Special Crimes Bureau was the primary assigned prosecuting Bureau for
employment-related identity theft/forgery cases for all but a few months in 2010,
but Partly Disputed as to following:
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that Kratovils alleged personal opinions cited in
PSOF 99 were adopted or ratified as MCAO policy by Montgomery (or his predecessors in
Office).
Also, there is no evidence showing that the number of Special Crimes prosecutions
resulted from an application of prosecutorial charging policy substantively different from
other Bureaus. Per the sworn testimony of Montgomery, Special Crimes prosecutors and
FITE prosecutors, the same MCAO charging standard reasonable likelihood of
conviction based on evidence submitted proving the specific elements of the crime -- is
used by all bureaus. Special Crimes like the other bureaus charged employment-related
26
27
28
-36-
PSOF
No.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
identity theft/forgery without regard to immigration status or immigration consequences.

[CASOF, 46 - 51] See also CASOF, 47, 54, 65 and CASOF, 41 - 57 showing that
MCAOs prosecutions do not turn on immigration status or immigration consequences,
and do not treat unauthorized aliens in a disparate manner.
Also, Dr. Cohen found that the fact that Earls opinions regarding the number of Special
Crimes employment-related identity theft/forgery prosecutions are not meaningful. As
discussed in CDCSOF, 229, he found that annual trends showing an increase in
enforcement is to be expected for any new law that is put into place. [CDCSOF, 229] In
addition, he found that it makes sense for Bureaus to specialize in certain areas of law
enforcement that is a more efficient method of managing a prosecuting agency.
[CDCSOF, 236] He found that Earl identified no evidence showing that the number of
Special Crimes prosecutions resulted from an application of prosecutorial charging policy
substantively different from other Bureaus. [Id.] Upon analyzing the charging data, Dr.
Cohen found that Special Crimes prosecutors and FITE prosecutors charge unauthorized
alien offenders at similar rates when they had primary responsibility to prosecute
employment-related identity theft/forgery. Specifically, he found that, in 2010, when a
significant number of employment-related ID theft/forgery cases were shifted from Special
Crimes to FITE, the pattern of cases looked almost identical to Special Crimes cases. For
example, in years other than 2010, 51% of FITE employment-related identity theft/forgery
offenders were identified as being unauthorized alien offenders. However, in 2010, 88% of
FITE employment-related identity theft/forgery offenders were unauthorized alien
offenders. The latter figure is similar to the 93% of employment-related identity
theft/forgery offenders found to be unauthorized alien offenders in the Special Crimes
subset. He found that the FITE caseload looked virtually identical to the Special Crimes
caseload when comparing the percentage of employment-related identity theft/forgery
offenders who were identified as being illegal aliens and the percentage of cases involving
individual victims and Hispanic victims. [Id.] He concluded that there is no evidence
consistent with alien status being the determining factor for employment-related identity
theft/forgery charging decisions made by these Bureaus. [Id.]
Earl testified that disproportionate in her report is not meant to argue that MCAOs
(including Special Crimes) enforcement of the Laws is disproportionate to unauthorized
alien offender groups rate of offending. She testified that she did not make any such
comparison and does not know of any facts or data available to make any such
comparison. She did not have access to any facts and she does not have any opinion that
the race or immigration status of an offender motivated arrests or prosecutions for
26
27
28
-37-
PSOF
No.
violations of the Identity Theft Laws. [CASOF, 54] Earl testified that she has no facts
and no opinion establishing that the alleged collaborative relationship between MCSOMCAO caused any particular effect on how employment-related identity theft/forgery
cases were handled. [CDCSOF, 237]
4
5
6
at1106. The assignment of cases and/or the relative number of employment-related
identity theft/forgery cases filed by Special Crimes does not show that MCAOs
I-9 System. Whether only one case or hundreds of cases, the case is not preempted where
the offender used anothers identity in employment circumstances is not regulated by the I9 System.
7
8
9
10
11
100
Undisputed but:
12
Irrelevant. See CDCSOF, 99.
13
Immaterial. See CDCSOF, 99.
14
15
101
16
17
18
102
Undisputed but:
19
20
21
Undisputed but:
103
Undisputed but:
22
23
24
25
104

Lack of foundation as to first sentence re: alleged reasons for Thomas Administration
assignment to Special Crimes in 2008 - 2010. Cited evidence does not state any such
26
27
28
-38-
PSOF
No.
reasons.
Irrelevant as to second sentence: There is no evidence showing that County Attorney

Montgomery adopted or ratified statements in the cited September 2008 summary report
Lai Ex. 28, which is dated more than two years before he began his term in Office. County
Attorney Montgomery testified to the contrary. [CDCSOF, 228]
5
6
Incomplete as to reasons for Montgomerys assignment to Special Crimes, which included

Special Crimes prosecutors expertise in managing cases involving large volumes of
documents, multiple defendants and inter-related Grand Jury indictments. [CDCSOF,
238]
7
8
9
10
Irrelevant, See CDCSOF, 99.
11
Immaterial, See CDCSOF, 99.
12
105
14
Lack of foundation as to first sentence re: alleged reason for Thomas Administration
assignment to Special Crimes in 2008 - 2010. Cited evidence does not state any such
reasons.
15
13
16
17

106
18
19
20

107
21
24
25
26
27
28
Undisputed but:
22
23
Undisputed but:

108
Undisputed that Montgomery re-assigned employment-related identity theft/forgery cases

to Special Crimes Bureau as primary assignment, but Partly Disputed because:
Mischaracterizes testimony; Montgomery testified that he re-assigned to Special Crimes
for reasons based on their experience, expertise and law enforcement relationships relevant
-39-
PSOF
No.
to prosecuting these crimes. [CDCSOF, 238] He testified that, during his campaign, he
took the position that he would work with Sheriff Arpaio on law enforcement matters,
rather than create division between the two law enforcement agencies. [CDCSOF, 239]
Montgomery testified that he did not make promises to return to any specific Thomas
policy; rather, he testified that he was committed to enforcing all state laws in a full and
fair manner where they met the evidentiary standards and contained constitutionally
acquired evidence and resulted in a reasonable likelihood of conviction. [CDCSOF,
239]
4
5
6
7
8
Inadmissible hearsay as to reporters statements and opinions in cited news article Lai Ex.
95.
9
10
11
12
109
13
Irrelevant. MCAOs prosecution of human smuggling law/ARS 13 - 2319 is not at issue

in this lawsuit.
14
at1106. Interactions between MCSO/Special Crimes on enforcement of human smuggling
law/ARS 13 2319 do not show that County Defendants enforcement of the entirely
separate identity theft laws had a practical effect on federal regulation over the I-9
System. This evidence does not demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt
by the I-9 System.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Undisputed but:
110
Disputed because:
Lack of foundation; cited deposition of MCAO deputy does not establish personal
knowledge of any role by Thomas regarding MCSOs creation and staffing of CEU. The
deputys testimony at most shows that MCAO personnel attended meetings with MCSO
during which MCSO provided information updates on MCSO staffing.
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that Montgomery had any role in MCSOs
creation and staffing of CEU, which occurred years before Montgomery began his term in
Office.
26
27
28
-40-
PSOF
No.
at1106.
3
4
5
The fact that CEU was created and staffed does not show that County Defendants
I-9 System. This evidence does not demonstrate that Congress intended to preempt
by the I-9 System.
6
7
8
9
111

Incomplete. The referenced meetings terminated on May 1, 2010. There is no evidence
that they restarted at any time afterwards. See CDCSOF, 30.
10
11
12
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that the referenced meetings occurred during
County Attorney Montgomerys term in Office. [CASOF, 84]
13
14
112
15

Incomplete. The referenced meetings terminated on May 1, 2010. There is no evidence
that they restarted at any time afterwards. See CDCSOF, 30.
16
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that the referenced meetings occurred during
County Attorney Montgomerys term in Office. [CASOF, 84]
17
18

19
See also objections re: PSOF on worksite enforcement processes, CDCSOF, 29 - 44.
20
21
22
23
24
113
Partly Disputed because: See objections re: PSOF on worksite enforcement processes,
CDCSOF, 29 - 44.
114

Mischaracterization of evidence. Cited documents do not demonstrate MCSO routinely
sent pre-action operations plans during the Montgomery Administration. Cited documents
show one operations plan sent on April 25, 2011 in Lai Ex. 121.
25
Irrelevant/Immaterial.
See objections re: PSOF on worksite enforcement processes,
26
27
28
-41-
PSOF
No.
CDCSOF, 29 - 44.
Irrelevant/Immaterial. See objections re: PSOF on Special Crimes, CDCSOF, 65, 99,
104, 105, 109, 229, 236 - 238.
5
6
115
104, 105, 109, 229, 236 - 238.
8
9
Irrelevant/Immaterial. See objections in CDCSOF, 65 and CDCSOF, 229, 230, 232

re: Earls trend and pattern opinions and Dr. Cohens rebuttals thereof.
10
11
116
12
Dispute Earls findings/conclusions, See Dr. Cohens findings, opinions, conclusions and
rebuttal, Ex. 1 - 4 to CASOF.
104, 105, 109, 229, 236 - 239.
13
14
Dispute Earls findings/conclusions, se See Dr. Cohens findings, opinions, conclusions

117
15

23
Irrelevant. There is no evidence showing that Special Crimes used a different charging
standard when reviewing MCSO submittals versus other law enforcement agencies
submittals. The evidence is to the contrary; prosecutors sworn testimony is that the same
charging standard was used for all submittals as to all offenders. There is no evidence
showing that Special Crimes prosecutors violated the charging standard when they
reviewed MCSO submittals. Earl testified that she has no facts and no opinion establishing
that the alleged collaborative relationship between MCSO-MCAO caused any particular
effect on how employment-related identity theft/forgery cases were handled. See
CDCSOF, 47, 54, 65, 99, 236 - 238 and CASOF, 41 - 57 showing that MCAOs
prosecutions do not turn on immigration status or immigration consequences, and do not
treat unauthorized aliens in a disparate manner. There is no evidence showing that Special
Crimes prosecutions of these cases had a practical effect on immigration. Puente
Arizona, 821 F.3d at1106.
24
Immaterial. See same objection, CDCSOF, 65, 99, 104, 105, 109.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
118
Disputed because:
26
27
28
-42-
PSOF
No.
Mischaracterizes testimony; in cited testimony, Brockman testified that he did not

remember whether he met with FITE prosecutors, or not.
Irrelevant. See CDCSOF, 65, 99, 117.
Immaterial. See CDCSOF, 65, 99, 117.
6
7
119
Not Disputed but:

Immaterial. See CDCSOF, 65, 99, 117.
8
9
120

10
Irrelevant/Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that County Defendants enforced the

Identity Theft Laws or Forgery Law in a disparate manner as to unauthorized alien
offenders. Earl testified that she has no such facts or opinions. The evidence is to the
contrary; MCAOs prosecutions (the majority of which were conducted by Special Crimes)
did not treat unauthorized aliens differently than other offenders. See CDCSOF, 47, 54,
65, 99 and CASOF, 41 - 57.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
121
Defendants do not know what Plaintiff means by keen interest. Therefore, Defendants
dispute but note that the SOF is not material.
122
Undisputed but not a material.
123
124
125
126
Not Disputed but:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Irrelevant/Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that MCAO prosecutors used

statistics about cases involving illegal immigration in making charging or plea decisions
in identity theft/forgery cases. The undisputed evidence shows that prosecution decisions
did not turn on immigration status/immigration consequences. See CDCSOF, 47, 54,
65, 99, 127 and CASOF, 41 57.
Maintaining statistics on individual characteristics of offenders such as immigration status
is a generally accepted practice in the law enforcement community and allows for accurate
-43-
PSOF
No.
reporting of criminal justice data for statistical purposes. See, e.g., ARS 41-1750, 411751,
41-2201,
41-2205;
AAC
R13-1-01
et
seq.;
http://www.azdps.gov/About/Organization/Technical_Services/Records_Identification.
[CDCSOF, 240]
4
5
There is no evidence that MCAOs maintenance of statistics on offender immigration

status proximately caused any MCAO prosecutor to treat unauthorized alien offenders
differently in employment-related identity theft/forgery cases. See CDCSOF, 45, 54,
65, 99.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
127
Not disputed but:

Irrelevant/Immaterial. There is no evidence showing that MCAO prosecutors used
statistics about cases involving illegal immigration in making charging or plea decisions
in identity theft/forgery cases.
In 2005, MCAO established a written policy requiring input of data on immigration status
of an offender into the agencys electronic case management system. This policy applies
to all crimes and all offenders. It is for statistical purposes, only, such as annual reports,
grant reports, public information requests, administrative staffing/caseload decisions.
[CDCSOF, 241] This policy expressly prohibits any prosecutorial reliance on
immigration data for charging/pleas:
This Alien Characteristic information shall be gathered solely for statistical purposes.
No deputy county attorney (DCA) shall use this information to make prosecution decisions
regarding charging or what plea offer should be made.
18
[Id.]
19
20
21
There is no evidence showing that MCAO prosecutors violated the above quoted
prohibition. The undisputed evidence is the opposite. See CDCSOF, 45, 54, 65, 99 and
CASOF, 41 - 57 showing that MCAOs prosecutions do not turn on immigration status
or immigration consequences, and do not treat unauthorized aliens in a disparate manner.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Maintaining statistics on individual characteristics of offenders such as immigration status

is a generally accepted practice in the law enforcement community and allows for accurate
reporting of criminal justice data for statistical purposes. See, e.g., ARS 41-1750, 411751,
41-2201,
41-2205;
AAC
R13-1-01
et
seq.;
[CDCSOF, 240] There is no evidence that MCAOs maintenance of statistics on offender
-44-
PSOF
No.
immigration status proximately caused any MCAO prosecutor to treat unauthorized alien
offenders differently in employment-related identity theft/forgery cases. See CDCSOF,
45, 54, 65, 99.
4
5
128
Undisputed.
129
Disputed as to the implication, and the difference is not material. CEU only worked tips
that could be verified. See CDCSOF, 251.
130
Undisputed.
131
Undisputed. For context, the cited exhibit also indicates the computer crimes division
also participated in the execution of search warrants.
132
Undisputed. For context, the cited exhibit indicates that MCSO would zip-tie people who
tried to evade them or who were being taken into custody. Further, the cited testimony
does not include the language, The worksite operations were low risk
133
The cited exhibit does not support the factual assertion. The exhibit does not discuss any
operations other than Gold Canyon Candle Company, and the testimony does not indicate
that employees were detained for four hours; it indicates the time MCSO arrived on scene
and the time the company resumed normal working conditions.
134
Undisputed to the extent that CES did have some deputies conducting investigations who
were not certified as detectives. For context, the cited testimony does not indicate that
those people had no detective training, and it makes clear that certification was not
required at that time to be a detective.
19
135
20
136
21
137
This is not a material fact, and Defendants will make no additional response, given the
ongoing nature of the cited litigation.
138
139
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-45-
PSOF
No.
140
Objection: best evidence rule. Further, this is not a material fact, and Defendants will
make no additional response, given the ongoing nature of the cited litigation.
141
Partially disputed. Sgt. Brockman testified that he didnt know if [MCAO was or was
not] aware of the Sheriffs Office procedure for conducting search warrant operations on
businesses in connection with the Employer Sanctions Units work. See Brockman Depo.
at 83:2-7 (Lai Ex. 33).
4
5
6
7
See CDCSOF, 130.
8
9
142
Undisputed, but immaterial. Rulings in cases involving other parties and other claims are
not controlling here. In Puente Arizona, 821 F.3d 1098, the Ninth Circuit held that there is
no facial preemption and established its analytical framework for reviewing preemption
claims in this case; this is the court ruling that is controlling here.
143
Partially disputed. See response to 130.
10
11
12
Irrelevant/Immaterial. While filing a charge for each false document was often done, it
was not always done. Charging depends on satisfying the reasonable likelihood of
conviction standard. [CASOF, 11, 46 - 51; See also, CDCSOF, 76]
13
14
15
144
Partially Disputed, as the next paragraph points out that the Plea Policy was changed. See
response to 130.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pleas and sentencing result from a court supervised process. Plea agreements are subject
to mutual agreement between the State and the Defendant (and defense counsel), are
subject to final approval by the State Court, and are subject to withdrawal by the
Defendant. CR 17.1 17.5, Ariz. R. Crim. P. [CDCSOF, 243] There is no evidence
showing that MCAO coerced any plea agreement with any offender (including
-46-
PSOF
No.
3
4
unauthorized alien offenders) in any employment-related identity theft/forgery cases.

145
5
6
Undisputed but:
Irrelevant/Immaterial. See CDCSOF, 144.
Partially disputed. Argumentative. Also, the correct Bates Number is MCAO-026099131, not as cited. Cited testimony does not support SOF.
Irrelevant/Immaterial. See CDCSOF, 144.
146
147
Undisputed, but irrelevant and immaterial. There is no evidence that MCAO prosecutors
charged employment-related identity theft/forgery in violation of the reasonable likelihood
of conviction charging standard. See CASOF, 46 57. There is no claim in this case
pertaining to the charging of misdemeanants who make false statements to police officers.
148
Disputed.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Argumentative. Also, the undisputed evidence does not support PSOF 148. These
Declarants used anothers identity to work at Uncle Sams restaurant. They were arrested
by MCSO and charged with identity theft for work. They negotiated and signed a plea
agreement to reduce charges and
They subsequently voluntarily
withdrew from the plea agreements and testimonial agreements when the preliminary
injunction was entered in this case. The identity theft charges were dismissed. They
continue to live in Arizona. They continue to participate in Puente activities. They have
not been punished for their identity theft crimes. [CDCSOF, 244]
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Immaterial. County Defendants have no enforcement authority over any alleged labor
issues between Declarants and their employer. There is no evidence showing that the
identity theft charges brought against these Declarants disrupted any labor action being
taken by any federal or state agency. Further, there is no evidence showing that the DOLDHS MOU addresses criminal enforcement by federal or state criminal justice agencies. It
is limited to civil administrative actions by DOL-DHS, only. See CDCSOF, 5.
NOTE: Montgomery filed a motion for an order unsealing the plea agreements and
testimonial agreements in State v. Villaneuva/State v. Abundez-Gonzales, CR 2013004698-001 and -003 (Maricopa County Superior Court), so that this Court can fairly
consider them along with the Villaneuva and Abundez-Gonzales Declarations submitted
-47-
PSOF
No.
with PSOF. [CDCSOF, 245] As of this filing, the Superior Court has not yet ruled on
that motion. If the motion is granted, Montgomery will Seek leave to supplement the
record on dispositive motions herein to provide those agreements to this Court.
4
5
149
Disputed but not material. The cited exhibit does not support the factual assertion. The
testimony actually related only to the Uncle Sams operation, not to all worksite
investigations, and the deponent indicated that he did not recall any suspects alleging labor
violations.
150
See objections at CDCSOF, 148.
151
Undisputed but Immaterial. See objections at CDCSOF, 6 - 9.
152
Undisputed except that the cited exhibit does not support the factual assertion that MCAO
prosecuted suspects from the Sportex Apparel investigation.
12
153
Undisputed.
13
154
See objections at CDCSOF, 148.
14
155
This is not a material fact, and Defendants do not know what Plaintiffs mean by does not
appear to have pursued any case Defendants make no additional response given the
ongoing nature of companion litigation regarding Uncle Sams.
156
Undisputed, but Exhibit to WM Resp to RFA #14 is Exhibit 29, not Exh. 28 as stated in
SOF.
6
7
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
Immaterial. The preliminary injunction order did not apply to forgery prosecutions. Doc.
133 at 42. The Court specifically excluded forgery, stating that Defendants will continue
to have other laws with which they can combat identity theft. Id. at 29.
19
20
21
22
23
157
Undisputed, but immaterial. See CDCSOF, 70, 71, 78.
158
159
160
Undisputed.
161
24
25
26
27
28
-48-
PSOF
No.
162
Undisputed for purposes of summary judgment only.
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
23
181
24
182
25
183
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
26
27
28
-49-
PSOF
No.
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
Undisputed, but immaterial. See CDCSOF, 57.
200
201
22
Undisputed, but MCAO 022035 is not one of the pages of Ex. 148. Ex. 148 does not
support the SOF. There is a graph at MCAO-023057-58 that supports the statement in
parenthesis in the supporting evidence column.
23
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
202
25
203
26
27
28
-50-
PSOF
No.
204
205
Undisputed, but argumentative as to use of substantial amount of sales tax mean in the
declaration.
6
7
206
declaration.

9
10
declaration.
11
207
12
208
Undisputed, but immaterial. Taxpayers personal opinions do not control congressional

intent regarding preemption.
209

210

211
13
14
15
16
17
19
212
Undisputed that Cervantes completed the Form W-4 and Form A-4 using a social security
number not her own. She pled guilty to aggravated identity theft in State v. Sara
Cervantes-Arreola, CR2013-103071-002. [CASOF, 66]
See CDCSOF, 211.
20
213
See CDCSOF, 211.
21
214
Disputed. Misstatement of fact. Cervantes completed the Form W-4 and Form A-4 using
a social security number not her own. [CASOF, 66] MCAOs charging document
against Cervantes relied on the Form W-4 and Form A-4, as well as a Form I-9. [CASOF,
72] Plaintiffs admit that the Form W-4 and Form A-4 are not required to establish any I9 Requirement. [CASOF, 64]
215
Undisputed that Estrada completed a job application, Form W-4 and Form A-4 using
anothers name and social security number. She pled guilty to aggravated identity theft in
18
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-51-
PSOF
No.
State v. Elia Estrada, CR2014-146305. [CASOF, 67]
216
See CDCSOF, 215.
217
Disputed. Misstatement of fact. Estrada completed a job application, Form W-4 and
Form A-4 using anothers name and social security number. [CASOF, 67] Plaintiffs
admit that none of these documents is required to establish any I-9 Requirement. [CASOF,
64]
218
Undisputed.
219
Undisputed, but Exh 160 relates to Estrada, not Cervantes.
10
220
Undisputed.
11
221
Undisputed.
12
222
Undisputed that CR 32 provides relief to qualifying petitioners but move to strike Higgins
Declaration, See County Defendants Joint Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment. Also, calls for legal conclusion; CR 32 speaks for itself.
223
Undisputed that in the ordinary course, a CR 32 proceeding would not complete within
seven months of entry of a final disposition of a criminal case, but move to strike Higgins
Declaration, See County Defendants Joint Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment. Also, calls for legal conclusion; CR 32 speaks for itself.
6
7
13
14
15
16
17
18
COUNTY DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED
19
MATERIAL FACTS PER LRCIV 56.1(B)(2)
20
224.
21
employer sanctions laws and identity theft amendment prior to early January 2008, when
22
those provisions became effective.
23
sanctions laws and identity theft amendments y ended in approximately May 2010, before
24
25
Kratovil testified that she does not recall communicating with MCSO about the
The regular meetings on the newly enacted employer
County Attorney Montgomerys term in Office. [Kratovil Depo., 180:1 181:5 (CDCSOF
Ex. 1); CASOF, 83 - 84]]
26
27
28
-52-
225.
enforcement procedure. See CASOF, 83 -84; ASOF, 20, 23, 25 29, 31, 35; See also
Kratovil Depo. 115:10 - 116:13, 204:3 - 205:17 (CDCSOF Ex. 1).
226. The Days Inn worksite operation included extensive investigative work as shown in the
related MCSO Investigative Report.
MELC445914 MELC446188 (CDCSOF Ex. 2).
7
8
Only non-frivolous tips led to further investigatory processes per the worksite
[See Days Inn Investigative Report, Bates Nos.

Public court records show that two
arrestees from this operation were charged with identity theft on Non-Form I-9 Documents
including Form A-4 and job application. These two arrestees ultimately pled to lesser
charges. [Grand Jury Indictment and Minute Entry on Plea, State v. Guzman, CR2012-
9
10
006350-003 (Maricopa County Superior Court)(CDCSOF Ex. 3); Direct Complaint and
Minute Entry on Plea, State v. Arizmendi Trujillo, CR2011-143850-001 (Maricopa County
11
Superior Court)(CDCSOF Ex. 3)] Disclosure of court information on other arrestees from
12
this operation is precluded by statute. ARS 13-2812.
13
227. Dr. Cohen found that MCAO declined to file charges as to approximately 9% of
14
offenders submitted for employment-related violations of A.R.S. 13-2008(A), 13-
15
2009(A)(3) and/or 13-2002. [Table E-9 to Cohen Orig. Dec. at CASOF Ex. 1]
16
228. There is no evidence showing that Montgomery adopted or ratified statements made in
17
the cited September 2008 summary report Lai Ex. 28, which is dated more than two years
18
before Montgomery began his term in Office. Montgomerys uncontroverted testimony is no
19
ratification/adoption of Lai Ex. 28. [Doc. 76-2, Montgomery Dec., 4]
20
229. Dr. Cohen found that annual trends showing an increase in enforcement are to be
21
expected for any new law such as the identity theft amendments. Dr. Cohen found that it
22
would not be surprising to see a ramp up and growth over the first few years of a new statute
23
as law enforcement agencies and prosecutors begin to incorporate this new statute into their
24
portfolio of statutes they need to enforce. When a new statute is enacted, there will be a
25
26
27
28
spike in the first year or two as the pipeline of cases begin to make their way into the
criminal justice system. He found that the increase in use of forgery with ARS 13-53-
2009(A)(3) starting in 2007 was the result of the new enactment of the latter law. [Cohen
Orig. Dec., 43, 141 - 143 and Table 5 at CASOF Ex. 1; Cohen Third Dec., 3(a), 4, at
CASOF Ex. 4]
230.
activity/victim complaints decrease in response to active enforcement of criminal laws
(deterrence).
7
8
Dr. Cohen found that downward trends in enforcement occur when criminal
Dr. Cohen found that FTC victim complaints dropped after County
Defendants active enforcement of employment-related identity theft/forgery began.

Subsequent to drops in criminal activity/complaints, enforcement numbers correspondingly
drop. [Cohen Orig. Dec., 19, 43, 70 73, 141 - 143 and Table 5 at CASOF Ex. 1]
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
231. 3% of cases relied on a Form I-9 in combination with a social security card; 2% of
cases relied on a Form I-9 in combination with a state drivers license/identification card.
[Cohen Orig. Dec., 128 and Table E-34 at CASOF Ex. 1]
232. Dr. Cohen found that Earls methodology was flawed and that her findings were not
reliable when she attempted to use the forgery statute as a baseline to compare annual
trends in enforcement of employment-related identity theft/forgery cases before and after
2008. Dr. Cohen found that there is no reason to believe that the growth or decline in the
16
incidence of employment-related ID theft/forgery is necessarily related to the growth or
17
decline in forgery in general. He found that they are different crimes both in terms of the
18
elements of the crime and the motivations. As such, he found that they might be subject to
19
different macro and micro economic factors none of which Dr. Earl attempted to establish
20
in any way. For example, at the macro-economic level, employment-related ID theft might
21
be positively related to economic growth as the opportunities to engage in this type crime
22
23
increase with the availability of jobs, whereas forgery might be negatively related to
economic growth as people with jobs are less likely to commit crimes of forgery monetary
instruments such as checks or credit applications. At the micro-economic level, employment-
24
related ID theft/forgery is likely to be motivated by an individuals desire to obtain
25
employment he or she is not otherwise qualified for for a variety of potential reasons such
26
27
28
-54-
as lack of professional credentials, prior convictions, illegal alien status, etc. However, the
crime of forgery might be motivated by completely different set of circumstances such as
economic fraud or domestic disputes. Thus, there is no reason to believe that trends in
4
5
6
7
forgery and identity theft in general would be related to trends in employment-related ID

theft/forgery. [Cohen Orig. Dec., 142 at CASOF Ex. 1]
233. Earl testified that she did nothing to objectively test her forgery as a baseline
methodology. [Earl Depo., 152:15 153:6 (CDCSOF Ex. 4)]
234. Dr. Cohen found that MCSO submitted employment-related identity theft/forgery
charges against 662 offenders in 2005 2015. Cohen Orig. Dec., 136 and Table 4, Table
10
E-14 at CASOF Ex. 1]

Earl replicated Dr. Cohens data analyses without identifying any errors. [Cohen 3rd
11
235.
12
Dec., 3(d) at CASOF Ex. 4]
13
235. Qualifying employers are required by state law to pay unemployment taxes on wages
14
paid to each qualifying employee in a calendar year. These employers are required to report
15
all gross wages and unemployment taxes paid to DES on a quarterly Unemployment Tax and
16
Wage Report. See, e.g., ARS 23 601 et seq., Employment Security Statutes; ARS
17
18
23-721 et seq., Contribution Statutes; DES Unemployment Insurance Administration

Employer
Handbook,
Part
400,
https://des.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/Employer%2520Handbook%2520(v3)%5B1%5D.
19
pdf. Failure to duly report to DES is sanctioned by state law. ARS 23-723.
20
21
22
236. Dr. Cohen found that the fact that Earls opinions regarding the number of Special
Crimes employment-related identity theft/forgery prosecutions are not meaningful.
As
discussed in CDCSOF, 229, he found that annual trends showing an increase in

23
enforcement is to be expected for any new law that is put into place. In addition, Dr. Cohen
24
found that it makes sense for Bureaus to specialize in certain areas of law enforcement that
25
is a more efficient method of managing a prosecuting agency. [Cohen 3rd Dec, 3(b), 4, 11
26
27
28
-55-
13 at CASOF Ex. 4] He found that Earl identified no evidence showing that the number of
Special Crimes prosecutions resulted from an application of prosecutorial charging policy
substantively different from other Bureaus. [Id.] Upon analyzing the charging data, Dr.
4
5
Cohen found that Special Crimes prosecutors and FITE prosecutors charge unauthorized
alien offenders at similar rates when they had primary responsibility to prosecute
employment-related identity theft/forgery. Specifically, he found that, in 2010, when a
6
7
significant number of employment-related ID theft/forgery cases were shifted from Special

Crimes to FITE, the pattern of cases looked almost identical to Special Crimes cases. For
example, in years other than 2010, 51% of FITE employment-related identity theft/forgery
offenders were identified as being unauthorized alien offenders. However, in 2010, 88% of
10
FITE employment-related identity theft/forgery
11
offenders. The latter figure is similar to the 93% of employment-related identity theft/forgery
12
offenders found to be unauthorized alien offenders in the Special Crimes subset. He found
13
14
offenders were unauthorized alien
that the FITE caseload looked virtually identical to the Special Crimes caseload when
comparing the percentage of employment-related identity theft/forgery offenders who were
identified as being illegal aliens and the percentage of cases involving individual victims and
15
16
17
Hispanic victims. He concluded that there is no evidence consistent with alien status being
the determining factor for employment-related identity theft/forgery charging decisions made
by these Bureaus. [Id.]
18
19
237.
Earl testified that she has no facts and no opinion establishing that the alleged
collaborative relationship between MCSO-MCAO caused any particular effect on how

20
21
employment-related identity theft/forgery cases were handled. [Earl Depo., 203:20 206:2
(CDCSOF Ex. 4)]
22
23
24
238.
Montgomerys assignment to Special Crimes, which included Special Crimes
prosecutors expertise in managing cases involving large volumes of documents, multiple

defendants and inter-related Grand Jury indictments. [Doc. 76-2, Montgomery Dec., 8]
25
Montgomery testified that he re-assigned to Special Crimes for reasons based on their
26
27
28
-56-
experience, expertise and law enforcement relationships relevant to prosecuting these crimes.
[Montgomery Depo., 130:4 132:2 (CDCSOF Ex. 5)]
239. Montgomery testified that, during his campaign, he took the position that he would
work with Sheriff Arpaio on law enforcement matters, rather than create division between
the two law enforcement agencies. [Montgomery Depo., 111:19 114:8 (CDCSOF Ex.5)]
Montgomery testified that he did not make promises to return to any specific Thomas policy;
7
8
9
rather, he testified that he was committed to enforcing all state laws in a full and fair manner
where they met the evidentiary standards and contained constitutionally acquired evidence
and resulted in a reasonable likelihood of conviction. [Montgomery Depo., 105: 13-106:16
(CDCSOF Exhibit 5)]
10
11
240. Maintaining statistics on individual characteristics of offenders such as immigration

status is a generally accepted practice in the law enforcement community and allows for
12
13
14
15
accurate reporting of criminal justice data for statistical purposes. See, e.g., ARS 411750,
41-1751,
41-2201,
41-2205;
AAC
R13-1-01
et
seq.;
241. In 2005, MCAO established a written policy requiring input of data on immigration
16
status of an offender into the agencys electronic case management system. This policy
17
applies to all crimes and all offenders.
18
reports, grant reports, public information requests, administrative staffing/caseload decisions.
19
[Rafidi Depo., 146:11 147:24 (CDCSOF Ex. 6); MCAO Policy 14.12, Bates MCAO-
20
026138 (CDCSOF Ex. 7); Memorandum RE: MCAO Policy 14.12, Bates Nos. MCAO-
21
22
It is for statistical purposes, only, such as annual
026150 (CDCSOF Ex. 8); Third Supplemental Declaration of Deborah MacKenzie

(MacKenzie 3rd Supp. Dec.), 4 (CDCSOF Ex. 9)] This policy expressly prohibits any
prosecutorial reliance on immigration data for charging/pleas:
23
24
25
This Alien Characteristic information shall be gathered solely for statistical purposes.
No deputy county attorney (DCA) shall use this information to make prosecution decisions
regarding charging or what plea offer should be made.
26
27
28
-57-
[MCAO Policy 14.12, Bates MCAO-026138 (CDCSOF Ex. 7)(emphasis added); See also,
Memorandum RE: MCAO Policy 14.12, Bates Nos. MCAO-026150 (CDCSOF Ex. 8)]
242. There is no evidence showing that MCAOs former Plea Policy 7.13 applied only to
unauthorized alien offenders or only to employment-related identity theft cases. The former
Plea Policy itself disproves any such notion. [Former MCAO Policy 7.13, MCAO-026132
(CDCSOF Ex. 10); MacKenzie 3rd Supp. Dec., 4 (CDCSOF Ex. 9)]
7
8
9
was adopted in both identity theft and auto theft cases to address the elevated rates
of these crimes in Maricopa County an obvious traditional state police power purpose.
[MCAO Press Release, MCAO-026605 026606 (CDCSOF Ex. 11); Former MCAO Policy
10
7.12, MCAO-027645 (CDCSOF Ex. 12); MacKenzie 3rd Supp. Dec., 4 (CDCSOF Ex. 9)]
11
These former Plea Policies were changed in 2015, deleting
12
[MCAO Memorandum RE: Summary of
13
Policy Revisions, MCAO-027459 60 (CDCSOF Ex. 13); Current MCAO Policy 7.13,
14
MCAO-026133 (CDCSOF Ex. 10) and Current MCAO Policy 7.12, MCAO-027646
15
(CDCSOF Ex. 12); MacKenzie 3rd Supp. Dec., 4 (CDCSOF Ex. 9)] Plea policies are
subject to deviation based upon individual case circumstances. [Doc. 76-2, Montgomery
16
17
18
Dec., 17, 19, 20; Gingold Dec., 7 at CASOF Ex. 12; Kratovil Dec., 9 at CASOF Ex. 13;
Leckrone Dec., 8 at CASOF Ex. 14; McKessy Dec., 8 at CASOF Ex. 16; MCAO Policy
7.3, MCAO-027790 (CDCSOF Ex. 14); MacKenzie 3rd Supp. Dec., 4 (CDCSOF Ex. 9)]
19
243. Pleas and sentencing result from a court supervised process. Plea agreements are
20
subject to mutual agreement between the State and the Defendant (and defense counsel), are
21
subject to final approval by the State Court, and are subject to withdrawal by the Defendant.
22
CR 17.1 17.5, Ariz. R. Crim. P.
23
244. Abundez-Gonzalez/Villanueva Declarants used anothers identity to work at Uncle
24
Sams restaurant. They were arrested by MCSO and charged with identity theft for work.
25
They negotiated and signed a plea agreement to reduce charges and
26
27
28
-58-
1
2
They subsequently voluntarily withdrew from the plea agreements and
3
4
5
testimonial agreements when the preliminary injunction was entered in this case.
The
identity theft charges were dismissed. They continue to live in Arizona. They continue to
participate in Puente activities. They have not been punished for their identity theft crimes.
6
7
Minute Entry 10/30/13, Minute
Entry 02/27/15, Minute Entry 04/29/15, State v. Villaneuva/State v. Abundez-Gonzales, CR
2013-004698-001 and -003 (Maricopa County Superior Court) (CDCSOF Ex. 16);
10
[Declaration of Valentin Villanueva, 3, 12, 14, 19, 20; Declaration of Fernando Abundez-
11
Gonzalez, 3, 14, 15, 18, 19 (Exhibits to PSOF)]
12
245. Montgomery filed a motion for an order unsealing the plea agreements and testimonial
13
agreements in State v. Villaneuva/State v. Abundez-Gonzales, CR 2013-004698-001 and -003
14
(Maricopa County Superior Court), so that this Court can fairly consider them along with the
15
16
Villaneuva and Abundez-Gonzales Declarations submitted with PSOF. [See Under Seal
Order and Minute Entry 10/30/13, State v. Villaneuva/State v. Abundez-Gonzales, CR 2013004698-001 and -003 (Maricopa County Superior Court) (CDCSOF Ex. 16)]
17
18
245.
19
20
21
22
There is no evidence showing that any such petition ever was filed by Cervantes.
246.
23
24
25
There is no
evidence showing that any such petition ever was filed by Estrada.
26
27
28
-59-
247. Puentes executive director Carlos Garcia testified that its unauthorized alien members
regularly attend its functions in Arizona and use other peoples identities for work despite
allegedly fearing possible enforcement against their use of the identity of another for work in
4
5
6
violation of the state identity theft laws. [Garcia Dec., 3, 14 21 (Unnumbered PSOF
Exhibit)]
248.
7
8
9
10
249. Puentes Doe Members continue to participate in Puente functions and work in Arizona
11
while they knowingly use anothers identity to work in violation of the state identity theft
12
13
laws. [Dec. Jane Doe I, 1 5, Dec. John Doe I, 1 5, Dec. John Doe II, 1 7
(Exhibits to PSOF)]
14
250.
15
members in Arizona after being arrested and prosecuted for use of anothers identity for
16
17
Declarants Abundez-Gonzales and Villaneuva continue to participate as Puente
work in violation of the state identity theft laws. [Dec. Villanueva, 3, 12, 14, 19, 20; Dec.
Abundez-Gonzalez, 3, 14, 15, 18, 19 (Exhibits to PSOF)]
18
251. MCSO only worked tips that were credible and could be verified. [Gonzalez Aff.,
19
SOF, Ex. 12]
20
252. It is logical that the decline in identity theft/forgery cases after 2012 is related to
21
increased enforcement between 2007 and 2012. [Cohen Orig. Dec., 143].
22
253. Identity theft is never a victimless crime. [Cohen Orig. Dec., 57].
23
24
25
26
27
28
254. In deposition testimony, Sheriff Arpaio testified that his interest is in rectifying
violations of the law, not in regulating who hires who. [Arpaio Depo, 106:24-107:2
(CDCSOF Ex. 20)]
-60-
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of September, 2016.
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
3
4
BY: /s/ Ann Thompson Uglietta

ANN THOMPSON UGLIETTA
J. KENNETH MANGUM
Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County and
Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery
5
6
7
8
IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

9
BY: /s/Michele M. Iafrate w/permission

MICHELE MARIE IAFRATE
RENEE J. WATERS
Attorneys for Sheriff Joseph Arpaio
10
11
12
13
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 16, 2016, I caused the foregoing document to
be electronically transmitted to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing
and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Honorable David G. Campbell

United States District Court
401 West Washington Street, SPC 58
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2158
Anne Lai
Sameer Ashar
University of California, Irvine School
Of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic
401E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500
Irvine, CA 92616-5479
sashar@law.uci.edu
alai@law.uci.edu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Daniel J. Pochoda
Kathleen E Brody
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
26
27
28
61
1
2
3
3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235

Phoenix, AZ 85014
dpochoda@acluaz.org
kbrody@acluaz.org
4
5
6
7
Jessica Karp Bansal

National Day Labor Organizing Network
675 S. Park View St., Ste. B
Los Angeles, CA 90057
jbansal@ndlon.org
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jessica Myers Vosburgh

National Day Laborer Organizing Network
2104 Chapel Hill Rd.
Birmingham, AL 35216
jvosburgh@ndlon.org
Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado
Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado, PLC
2701 E. Thomas Rd., Ste. A
Phoenix, AZ 85016
rybarra@stanfordalumni.org
Hector J. Diaz
Sarah R. Anchors
Edward J. Hermes
Jose A. Carillo
Quarles & Brady LLP
Renaissance One
Two North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
hector.diaz@quarles.com
sarah.anchors@quarles.com
edward.hermes@quarles.com
jose.carrillo@quarles.com
Cindy Pnuco
Dan Stormer
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Joshua Piovia-Scott
Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP
128 N Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 204
Pasadena, CA 91103
cpanuco@hadsellstormer.com
dstormer@hadsellstormer.com
jscott@hadsellstormer.com
Nicholas Espiritu
National Immigration Law Center
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
espiritu@nilc.org
Michele Marie Iafrate
Renee J. Waters
Iafrate & Associates
649 N 2nd Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
miafrate@iafratelaw.com
Attorney for Sheriff Joseph Arpaio
Brock Jason Heathcotte
Keith Joseph Miller
Office of the Attorney General
Civil Division
1275 W Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
brock.heathcotte@azag.gov
keith.miller@azag.gov
Attorney for the State of Arizona
/s/ G. Naranjo
S:\CIVIL\CIV\Matters\GN\2014\Puente AZ v Arpaio GN14-324\08 PLEADINGS\16-0916 efiling docs\Defs Amended Doc 573.doc
23
24
25
26
27
28
63
Puente Arizona et al v. Arpaio et al, Docket No. 2:14-cv-01356 (D. Ariz. Jun 18, 2014), Court Docket
General Information
Court
United States District Court for the District of Arizona; United

States District Court for the District of Arizona
Federal Nature of Suit
Constitutionality of State Statutes[950]
Docket Number
2:14-cv-01356
2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
// PAGE 64

Puente - Arizona - Et - Al - v. - Arpai Defendants' Amended Joint Controverting Statement of Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puente - Arizona - Et - Al - v. - Arpai Defendants' Amended Joint Controverting Statement of Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 63

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Puente Arizona, et al.,

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 63

County Defendants) provide their Controverting Statement of Facts (CDCSOF) in

Support of Their Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary

254 provide County Defendants Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts in

response to Plaintiffs PSJM and PSOF.

Attorney Montgomery/Maricopa Countys proposed statement of facts [Doc. 516, 518] in

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 63

docket number and other identifying information.

Certain information has been designated Attorneys Eyes Only Confidential

contain designated Attorneys Eyes-Only Confidential Information are submitted in

Because the CDCSOF

contains certain designated Attorneys Eyes-Only Confidential Information, County

COUNTY DEFENDANTS JOINT RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF FACTS PER LRCIV 56.1(B)(1)

County Defendants Response

Immaterial. Cited statement is limited to document fraud committed for purposes of

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 63

County Defendants Response

Partly Disputed because:

Partly Disputed because:

Partly Disputed because:

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 63

Federal removal laws, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i), 1127(a)(2)(A)(i), incorporate state

County Defendants Response

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 6 of 63

County Defendants Response

employers. See also CDCSOF, 6.

Not Disputed but:

Disputed because Incorrect legal argument; irrelevant. NAFTAs implementing statute

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 7 of 63

County Defendants Response

Partly Disputed because:

Partly Disputed because:

Partly Disputed because:

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 8 of 63

County Defendants Response

provisions of the Act.

Partly Disputed because:

Partly Disputed because:

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 9 of 63

Pearce in the cited article Lai Ex. 25.

Partly Disputed because:

County Defendants Response

Partly Disputed because:

Partly Disputed because:

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 10 of 63

Partly Disputed because:

County Defendants Response

Partly Disputed because:

Incomplete: See same objection, CDCSOF, 15.

Partly Disputed because:

First sentence: incomplete. See same objection, CDCSOF, 15.

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 11 of 63

County Defendants Response

Partly Disputed because:

Incomplete. See same objection, CDCSOF, 15

Partly Disputed because:

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 592 Filed 09/16/16 Page 12 of 63