Misuse of Authority: The Case of an Apache County Cancer Patient
In Apache County, Arizona, a disturbing case is unfolding that raises serious concerns about the misuse of authority by local law enforcement, the prosecution, and the judiciary. Joseph Lathus, a cancer patient, faces charges for allegedly obstructing a public thoroughfare. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, the Sheriff's Office, Prosecutor Brett Rigg, County Attorney Michael Whiting, and Judge Butch Gunnels of the Round Valley Justice Court persist in pursuing these charges. This situation exemplifies gross negligence and a potential misuse of power.
Background of the Case
Joseph Lathus paid for the materials to for Forest Akins to install gates on his subdivisions property to prevent cattle from wandering into residential areas, a practical measure given the strong winds and livestock in the area. The gates, designed to be easily lifted off their hinges for emergency access, were never intended to obstruct human entry. This design feature was demonstrated on multiple occasions when Apache County Sheriff’s deputies easily removed the gates in under two minutes to gain access to the property.
Despite these facts, Lathus has been charged with obstructing a public thoroughfare. The charge stems from a report by a neighbor, Christopher McHenry, who claimed the gates blocked access to his cabin. However, the evidence shows that the gates did not create an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard, a crucial requirement for an obstruction charge under Arizona law.
Legal Precedent: Mack v. Phoenix
The case of *Mack v. Phoenix City Prosecutors Office* (2014) set a clear precedent for what constitutes obstruction. The Court of Appeals of Arizona ruled that for an act to be considered obstruction, it must create an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard. Mere inconvenience without significant impact does not meet this threshold.
In Lathus's case, the quick and straightforward access by the Sheriff's deputies demonstrates that the gates did not create an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard. Therefore, the charges against Lathus do not align with the legal requirements for obstruction as defined in *Mack v. Phoenix*.
Misuse of Authority
Despite the clear legal precedent and the evidence of easy access, the prosecution and judiciary continue to pursue charges against Lathus. This persistence raises serious questions about the motivations and integrity of the authorities involved.
- **Apache County Sheriff's Office**: The deputies' own actions in quickly removing the gates contradict the obstruction charges they issued. This inconsistency suggests either a lack of understanding of the law or a deliberate misuse of their authority to target Lathus.
- **Prosecutor Brett Rigg and County Attorney Michael Whiting**: Both are aware of the legal requirements for an obstruction charge. Continuing to prosecute Lathus despite the clear evidence of non-obstruction demonstrates a troubling disregard for legal standards and ethical responsibilities.
- **Judge Butch Gunnels**: By allowing this case to proceed, Judge Gunnels also bears responsibility for perpetuating a baseless charge. The judiciary's role is to ensure justice and fairness, yet in this case, the court appears to be complicit in an unfair prosecution.
#### Impact on Lathus
Joseph Lathus, already battling cancer, now faces additional stress and hardship due to these unfounded charges. The legal battle diverts his limited energy and resources away from his health and well-being. This situation highlights a gross negligence on the part of the authorities, exacerbating the suffering of a vulnerable individual.
Conclusion
The case against Joseph Lathus reveals a disturbing misuse of authority by the Apache County Sheriff's Office, Prosecutor Brett Rigg, County Attorney Michael Whiting, and Judge Butch Gunnels. The evidence and legal precedent clearly indicate that the charges of obstructing a public thoroughfare are unfounded. Yet, the relentless pursuit of these charges against a cancer patient underscores a severe neglect of duty and abuse of power. This case calls for a critical examination of the actions of the involved authorities and an urgent need for accountability to prevent further injustice.
This ongoing situation demands public attention and scrutiny to ensure that justice prevails and that similar instances of authority misuse are prevented in the future.
