The daughter of a county supervisor has been arrested on suspicion of sexual misconduct with the same teenage boy that her mother is accused of sexually abusing over a three-year period, police said Thursday.
Rachel Katherine Brock, 21, was arrested Wednesday on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of transmitting obscene material as part of an ongoing investigation surrounding her mother, 48-year-old Susan Brock.
Both women were being held without bond at the Maricopa County jail.
In Rachel Brock’s initial court appearance, acting attorney John Rock argued that the judge should free her on bond because there appeared to be no physical evidence to support any of the charges. Rock also said the teen would have been asked if he had been a victim of any other sexual abuse when Susan Brock was arrested in October.
“It appears that he’s given contradictory information,” Rock said. But the judge wasn’t persuaded.
It was unclear whether Rachel Brock had a permanent attorney. Susan Brock’s attorney, Pheron Hall III, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Thursday.
Rachel Brock is the daughter of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, and Susan Brock is his wife of 28 years. The family lived together in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler but Fulton Brock filed for divorce after his wife’s arrest.
Rachel Brock is accused of committing numerous sex acts with the teenage boy between February 2007 and August 2008, and sending him nude photos and a video of herself masturbating; none of the acts involved intercourse. The boy was 14 at the time, and Rachel Brock was 18, classifying the crimes as dangerous crimes against children.
Police said that between August 2007 and October of this year, the teen met Susan Brock for sexual trysts. Susan Brock reportedly provided the boy with cell phones, and police seized text messages reportedly recording sexual exchanges between the two.
Chandler police Sgt. Joe Favazzo said it appears that Susan and Rachel Brock didn’t know about each other’s relationship with the teen.
“You have a situation where you have a mother who’s abusing a juvenile victim, seemingly unknowingly to the daughter, or vice versa, and the daughter is also abusing the same victim,” Favazzo said. “I just can’t imagine a mother and daughter having this conversation, and the investigators say they don’t have anything indicating the two of them knew about it.”
Read more here.
By OMAR VILLAFRANCA
Perry’s request goes ignored for more than a year.
Arizona got a response. Texas is still waiting for an answer.
After repeated requests for help, President Barack Obama has agreed to send 1,200 National Guard troops to Arizona’s border with Mexico. But so far, the president hasn’t responded to Texas’ request for assistance.
Gov. Rick Perry has sent letters to Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting National Guard troops for the Texas-Mexico border.
Almost a year and a half after the first letter was sent, Perry hasn’t received an answer.
“We’ve not received approval (or denial) regarding Gov. Perry’s request,” said Perry’s spokesperson, Katherine Cesinger, in an e-mail. “But we remain hopeful that the federal government will provide the resources we’ve requested, including 1,000 Title 32 National Guardsmen, to secure the Texas-Mexico border.”
A spokesperson at the Department of Defense said he couldn’t give more information on the status of Perry’s request.
by: Mike Levine
A team of Justice Department attorneys reviewing the new immigration law in Arizona has recommended that the U.S. government challenge the state law in federal court, but the recommendation faces an uncertain future and tough scrutiny from others in the Justice Department, sources with knowledge of the process tell Fox News.
Staff attorneys within the Justice Department recently sent higher-ups the recommendation. At the same time, the Justice Department’s Civil Division, which oversees the majority of immigration enforcement issues for the department, has drafted a “civil complaint” that would be filed in federal court in Arizona, sources said.
The draft complaint challenges the Arizona law as unconstitutional, saying it is illegal because it impedes federal law, according to the sources, who would not offer any more details about the draft complaint or the arguments made in it.
Two weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers such an issue was being considered by Justice Department lawyers reviewing the new law, which outlines and possibly broadens the authority of police to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally.
“We are examining the [Arizona] law and trying to determine if it contravenes the federal responsibility [toward] immigration, whether or not what the Arizona legislature has tried to do is actually preempted by federal law, by federal statutes.” he told the House Judiciary Committee on May 13. “The regulation of our borders and the immigration that occurs by crossing our borders is something that is inherently something I believe for the national government to take responsibility for.”
He also said it would not be “an extended period of time” before his department decides whether to take action on “preemption” grounds, adding that the Justice Department’s “view of the law will be expressed relatively soon.”
Two sources with knowledge of the review said the draft complaint, which is now receiving input from the attorney general’s office and other Justice Department offices, is not an indication that the Justice Department will ultimately file a lawsuit.
One source said the Arizona law has sparked a “huge battle” with national implications, and the Justice Department is therefore conducting a “slow analysis of all of the options.”
If Justice Department higher-ups decide to move forward with the civil complaint, concrete action likely would not take place for some time, according to the source, who predicted it will be “a while before anything would be filed.”
“This is going to be slow going,” the source said.
Holder echoed that sentiment when he was on Capitol Hill.
“There’s a wide variety of things that go into the determination that ultimately we will have to make, and I want to make sure that we take as comprehensive a look as we can before we make what I think is going to be a very consequential decision,” he said.
If the Justice Department’s Civil Division decides against filing the complaint, others within the Justice Department could step in. In fact, the attorney general’s office, the deputy attorney general’s office and the Civil Rights Division are all reviewing options.
Holder told lawmakers that the Civil Rights Division will be monitoring the application of the Arizona law, set to go into effect in late July, and could take subsequent action.
“We are concerned about the potential impact that it has and whether it contravenes federal civil rights laws, potentially leading to racial profiling,” he said. “We would constantly be monitoring it to see if there are civil rights violations, civil rights concerns, that are generated by the implementation of the law.”
He said such monitoring would occur in any case.
Kris Kobach, a Republican law professor who helped author the Arizona law, said the legislation “expressly prohibits racial profiling.” As for the issue of preemption, he said the law was “drafted extremely carefully to avoid any preemption problems at all.”
Holder said the Justice Department will also be looking at other issues, including “the history that is involved in all of this” and memos or opinions from other offices within the Justice Department.
Holder himself has raised concerns that the Arizona law could push a “wedge” between police officers and the communities they serve, something he’s expected to discuss during a meeting with police chiefs, including three from Arizona, at the Justice Department on Wednesday morning.
“Arizona police chiefs are concerned that the new … law in Arizona will drive a wedge between the community and the police, and will damage the trust that police agencies have worked to establish over many years with members of all their communities,” a statement from the police chiefs said.
Others have raised concerns that a 2002 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel could complicate federal challenges to the Arizona law, especially preemption-related challenges. The 2002 memo said state and local police can arrest illegall immigrants for violating federal law.
But after reviewing the Arizona law and options for challenging it, at least some Justice Department lawyers have concluded that the 2002 memo would not pose a problem because, in their view, it is narrow enough in scope to permit a challenge.
As for whether the U.S. government will end up challenging the Arizona law in any form, Holder recently insisted that’s still up in the air.
“I don’t know exactly … what we are ultimately going to do with regard to our review of the law,” he told lawmakers.
But, he said, there is “certainly an illegal immigration problem that this country needs to face,” and he understands the “frustration” of Arizona citizens.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment for this article.
By Stephen Dinan
The spat over Arizona’s new immigration expanded Tuesday as a state official dared the city of Los Angeles to follow through on its new boycott by agreeing to give up the 25 percent of electricity that city gets from Arizona sources.
In a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce said a boycott war is bad for both sides, and said he would “be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements” to end the electricity flowing to Los Angeles.
“I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands,” Mr. Pierce said. “If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.”
Los Angeles’s city council voted overwhelmingly last week to adopt a boycott of Arizona businesses — at least in instances where the boycott wouldn’t impose a significant economic cost to the city.
Arizona’s law requires police to ask for proof of legal residence from anyone they have reasonable suspicion is not in the country legally. In most cases a driver’s is sufficient to comply, and the law prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion, but critics say they expect the measure to spark racial profiling nonetheless.
Civil rights and Hispanic groups have sued to try to block the law, and the Obama administration is reviewing the legislation to see if it violates civil rights laws.
The law goes into effect in July, but already a number of municipalities have condemned or announced boycotts of Arizona. Mr. Villaraigosa said his city’s boycott was intended to hurt the Arizona economy.
Mr. Pierce, the Arizona official, said in his letter to Mr. Villaraigosa that this was the wrong way to go.
“I received your message; please receive mine,” he said.
A message left with the Mr. Villaraigosa’s office was not immediately returned.
But Mr. Villaraigosa offered his own tongue-in-cheek challenge to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon this week in a bet over the NBA playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and Phoenix Suns.
Mr. Villaraigosa said if Phoenix wins, Los Angeles will have to accept Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a fierce opponent of illegal immigration. If the Lakers win, Mr. Villaraigosa said Phoenix will have to accept Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, two Republicans battling for the GOP’s gubernatorial nomination in California, where illegal immigration is a major issue.