Sponsored by

Comments on

In defense of Paula Aboud and maybe even 'cheating'

The more I closely I read the case against JP Paula Aboud – especially one of the charges against her — the more I think this whole thing has gone too far. The new justice of the peace faces sanctions over a "prank," but should she?... Read more»

have your say   

4 comments on this story

May 16, 2017, 10:48 am
-1 +0

I’m a friend of Paula’s so ever so slightly biased in her favor in this caper.  And I think Blake is basically correct: for whatever reason, a big deal is being made out of something of little or no importance.  Drop it and let’s move along with matters of consequence, like amending our state constitution to require testing legislative candidates’ basic knowledge of the constitutions, state and federal, they will swear to uphold when they take office.
Get a life, folks.  A joke that falls flat isn’t a misdemeanor.  Taking a piece of paper that is of minimal value isn’t a high crime.  And I’m betting Paula will do a creditable job as JP.  Any takers?

May 16, 2017, 11:14 am
-2 +1

You’ve GOT to be kidding, right?

Stealing to Cheat, and then LYING ABOUT IT?

I would LOVE to hear what happens when ANY common person advances this defense in criminal court:

“I was ONLY joking!” I wasn’t going to KEEP the money!”

“Friar Tuck” (who may be Aboud herself, we don’t know) and Blake Morelock are hopelessly biased, and based on their personal relationship with Aboud, willing to accept a nonsensical defense that No unbiased Judge in history has EVER accepted.

Look how Barbara Grijalva was raked over the coals!

May 16, 2017, 11:55 am
-1 +2

We don’t unmask our pseudonymous commenters without good reason, but we’d do so if a subject of a news report or opinion column were pretending to be someone else in the comments on it, and we knew about it. That’s not the case here.

I’m much more skeptical of this “prank” claim than Blake is, but it bears repeating that this isn’t a criminal case, and there would be only a little benefit to “cheating” on a test that doesn’t require a passing grade.

The assessment of the (at least one) direct witness to the incident would be informative, but that new JP hasn’t publicly discussed this yet.

May 16, 2017, 1:19 pm
-0 +2

I am now appearing before Judge Aboud on a criminal charge of “electronic harassment,” in which the charges are based upon an article I wrote and published on Facebook critical of Pima County Judge Sara Simmons.

“What?” you say, “Here in America you can be prosecuted criminally for expressing your opinion about a public official?” 


There is much documented evidence in the court record to support what I just said. There is even an appeal now proceeding in the Arizona Appellate Court Division 2 which asks the Court to declare that comments made on Facebook political blogs should be classified as “Political Speech” protected by the First Amendment!

Say, Dylan Smith and Blake Morlock; as reporters you should look into this. Are people REALLY being prosecuted criminally for criticizing public officials?

Respond to this and I will send you the documented evidence.

Better yet: On Friday May 19, 2017 at 11:30 am I am appearing in Judge Aboud’s court and filing a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of HER argument:

“I was Just Kidding!”

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment


news, politics & government, crime & safety, local, arizona, opinion, analysis, breaking, columnist
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1760
  • Dylan Smith: 522
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • EllieMae: 137
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by


I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Donate securely with PayPal

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

OR: Subscribe and stretch your donation over time

$5/mo. Printer's Devil
$10/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization fiscally sponsored by FCIR.org, a 501c3 charity. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.


Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by