Tancredo Revokes Endorsement Of Liberal, Now Endorses The Consistent Conservative


Congressman Tom Tancredo Revokes Endorsement Of Tom Horne, Now Endorses The Consistent, Illegal Immigration Fighter Andrew Thomas
Horne’s Amnesty Plan Turned Tancredo Away

PHOENIX, ARIZONA. JULY 6, 2010.   At a crowded Attorney General debate earlier this election cycle, liberal Tom Horne said, “I’m proud to say I’m endorsed by Tom Tancredo, the former Congressman who started the national fight to fight illegal immigration”, but today that matter is changing.
After learning of Horne’s support for amnesty for illegal immigrants, Congressman Tancredo is withdrawing his endorsement and now vows to stand strong with the true conservative candidate in the race, Andrew Thomas.
The Thomas campaign released today a statement from Tancredo,
“Among my many shortcomings is the propensity to accept on face value what I am told by a candidate about themselves and their political beliefs. That was the case, I am afraid, when I endorsed Tom Horne for Attorney General in Arizona. I did not do due diligence. Mea Culpa. Let me try and rectify my rash decision by stating here that, after becoming aware of Mr. Horne’s support for amnesty for illegal aliens and Mr. Thomas’ consistent and principled opposition to amnesty I want to clearly and loudly express my admiration and support for Andy Thomas for Attorney General. The facts speak for themselves in this race and on this issue. I simply did not take the time to check them out. Don’t let yourself be misled by false claims of “being tough on illegal immigration. Andy Thomas is the real deal.”
Thomas has also been endorsed by notable Arizona law enforcement leaders including Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Graham County Sheriff P.J. Allred, Yavapai County Sheriff Steve Waugh, Mohave County Attorney Matthew Smith, Mohave County Sheriff Tom Sheahan, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Arizona Police Association and former Arizona Attorney General and NRA President Bob Corbin. Former Arizona State Senator Jonathan Paton, Senator Russell Pearce and Arizona Right to Life have endorsed Thomas as well.
During Thomas’ time in office, crime rates plummeted. The 19 percent drop is more than twice the national rate of decline, in despite of an 11 percent increase in the county’s population during that time. The illegal immigrant population has dropped by anywhere from 18 percent (Dept. of Homeland Security estimate) to 30 percent (Center for Immigration Studies estimate). Like the fall in crime rates, this dramatic decline in illegal immigration is far greater than the average in the rest of the nation.
Thomas has a track record of successfully defending illegal immigration crackdowns in our courts, including his successful efforts to prosecute illegal immigrants for conspiring to violate the state’s human-smuggling law and to defend Prop 200′s voter ID requirements and the employer-sanctions law, which he defended along with the Attorney General’s Office.
If elected Attorney General Thomas has pledged to expand that office’s prosecutions of illegal immigrants under the state’s human smuggling laws. The office is not currently pursuing such prosecutions.
Thomas is married with four children. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School. Prior to serving as Maricopa County Attorney, Thomas served as an assistant attorney general for Arizona, deputy counsel and criminal justice policy advisor to the Governor, special assistant to the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, and a deputy county attorney.
For more information about Andrew Thomas, please go to www.ThomasforArizona.com. To schedule an interview please contact Jason Rose.

 

Paid for by Thomas For AG


Comments

  1. Not Crazy Pam says:

    JD Hayworth is the consistent conservative. Thomas needs his own line.

  2. Oberserve says:

    Who is Tom Tancredo?

  3. Observe,
    He is a shoot ‘em up on the border guy, a very minute man, very minute.

  4. Tom Tancredo has been at the forefront of the border issue. It’s one thing to not be endorsed by Tancredo, but to actually have one pulled back is embarrassing for Horne.

    Horst, a “shoot em up on the border” guy? Come on, you’re above making such false characterizations. Or maybe not. Show me the quote. You can’t do it. Tancredo wants to see the laws we have on the book enforced, as well as the border secured. He opposes rewarding those that broke the law and didn’t respect American sovereignty. That doesn’t fly in your thinking, but your smears tell all we need to know about your character.

  5. Retired Prosecutor says:

    Tom Horne does not support amnesty for illegals. Read the article and judge for yourself. When Tom Tancredo finds out that Andrew Thomas has lied to him, Tancredo will revoke his endorsement of Andrew Thomas.

  6. Retired Prosecutor says:

    Tom Horne does not support amnesty. Read the linked article and judge for yourself. When Tom Tancredo finds out that this is another unsupported allegation by Andrew Thomas, like indicting Judges with no evidence, Tancredo will revoke his endorsement of Andrew Thomas.

    Tom Horne supports compliance with firmly established law, and not wasting taxpayer dollars tilting at windmills. Tom Horne battled the federal government all the way to the US Supreme Court, and won, saving us millions by eliminating bilingual education and mandating English immersion. It is firmly established federal law, by the US Supreme Court (which is about to become even more liberal with the President’s latest appointment) that ALL school age children residing in every State have the right to attend public school. If Andrew Thomas does not follow this mandate as the chief legal officer of the State, he will cost the State more millions just as he did the County by indicting Judges with no evidence.

  7. The Mole says:

    Read it, judging for my self now…. Tom Horne SUPPORTS amnesty. Thank you Tom Tancredo for doing the right thing.

  8. also read it and agree with the mole.

    “Horne has a plan that would reward high school graduates with citizenship. All they would have to do is pass a test.”

    That’s amnesty in my book.
    Spin baby spin. We ain’t buying it.

  9. Jane 001 says:

    Honestly, Retired Prosecutor, this second-string electioneering is tragic. Tom Tancredo is a staunch advocate of border control; Tom Horne supports citizenship for high school diplomas! Amnesty. But that would have been a fete in itself. Arizona public school students have scored BELOW the national average each year with Horne as Superintendent, and fourth grade students are a year behind in math as of 2010. The notion that Tom Horne is any sort of soldier for the people is pure humor.

  10. JanieDoe says:

    Retired prosecutor, you’ve either been out of practice so long that you forgot what it was like to be a good prosecutor or weren’t any good at it anyway. There is plenty of evidence to support the charging of the judge- if you understood Arizona law and the tactics of defendants to proclaim their innocence then you wouldn’t make such blatantly untrue accusations. Study your history- the harder corrupt governmental officials publicly fight the prosecution and try and deflect attention from themselves i.e. retaliation against County Attorney and laughable notices of claim, the deeper the corruption is. Study the elements of the charges and see why they don’t want this to ever go to a criminal or civil jury. Study the charging process and see how the County Attorney was stopped from presenting the evidence to a grand jury or judge.

  11. Oberserve says:

    Joe M,

    Tom Tancredo hasn’t been at the forefront of the border issue except in RHETORIC.

    If you look at his ACTUAL ACTIONS, he has been at the forefront of national ids for American citizens as well as population reduction efforts, very anti-life and anti-RTL.

    So, again, I ask, who is Tom Tancredo?

  12. Oberserve says:

    Jane001,

    Tom Tancredo is a staunch supporter of border control?

    And yet, SB1070 does ZERO to actually SECURE the border.

  13. Retired Prosecutor says:

    Labeling Tom Horne as pro-amnesty because he stated that he would have no objection to one exception to deportation (citizenship for graduating seniors who pass a standardized test showing that they deserve good academic records) is the equivalent of labeling Tom Tancredo as pro-choice because he voted for one exception to banning Partial-Birth Abortion.

    Tancredo, despite being a 100% pro-life supporter, voted to permit “partial-birth” abortion in cases in which a women’s life is in danger. See http://www.issues2000.org/House/Tom_Tancredo_Abortion.htm , Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003.

    In my opinion, a human being should not be murdered in order to save the life of another human being. In my opinion, Tancredo should not be labeled pro-choice just because he voted for one exception to banning “partial-birth” abortion. In my opinion, Tom Horne should not be labeled pro-amnesty because he stated that he would have no objection to one humanitarian exception to deportation (citizenship for graduating seniors who pass a standardized test showing that they deserve good academic records).

    In addition, not objecting to an exception is far different than championing that exception. Tancredo did not champion any exception to banning Partial-Birth Abortion, but he voted for the bill containing that exception without objection.

    And yes, Tom Horne favors a ban on the barbaric medical procedure commonly known as “partial-birth” abortion. The Tom Horne website, http://electtomhorne.com , states: “As Attorney General, I would be 100% committed to enforce any pro life bill that is or becomes law. As a legislator, I voted to restrict abortion, including voting to ban partial birth abortion and to require parental consent.”

  14. Retired Prosecutor says:

    Jane 001:

    Honestly, young (chronologically or maturity, based upon your posts) lady (I’m just being polite), accusing me of electioneering without disclosing YOUR past, present, and future hoped for relationship with Andrew Thomas is rank hypocrisy. As we ethical lawyers do, I disclosed my bias in my very first post. I wrote: “I have volunteered to help elect Tom Horne as our new Attorney General because I know him, I know how important the work of the Attorney General is, I know that he will be an excellent Attorney General, and I know that he is the best candidate campaigning to be our Attorney General.” I disclosed my bias; what’s yours? Put up or shut up.

    I do not speak for Tom Horne. Only he does. I base my assertions of his positions on his public statements, not upon any inside knowledge. Thus, I am not electioneering, any more than would be an Andrew Thomas supporter writing in support of his candidacy.

    I have no idea what you mean by ” that would have been a fete in itself.” A fete is a party. Perhaps the expression you are searching for is “fait accompli.” But even had you written “that that would have been a fait accompli in itself,” I still don’t understand. Epiphany: your bias is that you are poorly educated and you blame Tom Horne? Nah, I think it has to do with your relationship with Andrew Thomas, not any objective or subjective view of Tom Horne.

    I can’t argue education statistics, not my field. But if your statistical criticism of Tom Horne is based upon the same sort of skewed statistics used by Andrew Thomas to support his claim that he is responsible for lower crime rates and that his conviction rate is exemplary, then your education statistics are also unreliable.

    Prosecutors can manipulate conviction rates by semantics and policies which artificially (and thus falsely) improve their stats. Crime rate experts agree on one thing: the causes of reduction in the crime rate are so complex that no single cause, nor prosecutor, can be responsible. For Andrew Thomas to take credit for reduction in the crime rate ignores the effect on crime prevention, unrelated to prosecution, caused by good policing, good judges, good families, good schools, good churches, congregations, and pastors, and our aging population, to cite merely a few of those complex factors.

    As a matter of fact, Andrew Thomas has written that he is “the first crime expert to recommend religious faith as the solution to the crime problem.” Christianity Today, published August 9, 1999. So which is it Mr. Thomas, religion or prosecution? Of course, it’s both, plus 100 others. The point is that Andrew Thomas is not responsible for the lower crime rate.

    However, by claiming that he is “the first crime expert to recommend religious faith as the solution to the crime problem,” he appears to take credit for writing the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, unless one excludes God/Jesus/& the Holy Spirit as a crime expert. One hopes that is a presumption too large even for Andrew Thomas. Clearly he is NOT the first crime expert to recommend religious faith as the solution to the crime problem, and his claim to be is as exaggerated as were his now dismissed indictments of Judges.

  15. Retired Prosecutor says:

    Janie Doe:

    Ooh, personal we are now getting (as my classmate Yoda would say). As I wrote to your comrade (or perhaps alter ego) Jane 001, I disclosed my bias in my very first post. I wrote: “I have volunteered to help elect Tom Horne as our new Attorney General because I know him, I know how important the work of the Attorney General is, I know that he will be an excellent Attorney General, and I know that he is the best candidate campaigning to be our Attorney General.” I disclosed my bias; what’s yours? Put up or shut up.

    Your post is far too cryptic to understand. You write: “There is plenty of evidence to support the charging of the judge.” Really!? What is it? If you know what “it” is, then you are not only an Andrew Thomas supporter, but you are one of his misguided, incompetent prosecutors responsible for indicting Judges with no evidence.

    You have evidence? Disclose it here, or stop asserting here as true facts which you are unwilling to disclose, or prohibited from disclosing. By what tactics was Andrew Thomas stopped from presenting the evidence to a grand jury or judge? If you’re a lawyer, you’re familiar with hypotheticals. So, hypothetically, how might an evil Judge benefit from whatever he was hypothetically accused of, and hypothetically, what evidence proved it, and hypothetically, how was this evidence suppressed from presentation? If the anti-Judge cases were so strong, why didn’t Andrew Thomas (or you) write a concise 20 page explanation to the FBI instead of just dumping loads of files on them without any cohesive explanation of what all that paper supposedly meant?

    So, your evidence of the Judges’ guilt includes their strong, effective defense? You wrote: “Study your history- the harder corrupt governmental officials publicly fight the prosecution and try and deflect attention from themselves i.e. retaliation against County Attorney and laughable notices of claim, the deeper the corruption is.” So, let’s see, not fighting would support one’s innocence? Aren’t you accusing Tom Horne of fraud because he didn’t fight the SEC charges. In your world, then, he’s innocent? In the words of Capt. Hook, you better review the situation, again.

  16. Observe,

    Apparently Tom Horne knows and cares who Tom Tancredo is enough to bring him up and tout his endorsement, or does his mention diminish Horne in your book? Heck, we’re talking about it here. The fact is, Tom Tancredo HAS been at the forefront of the alarming negative impact of illegal immigration on the United States. I suggest you read his book on the issue. As for his pro-life credentials, Tancredo was rated 0 by NARAL and 100 by NRTL. That’s not bad in my book.

    In the end, Andrew Thomas will win this race by a 2-1 margin. Tom Horne is Superintendent of Public Instruction, so I wouldn’t exactly expect anyone currently involved so intimately in a failing entity to get a promotion.

  17. Retired Prosecutor is just like Horne. Long winded and pointless.

  18. Oberserve says:

    Joe M,

    I couldn’t care less if Tancredo supports Horne or Thomas.

    Also, watch what you say,

    ” I wouldn’t exactly expect anyone currently involved so intimately in a failing entity to get a promotion.”

    applies just as easily, and perhaps easier to Thomas as it does to Horne!

  19. Tancredo wants to end legal immigration as well for a number of years. Is that a position Thomas holds as well?

  20. I notice Tancredo is also endorsing the Constitution Party candidate in the CA governor’s race. The CP believes the US should be ruled under Biblical law Does Thomas believe this as well?

  21. Retired Prosecutor says:

    JanieDoe (or Andy Roe), you write: “Study the charging process and see how the County Attorney was stopped from presenting the evidence to a grand jury or judge.” If “the charging process” stopped the County Attorney from presenting the evidence, was the County Attorney (or you, Deputy Doe?), so ignorant of the charging process before that happened that he/she did not anticipate that happening?

    If whatever happened was not anticipated, then the County Attorney and his Deputies were inexperienced and ignorant. If whatever happened was anticipated, then the County Attorney and his Deputies indicted the Judges, not to convict them, but for political gain. Now that the inevitable has occurred (regardless of whether you believe JanieDoe’s version, or my “lack of evidence” version, and/or that the County Attorney and his Deputies were inexperienced/ignorant), the County Attorney has referred the case to the Feds. If the County Attorney and his Deputies had the evidence, and were not inexperienced/ignorant, wouldn’t they have brought the case to the Feds from the beginning, in light of their view of the difficulties of “the charging process and … how the County Attorney [would be] stopped from presenting the evidence to a grand jury or judge.”?

    Ruminate on this speculation: Andrew Thomas likes to write books. Andrew Thomas wants to write another book. Andrew Thomas has observed controversial figures like Presidents Clinton, Nixon, and Obama become millionaires through book sales. Ergo, the purpose of the controversy he has created is not to root out corruption, but to become a millionaire author after writing his “How I left office in disgrace” book. Plausible? You judge. Oh, if you judge against Andrew Thomas, keep your judgment to yourself, else you too get indicted.

  22. East valley voter says:

    Retired Prosecutor you claim to be have legal knowledge but you demostrate none. First Judges were not indicted your constant use of the plural is either inflamatory or ignorant. One Judge was charged with a direct complaint and could at any time exercised his right to a preliminary hearing. The case against Judge Donahoe was weak and that could have been shown if he had merely demanded a preliminary hearing but he chose not engage in a public hearing which was his right.

  23. Retired Prosecutor says:

    East valley voter: Unless the prosecutor agrees with the defendant’s waiver of preliminary hearing, the prosecutor has the right, even if the defendant objects, to present evidence at the mandatory preliminary hearing required to be held within 20 days of the defendant’s initial appearance. We prosecutors routinely demand the right to the preliminary hearing, despite defendants’ objections to or waiver of the hearing, to preserve evidence against defendants which can then be used at trial. See Rule 5.1.b.

    Andrew Thomas filed Complaints alleging that Superior Court Judges Barbara R. Mundell, Anna Baca, Gary Donahoe, & Kenneth Fields committed racketeering felonies. All of those Complaints have been dismissed. No evidence sufficient to support & maintain those charges in court was ever presented. Andrew Thomas has not offered any credible explanation for the dismissals. Lack of evidence of wrongdoing by the Judges is the only logical conclusion.

    That logical conclusion is also supported by the modus operandi of Andrew Thomas, evidenced by judicial findings of misconduct committed by him. Three different judges, in three different cases, determined that his actions were unethical. One Judge even stated that Thomas’ actions had “the appearance of evil.” (Court Case No. 422GJ350, February 6, 2009.) Another Judge found that he had retaliated against his opponents for political advantage by prosecuting them (plural). (Court case CR2010-005423-001, February 24, 2010.)

    The legal meaning of such terms as indictment, complaint, & prosecution, as those terms are used by racketeering prosecutors such as I was, is as defined in Chapters 23 & 39 of Title 13, A.R.S., which may not be familiar to lawyers who do not specialize in racketeering law. If you would like me to explain to you how those terms are used in ways which may not be familiar to you, ID yourself sufficiently for me to contact you.

  24. East valley voter says:

    Retired Prosecutor you offering legal advice is laughable when you constantly use a civil suit and criminal charges as if they are the same thing. Indictment and complaint have no complicated meaning and the truth is that Thomas indicted no judge and certainly not multiple judges. A RICO civil action is not a criminal complaint and if you are actually a lawyer you would know this. Donahoe did everything possible to not have a prelim including getting a stay. For you to claim unique legal knowledge is as amusing as Horne suddenly deciding he wants to a prosecutor because he is term limited out of his current office.

  25. Retired Prosecutor says:

    East valley voter:

    A few aspects of your unsuccessful rebuttal are of interest to me:

    1) You concede, by your silence, that I correctly pointed out that Andrew Thomas had just as much right as Judge Donohue to present evidence at a preliminary hearing. That completely overcomes the argument in your previous post, that no evidence was presented because the Judge/defendant chose not to do so at a preliminary hearing. That so little evidence was proffered to the court before dismissal is the fault of Andrew Thomas, who should have anticipated a strong defense and engaged in the preemptive retaliatory strike of making the evidence of record prior to dismissal. His failure to do so is the consequence of incompetence, having no sufficient evidence, or both.

    2) You rely on distinctions which make no difference in the context of the outrageous, unethical behavior of Andrew Thomas prosecuting Judge Donohue, alleging his commission of racketeering (RICO) felonies without sufficient evidence to prevent dismissal of those charges, and alleging in federal court that Judges Mundell, Baca, & Fields (in addition to Judge Donahoe) committed federal racketeering (RICO) felonies, which has also been dismissed. If I were writing or editing a law review article, trial court memorandum of law, appellate brief, or US Supreme Court certiorari petition/response, all of which I’ve done, the distinctions in the various ways which a prosecutor can require a person to defend himself against accusations of committing racketeering felonies (indictment, criminal complaint, notice of pending forfeiture, and civil complaint) would be relevant. But here they are not.

    Perhaps you are unaware that Chapters 23 and 39 of Title 13 of the A.R.S. provide that government lawyers “prosecute” not just criminal, but also civil cases; that civil RICO liability requires proof of one or more racketeering felonies; that civil seizure warrants are governed by the criminal search warrant statutes; that a criminal conviction precludes the denial of the offense in a civil RICO action; & many more inter-twining which have caused some jurists, and every criminal defense lawyer, to label civil RICO as quasi-criminal. Thus, rightly or wrongly, I would not be the first to mix and match civil & criminal nomenclature re RICO. And, in the context I do so, quite rightly, in my humble opinion.

    For what purpose would you have me use three words, “filed criminal charges,” instead of one word, “indicted”? Or write “accused in a civil complaint of committing racketeering felonies,” instead of writing one word, “indicted”? And of what significance is it to my accusation (that Andrew Thomas committed unethical conduct) that some Judges were indicted (pardon me, I mean “criminal charges of racketeering felonies were filed by Andrew Thomas against Judge Donohue in a case which the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Judge committed the racketeering felonies alleged in the criminal complaint); and that four Judges were accused in a civil complaint of committing racketeering felonies in a case in which those Judges could be ordered to pay millions of dollars if Andrew Thomas proves by a mere preponderance of the evidence (51 to 49%) that the Judges committed the racketeering felonies alleged in the civil complaint. Personally, I’d rather be indicted (or charged in a criminal complaint), requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt & affording numerous procedural & constitutional protections/advantages, than to risk being found liable & paying millions for allegations in a civil complaint by a 51-49% weight of the evidence.

    The sole distinction in this context between civil and criminal complaints is that no prison time results from civil liability. That distinction is irrelevant here. If he had been found guilty of the now-dismissed non-violent charges filed by Andrew Thomas against Judge Donohue, no such first offender Defendant with a squeaky clean record would go to prison, but rather be ordered to pay lots of money in penalties and restitution. The same, sole consequence is faced in the civil RICO case (now dismissed) by the four Judges who Andrew Thomas accused of RICO felonies; i.e., the chance, however slim, that they would be ordered to pay lots of money (money damages, trebled, plus Andrew Thomas’ attorney fees). So, if my choice were between paying lots of money after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or paying lots of money after being found liable by a mere preponderance of the evidence (51 to 49%), I’d rather be indicted (or charged in a criminal complaint). Thus, in that respect, the civil complaint is more outrageous than the criminal indictment (oops, criminal complaint).

    3) I did not claim to have unique legal knowledge, merely legal knowledge superior to yours with respect to RICO prosecution, having done so with excellent reviews and peer accolades for decades. No defendants or courts found my prosecutions laughable.

    4) You have invented the opinion, then inaccurately presented as fact, that Tom Horne “suddenly decid[ed] he wants to a prosecutor.” First, Tom Horne has been an appointed Assistant Attorney General, receiving high praise from the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) for his successful representation of the State in a complex case. Second, I’ve known him since 1979 and he often expressed an interest in criminal prosecution, especially in the types of cases prosecuted by my section (racketeering) in particular and the AGO in general. Third, criminal prosecution forms a very small percentage of the responsibilities of the AGO.

    Ninety per cent of the work of the AGO is civil, quite unlike the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office from which Andrew Thomas resigned in disgrace (having previously been fired as a Deputy County Attorney when Rick Romley was the County Attorney) & now seeks a promotion to represent the entire state not just its largest county. To the extent that Andrew Thomas has any criminal prosecution experience, much less expertise, it is a limited qualification to be the AG because a very small part, albeit an important part, of the work of the AGO is criminal prosecution.

    The tenure of Andrew Thomas as an Assistant AG, which occurred while I too was an AAG, was brief and undistinguished. Although Andrew Thomas briefly represented the Department of Corrections, that is the sort of government lawyering which is not done by skilled court room lawyers but rather by lawyers evading the courtroom & juries. On the contrary, court cases involving the DOC are handled by the AAG’s of the AGO, not by DOC’s agency lawyer. Tom Horne’s experience and expertise as a courtroom lawyer, chief executive of a huge State agency, 24-year year school board member, ten years as its President, and managing/founding partner of his own law firm for twenty-five years, not to mention concert pianist and one of the nicest, most intelligent gentlemen I have ever met, makes him far more qualified to be AG than Andrew Thomas (or any of the Democrat candidates).

    A vote for Andrew Thomas in the Republican primary is the equivalent of a vote for a Democrat in the general election, because there is no way that Andrew Thomas can defeat the Democrat candidate statewide in light of all the baggage he has dumped on himself. Tom Horne has won two statewide races against Democrats (despite the same mud being thrown at him then as Andrew Thomas is throwing now). Andrew Thomas was trounced soundly by Democrat Terry Goddard in the only statewide race Andrew Thomas has ever run, for AG, the office he seeks again. Andrew Thomas bears as much responsibility for the election of AG Goddard as does John McCain for the election of President Obama.

  26. East valley voter says:

    I don’t use incictments when a person was not indicted because words particularly legal terms have meaning and because you hold yourself out as legal expert. I am certain that Mr. Horne’s piano skills will prove most useful.It is fine that you support Horne and have fine reasons for doing so but your constatn incorrect use of legal terms hurts your position. I am no great champion of Andrew Thomas but object to deliberate misstatements.

  27. Retired Prosecutor says:

    East valley voter & all readers:

    Please read each of my previous comments which use the term “indict” (& its various forms, e.g., indictment) as though I wrote “Andrew Thomas unethically, without sufficient evidence to prevent dismissal, filed court pleadings which falsely accused four Judges of committing racketeering felonies under the RICO laws of Arizona &/or the US, demanding that the Judges be ordered to pay, from their personal assets, millions of dollars, jointly & severally, of criminal or civil penalties &/or damages, and even demanding that one of those Judges be sentenced to prison under Arizona law for the rest of his life.” Substituting that phrasing for my use of the word “indict” makes absolutely zero difference in the context of my point.

    That is why, during informal communication, prosecutors & other lawyers commonly use the shorthand term “indict” to make the same point, using fewer words, I was making. I’m certain you will agree that blog posting is quite informal, evidenced by other posts on this subject & site.

    Please let me know if you disagree with the accuracy of my long winded sentence above. And I continue to presume that by your silence you concede that Andrew Thomas had the same right to submit evidence in a preliminary hearing as did Judge Donohue. And I’m certain that you will agree with me that, whether by indictment or criminal complaint, an accused defendant has an absolute constitutional right to move to dismiss rather than to submit any evidence in support of his innocence.

    Since you volunteered that you are no fan of Andrew Thomas, I invite you to join me in pointing out his shortcomings. Or are you too more concerned about retribution from him than from a permanently retired prosecutor?

  28. east valley voter says:

    Maybe when I retire I will start using legal terms with no regard to their proper use.. Practicing lawyers do not use the terms when it is not true. The complaint against Donahoe should not have been filed but Donahoe got a stay so Thomas could not do a prelim.

Trackbacks

Speak Your Mind

*