PHOENIX, ARIZONA. AUGUST 9, 2010. As part of his campaign for Attorney General, which includes a promise to seek judicial reform, Andrew Thomas noted today that one of the nation’s most distinguished prosecutors has sided with Thomas’ handling of prosecutions and civil actions dealing with alleged public corruption in the Maricopa County judiciary while he was Maricopa County Attorney.
Bob Barr, former U.S. Attorney and one of the House Managers who prosecuted the case for impeachment against President Bill Clinton, has stated under oath that the criminal charges brought against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and the federal civil racketeering lawsuit filed against county officials, including four judges, were legally and ethically proper.
In extensive analysis provided in two affidavits, Barr found probable cause to charge Donahoe with bribery, obstruction of justice and hindering prosecution, and a proper legal basis to file a civil RICO complaint in federal court against Donahoe and other Maricopa County officials.
Barr’s distinguished career in the law and government includes service as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia (appointed by President Reagan); member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003; and one of the House Managers in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. During his time as U.S. Attorney, Barr directed a number of high-profile public corruption investigations and chaired the Public Corruption Subcommittee of the U.S. Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys.
Barr’s politics are hard to pigeonhole. A former Republican Congressman, Barr was the Libertarian candidate for President of the United States in 2008, has worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to protect civil liberties, and personally disagrees with the illegal-immigration policies of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Thomas.
Donahoe Case
Barr analyzed in detail the evidence against Judge Donahoe. He concluded “there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to support the charges that were filed against Mr. Donahoe.” Specifically, Barr found “Mr. Donahoe used his position as a judicial decision maker to protect his supervisor, his lawyers, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (which was paying for the building and furnishing of a new court tower and had financed other court projects) . . .” Barr stated:
The benefit to him, which by law does not require a direct financial pay-out, included keeping his position as Presiding Criminal Court Judge, maintaining a beneficial relationship with the Presiding Judge of Maricopa County, and allowing the Superior Court to benefit from funding by the Board for the tower as well as other projects. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Donahoe had an obligation to recuse himself from the proceedings in which he, as a representative of the Superior Court, had an interest in the outcome.
Barr concluded, “Given the fact that probable cause existed as to the charges brought against Mr. Donahoe, it is beyond dispute that any prosecution of those charges was indeed proper and cannot be said to have been brought for an improper purpose.”
He questioned the propriety of legal or ethical authorities second-guessing the charging decisions of prosecutors in this and other matters. Such reviews “may have the very real effect of chilling the important decision-making tasks undertaken by prosecutors on a daily basis and, in turn, hindering or obstructing the prosecution of Arizona’s criminals.”
RICO case
Likewise, Barr found that the federal RICO lawsuit filed by Arpaio and Thomas “presented meritorious claims, supported by detailed, cogent factual allegations.” This lawsuit was filed against members of the Board of Supervisors, four Superior Court judges, and a law firm that represented both of them at the same time.
Barr explained:
The original RICO Complaint ran 19 pages and had numerous specific facts that either directly demonstrated substantial misconduct and collusion among the parties or which reasonably could be inferred from the facts as alleged. In particular, the facts surrounding the funding of a new criminal court tower, actions taken to block the investigation of the funding for that tower, the violation of the rules of legal and judicial ethics by attorneys and judges involved, and the specific admission of bribery made by Presiding Judge Mundell to Chief Deputy Sheriff David Hendershott provided ample basis for an allegation of bribery to support such a claim in the federal RICO complaint.
Barr added that the complaints appear to have been filed in furtherance of an important public purpose. In particular, the complaints appear to have been brought to address a unique situation in which Maricopa County’s political leaders, county officials, and Superior Court judges were collaborating in an unprecedented manner to improperly thwart criminal investigations and prosecutions.
Pleadings in the lawsuit further explained “the manner in which the three groups of defendants—the county supervisors and county management, the Superior Court, and their shared law firm—worked together to thwart criminal investigations and prosecutions of themselves and to retaliate against county law-enforcement officials for bringing these investigations and prosecutions.”
Implications
Barr’s sworn analysis not only demonstrates the proper and courageous actions of county prosecutors, who now are being targeted unfairly by judicial officials for having exposed alleged corruption in the judiciary. His opinions also highlight the unique and serious events playing out in Maricopa County government.
Questions arise. How is it that the presiding criminal judge of Maricopa County and other judges could behave in such a manner and not be corrected or disciplined by senior judicial authorities? How could the State Bar be misused to retaliate against the prosecutors who did their best to tackle such an extraordinary situation?
And how could such alleged corruption flourish with the consent of other actors in the political and legal system?
Thomas has promised to pursue judicial and State Bar reform if elected Attorney General to improve the accountability to the public of judges and attorneys. Thomas’ plan would give voters more information about judges so they can make appropriate decisions in judicial retention elections. Thomas’ Republican opponent, Tom Horne, defends such activist judges and opposes Thomas’ plan.
For more information about Andrew Thomas, please go to www.ThomasforArizona.com.
Paid for by Thomas for AG
Thomas is going to indict the entire Arizona judiciary as well as the bar if he gets elected. Everyone is involved in the conspiracy, and everyone but him is a criminal.
It would be funny if it didn’t have such dire implications for where we could be headed. Could someone this insane and self absorbed really get elected?
All I can say is: Thank God we have someone like Andy Thomas who has the GUTS to expose the widespread corruption in our state government!! Do you honestly think Romely would ever do the same? The answer is an emphatic NO-he would not! The BOS would never allow that to happen. Remember, Romley is their puppet and they pull the strings.
The very best decision we in Arizona (and YES, I am long time Arizona resident) could do would be to elect Andy Thomas for our Attorney General. ONLY he can be counted on to work with our Governor, various County Sherriffs, State Police (they are backing him also!), the county attornies.
Folks, we have a real crisis at hand, in spite of what is NOT printed in the local rag of a newspaper. We have a 2.7 $Billion dollar price tag on our hands to educate, medicate, and adjudicate the several HUNDRED THOUSAND illegals that are living here. And to deal with that problem, we ABSOLUTELY need a guy with the biggest cajones in town—Andy Thomas! Say it out loud: “We are at war” and you will get the real gut feeling of where we are in trying to defend our cities, counties, our culture, and our way of life. Go behind the scenes (as I have) to really understand the gravity of our situation. Once more for the Gipper: “We are at war” and we need to select the men and women who are willing to fight for us.
WE NEED ANDY THOMAS!
Ah. This is why all of the cases were thrown out.
People who have been paying attention realize a pattern. Arizona is overwhelmed by internal corruption and is moving quickly toward becoming the next California. People who have no regard for real justice have staffed our courts and are using them to corrupt our laws and subvert their own prosecutions. This must stop in order for this Arizona to prosper.
“He questioned the propriety of legal or ethical authorities second-guessing the charging decisions of prosecutors in this and other matters. Such reviews ‘may have the very real effect of chilling the important decision-making tasks undertaken by prosecutors on a daily basis and, in turn, hindering or obstructing the prosecution of Arizona’s criminals.’”
1) A hypocrite says what? Bob Barr is also second guessing a prosecutorial charging decision. He just coincidentally second guesses to support the man paying his fee.
2) Ladies and gentlemen, this is what fascism looks like. It is our patriotic duty and constitutional right to “second guess” our government. To say, as Barr does, that Thomas’ decisions should not be questioned or subject to review is contrary to the system set up by our Founding Fathers. I guess they don’t teach the Constitution at Harvard Law School.
Thomas is the only one with the courage to stand up to political corruption and liberal activist judges who look the other way
So Buster, you honestly believe that they weren’t convicted because the entire judiciary is made up of corrupt criminals? You really believe Thomas was right, and that the entire judiciary and the bar is wrong?
Do you understand that your belief is totally absurd? Do you understand that Thomas is attempting to do away with the checks and balances set up by our constitution?
Tom Horne is a much better attorney to fight for SB1070 which he fully supports. As an added bonus, he won’t spend millions in tax payer money hunting down his political opponents.
Plus, Thomas is on his way to being disbarred. If it happens before the election, we’ll see a Democrat in office.
Horne support SB1070? About as much as RINO Romley does which is absolutely not.
Horne does support SB1070. Horne fought and won in the Florez case, saving the taxpayers from the Federal government. Horne took on ethnic studies. Horne is the man to take on the Feds.
Charles-disbarred? On what basis? Apparently you cannot think for yourself and just believe the crap spewed by the corrupt officials. There is absolutely nothing to support the bar witch hunt. I challenge you to articulate one fact and its related ethics violation that would support any discipline let alone disbarment. The only finding by any court which magically didn’t find its way to an appellate court when Romley took over was that the prosecution was “politically motivated.” Guess what, even if it was, the County Attorney’s office is political- the job involves protecting the community from criminals so people will re-elect you. No court has found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to proceed. The only person that is absurd is you if you don’t think those involved in the circle connecting the specific judges involved, their shared lawyers with the Board (Novak and Irvine), the Bar Assoc (Novak), and the Board is corrupt.
The charges that Thomas levelled were of highly toxic to a corrupt establishment.
It has been long known that the county judiciary and the B.O.S. are mutually supportive, and situational ethics reign supreme.
Turning a case of malfeasance to this judiciary is on the order of allowing pimps to cleanse a cathouse!
I look forward to someone with the backbone of an Andy Thomas heading the A.G.’s office!
He’ll drain the swamps!
Thomas was right. Even the AZ Republic is starting to get it. They put out a piece today that shows the corruption on the Board of Supervisors. Unfortunately the election cycle wouldn’t wait until all the dust settles. When it does, you will see new Board of Supervisors and AG Thomas.
I’m not a fan of the “kick out all the incumbents” school of thought, that I think that’s what’s needed here.
Every member of the BOS was either a part of the corruption or looked the other way for fear of being targeted as is Andrew Thomas.
Remember back in 2006 when Judge Rodriguez-Mundrell not only refused to implement Prop 100 (no bail for illegal alien defendants) but openly obstructed it by telling the court staff NOT to inquire on immigration status?
Prop 100 was voted in with 74% of Arizonans, and Rodrigues-Mundrell took it upon herslef to stop it.
What makes anyone think that action was “one-time only?”
Activist friends in Tucson reported the La Raza studies to Tom Horne for several years with no action whatever. Only when he knew he would run for AG did Horne file litigation against the Tucson USD.
Tom Horne supports the DREAM Amnesty Act, and is pro-illegal alien just like Rick Romley.
When Horne ran for his second term as SPI in 2006, he spoke at the USA (United for a Soveriegn America) meeting, and was bombarded with question about the kids being excused from school to march in the streets.
After that meeting, he earned fair and square his nickname: Tom “I can’t do anything about it” Horne. No reason to think he would change his song as Attorney General.
Since 2004, Andrew Thomas has aided Sheriff Joe in putting Maricopa County on the map as
the enemy of illegal aliens.
Send Tom Horne packing. Same for John McCain. Both are pro-illegal alien and deserve to be called traitors.
SetUStraight says, “Activist friends in Tucson reported the La Raza studies to Tom Horne for several years with no action whatever. Only when he knew he would run for AG did Horne file litigation against the Tucson USD.”
___
True. Typical liberal mindset doesn’t think that voters in general are stupid, they think EVERYONE is stupid. Horne did the same with the border crossing schools. He invites illegal immigration in the off-season and poses like a conservative in the election year. Unfortunately for him, one or two people remember his real record.
Why does it seem that conservatives always end up defending their “values” against the judiciary?
SB1070 struck down in federal court. “But Ken Starr checked it out! He said it was legit’!”
Prop 8 struck down. “The judge is an activist liberal (Reagan nominee..?)! The people voted for it!
Thomas’ cases against his political opponents gets thrown out repeatedly as frivolous garbage: “But look! This guy said the charges were valid!!”
LD17 had it right. If they were valid, the charges would no. It doesn’t matter what Bob Barr sayt have been tossed. It doesn’t matter what Bob Barr thinks, he isn’t a judge. I don’t think many voters will buy into his conspiracy theory that in a state like Arizona, liberals have somehow come to dominate the judiciary and are waging a war against him.
Essentially, the courts accused Thomas of abusing his position to wage political war against his enemies. Why would anyone believe Thomas when one of his buddies comes forward and says that he is innocent?
“Don’t worry everybody, I looked it over and it turns out that the judge got it wrong. For the record, I don’t stand to gain anything by coming to my pal’s defense.”
Was there an appeal? How did it go? Not well, I assume.
All Bob-o has done here is regurgitate the same Thomas defense that we’ve heard before from other conservative republicans.
Birds of a feather, etc. etc.
Tucson Vice,
It isn’t over until SCOTUS rules. Remember Ricci v. City of Hartford that overturned Sotomayer’s ruling? If that is too far back then consider the 2nd Amend case twins, Heller v. DC and McDonald V. Chicago. The game is not over on SB1070 or Prop 8. It is game on and heading to a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS.