You are here: Home / County Government / Andrew Thomas responds to Justice Department exonerating him and Arpaio

Andrew Thomas responds to Justice Department exonerating him and Arpaio

September 5, 2012 by 19 Comments


A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Lessons from the Grand Jury

The schoolyard saying “Told you so!” seems the best way to respond to last week’s seismic news.

Four and a half months ago, I lost my law license after a State Bar panel accused Sheriff Arpaio and me of committing criminal acts and other gross misconduct. Last Friday afternoon at 5 p.m., right before the Labor Day weekend, the Justice Department ended four years of a federal grand jury investigation with a quiet announcement that no charges would be brought against the sheriff or me. This acknowledgement meant that the State Bar’s accusations against me, when put to proof before a jury of citizens instead of lawyers and insiders, could not be sustained and were dropped.

For the first time, an independent group of citizens reviewed all the charges and countercharges in the recent corruption battles. And that grand jury sided with us.

I think it’s helpful to go over the lessons we’ve learned from the federal grand jury investigation.

Our Critics Are Indicted, Sheriff Arpaio and I Are Cleared

First, we should be clear about what just happened. Sheriff Arpaio and I were not just cleared by the Obama Justice Department. A federal grand jury, an independent body of citizens, cleared us.

The grand jury collected years of testimony and untold boxes of evidence. They had the power to indict us if they thought there was probable cause to conclude we had committed crimes. That’s true whether or not the prosecutors sought an indictment. The grand jury heard the evidence and clearly chose not to do so.

What’s more, federal prosecutors apparently did not even ask them for an indictment. They themselves concluded they could not make a case. They admitted as much in their public letter of August 31, 2012.

The claim that federal prosecutors dropped the matter because they were allowed to prosecute only federal and not state crimes is bogus. Their office had the power to seek indictments for both federal and state offenses. That’s because, as one of his last acts (before being blown out of office by a 16-point margin in the Republican primary in 2010), former County Attorney Rick Romley cross-deputized federal prosecutors to allow them to enforce state as well as federal criminal statutes in the investigation.

Yet we were cleared. On everything.

The ironies abound. Two of my accusers, Donald Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox, were indicted twice by two different county grand juries. In direct contrast, Sheriff Arpaio and I have been cleared by one.

The State Bar panel proclaimed that Sheriff Arpaio and I had committed offenses “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Justice Department directly rejected that claim, saying no such thing could be proved. Likewise, the federal grand jury declined to indict based on the far lesser standard of probable cause.

Then there is the Wilcox case and payout. The Superior Court judge who threw out the final indictment against Mary Rose Wilcox was John Leonardo. Then-Judge Leonardo accused Sheriff Arpaio and me of “political retaliation” against Wilcox. The Obama administration recently appointed Leonardo as the new U.S. Attorney for Arizona. His staff just cleared us of these same accusations. Wilcox is poised to receive over $1 million in taxpayer money based on falsehoods fueled by an unaccountable state judiciary, but now rejected by a federal grand jury and federal prosecutors.

The Grand Jury and the Wisdom of the Founders

What does all of this mean?

First, we must remember that a jury, an independent group of citizens, made the decision in the federal investigation. That’s because our Constitution guarantees the right to a grand jury. Insiders, on the other hand, controlled the Bar hearing. Ordinary citizens gave Sheriff Arpaio and me a fair hearing. In contrast, the Bar hearing was run by a judge who, it turns out, was a friend of a judge I had prosecuted.

Our system of justice lies in ruins. Four years of smears, investigations and second-guessing of county law enforcement have made it impossible to prosecute corruption in Arizona. Nor will any prosecutor take up illegal-immigration cases, for Arizona prosecutors know this issue was the catalyst for the five-year campaign by liberal activist lawyers to disbar me. Arizona has become a safe haven for both corruption and illegal immigration.

Many have asked me if these developments change the situation regarding my law license. It does not. Even though a federal grand jury has rejected the accusations against me, I was denied counsel for my bar appeal and did not appeal. Moreover, as a practical matter, how likely is it that the Arizona Supreme Court would acknowledge, even now, that its courtroom was used for a professional lynching?

The good news is that recent events have proved yet again the wisdom of the Founders of our nation. The Framers of our Constitution inserted a right to a grand jury in the Fifth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. This ensured that a group of independent citizens would remain a bulwark against government oppression and abuses.

In the end, I believe it was this right, and the wisdom of those who insisted upon it, that finally permitted a ray of justice and truth to shine into the darkness and corruption that continues in Maricopa County. This right is certainly what protected my family and me from further injustices.

To the patriots who fought and died so we could receive these rights, I can only say, Thank you. The sacrifice of my law license in defense of the rule of law was small in comparison.

I remain more committed than ever to working with you and others for reforms so the powerful and corrupt are no longer above the law.

 

Andrew Thomas

Former County Attorney
Join Our Mailing List
Filed Under: County Government, Crime and Punishment, Elected Officials, Ethics, Government Reform

Comments

  1. EVRed says:
    September 5, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    “The sacrifice of my law license in defense of the rule of law was small in comparison.” Um, you and Joe may have been on the right trail but badly botched the investigation and attempted litigation and that’s why you lost your license. Many of the allegations in the RICO suit were likely accurate but the handling of the matter by you and your “team” is why you lost your license. Your political agenda superseded your ethical responsibility. Instead of pushing you to victory it put you on the sidelines as an irrelevant object lesson in the need to control ambition. Too bad, too, because those who put you there (O’Neil especially) certainly are not without sin.

    Reply
    • Conservative American says:
      September 5, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      This is most certainly an appropriate forum in which to express your subjective opinions, EVRed, but let us not conflate subjective opinion with objective fact! The fact remains that the investigation was closed and no charges were brought. What would constitute more of an objective exoneration than that? Are you able to accept that objective fact?

      As to the loss of license issue, I think we need to look at the process by which that comes about. It starts with a complaint filed with the State Bar of Arizona. Here are some facts which you may not know about the State Bar of Arizona:

      “The State Bar of Arizona is a special administrative arm of the Arizona Supreme Court. The State Bar of Arizona is Arizona’s licensing authority for attorneys, and the de facto statewide bar association. The State Bar of Arizona has existed in its current form (as an integrated mandatory membership organization) in 1933.”

      “The State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors oversees the policy making and operation of the organization. The Board is comprised of 30 people: four non-attorney, public members appointed by the Board; three at-large members appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court; 19 attorney members elected by fellow Bar members in their district; and four ex-officio members (immediate past president and the deans of Arizona’s three law schools).”

      So there are four non-attorney, public members of the Board of Govenors of the Arizona State Bar BUT those non-attorney, public members are APPOINTED by the Board itself!

      Three, out of thirty Board members, are APPOINTED by the Arizona Supreme Court.

      Ninteen attorney members are elected BUT by fellow Bar members!

      Four Board members consist of the immediate past president and the deans of Arizona’s three law schools!

      In short, the people of Arizona have no means of exacting accountability from the powerful legal entity known as the State Bar of Arizona! It is a closed, self-regulating entity which functions entirely outside of the direct or indirect control of the electorate while it has far-reaching potent powers. There is also a potential conflict of interest inherent in the disbarment process!

      A judge is involved in the disbarment process. In order to be a judge in Arizona one must hold a license to practice law. In order to hold a license to practice law in Arizona it is mandatory that one be a member of the State Bar Association. So all Arizona judges are beholden to the State Bar for their continued ability to serve as a judge.

      So we have an organization charged with the management of disbarment procedings which is not accountable to the people and which holds sway over any judge involved with disbarment action! Do you think that allows sufficient latitude for political considerations to rear their ugly head?

      Reply
      • EVRed says:
        September 6, 2012 at 12:48 pm

        Gosh CA thanks for the detailed if tedious lesson on the Arizona Bar Association. I didn’t need it but it kept you busy for a few minutes.
        You say, “The fact remains that the investigation was closed and no charges were brought. What would constitute more of an objective exoneration than that? Are you able to accept that objective fact?” Well CA if you are referring to the DOJ investigation ending without charges, I refer you to “wherewasI’s” post below. His comments are right on point.
        The “objective fact” is that there simply was not enough material evidence to move to the charging phase…something that never deterred Thomas and his team. The other fact is that Thomas’ handling of the matters he investigated and later charged were so biased and muddled that there was no way a competent prosecutor could have salvaged the cases for legitimate prosecution after he was out of the picture.
        And I’m really glad to hear it’s okay by you that I post my “subjective opinions” here. Gosh, I’d hate to think I had to stick to unconflated subjectivity. Thanks for the permission. :-) I bet the burden of trying to keep all us lesser minds in line is pretty exhausting by days end. Maybe a nap would help.

        Reply
        • Conservative American says:
          September 6, 2012 at 2:14 pm

          LOL! Nice snark, EVRed! :-)

          Let’s cut to the bottom line, EVRed. The investigation was terminated. No charges were brought. Nothing you say changes that one iota. Sorry that you are disappointed. Now you have to dismantle the gallows you built and were so eager to use, LOL!

          As regards the comment by “wherewasi”, it seems that you need to hear the same thing I told him/her.

          This is The United States of America. Our legal system incorporates the idea of “presumption of innocence”. That means that an idividual is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. So the failure of Eric Holder’s Department of Justice to prove guilt in a court of law equals innocence. No proclamation of innocence by B. Hussein Obama’s Department of Justice is required.

          I know it hurts, EVRed. I feel your pain but you need to toughen up for the even more painful news coming in November when B. Hussein Obama gets his White House eviction notice.

          Have a nice day, EVRed! ;-)

          Reply
  2. zoo says:
    September 5, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Everybody in Arizona knows the Maricopa Country Board of Supervisors is as corrupt and “open borders” as they come, primarily due to that sitting pile of Crisco, Mary Rose Lardcox. ALL of this battle started when MCBOS, via Lardcox, pulled funding from the MCSO for human smuggling – which had been allocated by the Arizona legislature. Thus, we see pro-illegal street scum cheering the lost law license of Thomas.

    Andrew Thomas is one of few politicians you can count on one hand who did EXACTLY what he promised when running for county attorney, and this is his reward. Had the guy who shot Lardcox in the ass a few years back aimed a little higher, none of this would have ever happened. Now this gob is STILL in office, stuffing her ballooned gut with a million dollars of taxpayer money, and the open-borders filth are creaming their jeans.

    Reply
    • Conservative American says:
      September 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm

      Your points get lost, zoo, when you say something like: “Had the guy who shot Lardcox in the ass a few years back aimed a little higher, none of this would have ever happened.”

      I could be wrong but I don’t believe that you would engage in or actually condone that kind of violence. If I’m right, please don’t misrepresent yourself as having a cavalier attitude about that sort of thing. You do yourself a disservice when you say things like that. ;-)

      Reply
      • zoo says:
        September 5, 2012 at 1:32 pm

        Point taken, CA.

        Reply
        • Conservative American says:
          September 5, 2012 at 2:23 pm

          Thanks for being receptive, zoo! :-)

          You can be awesome when you discipline yourself to make an objective case based upon facts. You have a LOT of useful and valuable information in that impressive brain of yours. We need your voice. Give us your best and clearest voice! ;-)

          Reply
  3. wherewasi says:
    September 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    Mr. Thomas was rightfully disbarred. He needs to put on his thinking cap and re-read the letter from the US Dept. of Justice to Bill Montgomery.

    NO WHERE in that letter does the DOJ say that anyone was “cleared” or that they “did nothing wrong”.

    What the letter says is that there is insufficient proof of criminal intent to pursue charges.

    A lot of double-speak, to be sure. (Read page 4 about Donahoe’s federal right to do a state job – that was just talking in circles.) But I did not see anything that says “Arpaio and Thomas did nothing wrong”. In fact, I believe that they have closed the current investigation because of double-jeopardy rules that would preclude them from filing charges in the future, should they pursue this now. I would not be surprised to find that a new grand jury may be seated after the November elections and with Eric Holder out of the picture.

    Reply
    • Conservative American says:
      September 5, 2012 at 6:19 pm

      Excuse me, wherewasi, but here in The United States of America our legal system presumes people to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. So it isn’t necessary for anyone to declare that Arpaio is “cleared” or that he “did nothing wrong”. It is presumed that he did nothing wrong unless and until wrongdoing is proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of law.

      Your specualtion about the future is just that, speculation. It would be good, however, if you were to become clear in your mind that we don’t need declarations of innocence here in America.

      Reply
  4. azslim says:
    September 6, 2012 at 11:05 am

    @CA — I totally agree with your above statement. Problem for you is, that same argument applies to Supervisors Staple and Wilcox. Just sayin’.

    Reply
  5. azslim says:
    September 6, 2012 at 11:06 am

    “Stapley”

    Reply
  6. Conservative American says:
    September 6, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    “Federal judge OKs section of Arizona immigration law allowing police to question status of suspected illegals”

    “Published September 05, 2012
    Associated Press”

    “PHOENIX – A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Arizona authorities can enforce the most contentious section of the state’s immigration law, which critics have dubbed the “show me your papers” provision.”

    “The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton clears the way for police to carry out the requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.”

    “The provision has been at the center of a two-year legal battle that resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June upholding the requirement, ruling against the Obama administration, which filed the initial challenge.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/05/federal-judge-oks-arizona-immigration-law-section-allowing-police-to-question/?test=latestnews

    More bad news for the Reconquistas! First, the “abuse-of-power” investigation into Sheriff Arpaio by the Obama DOJ is dropped. Then, after losing before SCOTUS, the Obama DOJ has to resign itself to the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070. Looks like something is rolling downhill for the “open border” folks!

    Reply
  7. wherewasi says:
    September 9, 2012 at 8:05 am

    Mr. Thomas, you should be ashamed of yourself for touting the value of a grand jury in determining charges. You apparently forgot how you and Ms. Aubuchon ignored the findings of the grand jury who voted to ‘end the inquiry’ on the RICO case. You lost your license because you only believe in the grand jury when they agree with your opinion. Read up on your Bar Ethics on that topic.

    Reply
    • Conservative American says:
      September 12, 2012 at 10:42 pm

      Actually, wherewasi, it is the Arizona Bar Association which needs to read up on “ethics”!

      While the State Bar has no problem conducting disbarment proceedings, it does so while knowingly tolerating an inherent conflict of interest. That is not ethical by any standard!

      When the State Bar seeks disbarment, it goes before a judge. In order to be a judge in Arizona one must be a lawyer. In order to be a lawyer in Arizona, it is mandatory that one be a member of the State Bar of Arizona. That is not optional.

      So we have a situation in disbarment proceedings where the State Bar of Arizona is asking a judge to find in favor of their findings and their recommendation for disbarment while that judge is beholden to the State Bar of Arizona to continue to serve as a judge! That is classic conflict of interest and the State Bar of Arizona knows that… and that’s just the way they like it!

      Reply

Speak Your Mind

*