|
|||||||
|
AZ Republic’s Robert Robb denounces disbarment trial of Andrew Thomas
September 6, 2012 by 16 Comments
Arizona Politics for Conservatives: Sonoran Alliance
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
Support Sonoran Alliance
The current State Bar system needs to go away and to be replaced with one where there is accountability to the voters of Arizona. Here are some facts which most voters don’t 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 only!
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 proceedings which is not accountable to the people and which holds sway over any judge involved with disbarment action! That is a recipe for abuse!
Oddly, this post left off the title of Mr. Robb’s op ed. He titled it “Arpaio, Thomas are innocent … and guilty”
The bottom line is that they did abuse their power while in office. Apparently, however, it is not a crime to do so.
The State Bar conducts ethics hearings to discipline attorneys. The Medical Board conducts ethics hearings to discipline doctors. The Judiciary Panel conducts ethics investigations to discipline Justices of the Peace. The FAA investigations air traffic controllers and pilots. FINRA investigates stock brokers. Throughout modern society we have tried to devise effective methods and rules to make sure professional conduct themselves to the highest standard.
Apparently politicians are exempt from such scrutiny.
Perhaps our legislators should begin their next session by writing laws and redefining rules to make it clear whether or not it is okay for a politician to collect 10s of thousands of dollars in gifts and freebies, and when, if ever, it okay to use your power as a major law enforcement official to pursue your political enemies.
I know, I know … that doesn’t sit well with many people here.
As I said in my previous comment on another article, to which CA replied with the usual scorn reserved for non-Tea-Party posters – there was no evidence of criminal intent. Yes, CA, I know my post was short and I perhaps did not articulate it well. What I was attempting to say before my computer crashed on me (yes, I have a brand new one now – thank you for asking) is that they were guilty of abusing the power of their offices but apparently that does not constitute a criminal offense.
Shiela Polk was so dumbfounded by the actions of Thomas, Aubuchon, Arpaio and Hendershott that she publicly spoke out about the abuse of the awesome powers of the office of County Attorney. I tend to believe a highly respected CA’s opinion over that of a blogger or an opinion editor. I also read every legal document I could get my hands on throughout this whole sordid misadventure.
Anyone who truly believes that Andrew Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon were martyrs who were marching to uphold truth and justice and did nothing to deserve punishment really needs to get their head out of the sand, or where ever their head happens to be. If nothing else, read the grand jury transcript of the RICO matter in which the grand jury voted to end the inquiry. Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon shunned the decision of the grand jury, and then publicly lied about it. That alone is gross unethical conduct.
Or do you truly believe that the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings were forged or tampered with?
Or do Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon truly NOT KNOW the difference between “returning the case” and “ending the inquiry”?
Sorry if this ends up being a duplicate post. I tried to post it with a link to Mr. Robb’s entire blog but it did not show up, so I am deleting the link and trying again.
Interesting editing, by the way. The “article” chose to skip over some parts of Mr. Robb’s op ed:
” It was unfortunate that the federal investigation of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas got labeled as for abuse of power.
It was not. There is no general federal crime of abuse of power.
Instead, the federal investigation was of possible violations of specific federal and state criminal statutes. The fact that federal prosecutors decided not to file charges regarding these specific criminal statutes doesn’t mean that Arpaio and Thomas didn’t abuse their power. They did.
Arpaio and Thomas alleged a grand criminal conspiracy involving every member of the Board of Supervisors, senior county staff and several judges. The specific accusation was that the judges agreed to shield the supervisors and staff from criminal investigations in exchange for the county funding a new office building for the judges.
This grand conspiracy was alleged in a civil racketeering lawsuit filed against the lot of them and in criminal charges brought against Judge Gary Donahoe *******. The publication of grand jury transcripts makes clear that Arpaio and Thomas had not a single shred of hard evidence that such an implausible corrupt bargain actually existed.
Publicly accusing county officials and judges of committing felonies without any hard evidence is a gross abuse of power. ****** ”
He also did not disagree with the whole bar procedure. He said:
“It didn’t need to come to this. Accusing and charging people with felonies without probable cause and without any hard evidence was serious enough to warrant whatever discipline the panel thought condign, including disbarment.
The overcharging of Thomas and Aubuchon in the disciplinary process was unnecessary and unwise. The call by Arpaio critics that he be investigated for criminal offenses has backfired.
The bottom line is that Arpaio and Thomas grossly abused their power but didn’t violate federal or state criminal statutes in the process.
By claiming the latter, their opponents and critics have made the former less clear than it should be.”
Might I suggest that you read Mr. Robb’s ENTIRE post – not just the parts that support what American Post – Gazette wants you to read? The editing of his blog entirely changes the meaning of what he said.
Hi, wherewasi!
Sorry about your puter. That’s always a bummer. The worst part is getting everything set up on the new one! Good luck!
“The bottom line is that they did abuse their power while in office.” That’s not the bottom line, that’s your subjective liberal opinion, LOL!
“Throughout modern society we have tried to devise effective methods and rules to make sure professional conduct themselves to the highest standard.” And sometimes those efforts go awry as they have with the State Bar of Arizona. Then, we need to fix things!
“What I was attempting to say before my computer crashed on me (yes, I have a brand new one now – thank you for asking) is that they were guilty of abusing the power of their offices but apparently that does not constitute a criminal offense.”
No. You are deliberately conflating legal terminology with non-legal terminology here to create liberal propaganda. They aren’t “guilty” because no court has found them “guilty” of anything. Yet once again, you show disdain for the American legal principle of presumption of innocence. If and when you fashion your socialist or communist state, you can do away with presumption of innocence. Until then, persons in America are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.
Let’s have a look at the REAL bottom line!
“A. Matters Identified In October 2010 Letter”
“1. MCSO’s Misuse of County Credit Cards.”
“We found no evience of a state or federal crime relating to MCSO’s misuse of P cards during the course of our investigation.”
“2. MCSO’s misspending Of Jail Facilities Excise Tax (“JFET”) Funds.”
“There is insufficient evidence to show that this shift of funds from one purpose to another constitutes a criminal offense, such as theft or procurement fraud.”
“B. Other Matters under Investigation.”
“Based on our careful consideration of the facts and the law, we have decided to decline prosecution of these matters.”
“Ann Birmingham Scheel
Attorney for the United States”
http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arpaio-doj-montgomery-letter.pdf
The fact of the matter is that you were drooling in anticipation of convictions but Eric Holder’s DOJ disappointed you. You know Eric Holder, the first U. S. Attorney General in the history of the nation to be found in Contempt of Congress? Leonardo has only been the U. S. Attorney for Arizona since July 3, 2012. That’s because the previous U. S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, resigned over issues associated with the “Fast and Furious” scandal. Apparently Obama’s assertion of executive privilege hasn’t been very effective cover! Now you are left trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Unfortunately for you, no matter how you try to spin it, you had your shot at a “guilty” verdict and lost. Next case!
Have a nice day, “wherewasi”!
You have a nice one to C/A. Glad you can discuss topics without being a TOTAL azz like zoo.
I am wondering how Mr. Robb feels about the hack job American Post – Gazette did on his article. They seemed to really like a lot of what he said. Except the part about Arpaio and Thomas abusing their power and being guilty. I noticed how all of that part got edited.
Am I disappointed that the Feds failed to bring charges? Of course. I’ve watched the circus go on for years and I’m tired of it. Am I going to through myself off a bridge over it? No. Sorry to disappoint. I’ll still be here to point out what an ignorant, corrupt politician our trusty tin star shurf is at every opportunity.
It’s always fun to come out and play in the traffic over here. I find the deceipt of posts such as this article intriguing, and it’s always intriguing as well to chat with people who believe it. Truly, I do find many of the posts here interesting and informative. I also find some of it bizarre.
Reminds me of that old Simon and Garfunkle song, The Boxer. “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
Oooops. Yes, call me an idiot – like you don’t already… ha. I will not “throw” myself off a bridge either.
“…@WhoKnows LOL. No. I have a tattoo on my ass that says “Kiss Here…”
“…@JoeArpaioFan Make sure to paint a bulls eye on your forehead so I know which one you are…”
“…@JoeArpaioFan Do attend! I am having a lightening rod installed and hoping for a well-placed lightening bolt. Getting you and your hero in the same fry would be a good day…”
Speaking of “TOTAL azz”, “wherewasi” apparently believes HIS is quite relative in “discussing topics.” As “wherewasi” snorkels in the sewers of Feathered Bastard [as opposed to the "deceipt of posts" at Sonoran Alliance], it appears his agenda includes death threats against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his supporters. It is quite probable that MCSO monitors this cesspool and wwi may soon be receiving a knock on the door.
KNOCK!-KNOCK!-KNOCK!
LOL! Who are you addressing, zoo? “WhoKnows”? “JoeArpaioFan”? Were there comments that got deleted? Did I miss something?
Just some lively posts by “wherewasi” on the Feathered Bastard website. I thought it interesting to import these comments after reading this tripe posted above:
“…It’s always fun to come out and play in the traffic over here. I find the deceipt of posts such as this article intriguing, and it’s always intriguing as well to chat with people who believe it.”
“I also find some of it bizarre…” (Note the words “over here”)
Oooooh! I get it now, zoo.
LOL – and when you aren’t familiar with the conversation going on, you can take it out of context, just like the American Post – Gazette took Mr. Robb’s comment out of context by deleting the parts they didn’t like.
Whokonws is a good friend of mine. We were laughing about something else. I was not insulting him.
joearpaiofan is one of those trolls who just comes around to stir the pot and say nothing of substance. I know you feel the same way about me, zoo, although I really do try to make a valid point or two when I’m here.
Yes, the New Times site is definitely a little more “colorful” than S/A. I won’t deny that. I try to abide by Shane’s terms of service here. Unlilke you, I don’t take myself too seriously all the time. Life is too short to be so angry and offensive.
Here is one of your “valid points”:
“…Mr. Schweikert – I was all set to vote for you because I think Ben Quayle is an idiot and a hypocrite. Then you had to go ahead and endorse Russell Pearce. So now I am chewing on my pen wondering whether to vote for the relatively harmless moron or someone who endorsed a vile, dangerous man…”
You obviously don’t swallow your own vomit about “angry and offsensive” when you attack me and I wasn’t even participating on this thread. I realize you have a false sense of being ‘under the radar’ with the schmaltz fest going on here, but I say again – bring it on you napkin-riding troll. Feel free to crawl out of your New Times bed pan and “play in traffic” anytime.
“Schmaltz fest”? You’re doing Yiddish now?
A shaynem dank dir im pupik! Yeder eyzl hot lib tsu hern vi er aleyn hirzhet!
I don’t think that you are an idiot, wherewasi, nor would I want to see you throw yourself off a bridge! We disagree on some issues and we each make the best case we can for our point of view. That does not constitute “mortal combat”! If you were injured or in danger, I would do everything I could to help you and protect you. That’s about who I am and has nothing whatsoever to do with who you are.
Yeah, there really are some “funny” and “funky” articles that get posted here! Politics will bring that sort of stuff out of the woodwork, LOL!
Please continue to argue your point of view on issues. If we disagree, we can have a spirited debate, hopefully without attacking each other personally. It’s about issues, not personalities.
The world has been around for a long time before we arrived and it will be around for a long time after we are gone from here. Helps to keep the “big picture” in mind!
Cheers! Have some fun for yourself today!
Why, Thank You, C/A.
And I truly appreciate the acknowledgment that sometimes the things that are posted here are a bit off pitch. Seriously, I read Mr. Robb’s column on azcentral on Friday and then read it here yesterday and could not believe the audacity of the AP-G to hack his work and then proclaim this piece is his. That kind of deceipt really gets me annoyed.
No, I won’t be throwing myself off a bridge any time soon. I need to vote in November!
About this bridge thing…
You’re pretty safe here in Arizona. We don’t have too many potentially lethal bridges available, LOL! I’d be worried if you lived in New York City or San Francisco though. You could do a Billy Joe McAllister too easily in either of those places!