|—–Original Message—– From: Mark Dixon [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:20 PM To: ‘Amelia Cramer’ Cc: ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘Dee-Dee.Samet@azbar.org‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘DDrain@DianeDrain.com‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘JimmieDeeSmith@azbar.org‘; ‘Kanefieldj@ballardspahr.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘Douglas.Sylvester@asu.edu‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘John F. Phelps’
Subject: Expected contact regarding State Bar Disciplinary Council and Disciplinary Judge William J. O’Neil
I have been waiting patiently for the response you promised below. The only communication I have received is an email from Mr. Thomas McCauley:
“RE: 13-0689 (Kent Volkmer); 13-0691 (David Cowles)
“These matters have been assigned to me for investigation. I will let you know if I need any additional information and the results of my investigation.
Tom McCauley 602-340-7352″
I strongly object to the assignment of Mr. Thomas McCauley to the investigation of these issues. It is impossible for Mr. McCauley to be impartial in any investigation regarding any matter revolving around William J. O’Neil, my issues, or any issue involving Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon, Rachel Alexander etc.
Mr. McCauley ran for Maricopa County Attorney in 2004, a race he lost in the primary, and in which he was, quite frankly, not even a serious contender. Upon losing the primary race he organized Concerned Citizens Against Andrew Thomas. Mr. McCauley subsequently was fined $1,000.00 by the Maricopa County Elections Department for campaign violations under order CF04-35. McCauley supported the Democrat candidate in the General Election over Thomas — who was so out there that even Democrat Mayor Phil Gordon supported Thomas over him in the General election. The Wells Fargo bank account used was out of Portland Oregon. This appears to be an obvious attempt to secret additional finance information.
Mr. McCauley’s loyalties clearly lie against Andrew Thomas and investigating my claims against Judge O’Neil will entail reopening Thomas’s discipline investigation, along with many others that are tainted by Jg. O’Neil and his accomplices at the State Bar. As I revealed in an earlier email, Kent Volkmer warned me that O’Neil and “the establishment” would try to take me down for my attempts to expose the corruption.
My claims, which are fully supported by the evidence, clearly show a severe problem with William J. O’Neil and the attorney discipline process he controls. The true and factual affidavit that Lisa Aubuchon used in her appeal adds to the credible information supporting the fact that O’Neil did not provide Andrew Thomas and his subordinates with a fair and unbiased hearing. Mr. McCauley’s extreme bias against Andrew Thomas is cause to remove him from investigating this matter because the essence of my complaint includes abuses perpetrated against Thomas and the others by O’Neil and the disciplinary arm of the State Bar.
This speaks to the bias of the Arizona State Bar and Ms. Vessella, head of the discipline department. Ms. Vessella would have been the individual to assign these complaints to Mr. McCauley. To put it frankly, upon the inevitable investigation of my claims and exposure of William J. O’Neil, Mr. McCauley, Ms. Vessella and others in her department also will be exposed for abuses of power.
A next logical step is to re-open and question every proceeding brought by the Bar and presided over by O’Neil as the Disciplinary Judge, starting with Andrew Thomas. Mr. McCauley’s personal vendetta against Andrew Thomas compels him to find any reason not to expose the truth. Moreover, we need not look any farther than the actions taken against Mr. Ernest Calderon. Mr. Calderon served as the State Bar President from 2002 – 2003. He worked for the State Bar reviewing hundreds of investigations similar to those brought against Andrew Thomas. Even though he publicly did not agree with Thomas’s immigration policy, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office asked Mr. Calderon to review the many bar complaints filed against Andrew Thomas and the others in his administration. Mr. Calderon determined none were legitimate.
What did Mr. Calderon receive for this? He was removed as one of the four delegates to the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates, a position he had held for four years. Emails reveal that there were no character issues raised regarding Mr. Calderon. The only issues raised were “related to the Thomas matter and concerns about loyalty to the organization.” The emails further reveal the individuals attacking Mr. Calderon: “Several, led by Ed (Novak), Drain and Ditcher wayed[sic] in. Alan defended the recommendation of the Appointments Committee to reappoint you. It seemed the general sentiment was not to reappoint you and a motion was made to appoint Jeff Willis instead.
Tabling the decisions works in your favor because it will buy you time to make your case for reappointment. ” Emotions were running too high to vote today. I’m sorry about all of this, I get the impression that many Board members are unhappy with me also because of my role in the Thomas matter.” Former Bar President Daniel J. McAuliffe stated, as you have, “the members of the State Bar of Arizona’s Board of Governors do not involve themselves in disciplinary matters.”
Yet, in the matter of Mr. Calderon, it is apparent that they do, in fact, involve themselves in disciplinary matters. Specifically Mr. Calderon was punished by being removed as a delegate strictly because he presented an unbiased opinion regarding the numerous bar complaints brought against Mr. Thomas that said complaints were unfounded. Please remember that Ed Novak has been central in all these issues at the State Bar and still is.
A more recent development, just after coming out in support of the allegations I have raised, a NPR radio reported that Mr. Jack Levine, a member of the Bar’s Board of Governors, was accused of assaulting a State Bar staffer. Such an accusation is incredible. Come on, how low will some people stoop? Let’s see that one stick in the face of a claim of retaliation for Mr. Levine trying to do the right thing in attempting to hold members of the Board of the Arizona State Bar accountable.
One of the two complaints Mr. McCauley is “investigating” revolves around Tiffany & Bosco and Mr. David Cowles. Tiffany and Bosco breached an agreement with me regarding my property and they lied to me regarding my rights and their future conduct regarding the property. Since the complaint was filed, the foreclosure sale date has been postponed twice and now is set for April 18, 2013. I contend that if there was no merit to my complaint the property would have sold on the original sale date of March 21, 2013. Tiffany & Bosco committed to a judicial foreclosure on the mortgage and not the property; they further assured me that I would have access to the escrow account on said property. I do not. If there was no merit to the complaint the property would have sold long before now.
The fact that Mr. McCauley has not contacted me needing any additional information on this matter causes additional great concern regarding the integrity of this investigation. I am afraid that in the response to the complaint Tiffany and Bosco will not disclose the volumes of emails and other correspondence validating my claims. I also am sure Tiffany and Bosco will be protected from discipline due to the many Tiffany & Bosco representatives serving at the State Bar, “the establishment” will protect itself.
Currently the most conspicuous event is the change in status of my contractor’s license. In the enclosed attachment “ROC Timeline exhibits 4-15-13.pdf” (which can be found on scribd.com if not now then in the immediate future when I upload it) you will see said license was suspended on May 13, 2010 or September 27, 2010 or February 8, 2011 depending on which document you want to believe. The suspension stems from an unsubstantiated complaint filed on November 16, 2009. The complaint originally was cleared by the ROC investigator but reopened through the persistence of Maxine M. Becker Esq. with Salmon Lewis & Weldon, P. L. C. I ask you to review the file and realize that this was all done at the request of William J. O’Neil. The enclosed documents and timeline backs up this accusation and it is further substantiated by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, along with the Arizona Attorney General’s office, removing the complaint history etc. from the file. This pleases me of course but, does nothing to compensate me for the years I was not able to use my license (asset) to earn a living.
I was informed that the Arizona State Bar had no intention of looking into a complaint against William J. O’Neil regarding Robert M. Gallo as mentioned in the previous email. The State Bar disciplinary counsel has misinformed you that the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct cleared O’Neil in this matter. O’Neil was NOT cleared on these charges by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. They didn’t even consider them; the charges were just flat ignored, see the attachment “oneil complaint dismissal 12-4-12.pdf.” (check scribd.com in a few days for this file)
I want to make it clear that these charges were never addressed by the Commission and the attachment “william j oneil judicial complaint 4-16-13.pdf” (check scribd.com in a few days) is a new complaint to the Commission on Judicial Conduct addressing, in detail, those charges. I will also formally ask you to investigate those charges as it is very apparent the State Bar Disciplinary Counsel lacks the credibility to pursue this matter.
In my initial conversation with Mr. Jack Levine, we agreed that there were just a few bad apples in the system and some things needed to be straightened out. My opinion is quickly changing. A conclusion I am coming to is the Arizona Supreme Court is unable or incapable of policing its own and nothing short of a constitutional amendment abolishing the current judicial selection process and attorney discipline process will solve the problem. The Judiciary seems to thumb their nose at the legislature and governor all the while doing whatever they want, violating anyone’s rights who cross them and placing themselves above any and all A. R. S. statutes. It is time to remove this absolute power from the judiciary and put some serious oversight in the hands of the other branches of government.
I will remind you that I did not ask for this fight, it was visited upon me. What have I gotten for demanding my constitutional rights? I have had my family and business destroyed, my reputation attacked and my civil rights denied. When all this has not shut me up, then the cowards who are protected by the State Bar of Arizona attempt physical threats and intimidation. I have received death threat phone calls telling me to back off. I won’t. It is time to clean up this mess and restore the judicial process to its legitimate, respectful status. Are you part of the solution or the problem?
Sincerely, Mark Dixon