Why is Clair Van Steenwyk running against McCain, helping him win?

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

Thursday,  June 4, 2015

McCain WANTS the Senate primary race crowded to split up the conservative vote
Clair Van Steenwyk has no chance of winning, and serves only to take votes away from Kelli Ward

One way McCain stays in office is he ensures that there is a crowded primary field to split conservatives and the Tea Party. Our sources tell us that McCain’s operatives encourage – and some think financially support – long shot candidates like Clair Van Steenwyk in order to take away votes from any real credible challenger. This year, McCain has a credible challenger, Sen. Kelli Ward. She might have a chance IF conservatives all support her.

Unfortunately, Clair van Steenwyk announced on Facebook today that he is going to run.

Let’s look at what happened in 2010 when Clair van Steenwyk and Jim Deakin muddied the waters. In November 2009, Rasmussen Reports showed McCain virtually tied with JD Hayworth, 45% to 43%. By July, JD’s support had dropped to 34%.

The McCain machine is sitting around laughing their heads off right now and high-fiving each other, speculating who else will jump in to ensure his primary victory.

Listen up activists: You’ve learned this lesson before. Putting more nonviable candidates in the race isn’t going to defeat McCain, it’s going to defeat the only credible conservative candidate. So far, Kelli Ward is the only tested conservative candidate in the race. She’s made few enemies and is solid on all the issues.

Send a message to Clair and let him know this is not the right thing to do. crossroadswithvan@gmail.com

Here is his announcement:

Response To Our Friends / Supporters on Exploring a Run
For the US Senate Race Against Senator John McCain in 2016

Jean & I have decided to invest the time and some funds in the US Senate race in the 2016 Election cycle, in part to the 100’s of positive responses we’ve received from our initial question to our fellow AZ Citizens. As we informed all of you recently that we received quite a number of inquiries to run in the 2016 race against Senator McCain. With your response to our Exploring a run to see how much support is out there it left us with only one reasonable response which we’ve now made, once again thanks to all of you for your trust in us. .

Jean & I discussed and prayed about this and know Senator McCain needs to be replaced and we would enjoy being the ones to do it. We’ll be putting our fate in those who’ve given us their trust and encouraged us; keep in mind that it will take an investment of time and money to defeat Senator McCain as he’s proven with his races and those he’s supported. Having said this we treasure the trust given by all and pray for your investment in our challenge.

We’re trusting in those who’ve encouraged us to run this race to join us in the work. The Investment needed to defeat Senator McCain will be substantial, and we’re depending on you to follow up the encouragement by donating to the Campaign either on our Campaign Face Book page or website www.vanussenate.com or direct mail to; Van US Senate , 13726 West Gable Hill Dr. Sun City West, AZ 85375. We’ll also be in need of Volunteers to contact us, as we all know the importance of the Nomination Petition Signatures needed to get on the Primary Ballot. We’ll need approximately 8,000 signatures at 10 to a page, 800 petitions signed. Just suppose 800 Volunteers getting 10 signatures each including your own, so please go to www.vanussenate.com / copy one or more front and back, get them filled out, then mail back to; 13726 W. Gable Hill Drive, Sun City West, AZ 85375… ASAP.

Asking for monies from anyone in our private life has never happened and doing it even now isn’t something we do easily, however this is a battle for all of us and we hope you’ll understand the task at hand and invest in us as we’re investing in all of you.

I’ll be speaking at meetings statewide LDs, GOP, Liberty, Constitutional, AZRA, Conservative and other Groups, and of course personal residences as well, please contact us using the site or email, scheduler@vanussenate.com or call 623-322-9979.

We know this will take the efforts of all of us to be Victorious, therefore with the help of those who’ve given us their support and trust in response to the initial question we believe we’ll be able to bring this to a Successful Conclusion in August and then November of 2016.

I will be Faithful to the Oath and my Word to serve you in the US Senate. It’s Time to Stop Digging the Hole Deeper and Begin Filling It In on Those Who’ve Dug It.

We’re All In, and Hope You Are as Well the Campaign Begins Today
God Bless You All;
Clair & Jean Van Steenwyk
US Senate Candidate

Join Our Mailing List

Catch conservative comedian Evan Sayet next Wednesday in Scottsdale

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,  May 20, 2015

Evan Sayet: Proving to the nation that conservatives can do comedy

MRCTV

By Dan Joseph

 

This week, Late Show host David Letterman retired.  Letterman was a funny guy.  But he was also an unabashed liberal who often ferociously attacked his conservative guests while gushing over prominent liberal politicians and media figures.

Of course, it’s been obvious for quite some time that comedy-whether on television, in film or in the stand-up world-is dominated by liberal voices.  But, conservative comedian Evan Sayet is about to change that.

Sayet is a pioneer of conservative stand-up comedy and he’s about to bring his no-holds-barred brand of humor to venues across the country.

The tour opens on May 27th in Phoenix, Arizona and includes stops in Chicago, Boston, New York and Phoenix with a whole host of shows in other cities to be announced soon.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Sayet, he made a huge splash with a speech he gave to the Heritage foundation entitled “How Modern Liberals Think.” The video has garnered nearly 1 million views across the Internet and it turned Sayet into one of the most respected political comedians in the country.

Sayet is hilarious, yes.  But, he wants people to understand that his new show is not just for laughs.

“This is more than just a night of ‘yuks,’ Sayet told MRCTV.  Rather, it is an important conservative event with important and powerful conservative values espoused through wit and humor.”

For those of you who are still not sold as to whether conservatives can be just as funny (if not more funny) than the leftists who rule the airwaves on late night television and fake comedy news programs, check out a few of Sayet’s clips.  You’ll be singing a different tune once you get a taste of what he has to offer.

Click here and here for clips of his show.

 

 

Join Our Mailing List

Ethics attorneys: Judge Snow must recuse himself from Sheriff Arpaio’s case

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

Saturday,  May 2, 2015

NYU Law Prof: Sheriff Arpaio did nothing unethical by hiring private investigator to talk to biased judge’s wife and family

Other ethics attorneys all concur: Snow must recuse himself from the case over allegations his wife reportedly made that he is biased against Arpaio

Judge Murray Snow, reportedly of the Snow family from Arizona that has demonstrated a powerful, longstanding history of political activism aiding illegal immigrants, and destroying anyone in their way.

If you’ve been following this story, you’ve heard in most of the so-called mainstream media that Sheriff Joe Arpaio unethically hired a private investigator to look into allegations the wife of the judge handling the case against him says he is biased against him. A NYU law professor says otherwise.Arizona Public Media, one of the fairer local news sources, ran this:According to testimony from Arpaio and his chief deputy, the sheriff got a Facebook message in August 2013. It was from a woman who said she had heard Judge Murray Snow’s wife make comments that the judge hated Arpaio and didn’t want him to be re-elected. According to the sheriff, his lawyer hired a private investigator to talk with her and her family further.That had many wondering, was that ethical?

“Yes, it was appropriate. Lawyers have to protect their clients,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who studies judicial ethics.

“If this lawyer believed that there was some evidence of personal animus on the part of Judge Snow toward his clients, then investigation within certain bounds is entirely appropriate,” Gillers said.

 

Chad Snow

Chad Snow, reportedly one of Judge Snow’s relatives whose family has made it a priority to attack anyone who dares to combat illegal immigration.

 

We talked to some attorneys who practice ethics law, and they agreed. We also asked them if Judge Snow is required to recuse himself from the case due to the alleged statements by his wife as well as Arpaio hiring a PI, and they unanimously agreed he must according to judicial ethics rules, but none of them dared go on the record due to fear of retaliation by Snow. One candidly told us they believe Snow was assigned to this case to “make sure Joe goes down” and will not recuse himself for any reason, he’s in this to win it and to “destroy Joe.”

 

Another attorney who only spoke to us off the record, said Snow and his Arizona family (apparently the Snow who founded the town Snowflake) have long family ties to illegal immigrant sympathizers, which is why he was selected to handle this case against Arpaio. One of them is reportedly a relative, attorney Chad Snow, who was the co-chair on the recall effort against Senator Russell Pearce. Snow is most well-known for publicly calling a Latina a b*** for simply disagreeing with his politics. He reportedly became radicalized serving on a mission in his youth to Spain.

 

With a long, extended family history sympathetic to illegal immigration, to the point of radical activism, why hasn’t this man recused himself???

 

How’s that for a “justice” system?

Join Our Mailing List

Bar disciplinary judge’s appointee made anonymous website to target complainant

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

Saturday,  March 14th, 2015

Evidence continues to mount against State Bar disciplinary judge O’Neil

O’Neil’s “ethics” buddy Mark Salem retaliated against Mark Dixon with a disgusting smear website for going public about O’Neil’s corruption 

Arizona Republic
Critic of Arizona courts claims libel, defamation in suit
by Dennis Wagner
March 10, 2015

A Pinal County man who lodged numerous ethics complaints against Arizona’s top disciplinary judge claims in court filings that an associate of the judge waged a libelous smear campaign against him on the Internet.

In a Maricopa County Superior Court lawsuit, and in a complaint submitted to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, Mark Dixon of Casa Grande said he was branded as a liar and a cross-dresser on an Internet site operated by Mark Salem, a past member of an Arizona Supreme Court committee on judicial oversight.

Salem, as a Supreme Court appointee, has in the past helped adjudicate numerous State Bar complaints with Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge William “Bill” O’Neil, who oversees lawyer ethics and discipline for the Arizona Supreme Court. Salem resigned Aug. 12, 2014, as a disciplinary panelist, six weeks after Dixon’s lawsuit was filed.

Dixon contends Salem launched the website as retribution after Dixon publicly sought to have O’Neil disciplined or removed from power. In April, The Arizona Republic published a detailed account of that controversy.

Dixon and others have alleged in court papers and hearings that O’Neil engaged in unethical and unlawful behavior involving abuse of power, conflicts of interest and real-estate transactions.

Salem, a former Scottsdale police officer, is co-owner of Salem Boys Auto. He hosts talk-radio shows on auto repairs and for years has been a guest columnist for newspapers including The Republic. He and his attorney declined comment for this story.

To date, Dixon’s allegations regarding O’Neil have been dismissed, or discarded without publicly disclosed investigation, by the Supreme Court and other agencies. Nevertheless, Dixon contends his efforts to expose wrongdoing made him a target on Salem’s now-defunct website known as pinaljustice.com.

In a Dec. 23 disclosure, Salem attorney Matthew Kleifield denied all the defamation claims but acknowledged his client created an Internet site to rebut Dixon’s public allegations against O’Neil. Kleifield contended Salem’s criticisms were not libelous because they were true or drew reasonable inferences from Dixon’s own words. He also disputed whether Dixon suffered any damages.

In 2010, Salem, O’Neil and others were appointed by then-Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch to a state Supreme Court Committee on Improving Judicial Oversight and Processing of Probate Court Matters. In recent years, Salem also has served as a “public” member on at least eight panels convened by O’Neil to hear disciplinary cases against Arizona lawyers.

O’Neil did not respond to requests for comment.

Divorce dispute

Dixon began investigating O’Neil, a longtime acquaintance, in 2009 after being detained by Pinal County sheriff’s deputies in connection with a divorce dispute over ownership of a dog.

In a lawsuit and other public documents, Dixon alleged that O’Neil sided with Dixon’s ex-wife in the canine controversy, and used his power as a then-Pinal County Superior Court judge to influence deputies.

As the feud escalated, Dixon filed complaints against O’Neil with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the FBI and other agencies. All were dismissed.

O’Neil was appointed as the state’s first and only presiding disciplinary judge in 2010. Under a new Arizona system, he became the only judge in the state responsible for deciding whether Arizona lawyers have violated ethical rules, and meting out sanctions against those found culpable.

According to domain history records, Salem is the registrant, administrator and billing contact for pinaljustice.com.

Pinaljustice.com was shut down in late November, according to the records, but print-outs made before that date were submitted as exhibits in Dixon’s suit. Postings include Dixon’s phone number, home address and messages such as: “Mark is said to be (a) big, fat, stupid, ugly, recently divorced 52-yr-old a–hole.” Some postings attempt to refute Dixon’s allegations about O’Neil.

Dixon said he filed a new complaint against O’Neil with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. He provided The Republic a signed copy dated Sept. 30, 2014. It alleged the judge “directly or indirectly engaged in an act of retaliation by conspiring with Mark E. Salem,” but he offered no evidence to support that assertion. The commission does not comment on pending cases, but an agency dismissal published online Nov. 19 says the commission decided O’Neil did not violate ethics or the judicial code.

Last week, Dixon’s attorney in the civil complaint against Salem filed a request to withdraw from that case.

Earlier allegations

The prior complaints from Dixon, and motions filed by attorneys who had sought to remove O’Neil from disciplinary cases, alleged that the judge:

— Ghost-wrote court filings on behalf of Dixon before they became alienated, including a complaint lodged against another Superior Court judge in Pinal County.

— Took part in an allegedly unlawful short-sale of a Casa Grande house owned by O’Neil’s mother-in-law. Records show O’Neil’s close friend and business partner, Brian Brenfleck, purchased the residence for $75,000 at a time when records showed mortgages totaling over $600,000. After the short sale eliminated mortgage debts, records show, O’Neil paid $25,000 to Brenfleck for a half interest. O’Neil’s mother-in-law remained as the home’s occupant.

— Presided over Arizona lawyer discipline hearings with a co-panelist, the late Robert Gallo, who was a family friend, without informing defendants of the relationship.

During an interview with The Republic last year, O’Neil denied ghost-writing legal documents for Dixon. He said transactions involving his mother-in-law’s house were not fraudulent. He acknowledged serving on ethics panels alongside Gallo without advising defendants about the friendship, but said there was no impropriety.

Dixon and others also alleged that O’Neil engaged in conflicts and bias while playing multiple roles in the disbarment of Andrew Thomas, the former Maricopa County Attorney.

Thomas and assistant Lisa Aubuchon were accused of prosecutorial misconduct in the 2010 filing of criminal conspiracy charges against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and other county officials. Donahoe and the other county officials ultimately were exonerated.

O’Neil presided over the high-profile ethics trial of Thomas and Aubuchon in 2012. Aubuchon asked O’Neil to withdraw due to an alleged conflict of interest, but he refused and ultimately wrote the 247-page judgment against her and Thomas.

The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Aubuchon’s appeal.

Dixon, a former construction contractor with a 1997 conviction for fraud, contends the state’s legal establishment has repeatedly covered up wrongdoing while trying to discredit him. He said Salem’s Internet site was the latest and most vile example. Besides describing Dixon as a “habitual liar,” it refers to him as “a woman in drag,” a “turd” and other slurs.

Dixon said he e-mailed a copy of his latest Judicial Conduct complaint to Supreme Court Chief Justice Scott Bales with a message that says, “You as the Chief Justice can shrug your responsibility of the Judicial Complaint but the responsibility for the Supreme Court appointee Mark Salem is definitely yours. It is beyond any level of acceptance that these events were ever allowed to occur. What is more disturbing though is that Mark Salem represents the level of integrity of the Supreme Court.”

Heather Murphy, a Supreme Court spokeswoman, said justices cannot comment on lawsuits or other pending legal matters that may come before them in the future.

Join Our Mailing List

Clarification on AG Mark Brnovich and rape lawsuit

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

Tuesday,  February 10th, 2015

New Attorney General did not file objection to victim suing prison over rape

An Assistant Attorney General under former AG Tom Horne filed the motion to dismiss before Brnovich even took office

Arizona’s new attorney General, Mark Brnovich, has been attacked in the media for supposedly objecting to a teacher’s lawsuit against a prison for being raped while visiting. The Phoenix New Times looked into it, and here is some of what they uncovered:

Note the names and the date

Roxana Bacon really should know better.

A former president of the Arizona State Bar, she recently penned an op-ed for the Arizona Republic, wherein she blasted state Attorney General Mark Brnovich for a blame-the-victim “you asked for it” opinion of rape.

“In Brnovich’s view,” she wrote, “prisons are places where guards and administrators have no responsibility to maintain safety or protect its citizens. If there is no duty to protect, we should not be surprised that there is no protection. Under Brnovich’s view of Arizona’s law, his only duty is to post signs that say `enter at your own risk.'”

That would be outrageous if it were true. But it’s not.

See, Bacon and other wrong-way opinionators are blasting the new Republican AG for an argument he didn’t make, in a case he inherited from the administration of Attorney General Tom Horne.

It involves a civilian worker for the Arizona Department of Corrections, who was brutally raped when left alone and unprotected as she administered pre-GED tests to inmates at the state prison in Eyman.

 

The woman is suing in federal court, and I hope she gets every penny coming to her.

The AG’s office is representing the ADC, as it is required to under state law.

In December, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Weisbard, who has been with the AG’s office since 2011 (though he was admitted to the bar in 1988, and may have worked for the AG before), submitted a motion to dismiss the case, using an argument that I’m sure he regrets now.

In the filing, Weisbard writes:

Here, Plaintiff is an ADOC employee who routinely worked at the prison complex. By being placed in a classroom at the complex, the officers were not placing Plaintiff in any type of situation that she would not normally face. The risk of harm, including assault, always existed at a prison like Eyman.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton has since denied the motion, following oral arguments earlier this week.

Many rightly have been outraged by the language in Weisbard’s filing.

However, Bacon and various individuals on Twitter and Facebook wrongly have asserted that Brnovich himself made this argument or at the very least approves of it.

Indeed, to read Bacon’s op-ed, you’d think it was the policy of Brnovich’s office to blame victims of rape for their victimhood.

She also unfairly lumped Brnovich in with purveyors of “right-wing rhetoric” about rape, a clear attempt to “Todd Akin” the AG.

In another ridiculous passage, she writes:

So what would Brnovich’s response be to rape and assault of a visitor to our prisons, or to violence directed to guards (who surely know what to expect)? According to the remarks in his motion to dismiss, it would be “too bad. You showed up, so you asked for it.”

Actually, when I spoke to Brnovich on Friday about the case, he expressed his disapproval of the motion’s language.

“As a father of two girls, a husband, and a prosecutor who has dealt with a lot of victims over the course of my career, it was disheartening to read the language in the pleading,” he admitted.

— 

He observed what Bacon no doubt knows as well: That the original motion had been filed by Weisbard before he’d taken office. 

 

Here is a link to the full article. 

Join Our Mailing List

AZ Judicial Commission recommends not retaining two judges – but are they right?

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,  October 29th, 2014

Two judges not recommended due to “temperament,” vague criteria

Disgruntled attorneys who lost cases in front of them likely big part of the reason for poor reviews

Contributed by a reader

 

In the past, the Arizona Judicial Commission has rarely recommended not retaining any judges – which is obviously greatly flawed, considering all the judicial activism and political targeting that goes on. The commission is run by leftist busybodies tied to the State Bar, so this is no surprise. It contains attorneys/judges like Robert Carter Olson, considered one of the crookedest judges in the state.

 

Note that virtually all of the judges receive a unanimous YES from all 29 members of the commission. What does that tell you? They’re not thinking independently; everyone is scared to death of voting against a judge because of the risk of retaliation.

 

Let’s look at the commission’s history. The last time the commission actually recommended not retaining one judge, it was the wrong decision.The full story behind their recommendation not to retain Judge Crane McClennan has been covered by the conservative website azjudgesreview here and here. What it came down to was left-wing criminal defense attorneys didn’t like him.

 

This year, the commission is recommending not retaining Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Norris and Pima County Superior Court Judge Catherine Woods. Let’s look at the evidence. Both judges received poor marks for “temperament” and “communications.” Not even the vague word “ethics.” They are being accused of not having the right personality. Are you kidding??? What about factors like judicial activism, targeting or favoritism, the real things that matter?

 

Let’s look a little closer at their background and qualifications. Woods was appointed by Governor Brewer in 2011 – ok, probably a Republican, that makes sense why she’s on their hit list. She is a juvenile judge. Nothing in her bio jumps out to us as a problem, in fact it’s fairly impressive. The commission lists nothing other than that against her. Tellingly, their opinion is based on the fact that 21 out of 106 attorneys returned scores of 60 to 88% about her temperament, etc. Just TWENTY-ONE attorneys. What you’re not hearing is that of the 7 out of 89 litigant witnesses who returned surveys about her, ALL SEVEN gave her 100% scores. That’s right. Who do you believe, some attorneys who may have represented the losing party in a case in front of her, or witnesses who likely have nothing to gain financially or professionally?

 

It sounds to us like the good ole boys club looking out for the good ole boys club. The busybody attorneys on the commission are looking out for their buddies – Democrat attorneys – who lost their cases in front of this Republican judge.

 

Next, let’s examine the other attorney the commission recommended not to retain. Norris was appointed in 2008 by Napolitano and has been a family law judge. A quick google search reveals that he appears to be biased against fathers in custody cases. The votes against him are worse, 35 out of 93 attorneys returned surveys rating him from 59% to 84% in various areas. 42 out of 398 litigant witnesses returned surveys rating him from 86% to 96%. Four attorneys rated him as unsatisfactory when it came to fairness towards gender.

 

Based on a more objective analysis that takes into account a conservative political perspective, we’d recommend retaining Woods and not retaining Norris. More GOP recommendations on voting for judges can be found here. With such a lack of real information about judges, the system needs to be changed to electing judges, not appointing them with low-information retention elections.

Join Our Mailing List

 

Huge breaking ethics scandal with Mary Rose Wilcox and APS

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

Friday,  October 24th, 2014

APS sold Mary Rose Wilcox a plot of land for nearly $100,000 below market value

She rents it back to APS for at least $5,000 a year; didn’t disclose when voting on APS projects as county supervisor

Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/APSpayingoffMaryRoseWilcox

For the first time, we now know that APS gave Mary Rose Wilcox a shady, below-market land deal AND is paying her at least $5,000 a year for the right to rent back that property.

The Phoenix New Times reported yesterday that the land Mary Rose Wilcox bought from APS for $152,750 “should have gone for at least $675,000.”

But Wilcox never disclosed this business deal with APS while voting to give APS millions of dollars in county contracts. So what is Mary Rose Wilcox hiding?

But what is APS getting from Wilcox?

The Phoenix New Times reports: “Wilcox increased her net worth through land deals, with at least one in 2003 involving an acre purchased from Arizona Public Service for hundreds of thousands of dollars below market value. She didn’t disclose that transaction even as she voted as a county supervisor on APS-related projects.”

Mary Rose Wilcox bought a parking lot from APS for, according to the New Times, between 1/3rd and 1/5th of fair market value — and then rented the space back to APS for thousands of dollars a year.

Not a bad deal if you can get it, right?

When asked why she had received tens of thousands of dollars from APS without disclosing it, Mary Rose Wilcox’s only explanation was: “APS says, ‘We need to pay you.'”

Demand to know why APS is paying Mary Rose Wilcox.

Why is APS paying Mary Rose Wilcox while she votes on their projects such a big deal? This breaks it down pretty well:

“What is APS? The largest electric utility in Arizona and 27th largest coal energy producer in the United States has ownership interests in three huge coal-fired power plants: the Cholla Generating Station, the Four Corners Steam Plant, and the Navajo Generating Station. It’s a corporate funder of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and sits on its energy, environment, and agriculture task force. APS is notorious for its attack on net metering solar energy, pouring $9 million – or $9 per ratepayer – into an effort to convince regulators that Arizona’s precious sunshine is so rare that solar panel owners must pay to access it.”

Mary Rose Wilcox drives a North Star SLS Cadillac with a “MRSROSE” vanity plate. But it should read: “APSPAYSME”

For more information, visit the Facebook page

Join Our Mailing List

Citizens4CleanCourts-AZ.org places billboards against judges this election

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
Tuesday, October 14th, 2014
Brand-new organization seeks to reform corruption in the courts

Recommends removing/voting against Bar disciplinary judge, certain AZ Supreme Court Justices and more 

Citizens4CleanCourts-AZ.org is taking Arizona by storm with its tall billboards announcing the worst judges in Arizona today, mostly activist progressives who have abused the system to the advantage of themselves and their friends, at great expense to the innocent people who have had their lives ruined by them. Remember who they when you cast your ballot on November 4th or by early ballot. It is time to start cleaning the corrupt judges out of office, and stop retaining them every year. Visit the website at http://www.citizens4cleancourts-az.org/ for more information.

Join Our Mailing List

The Loathsome Phoenix New Times – 6,690 Hate-Filled Articles Against Russell Pearce

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

Friday,  September 26th, 2014

http://gilbertwatch.com/index.cfm/blog/the-loathsome-phoenix-new-times-6-690-hate-filled-articles-against-russell-pearce/  

There is far more that the public needs to know than has been reported about Russell Pearce’s so-called “insensitive comments,” and I intend to report it.  Then, and only then, will I “move on.”  

It wasn’t the “mainstream” media that originally published the misleading story about Russell Pearce’s comments.  It was Stephen Lemons of the tabloid Phoenix New Times.  It’s important that Republicans know about Lemons, who calls himself the “feathered bastard,” and about the Phoenix New Times.  Both are infamous for their venomous articles against Republicans and, in particular, conservatives.  Stephen Lemons has made a career out of stalking Russell Pearce, trolling for anything that can be turned into dirt, attaching a lurid title and publishing it.  To say that the man is merely obsessed with destroying Pearce and his livelihood assumes that Lemons is sane. 

Don’t you think that 6,690 hate-filled articles against one person is a tad suspect? I wouldn’t give the Phoenix New Times or any of its shiftless, creepy writers the time of day, much less an interview.  (I’d have to take a shower afterward to wash off the slime.)

Here’s a link to those (at last count) 6,690 articles.  That’s 690 pages of titles, 10 to a page.

Click HERE for Lemons’ “breaking news” original article.  Lemons bragged in a later article against Pearce: “I was the first to report Pearce’s statements. It’s safe to say that if I had not reported them, the story would not have been picked up by other outlets, such as The Raw Story, which posted a clip of the radio show on YouTube.”  Click HERE for that article.

Imagine if somebody stalked you 24/7 for the last 7 years, trolling for something, anything, and then twisting it to be used against you.

If you scratch the surface of the Phoenix New Times tabloid chanters just a little, you would discover that everything that has been published by them against Pearce is either a lie or a half-truth.  The problem with a half-truth is that, when it comes to the New Times, you most likely got the wrong half.

Why the Visceral Hatred for Russell Pearce?

Why has this bunch of low-lifes got Russell Pearce in its crosshairs?  For the same reason he was targeted for the Recall:  Senate President Russell Pearce crafted most of SB1070.   Nearly three years ago, I wrote an article which was published in American Thinker about who was behind the Recall and why.   Click HERE to read “Leftist Recall Strikes Architect of SB1070 in Arizona.”

Also, Russell Pearce was an extremely effective state legislator, which made him an equally serious threat to Arizona’s Left.  See The Russell Pearce Record.

Phoenix New Times and Sex Trafficking of Children.

Phoenix New Times is owned by the Village Voice Media, the same company that owns BackPage.com, which is the largest source for adult services listings on the Internet.  Its ads for “escort services,” includes selling children’s sexual services to pedophiles.   Sex trafficking is a multi-million dollar business.  The two primary share holders of Village Voice Media are Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, founders of the Phoenix New Times.  See Village Voice Pimps.  See also Where Pimps Peddle their Goods.

This sleaze has gonemostly unreported locally.  In fact, you often must go to media outlets outside of the United States to find out what’s going on inside our country.  Click HERE for a link to the Daily Mail UK News article titled “Teenage girls sue Backpage.com as they claim controversial sex website is responsible for their trafficking.”

Here is some rare local reporting by ABC 15 News.  See “MCSO: 51 arrests include prostitution on Backpage.com.”  Here’s a quote:  “They (MCSO) discovered the prostitute’s information came from Backpage.com, a website owned and operated by the Phoenix-based Village Voice Media group, which also owns Phoenix New Times.”

Republicans Go off the Rails

It pains me to say this right now when we should be exposing how far to the Left the Democrats have become in our state legislature.  However, when some of our Republican candidates went off half-cocked and started “condemning” Russell Pearce, based on the Leftist word of Stephen Lemons, it was one of the most appalling acts of disloyalty I’ve ever witnessed.  No wonder Republicans are leaving the party, when their own leaders behave like buzzards picking the bones of a comrade that their enemy just shot down.   

Republicans Who Put on their Thinking Caps

Here is the Truth about former Senator Pearce’s comments from people who bothered to do some fact checking:  Click on these links: Russell Pearce responds to Mainstream Media Frenzy, published by the Intellectual Conservative, and  “Russell Pearce Stands Tall as an American Patriot,” which was published by the Arizona Conservative.  His unforgivable mortal sin was, in his haste, to not attribute his remarks to this November 2010 letter:  “Fixing Social Security; Put me in charge of welfare, Medicare and housing grants.”

 Join Our Mailing List

Federal judge upholds $638,148 wrongful termination suit for Deputy County Attorney against county supervisors for whistleblowing

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

Tuesday,  September 9th, 2014

Supervisors waste more taxpayer dollars appealing verdict against them for retaliating against whistleblowing Deputy County Attorney Maria Brandon

Maricopa County Supervisors will not stop abusing tax dollars in witchhunts against those exposing their corruption

MCBOS-Jail-Card1-1024x791 You don’t need to hear it from us, even the Phoenix New Times is reporting on this latest abuse. Here are some excerpts from their article today:

Maricopa County officials violated the rights of a former deputy county attorney by firing her after she spoke to a local newspaper, a federal judge confirms.

In an eight-page ruling last week that upholds February’s $638,148 jury verdict in the case, U.S District Judge Frederick Martone wrote that “more than sufficient evidence” proved lawyer Maria Brandon’s allegations that the county retaliated against her for talking to an Arizona Republic reporter in 2010.

The case stemmed from a brief, innocuous-sounding quote that Brandon gave to the Arizona Republic for a 2010 article by veteran scribes Craig Harris and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez. The article was about a lawsuit settlement with seven anti-Sheriff Joe Arpaio demonstrators who were arrested unfairly by the sheriff’s office in two 2008 incidents.

Brandon, acting as lawyer for the Sheriff’s Office, didn’t want to pay the protesters more than $7,500 each in a settlement deal. Unexpectedly, lawyers for the Board of Supervisors and Assistant Risk Manager Rocky Armfield had the payout bumped up to a total of nearly half a million bucks.
“I don’t know why they did what they did, and I’m sure they have their reasons,” Brandon told the Republic for the July 9, 2010, article.

 

Whether she realized it, or not, Brandon had stepped on a hornet’s nest. At the time, county administration officials were engaged in a serious feud with the Sheriff’s Office, which was acting unethically in a no-holds-barred attack on the Supervisors and county management that stemmed from a budget dispute. The feud culminated with the 2012 disbarment of former County Attorney Andy Thomas, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “unholy” ally.

 

Armfield and Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson (who sued the county in June 2010, later receiving a $122,000 settlement) complained about Brandon to her employer. County Attorney’s Office supervisors then took the suggestion to strip Brandon of all of her risk-management cases. The move “all but eliminated her workload and undermined her reputation and standing” in the county attorney’s office, which ultimately led to her firing, Judge Martone wrote.

Evidence in the case revealed that Wilson and Armfield, in pressuring the County Attorney’s Office to do something about Brandon, overstepped their authority.

As we covered earlier this year, the County Attorney’s Office blamed Brandon for causing an altercation with paralegal Jackie Garcia — even though Garcia had made threats in front of other office employees to “kick [Brandon’s] ass.” Garcia was given a five-day unpaid suspension, while Brandon, a 31-year employee of the county, was fired.

Larry Cohen, Brandon’s lawyer, told the jury that discipline for the altercation with Garcia was the invented “pretext” for firing Brandon. Judge Martone seems to back up that contention in his new ruling — thus making Brandon’s supervisors at the CA’s Office look underhanded.

 

In an accompanying ruling last week, Martone also ordered the county to pay an additional $10,817 to Brandon for various court costs.

 

Read Judge Martone’s full ruling 

 

If the county supervisors attempt to appeal this to the Ninth Circuit, when are the grown-ups going to step up and stop this abuse of taxpayers’ dollars?

Join Our Mailing List