Mary Rose Wilcox has Tea Party opponent

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
Monday, May 21, 2012

Tea Party activist Ron Harders announces his candidacy for Maricopa County Supervisor   

Harders was disgusted with the level of corruption coming from Wilcox


 

Tired of the neverending political corruption coming out of the Maricopa County Supervisors’ office, Tea Party Activist Ron Harders has decided to run against Mary Rose Wilcox. The district is heavily gerrymandered in favor of a Democrat Hispanic, but the level of corruption coming from Wilcox has gotten so bad maybe it will sink through to her constituents. After all, even the liberal Arizona Republic has started denouncing her behavior, such as the $975,000 taxpayer payout to her for “stress.”

Here is Ron’s bio:
BSBA Acctg Roosevelt U 1964, WMA Alton IL 1953;US AF 1954-60 Russian Linguist AF Intelligence, Acctg Clerk, Controller Wagner Sign Serv. 1965-69; Gainfully unemployed in various endeavors since. Acctg, Sales. computers, headhunter, entrepreneur, Republican PC, State Committeeman, Amer Legion Post 134; Treas several orgs; AZ Freedom Alliance, AZ Project

THANK YOU Ron for stepping up to the plate! Time to clean up the Maricopa County Supervisors’ office. Fulton Brock and Don Stapley are both not running for reelection. It is relief that the last really corrupt Supervisor may be going away too. THANK YOU Tea Party activists for keeping on this corruption and producing a candidate!

Join Our Mailing List

County Treasurer considers legal action to stop Wilcox settlement

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, May 15, 2012

Treasurer consulting with attorney to figure out how to stop $975,000 taxpayer payout to Wilcox for “stress”  

Judge Wake improperly bypassed statute requiring county treasurer to approve such payouts


 

by Jeremy Duda

Arizona Capitol Times

May 15, 2012

 

(we can only print excerpts in order to avoid copyright violations)

Maricopa County Treasurer Charles “Hos” Hoskins will meet with an attorney to determine whether he can take legal action to stop a $975,000 settlement to Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. Hoskins said County Attorney Bill Montgomery will assign an outside attorney to him to help him determine whether he has legal grounds to challenge a federal judge’s ruling to award the money to Wilcox as compensation for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ investigation and indictment of her.

 

The crux of his argument is whether U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake improperly bypassed the requirement in state statute that the county treasurer approve all such settlements.

“If I just sat idly by and did nothing, you as a citizen could bring an action against me for not upholding the law. Now, that’s the question,” Hoskins said. “If I am correct in that assumption, then the next step will be to decide what action I can take to uphold that provision of the law.”

The Board of Supervisors in 2010 authorized then-County Manager David Smith to negotiate settlements stemming from cases involving Arpaio and Thomas’ investigations. But Hoskins said ARS 11-626, which states that all claims against the county by a member of the Board of Supervisors must have the approval of at least one other supervisor, “and of the county treasurer.”

“The court seemed to think the board de facto approved the claim whenever they appointed Smith to resolve the issue back in 2010,” Hoskins said. “Supervisor approval is only the second step of the process. You don’t get closer until the third step, which is the approval by the treasurer.”

 

Join Our Mailing List

Laurie Roberts: Wilcox should not accept $975,000 from taxpayers

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, May 15, 2012

Former County Manager David Smith gave away large settlement amounts of taxpayers’ money out of anger (for being forced to resign?) 

Judge who dismissed criminal charges against Wilcox admitted he never adjudicated it on the merits


Supervisors did great political botch job

by Laurie Roberts

Arizona Republic

May 15, 2011

 

Take a bow, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

You, Max Wilson and Andy Kunasek and Fulton Brock.

Special accolades to Mary Rose Wilcox for a job exceedingly well done. Oh, it won’t rate the coveted Golden Rule in Government Award. I think we can rule that one out, based on her decision to trample the “do unto others” clause on her march to nearly a million dollars — of our money, that is.

But overall, applause all around. Hands down the best political botch job I have seen this year, and given that this is Arizona, that is saying something.

In the end Wilcox got her money, and Wilson, Kunasek and Brock got caught with their pants down. And the taxpayers? We got played.

As usual.

U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake on Friday ruled that we owe Wilcox $975,000 — plus whatever the cost of her legal fees for having to return to court to pry loose her bonanza.

On Monday, the supervisors were busy tugging on their Sansabelts, pondering how they got outmaneuvered and whether to appeal.

“I still think it requires a board member to sign off on it,” Kunasek said.

This particular piece of political theater began in December 2009 when Wilcox was charged with 42 criminal counts, stemming from allegations that she voted to grant public funds to Chicanos Por La Causa while obtaining loans from one of its subsidiaries. Three months later, a Pima County judge dismissed the charges, citing prosecutorial misconduct, but noted that he never considered the merits of the case against Wilcox.

Cue the pain, the suffering and the inevitable lawsuit against us.

Wilcox claimed that she suffered terribly, losing not only her restaurant but her Golden Rule in Government Award, an honor withdrawn by the Arizona InterFaith Movement after she was indicted.

She joined fellow Supervisor Don Stapley and seven others in filing $46 million worth of claims against us for mistreatment at the hands of then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

In June 2010, the supervisors — the three who weren’t preparing to sue us — authorized then-County Manager David Smith to settle the claims.

In February, Smith talked about paying only their legal fees.

Then suddenly last month, as one of his last acts before retiring, he began doling out big money: $500,000 to retired Judge Barbara Mundell and Stapley’s secretary, Susan Schuerman.

Then, the shocker: He offered Wilcox $975,000.

“David Smith was leaving and he didn’t care if he angered the board,” Scott Isham, Wilson’s chief of staff told me on Monday. “This was an ‘Fyou’ out the door.”

County Attorney Bill Montgomery advised that the Wilcox windfall would have to be approved by one of her colleagues and the county treasurer. When her colleagues refused, Wilcox headed to federal court, hoping to convince Wake that she didn’t need anyone’s approval to cash in on her pain and suffering.

On Friday, Wake agreed with her.

It was almost hard not to, given the anemic defense put on by Steve LaMar, the attorney hired to defend the county.

He acted as if he’d never heard of Montgomery’s legal opinion, which, in any case, the judge said “clearly doesn’t apply.”

And LaMar’s argument — that any outlay over $200,000 needed board approval — fell apart when Smith testified that $500,000 checks had already been cut to Mundell and Schuerman.

Bottom line: Wake found that the supervisors long ago handed Smith a blank check to settle the claims as he saw fit.

Kunasek told me on Monday he always believed that Wilcox’s settlement would have to be approved by at least one board member.

“If I want to get reimbursed for cab fare, I need to have another board member sign off on it,” he said.

Both he and Wilson signed affidavits noting that they advised Smith that any Wilcox settlement would be subject to board approval. They just didn’t show up in court Friday to defend that point of view — a fact duly noted by the judge. Meanwhile, Smith was there to testify that he doesn’t recall ever being told any such thing.

“My authority was to settle claims and, acting within that authority, that’s what I did,” he said.

It took Wake about two seconds to order us to show Mary Rose the money, and an elated Wilcox proclaimed that justice prevailed.

“I will rededicate myself to being the best county supervisor I can be,” she told a reporter.

Of course, the best county supervisor she could be would be one who declines to take money from the people who for decades have been electing her.

Yeah, that’ll happen.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8635.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/05/14/20120514roberts0515-supervisors-did-great-political-botch-job.html#ixzz1ux7Zm9Z5
 

Join Our Mailing List

Wilcox finally gets $975,000 for “stress” by hiring former presiding judge as her attorney and getting anti-Arpaio judge

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
Sunday, May 13, 2012

Three other county supervisors, Bill Montgomery, and Hos Hoskins refused to sign off on $975,000 settlement for Wilcox   

Wilcox sneakily hires Colin Campbell, former presiding Judge of the Superior Court to appeal decision to a federal judge who rubberstamped her settlement


In a move right out of the mafia movies, corrupt County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox figured out how to go around the system to get almost $1 million awarded to herself for “stress” over being prosecuted by Arpaio/Thomas. Even the other Supervisors refused award her the money! Fulton Brock, Andrew Kunasek, and Max Wilson stood up to her and would not authorize the settlement (Don Stapley could not vote since he was conflicted out, having his own lawsuit against the county for stress). County Attorney Bill Montgomery issued an opinion which said the $975,000 settlement would need authorization by one county supervisor and the county treasurer. County treasurer Hos Hoskins, friend of the Tea Party, first refused to sign off on it, and the rest followed suit.

When Wilcox found out that not even one of them would authorize the settlement, she went out and hired Colin Campbell, the former presiding judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and a liberal Democrat, to sue the county and force it to give her the money. His crony on the bench, Judge Neil Wake, handed over not only $975,000 to Wilcox but her attorneys fees too. That’s right, for successfully using taxpayers’ money to fight off any investigation or prosecution against her, Wilcox is awarded more taxpayers’ money. Wake has a long history of ruling against Arpaio and should have recused himself from deciding whether to award money to one of Arpaio’s enemies.
Everyone knows that Wilcox is corrupt but has successfully been able to avoid prosecution by filing complaints with the Justice Department to stop Arpaio from investigating her, and filing bar complaints against any prosecutor who tries to prosecute her. Wilcox claims that her restaurant El Portal was shut down because of the negative publicity in order to get sympathy, but the truth is it had racked up numerous food violations. Her other restaurant stays in business at Sky Harbor Airport because she finagled a minority-owned business exclusive franchise to it.Wealthy Wilcox an oppressed minority?

Wilcox is doing so well financially courtesy of us taxpayers she recently bought a SECOND late model Corvette. While most of us are struggling, barely affording older, average cars, Wilcox is riding high on the taxpayers’ dole buying additional sports cars. We don’t even know what her husband drives. Guesses anyone? A Cadillac is our guess.

Already, the supervisors’ hatchet man David Smith has awarded hundreds thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money to five of Wilcox’s cronies who have sued the county over “stress.” Talk about a conflict of interest! Even Arpaio/Pearce protester Randy Parraz got in on the gravy train, and was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars for “stress” for protesting at a protest he wasn’t even at. One deputy county attorney lost her job over objecting to the payoff, which was designed to smear Arpaio.

Next up: How much will Don “the Don” Stapley get in his settlement for “stress”? Predictions anyone? $2 million? $1.5 million? What about Conley “the Con” Wolfswinkel, Stapley’s former business partner and a convicted felon. We hear he’s next on the gravy train. Expect Colin Campbell to get a generous retainer for representing them too. After that, look for Wilcox or Stapley or one of their cronies to file a bar complaint against Bill Montgomery, since he dared to stand up to Wilcox.

Join Our Mailing List

Russell Pearce still running for his old Senate seat

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, May 11, 2012

Contrary to false rumors in the blog Western Free Press, which supports Russell’s new challenger Bob Worsley, a Republican with questionable credentials and questionable motives for running for office, Russell Pearce is still running for his old Senate Seat. We don’t like the Arizona Republic, but at least they put the smear article to rest today. Russell is having a fundraiser tomorrow night in Fountain Hills, only $25.
Join Our Mailing List

The Arizona Project PAC with co-sponsors Jim & Adriana Gruber and Dr. Glenna McCollum honor: Maricopa County Treasurer ‘Hos’ Hoskins …and candidates for Maricopa County Supervisor:

Boycott working: Harkins Theaters & Harley Davidson drop advertising in Phoenix New Times

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, May 8, 2012

Senator Russell Pearce, B.A.N. president, today announced that two major Arizona businesses had suspended advertising with the pro-illegal immigration Phoenix New Times / Village Voice Media companies. HARKINS THEATERS andBUDDY STUBBS HARLEY DAVIDSON have suspended advertising with the New Times, according to representatives of both companies yesterday, April 9th.

On March 28th, B.A.N. called for a boycott of advertisers who refuse to suspend business with the pro-amnesty New Times / Village Voice Media. Their ad-dollars fund the New Times’ attacks on law enforcement, elected officials and conservative individuals and organizations in Arizona and across the nation. In recent weeks, the New Times / Village Voice has come under intense scrutiny for alleged ties to prostitution advertising and links to child sex trafficking on its advertising pages.

RUSSELL PEARCE: Thank you to Harkins Theaters, Buddy Stubbs Harley Davidson for boycotting Phoenix New Times

Written by Sean McCaffrey on April 10, 2012, 04:30 PM
Ban Amnesty Now (B.A.N.), with more than 400,000 members/supporters in Arizona, and more than 800,000 across America, has announced two major Phoenix-area businesses have suspended advertising with the Phoenix New Times / Village Voice Media.

Harkins Theaters and Buddy Stubbs Harley Davidson both informed Ban Amnesty Now yesterday they were suspending all future advertising with the Phoenix New Times / Village Voice Media. The advertising suspensions came in response to recent reports of New Times / Village Voice Media ties to prostitution and sex trafficking, including that of children, according to the Associated Press.

Ban Amnesty Now has called for all Arizona businesses, including retailers like Buddy Stubbs Harley Davidson, entertainment venues like Harkins Theaters, restaurants and other businesses, to stop advertising with the New Times / Village Voice publications. The revenues from their advertisements, along with those tied to prostitution and other sordid crimes, are funding the New Times’ vicious attacks against Arizona law enforcement, elected officials, and conservative individuals and organizations.

“We have suspended all advertising with the New Times,” Bryan Laurel, marketing director of Harkins Theaters, told B.A.N.

“We won’t be advertising with New Times anymore until this is all resolved,” wrote Phillip McKee, in a communication to Ban Amnesty Now.

Pearce said he hoped the leadership showed by Dan Harkins and Buddy Stubbs would encourage other businesses to follow suit.

“Harkins Theaters and Buddy Stubbs Harley Davidson are truly Arizona-friendly, truly children-friendly, and join the ranks of businesses with the ethics and responsibility not to advertise with the New Times,” said Pearce. “No respectable business should be sharing ad-space alongside pedophiles and prostitutes, and until the New Times stops their deviant practices, we’ll continue to ask businesses to stop advertising on their pages.”

With B.A.N. in this growing coalition of conservative and patriotic organizations supporting the boycott of Phoenix New Times advertisers is the RidersUSA motorcycle club, which also offered this statement:

“RidersUSA is very happy to hear that Buddy Stubbs has joined us on this cause. We believe not only does the New Times promote hideous, ‘unspeakables’ against children, but they also promote hate and encourage racism,” Valerie Roller, spokesperson for RidersUSA. “We encourage all members of the Biker Community to support Senator Pearce and this boycott and anyone still on the list needs to step up and remove their advertising.”

Pearce called upon remaining New Times advertisers to stop funding the media giant’s hate campaigns against law enforcement, elected officials, and conservative individuals and organizations. “We are tracking advertisers and if you won’t willingly pull your ads, we will ask our members to speak with their wallets – and to stop patronizing your businesses until you find other places to advertise. That is the only way we, together, can change the way the New Times does business.”

According to the Associated Press, 50 arrests in 22 states have already taken place involving child sex trafficking cases originating on the pages of the New Times / Village Voice publications. Despite repeated pleas from law enforcement and elected officials, the company refuses to pull-down these ads which generate an estimated $22 MILLION annually in revenue.

“I am so proud of Dan Harkins and Buddy Stubbs for being leaders in Arizona’s business community and for doing what’s right for Arizona families, children, and our state,” said Pearce.

For more information, please CLICK HERE today!
Join Our Mailing List

State Bar reneges on promise a year ago not to charge Andrew Thomas all costs

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, May 4, 2012

Out of state Bar prosecutor Gleason told Thomas a year ago in writing he would not have to pay extra costs  

Yet Bar is now seeking full costs of $554,000+ of its overly done, extravagant prosecution of Thomas

eNewsAZ

Thomas Assessment in Disbarment Much Higher Than Gleason Led Him To Expect

Gleason email from a year ago contradicted in Thomas’ assessment

The unpleasant surprises for former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas just keep rolling in.

After the State Bar ruling that effectively disbarred Thomas and former Prosecutor Lisa Aubuchon and suspended former Deputy Rachel Alexander from practicing law; Thomas was informed by the County that Maricopa County would not pay for his appeal. According to AZCentral.com, Maricopa County has already paid $1,066,645 in Thomas’ defense, and nearly $600K combined in the defense of Aubuchon and Alexander. But, once the ruling was handed down, Maricopa County informed the three attorneys that their appeals would not be paid for by County funds.

That decision caused Thomas to decide not to appeal, although Aubuchon and Alexander have decided to forge ahead.

This week, however, Thomas was informed that he was being assessed for the costs related to their disciplinary hearing. That amounts to a $4000 administrative fee and $550,869 in expenses. Included in the expenses, according to AZCentral, are “…costs of transportation, hotel, meals and expert witnesses between March 2010 and March 2012 by Independent Bar Counsel John Gleason and his staff.”

The administrative fee for Aubuchon and Alexander will be $6000, higher since they are filing appeals of their sanction. But, after their appeal proceedings are complete, there is a possibility that they, too, will have a larger assessment to pay. That is a decision for the Arizona Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O’Neil to make.

This is much more than Bar Prosecutor John Gleason led Thomas’ attorney, Donald Wilson, Jr., to expect, according to an email sent nearly a year ago.

From: John Gleason [mailto: john.gleason@csc.state.co.us ]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Don Wilson
Subject: costs

Don: I want to get back to you on your question regarding assessment of costs. It is my understanding that the only costs that would be assessed should there be a finding of misconduct would be the standard administrative fee that varies from $1200 to $6000 depending on the time and nature of the resolution. Also, the actual cost of transcripts, depositions, experts, and similar costs are assessed. The State Bar would not assess the cost of attorney’s fees, travel, or lodging related to Independent Bar Counsel or his staff. John

Wilson said he will ask for an extended deadline until the Aubuchon and Alexander appeals are completed, in order to see if the costs should be divided amongst the three. However, Wilson maintains that in his opinion, the County is liable for these assessments, since a precedent has been set in the past when the county paid the costs of other prosecutors facing Bar disciplinary hearings.

Join Our Mailing List

Vote for Russell Pearce in this poll now!

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, May 1, 2012

The blog Western Free Press has put up a push-poll to ensure that untested, unreliable Republican Bob Worsley leads over Russell Pearce. Worsley does not have anything posted on the issues page of his campaign website. Where does he stand on illegal immigration? Abortion? Tax increases and spending? There is a reason why he has left this information off his website.

Don’t let this blog skew the results of their poll. Vote for Russell now.
Join Our Mailing List

Arpaio-Team Prosecutor Targeted in “Witch Hunt”

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
Sunday, April 22, 2012

By Dave Tombers

A longtime prosecutor who worked in concert with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was forged, says he was caught in a “witch hunt” for trying to remove corruption in the county.

A disciplinary panel for the Arizona Bar Association recently ordered the revocation of two attorneys’ law licenses and suspended the license of a third in a case WND first reported last fall. William O’Neill, the state’s presiding disciplinary judge, announced the decision.

Former county prosecutor Andrew Thomas has a deadline Tuesday to say whether he will appeal the decision. An ethics panel found Thomas’ office wrongfully accused three officials of illegal conduct to embarrass them.

Thomas has defended the prosecutions as necessary for rooting out corruption in government.

The allegations included scandal, fraud, payoffs and lavish vacations by county officials.

Thomas told WND, “This has been a massive cover-up and, for me, genuinely a Dreyfus-like injustice.”

WND has learned that as many as 11 county employees have been terminated in recent months for allegedly accepting bribes in a court tower construction scandal – one of the Thomas investigations that was stymied.

WND has also learned that the FDIC recently announced the loss of millions of dollars. There also are allegations that some $5.5 million was linked to county official Don Stapley, the subject of another Thomas investigation that was thwarted.

The October WND report documented the early troubles between then-Maricopa County Attorney Thomas and County Supervisor Stapley.

In 2006, Stapley tried to rein in Thomas’ ability to hire outside counsel for the county, saying Thomas based his “appointments upon who was favorable to him, not necessarily who was best qualified to represent the county.”

According to the complaint, the county board, under Stapley, wanted to oversee attorney selection and even hire outside counsel for the board itself. Thomas let them know on numerous occasions that the actions were illegal.

The complaint quoted Thomas saying, “Board members are immune from suit when they rely in good faith upon opinions of the county attorney, but no such immunity would apply and they may be personally liable for actions on advice of other counsel.”

Thomas essentially was arguing that the citizens of Maricopa County elected him to be the county attorney, and Stapley’s actions gave the appearance of circumventing the wishes of the voters.

The Arizona Bar Association took Thomas’ admonition of the county board to be a conflict of interest.

In another instance, Thomas initiated an investigation of Stapley for criminal wrongdoing.

A grand jury brought more than 100 charges against Stapley, ranging from failing to file financial disclosures to accepting expensive gifts such as three-week Hawaiian vacations and expensive ski trips for him and his family.

Allegations also arose that Stapley raised political contributions to run for president of the National Association of Counties, even though he was running unopposed.

The cash he raised was alleged to have been used to pay for personal luxuries instead.

But several judges who handled various steps of the case threw out charges, even though outside investigators had cited the “merit” of the counts. And bar association officials said the one-year statute of limitations had expired on dozens of charges.

Ultimately, none of the counts went to trial, and Stapley testified before the bar that the investigation “ruined his life.”

In an email to WND Thomas said of the bar association results, “The findings are completely divorced from the actual facts and evidence presented at the hearing.

“While I was county attorney, I antagonized powerful people and special interests – particularly the judiciary, which rendered this decision – over crime control, illegal immigration and other issues. These forces targeted my law license for five years; at the end, they simply mobilized, ganged up and overwhelmed me, fabricating wrongdoing to achieve their desired end.”

Others targeted included former assistants Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander.

The bar association revoked Aubuchon’s license and suspended Alexander’s, which will force her to re-take the bar exam.

Referring to a recent national survey found at stateintegrity.org, Thomas said this week, “Arizona has some of the worst corruption in America.

“Today, corruption has won and justice has lost,” he continued. “I brought corruption cases in good faith involving powerful people, and the political and legal establishment blatantly covered it up and retaliated by targeting my law license.”

WND’s previously reported the maneuvers could have been politically motivated, with even some of Thomas’ political opponents saying the counts have “no merit.”

“Arizona after what happened yesterday has become Mexico,” Thomas said. “People in this community need to understand what happened yesterday when my law license was terminated.

“Powerful politicians twice indicted for corruption have gone free. Others who blocked investigations and prosecutions retaliated against law enforcement and demolished county government to protect themselves escaped justice. Insiders who knew how the system works and how to work the system have had a field day. Honest prosecutors have been unjustly smeared and punished.

“The rule of law is no more in this county,” he said.

“We will never know all the corruption cases that aren’t filed and the criminals that go free because of what’s happened. But the chilling effect on prosecutors is clear: Public safety and clean government inevitably will suffer. They already have.

“The political witch hunt that’s just ended makes things worse [regarding corruption in America] by sending a chilling message to prosecutors: ‘Those who take on the powerful will lose their livelihood,’” he said.

The bar association refers people to the disciplinary order and says, “The panel found that Thomas and Aubuchon used their positions as Maricopa County attorney and deputy county attorney to target political enemies.

“A 247-page order details how they ignored conflicts of interest and used their positions to burden and embarrass targeted individuals. The order also states they violated the Rules of Professional Conduct relating to perjury and violating court rules.

“Alexander, who also worked as a deputy county attorney, was found to have filed a lawsuit without completing a proper factual investigation.

“The case was tried over nine weeks before a hearing panel comprised of the presiding disciplinary judge and two volunteer panel members (one attorney and a member of the public). Forty-eight witnesses testified and nearly 6,200 pages of exhibits were admitted.”

The panel ruled, “This case is replete with intentionally orchestrated malignant actions.”

Bar spokesman Rick DeBruhl told WND that there was nothing further to comment on.

“The association doesn’t disbar attorneys,” he said. “We simply follow the orders of the independent panel.”

The order itself explains Thomas should have seen the clouds on his horizon.

“Attorneys must ever guard against the temptation to confuse what is legal with what is ethical or moral. Because an act is legal, according to the letter of the law, does not make it ethical. Because an act is ethical does not make it legal,” it said.

Then it added, “Speeding is illegal but isn’t always unethical. If one speeds because he believes it will save a life, the action may still be found to be illegal but not necessarily unethical. On the other hand, cheating on a spouse is ethically wrong, but may be legal.”

But the harsh judgment makes no mention of recent scandals, many stemming from the original corruption investigations Thomas and his colleagues began.

“Look at all the corruption scandals that have happened recently in Arizona while the rule of law has basically been repealed in Maricopa County,” said Thomas. “We had the U.S. attorney who resigned in disgrace. We had the criminal chief of the U.S. attorney’s office plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress.

“We have the firings after the court tower corruption scandal came out. We have the golf tournament scandal, which the Arizona Republic has reported. Now [Maricopa County Supervisor] Don Stapley is enmeshed in an FDIC lawsuit which involves some of the original counts we first filed against him.”

Thomas announced in his press conference his intentions to target corruption through a ballot measure and a forthcoming book.

“We now have a constitutional crisis, as prosecutors and members of the executive branch are being targeted by the judiciary and other branches for blowing the whistle on corruption and misconduct in the judiciary,” Thomas said. “That is essentially what has happened to me.

“As county attorney, I took on many powerful special interests and corrupt individuals who retaliated with a witch-hunt targeting my law license,” he said. “Unless we want Arizona to become as corrupt as Mexico, the people of Arizona must take back their government. At this point, only the people of Arizona can make things right.”

He said he would seek voter help for reforms to fight corruption.

“This fight now shifts to the court of public opinion, a fair court,” he said.

WND reported earlier on comments from even some of Thomas’ critics.

Said columnist Robert Robb, who has made no display of supporting Thomas, “I have written scathingly about the gross abuse of power by former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Thomas and Arpaio proclaimed that there was a giant conspiracy involving the county board of supervisors, senior county management and several judges in which the judges agreed to protect county officials against criminal probes in exchange for the county constructing a new office building for the judges.”

Robb said there was no evidence to support the racketeering and criminal complaints, but he said the complaint brought by the Arizona Bar Association against Thomas includes “gross overcharging,” which he called a “serious disservice.”

Among the issues that originally attracted attention was the $347 million in taxpayer funds used for a court tower during an economic downturn, a building that featured plush quarters for judges and raised eyebrows as it was done at a time when county employees were being laid off.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/prosecutor-who-teamed-with-arpaio-targeted-in-witch-hunt/

Join Our Mailing List

Even Republic denounces crony million dollar payouts to Mary Rose Wilcox

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, April 18, 2012

Before Payouts, Prove Claims

Maricopa County Treasurer Charles “Hos” Hoskins wants something simple from the elected county officials who are looking for a big “pain and suffering” payout from taxpayers.

Prove it.

Verify that the claims these elected officials are seeking — in the case of Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, $975,000 — are justified.

Declaring he has no intention of serving as a “rubber stamp” for county administrators, Hoskins has asked County Attorney Bill Montgomery for a legal opinion regarding what, exactly, constitutes proper compensation to an elected county official who has been maltreated by other county officials, namely Sheriff Joe Arpaio and now-disbarred former County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

It is a fair question. Hoskins must sign off on compensation for claims made by elected officials, and the huge claims filed by both Wilcox and Supervisor Don Stapley deserve close scrutiny.

Both officials, for example, argue that the infamous civil racketeering charge levied against them and other top county officials by Arpaio and Thomas were ruinous to their careers and reputations. Wilcox said the “intimidating” charge harmed her “emotionally and economically.”

Really? The infamous federal racketeering charges filed Dec. 1, 2009, were almost universally mocked and condemned from the moment they were filed. They were so outlandish that their filing became the anchor argument in the just-completed disbarment cases against Thomas and his top aide, Lisa Aubuchon.

It may be fair to ask what is more emotionally ruinous to the supervisor: The racketeering charges? Or Hoskins’ unexpected challenge to the big payday?

If those ludicrous racketeering charges were ruinous to anyone’s reputation, they were more so to Thomas’ than anyone else’s.

Should County Manager David Smith eventually opt to settle with Stapley, the issues facing the county treasurer become still more complex.

The November 2008 indictment of Stapley on 118 felony and misdemeanor counts was, by any fair estimation, an abuse of power by Thomas and Arpaio and a humiliating, unjust event for Stapley. But the 22 felony charges logged against him in December 2009 are another matter entirely. In that case, Stapley had raised about $140,000 to “run” for office for a national association of county officials, much of it raised from donors with business before the county. Without disclosing the contributions, Stapley voted on issues involving the donors and spent much of the donations on Hawaiian vacations and audio/visual equipment.

A county attorney who investigated the charges believed they had merit. How do those charges factor into the supervisor’s claim of pain and suffering at the hands of Arpaio and Thomas?

Hoskins is raising fair questions. Before cutting any more checks, let’s get some fair answers.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2012/04/17/20120417editorial0418-before-payouts-prove-claims.html#ixzz1sP7ANlGy

Join Our Mailing List

Fired county employee sues over Supervisors inflating settlements against Arpaio, Thomas

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, April 17, 2012

Suit alleges that Supervisors sought to punish Arpaio and Thomas publicly by inflating settlements given to their enemies            

Alleges that Supervisors publicly blamed the higher costs on Arpaio and Thomas and their supposed mismanagement

Courthouse News Service 

by Jamie Ross

April 17, 2012  

  

PHOENIX (CN) – A former attorney for Maricopa County claims in Federal Court that county management violated her constitutional rights by retaliating against her to “reward political friends,” including opponents of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas.
Maria Brandon and her husband claim that while a feud between Maricopa County, Arpaio and Thomas escalated, county management “sought to punish Arpaio and Thomas politically by paying more than necessary to settle his claims and lawsuits and then publicly blaming the costs on Arpaio and on Thomas and their mismanagement.”
Brandon worked as an attorney for the county’s Special Litigation division until April 18, 2011, when it was closed and she was brought to the Civil Services Division.
Brandon claims Risk Manager Rocky Armfield “made efforts to negate, intimidate, and to retaliate against Special Litigation attorneys exercising their independent judgment, violating his ethical duties to the Maricopa County self-insured trust.”
According to the complaint, in February 2010 “Risk Management adjuster Jacquie Garrett, who was assigned to adjust three lawsuits filed by a group of seven anti-Arpaio protestors arising from incidents on December 15th and 17th, and Brandon decided requested settlement authority of $7,500 for each protestor, a total of $52,500.”
Armfield sent Brandon an email in April 2010 stating that “he had obtained additional authority of up to $100,000 per protestor, and that he was adding the claim of Randy Parraz, a political activist who was not arrested or a participant on December 15th and December 17th and had not yet filed a lawsuit,” according to the complaint.
Brandon, who was the attorney assigned to the MCSO and MCAO defendants on these cases, says Armfield did this without her knowledge.
She says in the complaint that The Arizona Republic got a copy of a confidential attorney-client email between her and then-Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy David Hendershott, which claimed that the county “had no intention of giving away a lot of money. The Republic “published a front page article regarding the settlement amount of $424,700 for seven protestors who were booked and released, and where there were no claims of excessive force or physical injuries. One protestor, who had not been booked or taken to jail but had only received a citation in the mail, received $24,700 in settlement funds at the mediation,” according to the complaint.
Brandon, who says she did not provide the newspaper with a copy of the email, was quoted in the interview as saying about the settlement: “I don’t know why they did what they did, and I’m sure they have their reasons.”
After the article was published, Brandon says, Armfield retaliated against her by pulling cases from her.
On Aug. 30, 2010, Armfield advised “Special Litigation that Risk Management would be issuing reservation of rights letters on cases where claims for punitive damages were asserted. Since punitive damages were normally claimed in civil rights’ cases, MCSO deputies and detention officers sued by inmates would receive these letters. The letters warned those sued that they may have to pay damages out of their own pockets,” according to the complaint.
Concerned with the ethical issues presented by the reservation of rights letters, Brandon says in her complaint that Special Litigation “researched the issue and eventually asked outside counsel at Lewis Brisbois for an opinion as to their ethical obligations vis a vis their clients. Upon receiving the Lewis Brisbois opinion, the director of Special Litigation wrote a letter to Rocky Armfield outlining the issues and the opinion from Lewis Brisbois. The Special Litigation letter further angered Rocky Armfield, and he sent Special Litigation a letter demanding that they disregard the Lewis Brisbois opinion, or else immediately return all risk cases to Risk Management.”
Brandon claims Armfield then “refused to send any risk cases at all to Special Litigation; all risk cases where representation of the Sheriff or County Attorney was required were sent to outside counsel at additional taxpayer expense.”
Brandon says she was later placed on probation, dismissed and reinstated before she was fired in June 2011 for reporting that a support staff member had grabbed her arm and yelled at her.
She seeks general litigation damages and punitive damages for violations of due process, of the First Amendment, tortious interference with contract, and employment law violations.
Named as defendants are Brandon’s supervisor, Tom Liddy and his wife, Rocky Armfield and his wife, and Maricopa County.
The Brandons are represented by Larry Cohen.

  

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/17/45675.htm

The lawsuit can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89802454/Brandon-Maria-Complaint#fullscreen


Join Our Mailing List

Why Pearce’s boycott of New Times advertisers just may work

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
Monday, April 16, 2012

Espressopundit makes the case            

Harkins megaplex at Scottsdale & 101 may be first target that is shut down

 

Pearce to Boycott New Times

Russell Pearce’s supporters just sent out this email.

Sen. Pearce and I are calling on all conservatives across Arizona to boycott businesses which advertise with the Phoenix New Times.The PNT is entirely reliant on ad revenue to fund its pro-amnesty, anti-Arpaio, pro-illegal immigration agenda that rabidly attacks Arizona law enforcement, Arizona conservatives and the community leaders and public servants who dare oppose their dangerous, leftist beliefs. 

That companies such as local auto dealers, Harkins Theaters and many local restaurants we all patronize fund this campaign against Sheriff Arpaio is something that cannot go on. Corporate responsibility is not limited just to environmental causes and the like. Arizona businesses are (possibly inadvertently) funding the Left’s campaign for lawlessness, crime, illegal immigration, amnesty and worse. 

http://www.banamnestynow.com/buy-cott/and in each week’s edition of THE RUSSELL PEARCE SHOW, live on Monday’s at 7pm on KFNX News Talk Radio 1100.

Could this work?  The Limbaugh boycott has fizzled, and boycotts are so retro–and so over-called for–that they seem to have lost any punch.  In fact, a few years ago I would have said that Pearce is wasting his time, but now I’m not so sure.  There are a some factors at play that might just make a Pearce-led boycott an effective tool:

First, New Times itself has changed.  We think of New Times as liberal, but it’s really more anti-authoritarian.  The paper was certainly a pain in Napolitano’s backside.   Now that the state has a Conservative Governor and Legislature, New Times’ anti-authoritarian outlook is also a hard left outlook.  The paper has also become a one note tune that’s anti Arpaio all the time.

These changes will not be lost on advertisers.  After all, Arpaio/Pearce supporters can go to, say, Dan Harkins and rightly say that New Times is trying to destroy them personally.  We can debate how much popular support Arpaio/Pearce enjoy, but the number is not small.  If Arpaio/Pearce supporters simply stop attending Harkins theaters, that would be noticed.  If they start demonstrating in front of Harkins Theaters that would be huge.  Harkins would be foolish to risk even one protest for whatever benefit he gets from New Times ads.

Which leads to the second point.  New Times has picked up some “respectable” advertisers.   Nothing against car alarms, breast augmentation and tatoo removal but those industries are unlikely to care about Russell Pearce’s views on anything.  Car dealers, restaurants, movie theaters and yes, breast augmentation surgeons however, will be sensitive to large pro-Arpaio crowds in their parking lots.  Pearce is smart enough to use the Alinsky rules and will target, freeze personalize and polarize individual advertisers–and not just in Mesa.  Shutting down the Harkins megaplex at Scottsdale and the 101 on the opening night of each summer Blockbuster would be a powerful message.

Next, the world is changing in three important ways that will have the potential to make the boycott successful.  First is that Pearce can get his message out through the social media, twitter, email plus his radio show.  I know that everyone uses social media now, and it may not be the organizational panacea that people claim, but it is very effective for organizing a midsized–a few thousand–group of highly motivated individuals.  And having a thousand people break into groups of five or ten and target New Times’ 50 biggest advertisers for a few weekends can only be organized–and reported–through social media.

The Internet also gives advertisers more choices.  Businesses shouldn’t be expected to forgo revenue just because someone is offended by their advertising choices.  But now they don’t have to.  Newspaper advertising is now one of many alternatives and if companies took the money they spent on those full page ads and devoted those same resources to their own social media campaigns they might be better off.

Newspaper economics have also changed.  It’s not like Pearce is trying to take out New Times at its anti Mecham, anti Symington peak.    New Times used to run 224 pages now its often fewer than 100.  Newspapers are on life support. Pearce is just going to stand on its oxygen hose.

This boycott is different because Pearce is not trying to change behavior.  Most groups launch a boycott because they oppose a specific policy…the company doesn’t hire enough minority workers, it offers benefits to its gay employees, it uses sweatshops in Thailand…but Pearce doesn’t want to change New Times, he wants to bankrupt New Times.   The paper is not ever going to stop opposing him. His only option is to ignore it or destroy it.  He’s been ignoring it for years and look where it got him.

The Pearce boycott is unlikely to actually drive New Times out of business, but he will hurt them and he may even manage to tip the balance and finish them off.

Reprinted from http://www.espressopundit.com/2012/03/heres-a-new-twist-on-an-old-song.html

Join Our Mailing List

Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace faces formidable challenger

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
Sunday, April 15, 2012

 submitted by a reader

 

SONORAN NEWS

BY LINDA BENTLEY | APRIL 11, 2012

“Even the parties who don’t gain victory perceive that they have had their fair day in court”

Russell Pearce with Bill Ponath
In September, Attorney Bill Ponath (r), pictured with former Senate President Russell Pearce, will be challenging Judge Clancy Jayne, who received three separate reprimands during his first term as Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace.

Photo by Linda Bentley

PHOENIX – In 2008, Clancy Jayne was elected the inaugural Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace, which serves the North and Northeast Phoenix areas as well as Cave Creek, Carefree, New River and Desert Hills.

He was elected after a field of three that included Paul Henderson and Bill Ponath, both attorneys, split the vote in the primary election to give Jayne the win.

Ponath, who has served as a judge pro tem for the Maricopa County Justice Courts, is taking up the challenge again.

Jayne is not an attorney and there is no requirement in Arizona for a justice of the peace to be an attorney or have any formal legal training, although the issue has been debated time and time again.

Citizens may recall Jayne was booted from the ballot after a court determined in a petition challenge filed by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Dist. 6, Jayne did not have the minimum number of qualified signatures to run for reelection to the House of Representatives in Legislative District 6.

While serving in the legislature, Jayne became known for his poor spelling and grammar, soSonoran News decided to check in and see how he’s been fairing as a justice of the peace.
And, as it turns out, he’s not doing very well.

Paul Anderson of Grand Blanc, Mich., who was a defendant in Jayne’s court, filed a complaint against Jayne with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct in February 2011, after the lower court of appeals noted Jayne had committed a variety of errors while presiding over Anderson’s case, which Anderson called “grievously serious miscarriages of due process and justice.”

Jayne’s May 24, 2011 response, which follows complete with spelling and grammatical errors, stated, “The points of this complaint are correct and accurate and while occurred early in my service there is not excuse for this.

“Before the complaint was filed I did vacate the judgment as that was the only action I could do to resolve the mistakes from that day. I have at my expense attended and called in trainers who have helped me see the errors of my ways.

“This included bring in a new Protem who is a Glendale City Attorney with years of knowledge in the court room.

“I have benefited form the training from Mr. Nick DePizza.”

Jayne goes on to say, “While I am embarrassed to the facts in this case all I could do is what I did to resolve the case which at the end of the day has stood the new trials and prevailed but with all the proper steps being taken.”

Welcoming any additional training or actions the commission felt was in order, Jayne concluded with, “I work hard to be sure each and every person served is respected and their rights or rights are not fully respected. While this person has a lot of history which I did get in this transfered case there is not excuse for mistakes made.”

In July 2011, the commission found Jayne violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Commission Chair Louis Dominguez, on behalf of the commission, issued an order stating the record demonstrated Jayne, who acknowledged the same in his response, had engaged in numerous ex parte communications with the parties on one side of the underlying case.
Although Jayne was new to the bench at the time of his numerous ex parte communications, he had completed all new judge training, including training on the code and specifically relating to ex parte communications.

Jayne was issued an informal reprimand.

In November 2011, the commission received information about Jayne’s activities and opened its own investigation, raising three areas of concern and which resulted in three distinct resolutions.

The first two areas of concern resulted in dismissals with private comments.

However, because those two areas of concern were so closely intertwined with the third area of concern, which resulted in a public sanction and dismissal, the commission found the disclosure of otherwise confidential information was necessary to protect the administration of justice.

First, Jayne’s “Breakfast with the Judge” series resulted in the commission issuing a private, strongly worded warning letter.

Second, Jayne’s personal website includes a list of “local resources” that reference only one political party, potentially suggesting Jayne may be subject to political influence.

Further, the website included a reference to Jayne’s private financial consulting work, which the commission addressed through a private advisory comment and dismissal.

Third, Jayne’s personal website contained an advertisement for his wedding services, which is a clear and direct violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

Because Jayne had previously received an advisory letter when he included a wedding services advertisement on his website, the commission determined the violation warranted a public reprimand.

After reviewing the allegations made in a June 2011 complaint by an anonymous court employee, the commission found Jayne violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct, warranting an informal sanction.

The complaint alleged Jayne had engaged in improper ex parte communications with a defendant and improperly handled the matter.

In particular, the complainant believed the judge treated the defendant differently because of a personal or political relationship.

The commission determined Jayne engaged in several improper ex parte communications that clearly violated the limitations in the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

The complainant wrote: “On July 9, 2010, Judge Jayne granted an ex parte delay request for his friend, state Senator Scott Bungaard, on the day of his civil traffic hearing. The DPS officer had to come back a second time on Aug. 27, 2010. However, Sen. Bungaard failed to appear on that day as well and was fined $185. However, on Sept. 7, 2010, Judge Jayne waived the required $20 time payment fee and the required $30 default fee,” and included a copy of the iCIS (court administration program) printout.

Meanwhile, Ponath has been actively collecting signatures to run against Jayne in the September primary election and has been heartily endorsed by former State Senate President Russell Pearce, who believes Ponath “will serve with honor, integrity and knowledge of the law and Constitution.”

Pearce was also impressed with Ponath’s book, “Verdict for America,” and called it a “phenomenal contribution to the betterment of our nation.”

Lothar Goernitz, a panel trustee for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Arizona, said, I have had the privilege of reviewing Mr. Ponath’s pleadings before the court on a regular basis consisting of many hundreds of cases over a period of almost 15 years. I can affirmatively state that his work was some of the easiest for me to deal with because it was always professionally prepared and perfectly organized.”

Retired Arcadia/Biltmore Justice of the Peace Michael Orcutt said his court staff consistently praised Ponath for “his character, abilities and commitment to performing at the highest level.”

Orcutt went on to say Ponath made “everyone feel dignified and comfortable when they appeared before him,” adding, “Even the parties who don’t gain victory perceive that they have had their fair day in court.”

So, come September, voters can choose between Jayne, who continues to struggle with spelling and grammar, and Ponath, whose book, “Verdict for America” is incredibly well-written and researched, for their Desert Ridge Justice of Peace.

Join Our Mailing List

County Treasurer won’t ‘rubber stamp’ Mary Rose Wilcox settlement

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, April 14, 2012

Corrupt County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox may not get $975,000 from taxpayers for “stress”         

Finally someone stands up to the Supervisors’ million dollar dishonest payouts for “stress” to their cronies and themselves

Excerpts from the article in the Arizona Capitol Times (we cannot reprint the entire article due it  being paid content)

 

County Treasurer won’t ‘rubber stamp’ Wilcox settlement
Published: April 13, 2012

By Jeremy Duda

 

Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox’s $1 million out-of-court settlement may hit a snag once it hits the county treasurer’s office.

County Treasurer Charles “Hos” Hoskins said he won’t be a “rubber stamp” for the settlement to Wilcox and won’t sign off on the payment until he can verify that it’s justified.

Hoskins said he will ask Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery for a legal opinion on exactly what constitutes verification for the claim, which Wilcox is slated to receive as compensation for former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s 2009 investigation and indictment against her.

According to Arizona law, all claims by county supervisors must be approved by another supervisor and the county treasurer.

“I know it wasn’t put in there just to be a rubber stamp. So, approval by the county treasurer is going to have to have some kind of support,” Hoskins said of the statute. “I want to know what would be required to approve it, and lacking that, would I have to decline it.”

“There’s going to have to be some documentation to support it. It’s not going to be as easy as a hotel room receipt for attending a conference. It’s not going to be that black and white, I don’t think,” he said.

County Manager David Smith recommended that the county pay about $2 million to settle lawsuits filed by several people who say they were unfairly targeted by Arpaio and Thomas. Smith, who did not return a call seeking comment, told the Arizona Republic that the payouts would be cheaper than taking the cases to court.

Hoskins will not have to sign off on $500,000 settlements to retired Superior Court Judge Barbara Mundell or Stapley executive assistant Susan Schuerman because they are not members of the Board of Supervisors.

Read also Laurie Roberts’ column mocking Wilcox for taking $975,000 from taxpayers
“Oh, the pain of it. The unrelenting unholy horror. The sheer terror that it must be to serve as a Maricopa County supervisor.”

 

Join Our Mailing List

Video: Andrew Thomas Press Conference Response to Disbarment

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, April 13, 2012

SPEECH BY ANDREW THOMAS AT PRESS CONFERENCE, APRIL 11, 2012

Arizona continues to have some of the worse corruption in America according to a recent national survey. We recently received a grade of D. After what’s just happened, we deserve an F. The reason is, Arizona after what happened yesterday has become Mexico. People in this community need to understand what happened yesterday when my law license was terminated. Let’s recap. Powerful politicians twice indicted for corruption have gone free. Others who blocked investigations and prosecutions retaliated against law enforcement and demolished county government to protect themselves escaped justice. Insiders who knew how the system works and how to work the system have had a field day. Honest prosecutors have been unjustly smeared and punished. The rule of law is no more in this county. We will never know all the corruption cases that aren’t filed and the criminals that go free because of what’s happened. But the chilling effect on prosecutors is clear: Public safety and clean government inevitably will suffer. They already have.

Look at all the corruption scandals that have happened recently in Arizona while the rule of law has basically been repealed in Maricopa County. We had the U.S. Attorney who resigned in disgrace. We had the criminal chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress. You don’t see 50 front page stories about that. I have never pled the Fifth, I have answered every question under oath I’ve been asked. Tom Horne, people are aware of that investigation that has just begun. We have the firings after the court tower corruption scandal came out. We have the golf tournament scandal, which the Arizona Republic has reported. Now Don Stapley is enmeshed in an FDIC lawsuit which involves some of the original counts we first filed against him.

And consider this, and this is extremely important: In the Fiesta Bowl scandal, not one politician has been charged. They charged all the employees, but not one politician. Not Grant Woods, not Gary Husk, who is a politico. And the reason is the chilling effect of what has happened in the case that came to fruition yesterday. We now have a constitutional crisis as prosecutors and members of the executive branch are being targeted by the judiciary and other branches for blowing the whistle on corruption and misconduct in the judiciary. That is essentially what has happened to me. As county attorney, I took on many powerful special interests and corrupt individuals who retaliated with a witchhunt targeting my law license. Unless we want Arizona to become as corrupt as Mexico, the people of Arizona must take back their government. At this point, only the people of Arizona can make things right.

I will soon announce an effort to seek voter approval for reforms to fight corruption and improve our government. I will have more to say in my forthcoming book as well. I wish to thank the Republican Party and many others for their public support. This fight now shifts to the court of public opinion, a fair court.

FOLLOW-UP RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

The Supervisors fired my first two sets of attorneys, then refused to fully fund my third set. The presiding judge who made the decision to disbar me should have recused himself, since he had ruled against me in a prior matter. It is not that we didn’t have evidence in the racketeering complaint, the judicial panel did not want the believe the evidence because it implicates senior judges and other friends of the Board of Supervisors. The evidence is there according to prominent seasoned lawyers in my office and elsewhere. Robert Driscoll is a prominent lawyer with the Justice Department. I had the senior charging attorney in my office say they committed crimes. I had another senior prosecutor who said so. She said she was joking later on the stand, but I don’t know what kind of person jokes about charging an innocent person with a crime. Those are facts. We had Bob Barr, who is former US Attorney, he thought there was probable cause to charge Judge Donahoe. And a detective from the County Attorney’s Office in a response to a direct question from Judge O’Neill, said that he thought there was probable cause. So Judge O’Neill was impeached by his own question!

I’ve not been contacted by the FBI. Everybody in that room ultimately concluded that there was probable cause to charge Judge Donahoe, and that’s what you do in law enforcement, you discuss whether or not you have charges. So for me to go to law enforcement professionals to decide whether to charge someone with a crime is a conspiracy? Then there are 40,000 conspiracies a year in this county because there are 40,000 felony cases. It’s absurd.

Some of the other county attorneys around the state were embarrassed by what came out. The Yavapai County Attorney’s Office couldn’t find the guts to prosecute these cases.

We’ve reached a point where prosecutors can’t do their job without fear of being second-guessed and having criminal investigations dropped every time you call Washington. As a result of what happened yesterday, our system of justice has been destroyed. There will no longer be candid conversations about the strengths and weaknesses of controversial cases in prosecutors’ offices. You’ll have prosecutors who will be afraid to bring charges against people who can reach out and touch them in courts and the State Bar.

Other men far greater than I have gone to jail in defense of principles they believed in; they would not cowtow to corruption. People like Gandhi, people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., people like Solzhenitsyn, people like Thomas Moore. They stood for something. There are some things worth fighting for. And somebody has to clean up this town. And I’m going to stand firm.

Regarding the perjury charge against me, that is one of the most outrageous assertions. I didn’t even know that level of detail in the case. We have a State Bar and judiciary who are very angry about corruption in their ranks being exposed. Lawyers in the state are afraid of them, so I brought in experts from outside of the state, Bob Barr, Bob Driscoll.

I’ve stated my case. I did my job. A lot of powerful people didn’t like that. And they got even. But the loser is the people of Arizona. And that’s why I’m going back to the people. This is not going to be settled by the Supreme Court of Arizona or any court, it’s going to be settled by the people of Arizona, and I’m going to go to the people of Arizona and seek reforms. Finally we can deal with the corruption in this state.

STATEMENT BY LISA AUBUCHON

My name is Lisa Aubuchon. Unfortunately Judge O’Neill didn’t have the courtesy or respect to learn how to pronounce my name. I will be filing an appeal and a request for stay. I have a lot of clients who have a lot of faith in me and will continue to have faith in me. If you want to look into something, look into process. The Bar took advantage of a simple probable cause determination n the disciplinary process. The disciplinary process was changed effective January 1, 2011. They waited until the new process came into place so that they could skip over     the panel of eight people that would have determined probable cause. That will be one of the major issues on appeal. The other issue involves Judge O’Neill. He was the trial judge in the Judge Donahoe case. I appeared in front of Judge O’Neill in Pinal County. I made arguments on the Donahoe matter regarding the conflicts of interest. Judge O’Neill entered stays in that matter. He has no right to hear this case, he should have recused himself. And he was also involved in another matter that remains under seal, hopefully that will come out sometime in the future.

PROFANE PROTESTER CHAD “YELLOW SNOW” SNOW

At the press conference, attorney Chad Snow, who led the recall against Russell Pearce and spends all day online trolling the Phoenix New Times leaving profanity-laded comments about law enforcement, showed up with a handful of scraggly looking protesters and tried to shout down Thomas. He got into an argument with a conservative Latina supporting Thomas and called her a “crazy b***.” When asked why he called her that, he said “Because she is. Teabaggers don’t believe in free speech.” Sounds more like Chad “Yellow Snow” Snow is the one who doesn’t believe in free speech. Doesn’t he have ethical responsibilities as an attorney to treat people with respect?

Join Our Mailing List

Supervisors award Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and cronies millions of dollars in “settlements”

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, April 12, 2012

Corrupt Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox to be awarded $975,000 from taxpayers for “stress”        

Supervisor Don Stapley’s secretary awarded $500,000 for “stress”

Corrupt Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox
Corrupt Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox

Emboldened by the verdict against Andrew Thomas disbarring him, the Maricopa County Supervisors are going on a spending spree of our taxpayer dollars awarding themselves and their cronies millions of dollars. Arpaio and Thomas had tried to prosecute county supervisors and judges, but the defendants cleverly turned the prosecution around on Thomas by filing bar complaints against him, knowing the liberal State Bar would punish him. Now the Supervisors are handing out millions of dollars to themselves and their cronies like it’s candy. Even county employees who were not prosecuted by Arpaio and Thomas are getting in on the gravy train.  Don Stapley’s secretary, who was not prosecuted, filed a lawsuit against the county demanding $1.5 million. The Supervisors’ hatchet man David Smith said today that she will be awarded $500,000. You have to wonder if this was a payoff to her for keeping her mouth shut about Stapley’s wrongdoing? Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox will receive $975,000 and retired judge Barbara Mundell will receive $500,000. The Supervisors have already awarded millions of dollars to other cronies for similar claims.

Wilcox, a Democrat, has a long sordid history of breaking the law and using her powerful political position to avoid punishment, some of which was reported by reporter Linda Bentley last year. A Grand Jury  indicted Wilcox on 36 criminal counts over some of her recent misdoings. Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores thought Thomas’s prosecution of Wilcox had enough merit to initiate a review. Although she eventually dismissed the charges, no doubt due to political pressure, she did not initially express any problem taking over the prosecutions from Thomas, and spent 10 months going over 10,000 documents in the case. Flores concluded that Wilcox had indeed failed to properly report financial information.

Smith says that he would rather settle the lawsuits now instead of fully litigate them in order to save the county money. The truth is that these people have no valid claims, so Smith is helping them skate around the judicial process. This is not right, these claims need to be properly litigated so it can be determined whether they have any merit or not.

Have the county coffers become a revolving door now? Anyone that threatens to sue the county we just give them money? Who is next? Quick, file a claim against the county claiming that Arpaio and Thomas stressed you out, and you too can get in on the county gravy train. Hurry though, Smith is resigning this month, and Supervisors Stapley and Brock will not be running for reelection. The free taxpayer handouts will probably end come election time.

The Tea Parties have championed cleaning up the County Supervisors office, and they will continue standing up to this kind of abuse. This is outrageous that not only did defendants like Wilcox get away with crimes, but now they are profiting off the taxpayers and calling themselves victims. Get involved with your local Tea Party and let’s stop this now.

Here is an Arizona Republic article about the settlements.

Join Our Mailing List