Here’s the video of Saturday’s Republican Party Convention where Ron Paul fanatics caused chaos and havoc in an attempt to take over the convention. Keep in mind that the woman who they attempted to elect as National Committeeman is a 911 Truther.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Meanwhile, Tempe Police who supposedly handed the investigation over to Phoenix investigators to avoid a conflict of interest, have come out in support of Mitchell. Signs started appearing last week courtesy of the political action committee, “Public Safety for Better Government – E.V.”

One would expect that law enforcement officials would reserve any form of advocacy for a candidate – especially one who has been accused of despicable acts – until any police investigation report is released to the public. That doesn’t seem to be the case in Tempe.

This all goes back to our earlier request in which we urged the Mayor of Phoenix, Greg Stanton, to release any report surrounding his endorsee, Mark Mitchell, so the voters would have the opportunity to make up their own minds regarding the allegations.

Mark Mitchell

Strangely enough, “Arizona Police Officers” have already made up their collective mind and appear to be protecting their investment despite  any potentially damaging revelations being stonewalled by mayoral leadership.

Tempe voters deserve to know as they head to the polls. The simple solution is to disclose the findings and come clean and let the voters decide based on the facts.

1. Applicable Statute

The rules are set forth in the definition of “independent expenditure,” in A.R.S. § 16-901(14). The definition of “election” is that it means any “primary, general,…or runoff election.” (Emphasis added). Therefore the primary is a separate election from the general. A.R.S. § 16-901(7) also states “for purposes of § 16-903 and § 16-905, the general election includes the primary election.” Neither of those Sections is applicable to the issue presented here. This reinforces the fact that, for our purposes, the primary election is a separate election from the general election.

2. Facts

Kathleen Winn was a victim of Andrew Thomas’ unjust practices as County Attorney, and false charges against her were repeatedly dismissed by the court. Ultimately she prevailed. In December 2009, she filed an independent committee called Business Leaders for Arizona, to oppose Andrew Thomas. This was done on her own initiative, and was “without cooperation or consultation” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf, and without “any arrangement, coordination or direction” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. She never received any compensation from Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. She raised $2,480, paid almost all of it ($2,100) to a website/graphic design expert in January 2010. He took the fee, but did not do anything. The project fizzled, and she abandoned it.

Although Kathleen filed papers with the Secretary of State’s office because she thought there would be an independent campaign, in fact there was no independent campaign during the primary. The above quoted statute defines “independent expenditure” as an expenditure “that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate…” There was no express advocacy, because there was no activity at all, other than a payment for which nothing was ever received.

Kathleen then volunteered in Tom Horne’s campaign in the primary election in 2010. She was not an “officer, member, employee or agent of the committee” of that campaign, but solely a volunteer.

When the primary was over, Kathleen told Mr. Horne she was withdrawing from the campaign, in order to be able to conduct an independent campaign during the general election. This was on her own initiative, and was “without cooperation or consultation” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf, and without “any arrangement, coordination or direction” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. Those who participated in the campaign can confirm that, after the primary, Kathleen stopped coming to meetings.

3. Motive for False Charges

When Don Dybus sent his letter, he knew he was about to be fired. He sent letter to the Attorney General’s Office indicating that he could not be fired. Sharon Collins, the Manager of the Tucson Office, asked him why he sent a letter of charges, as referred to in his letter, and he responded that “I knew that Rick Bistrow [the Chief Deputy in the Attorney General’s Office] was about to fire me, and I was afraid of losing the health insurance.”

On February 9, shortly before the letter was written, Tom Horne was on the telephone with Sharon Collins, and with Rick Bistrow, the Chief Deputy Attorney General. Horne told Collins to tell Dybus that he had not been working to standard, and that if he did not start working to standard, he would have to be let go. Collins passed this message, in substance, to Dybus, shortly before he sent his letter.

4. Hiring of Kathleen Winn

There was never a promise made to hire Kathleen Winn. She was not among the new employees processed during the transition period following the election. Kathleen Winn was not the first choice for that job. The offer was first made to Kim Owens, who decided she wanted to pursue other avenues in the private sector. Only then was the offer made to Kathleen Winn, based on her qualifications, and the confidence Tom Horne had developed in her during the primary. A statement of her qualifications is attached as Exhibit A. It is common for public figures to hire people in whom they have developed confidence during the election. The point is that no promise was made, and this is obvious from the fact that she was not hired at first, and that when the job for which she was hired opened up, something else was the first choice. Winn’s salary is the same as that of her predecessor.

5. Nathan Sproul

Tom Horne has had no contact with Nathan Sproul since the before the last election. Kathleen Winn chose his consulting company for the independent campaign. Tom Horne had no participation in that decision, nor did he know of it.

6. Contribution from Richard Newman

Tom Horne did not know that Kathleen Winn was approaching his sister for a contribution to the independent campaign. His sister and Kathleen Winn had met at the primary victory party, at which time his sister gave Kathleen Winn her phone number and asked her to call if there was anything she could do to help in the general election.

Richard Newman formed Horne Consulting, L.L.C. on March 26, 2010, not in October 2010, which illustrates the falseness of the charges that have been made, by facts that can be confirmed by the public record. Richard Newman ceased to be an employee of a company called AACOM on April 1, 2010, but he remained as a non-executive chairman of the board, and a consultant. Horne Consulting was formed in connection with his becoming a consultant. It had nothing to do with this election. No money passed through Horne Consulting for political contributions. All contributions in the independent campaign were from personal funds. Tom Horne had not heard of Horne Consulting until the article published today.

7. Formal Findings Against Rotellini Independent Campaign

The democratic Attorney General’ Association is the sole source of funding of a front group called the Committee for Justice and Fairness.[ 1 ] It spent $600,000 attacking me on behalf of my opponent Felicia Rotellini. It made the willful decision not to comply with Arizona’s requirements for filing disclosures with the Secretary of State, and oral disclosures in advertising. An Administrative Law Judge made that finding, and a copy of that decision is attached as Exhibit B. By contrast, Kathleen Winn diligently complied with all filing and disclosure requirements.

In addition, in September 2010, Felicia Rotellini attended a meeting of the Democratic Attorney General’s Association, and their funding of an independent campaign on her behalf followed shortly after that.[ 2 ] I attended no meeting of the Republican Attorney General’s Association or similar organization prior to the election. The irony of the present inquiry is that I went much further than many other candidates to stay far away from the line that separates campaigns from independent campaigns.

Footnotes:

[ 1 ] http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/gotoSearchDrillDown.action?pacId=’27494′&criteriaName=’COMMITTEE+FOR+JUSTICE+AND+FAIRNESS’

[ 2 ] 9/14/10 Tim Nelson contribution in kind for “Daga conference.” http://azsos.gov/cfs/PublicReports/2010/78E892B2-7282-4CC7-BAC5-2F1313E7B899.pdf 

Exhibits:

http://www.azag.gov/AGResponseExhibits4-2-12.pdf

###

Click here to view the embedded video.

Be sure to subscribe to Bill’s YouTube Channel.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 13, 2011
CONTACT: Apryl Marie Fogel

WASHINGTON, DC –Today, U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar, DDS (AZ-01) introduced H.Res. 490, a Resolution of No Confidence in U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The resolution states “that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress has lost confidence in the Attorney General of the United States.”

Congressman Gosar hopes to accomplish two goals with this resolution: First, the reproval by Congress of an executive official, is a significant statement. Cabinet positions, including the Attorney General, are appointed with the consent of half of Congress, the Senate. Congress is more than entitled to express its approbation, disapproval or censure. This resolution does that for the House.

The second goal is public awareness. By filing this resolution, we are anticipating a debate on the House floor and a floor vote. This will bring needed inquiry, exposure and transparency to the issue itself.

Congressman Gosar said “It is imperative that the citizens of our nation have confidence in our Attorney General. After months of evasive answers, silence and outright lies it is time that Congress speak up on behalf of the many people who have or will fall victims to the firearms in the flawed gunrunning operation Fast & Furious.”

H.Res. 490 has 21 co-sponsors including Trent Franks (AZ), David Schweikert (AZ), Jeff Duncan (SC), Connie Mack (FL), Paul Broun (GA), Lynn Jenkins (KS), Gus Bilirakis (FL), Kenny Marchant (TX), Michael Grimm (NY), Blake Farenthold (TX), Renee Ellmers (NC), Jeff Landry (LA), Dan Burton (IN), Alan Nunnelee (MA), Francisco “Quico” Canseco (TX), Vicky Hartzler (MO), Bobby Shilling (IL), Steve Pearce (NM), Bill Johnson (OH), Walter Jones (NC), Allen West (FL).

Link to Resolution: www. gosar.house.gov/ResolutionofNoConfidence

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 13, 2011
CONTACT: Richard Cullen

WASHINGTON (DC) Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following statement Tuesday calling for the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

“Fast and Furious was a fundamentally flawed operation. Since its implementation, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and numerous Mexican citizens have been killed by criminals using weapons that were allowed to ‘walk’ during the program. These weapons continue to pose a grave threat to people living near the Southern border. These facts alone signify a lack of leadership and control within the Justice Department that warrant the removal of those people who authorized and failed to supervise this damaging operation.

“When the incredible failures of Fast and Furious came to light, Attorney General Holder and his subordinates chose the route of evasion over forthrightness. They provided documents to Congress only when compelled to produce them with subpoena. These documents revealed that on February 4, 2011, senior officials at the Justice Department, the ATF and the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office responded to an inquiry by Senator Charles Grassley with a letter that contained categorically false information. Ten months later, the Justice Department was forced to rescind that letter—a move the attorney general acknowledged is extremely rare. During last week’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the attorney general refused to take responsibility or hold any of his subordinates accountable for their handling of Fast and Furious. Mr. Holder himself called the operation ‘wholly unacceptable’ and ‘fundamentally flawed.’

“The fact that he hasn’t fired a single person shows that Attorney General Holder is more concerned with protecting himself and his political appointees than holding individuals accountable for Fast and Furious. I have refrained from calling for his resignation until he had a chance to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Asking for a cabinet member to resign is a serious step and one I take very seriously. After reflecting on last week’s testimony, the operation, and Mr. Holder’s handling of the fallout, I have lost all confidence in his ability to lead the Justice Department. I call for his immediate resignation.”

###

This is a victory for leftists and Strategic Telemetry who were attempting to manipulate the Arizona Constitution to gain political power by leveraging data to the left’s advantage.

Three members of the commission decided to disregard the mandates outlined in the Arizona Constitution and solely utilize the element of competitiveness to draft Arizona electoral boundaries.

The law states the following under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1:

(14) The independent redistricting commission shall establish congressional and legislative districts. The commencement of the mapping process for both the congressional and legislative districts shall be the creation of districts of equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state. Adjustments to the grid shall then be made as necessary to accommodate the goals as set forth below: 

A. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the United States voting rights act; 

B. Congressional districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable, and state legislative districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable; 

C. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous to the extent practicable; 

D. District boundaries shall respect communities of interest to the extent practicable; 

E. To the extent practicable, district lines shall use visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts; 

F. To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals.

The two Democrats and Independent member, Colleen Mathis, established “F” – the competitive provision – as the main criteria in drafting the maps.

This was a blatant redistribution of votes.

With Mathis now reinstated, the commission can move forward working to further divide and leverage minority power against the rest of the State of Arizona.

We would assume that Governor Brewer is furious over the court’s action (A statement was just released.)

This may also set the stage for a constitutional crisis.

This also should give the legislature further motive to move quickly to enter a special session with the exclusive objective of referring a repeal of the law that gave us the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

The Legislature has until November 30th to pass a referendum in order to place it on the ballot on the same day of the Presidential Preference Election on February 28th.

If you support repealing the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and restoring this authority to 90 elected accountable people instead of 5 un-elected un-accountable people, contact the Arizona Legislature and let them know.

Time is running out for the legislature to act.

Lets restore this important authority to those who will not manipulate the law using slick Democrat consulting firms.

Senator Sylvia Allen

On Tuesday the Senate confirmed the Governor’s removal of the Independent Redistricting Commission Chair Colleen Mathis. This action should have been taken back in June, but it was taken now because the maps produced by the IRC under the direction of the Chair are unconstitutional in all six criteria that must be considered:

• The U.S.Voting Rights Act
• Equal Population
• Geographical Compactness
• Respect for Communities of Interest
• Use of Visible Geographic features
• Competitiveness

We believe that Ms. Mathis has presided over a dysfunctional process riddled with incompetence and that she has failed in her one, overriding goal: to produce constitutional maps.

The Chair prevented Republican Commission members from hiring their own counsel, and she engineered the awarding of a mapping consultant contract to a partisan firm that clearly was in over its head. The awarding of the contract to Strategic Telemetry was done under a cloud of open meeting violations and alleged bid-rigging. Those evaluations were then put through a paper shredder so that nothing can be verified.

She has refused to cooperate with the Attorney General’s open meeting law investigation of the IRC.

The IRC abandoned the use of grid maps, contrary to the Arizona Constitution.

Dramatic changes were made to the draft maps over the weekend of September 24, in private and without the full Commission. The following Monday, commissioners were asked to view and approve the entirely new maps.

After seven days of testimony in front of the Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting, there is overwhelming evidence that the IRC has produced unconstitutional congressional and legislative draft maps. You can read the report here.

The law provides for the actions that the Governor and the Legislature took Tuesday. When Proposition 106 was passed by the people, provisions were included for removal of any Commissioner if they did not function properly and within the law.

I heard a consistent complaint over and over from many in my District who attended the IRC meeting. They felt strongly that the commissioners did not listen or care about the testimony given concerning their proposed maps. Early in the process, maps from my District had been drawn and submitted to the Commission. These maps had strong support of the vast majority of my District. These maps met the Constitutional criteria and would have kept eastern rural Arizonatogether. In my District alone, 15 cities and towns passed resolutions in support of our maps and against the IRC maps. The five eastern counties all testified that we would lose rural representation under the new maps and that the four new districts drawn out of the original District 5 did not meet the Constitutional criteria.

More than ten years ago, Prop 106 (the Creation of an Independent Redistricting Commission) was sold to the public by persuading them that it would be “independent” – that is, free from all partisanship. Please understand that NOTHING is ever free from politics or partisanship but if it is held accountable to the people through their vote and voice, then we have a better check on the process.

Before the IRC (Prop 106), the state Constitution put the responsibility for redistricting in the hands of the Legislature, approved by the Governor. This constitutional process held the Legislature/Governor accountable to the people who, through their vote and voice, could express their desires and concerns. Through this process, my 15 cities and towns and five counties’ resolutions would have had more of an impact on the Legislature than on an “independent” commission composed of people who feel no responsibility to or consequences from the voters.

By creating an “independent” commission that is totally unaccountable to the people, the people’s voice has been lost, and all that matters is the individual partisanship pressure the commissioners feel from special interests. We need to repeal the law that created the IRC and put this process back in the hands of the people, as it was originally constitutionally designed.

Click here to view the embedded video.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 6, 2011
CONTACT: NRSC Press Office

President Obama, National Democrats Seek To Pink-Slip Former State Party Chair In Favor Of Bush Appointee

Curtain Lifted On Backroom Deal-Making In Arizona Senate Race

WASHINGTON — Just last week, Don Bivens, the former two-time chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, officially announced that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona. For seven months, the Democrats have been struggling to field a candidate in that race which they had previously vowed to be competitive in.

With much fanfare and brand-new campaign video, Bivens said:

“I’m not a politician. I’ve spent my entire career in the private sector, working with businesses large and small. I’m running for the United States Senate because we can’t keep sending the same folks back to Washington and expecting a different result.” 

Click here to view the embedded video.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bivens, however, it seems the professional political class in Washington, and most notably, President Obama, are dismissing his candidacy as it’s barely begun.

Politico today lifted the curtain on the backroom deal-making taking place among Democrats in Washington and reports that no less than President Obama himself has personally called former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who was appointed to that office by President George W. Bush, and urged him to run for Senate in Arizona.

It’s unclear if the President reached Carmona at the ultra-exclusive Canyon Ranch spa in Tucson where he currently serves at its Vice-Chairman, but what is clear is that President Obama and national Democrats clearly aren’t happy with their former State Party Chair’s candidacy. As Politico reports:

“On September 23, President Obama called Richard Carmona to encourage him to run,” said one Democratic strategist. “The president said Carmona would certainly shake up the race.”

“It’s a remarkable development to hear that President Obama and national Democrats have so quickly dismissed the candidacy of a longtime party leader like Don Bivins in favor of someone who George W. Bush appointed to office, but politics makes for strange bedfellows. We look forward to hearing from Arizona Democrats like Don Bivins regarding the President’s recruitment efforts,” National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Brian Walsh said today.

# # #

Are Arizona’s lobbying and gifts statutes too lenient or too strict? What about disclosure? Should it be full and immediate?

It certainly seems that this scandal will continue to broaden and have an impact as well. How will it affect both parties and will it lead to further reforms in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying and non-profit reporting?

If Senator Bundgaard is telling the truth, Ballard will likely be prosecuted heavily for any number of crimes. But if Senator Bundgaard is lying, this will be the end of his political and professional career.

This is likely going to the courts but before it does, expect local media to run back and forth between Bundgaard’s attorney and Ballard’s spokesman.

KFYI – Barry Young Show

When I first heard the breaking story, I contacted someone who I trust who could provide information about what had happened. Having known Scott Bundgaard for about 10 years, hearing about the incident was a complete shock. This was not the Scott Bundgaard I have known. It was later disclosed to me that Scott’s girlfriend had admitted to being “the jealous type” to others. I don’t know this to be the case but if the reports are correct that she was smashing her cell phone into Scott’s face and throwing his clothing out of the car as it drove down the 51, I would tend to believe those accounts. One question I have that has not been answered is whether or not Ms. Ballard had consumed any alcohol Friday evening. If Scott has been aware of this and she had jumped into the driver’s seat of his car, it would seem to be a reasonable thing for him to stop her from driving off while under the influence. If she had not consumed any alcohol, this question is completely irrelevant.

As far as the issue of declaring immunity, the only people who would know the answer to that are the police, Scott and Aubry. Given media accounts, it sure seems that Scott did not boldly proclaim “Diplomatic Immunity!” as some people have claimed. I don’t know the answer to this but we may find out.

Senator’s Ex Tells Her Side of the Story: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

Back to Ms. Ballard. Anyone who does the research online will note that she has been involved with a local organization called Project Streetlight/Branded Phx. According to the organization’s website, it is local leader in the eradication of child sex slavery/prostitution. Ballard is listed as a public relations representative to the organization according to a November, 2010 press release.

Senator’s Ex Tells Her Side of the Story: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

Another interesting note about this story is that Ms. Ballard participated in a competition called Miss Arizona Dream Girl sometime ago. On an ESPN website written by Gregg Easterbrook, a photo of what appears to be Ballard posing as Miss Arizona Dream Girl contains the following description, “Brad Twarowski of Spring Grove, Ill., notes that the Miss Arizona Dream Girl competition spreads the wealth by choosing someone every month; gawk at Miss Arizona Dream Girl of January, Aubry Ballard, here.” As of today, that photo of Miss Ballard wearing a bikini and sporting a power drill has been removed; However, a cached file of the page was captured on December 25, 2010 and is still available. (Apparently, ESPN updated the page yesterday.) Ballard currently works for a company that specializes in internet marketing and search engine optimization.

Senator’s Ex Tells Her Side of the Story: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

What does this all mean? Perhaps the best explanation of what really happened should take place in the legal courts because the court of public opinion is doing a pretty lousy job. Both Scott and Aubry deserve their day in court and the opportunity to set the record straight but in the meantime, it’s been nothing but a “have you stopped beating your wife, he-said, she said” media fiasco.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 20, 2011

Arizona could become National leader with new laws

 January 19, 2011-Phoenix, ARIZONA – Following multiple reports of devastating abuses involving Arizona probate court,   Arizona State Representative David Smith (R – Carefree) sponsored legislation that would make Arizona the nation’s leader in judicial probate reform.  House Bill 2424 seeks to remedy rampant financial exploitation and abuses by Arizona’s probate court-ordered fiduciaries and others in the court system. The concerns over probate abuses have been widely documented in the media and in a report to the United States Senate submitted in September 2010.

When asked about his motivations, Representative Smith shared in an interview with the Arizona Republic’s Laurie Roberts: “I was concerned about the articles I read in the paper, some of the abuses that you point out.  In fact, I knew some of the people involved in one case.”

Sherry Lund, who is advocating for HB2424 said, “We are fighting for probate reform so no other Arizona family will suffer from the horrific abuses in the current system.  Such reform is overdue and new laws are the solution.”

HB2424 will become the national standard for probate reform.  The current draft includes:

• Improving oversight of probate court system by establishing an advocacy panel appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President of the Senate. 
• Allowing wards, or their families, to request a change of fiduciary annually.
•  Protecting financial interests of persons in probate by “capping” certain fees while requiring the court to establish a fee schedule for others.
•  Developing stronger fiduciary accountability by requiring a monthly accounting of expenditures.
•  Ensuring the civil liberties and wishes of the ward are upheld and respected.
•  Implementing stricter qualifications for probate judges.

 One of the key pieces of the new bill is the ability to replace the court appointed fiduciary annually. The case of Marie Long has been one of the most egregious stories of exploitation. When Mrs. Long was placed under the care of a court appointed fiduciary she had a $1.3 million estate, yet it was completely depleted within 4 years leaving her penniless and dependant on the state.    When asked about the provision to allow for a change of fiduciary, Jon Kitchel, attorney for Marie Long said if it includes trustess, “Unquestionably, she’d still have her money.”

Laura Knaperek, who is working on behalf of victims of probate abuse said on the bill being introduced, “At the end of the day, probate court is about families.  If abuses are occurring in the probate system, families are suffering.  This legislation is an important first step towards protecting families.  I’m very honored to work for HB 2424 with Representative Smith and the other co-sponsors.”