Thomas says NO ONE from the FBI has contacted him, nor has anyone else at his office indicated to him they have been contacted.

This fact is not indicated on the front page, but is buried and glossed over in the article. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI would neither confirm nor deny that Thomas is under investigation.” Instead, a huge headline leads the reader to believe the FBI is investigating Thomas’ Office. The article seems to say, we don’t know the facts, but this is what we are reporting anyway.

Next to the article is an unflattering photo of Thomas in a further attempt to demean him.

It is long known that “reporter” Yvonne Wingett acts as a second PR wing for the Supervisors due to her cozy relationship with the Supervisors’ PIO Richard DeUriarte, a former Republic editorial writer. The basis for her story clearly came straight from the Supervisors, who feed information to her inappropriately in order to taint newspaper coverage. There is a reason why her last name is Wingett, she is a second PR Wing for the Supervisors and absent facts she simple wing(s) it.

The article then goes on to recount the Supervisors’ efforts in court to thwart the criminal investigations of Supervisors Wilcox and Stapley – but the way it is sleazily written, it sounds like the court hearings are related to this supposed FBI investigation of Thomas. In reality, the court hearings took place to address why the Supervisors have blocked Thomas from prosecuting them. The coverage doesn’t mention that at the conclusion of the hearing, the judge gave Thomas a VICTORY (which even left-wing Republic columnist EJ Montini has admitted was a victory), saying he could appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute the Supervisors – what the Supervisors had been blocking all along.

The article then cites some dusty random left-wing law professor who says he’s not surprised the FBI is investigating Thomas.

It is only casually mentioned that several employees from the Supervisors’ office have been interrogated by the FBI. Why wasn’t there an equivalent front page story on how the Supervisors are under investigation by the FBI!? Those County Supervisor employees who have been interrogated include County Manager David Smith (EVERY county elected official has asked the Supervisors to remove him), his Deputy Manger Sandi Wilson (who is universally despised around the County), and County CIO Steve Wetzel, who is in hot water over increasing the size of County IT by 30% and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on brand-new unnecessary equipment while the rest of the county is forced to cut 15% of their budgets. Why would the FBI investigate the County’s CIO if the investigation is only about racial profiling by the Sheriff’s Office?

Buried at the bottom of page A14 of the paper is a victory Thomas just got yesterday which MASSIVELY SUPERSEDES the made-up story about the FBI. THAT story should have been at the top of the front page. In it, it is revealed that Thomas has found another County Attorney in the state to prosecute the Supervisors, Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Liberal country club Republican Sheila Polk, the Yavapai County Attorney, had punted half of the Supervisor prosecutions back to Thomas, because she is seeking an appointed to the Court of Appeals as a judge and needs to curry favor with the liberal judiciary. The Republic has consistently painted her actions as a rejection of the prosecutions without revealing any of her real motivations. This despite Polk herself stating the Stapley case “has merit.” Now that another County Attorney has no problem taking the case, where is the Republic’s analysis of the distinction? Nowhere. The Republic’s agenda is more about supporting their masters on the Board and ruining the prosecutor and sheriff. Providing their readers with the truth simply conflicts with that agenda.

Meanwhile, Supervisors Stapley and Wilcox run around free. Let’s not forget that Stapley was indicted for misusing thousands of dollars raised as campaign funds in an UNCONTESTED RACE to buy luxury items including lavish vacation trips for himself and his family. Wilcox was indicted for funneling massive amounts of taxpayers’ money to the left-wing activist group Chicanos for la Causa then accepting discounted loans from them. We sure wish we could funnel taxpayers’ money to the GOP then receive our own personal discounted loans from the GOP! And we’re going to say we’re running for dogcatcher, collect contributions, then spend the money on high-end stereo equipment and massages like Stapley did. When it comes time for prosecution, we’ll FIRE THE PROSECUTOR!

Greed in high places

Supervisor Don Stapley’s crime spree abetted by Board

Wingett’s article claims that County Attorney Andrew Thomas suffered a defeat in court yesterday when Judge Leonardo threw out the indictment of Supervisor Wilcox. This characterization was not accurate. Even the more liberal columnists at the Republic, E.J. Montini and Laurie Roberts, have gotten it right and realize that this is about the Supervisors trying to do everything they can to avoid prosecution. (http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/74741 ) The Supervisors have even tried to block the appointment of Special Prosecutors (which in their minds would ostensibly avoid any “conflict of interest” – -a “conflict of interest” they manufactured by having their hand-picked attorney Tom Irvine, former attorney for the Democrat Party, represent BOTH the judges and the Supervisors). Since the judge’s decision stops them from blocking a Special Prosecutor any longer, E.J. Montini described yesterday’s decision as Judge Leonardo giving Thomas what he wanted – the prosecutions should be handled by a Special Prosecutor.

Wingett’s article made it sound like a defeat for Thomas, when in reality, it was more of the same – biased liberal judges stalling Thomas’s attempts to prosecute two corrupt Supervisors. This is typical yellow journalism by Wingett – try to make something look like a major defeat for Thomas that is not, and plaster it on the front page. If Thomas or Arpaio have a major win, it is relegated to the back pages of the Valley and State section next to the obituaries.

Judge Leonardo berated Thomas and Arpaio for prosecuting the Supervisors in his decision. This is not surprising, considering  the cozy relationship the Supervisors have with judges due to their control over their budgets. Leonardo may be from Pinal County, but he knows the repercussions of attacking another county’s supervisors. If he has any hopes of ever becoming a higher-level state court judge, he knows he can’t look like he’s siding with the conservative Thomas and Arpaio. He did what he could in the situation: criticize Thomas and Arpaio, but allow the prosecution to continue. Leonardo didn’t address the fact that the Supervisors have had their judges hand-picked for them on the prosecutions of Wilcox and Stapley and the investigation of the corrupt $340 million court tower. Judge Daughton, who was handpicked out of retirement by liberal Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell, and responsible for letting the Supervisors steal away Thomas’s entire County Attorney civil division, has even had a complaint filed against him by an employee due to his obvious bias against Thomas. A Democrat, Daughton contributed to Thomas’s Democrat opponent for county attorney.

Wingett’s Republic article doesn’t tell you any of that. In fact, she deliberately leaves out facts the reader needs to know in order to understand the whole story. Her article repeats Leonardo’s accusation that Thomas is “trying to gain political advantage by prosecuting political opponents such as Wilcox.” Yet she doesn’t bring up the fact that the other half of these high-profile prosecutions of Supervisors involves Don Stapley (his photo was featured prominently in this article), a prolife Republican. Thomas filed the Stapley indictment first, the Wilcox indictment came later. Obviously, Thomas is not prosecuting Stapley for partisan points as Leonardo asserts. Judge Leonardo chose to make a political statement from the bench, he is using the bench for politicking.

Besides an initial indictment on 118 criminal counts for false reporting, Stapley has been indicted on 23 criminal counts for raising money for his campaign that he then spent on personal items instead: $6000 of these funds were spent at Bang and Olufson electronics, along with $1300 for hair implants, $400 for candle holders and $10,000 for furniture for his home. He also spent these funds, solicited as campaign money, to buy tickets to Broadway plays and movie theatres, flowers, grocery store bills, massages, department stores and trips for his family to Sundance, Utah to ski, a trip for his son and friends to Florida and a three-week vacation in Hawaii for his entire family at a beach house costing approximately $11,000.

Wilcox is accused of voting on giving taxpayer-funded government grants to the radical left wing activist organization Chicanos por la Causa, while accepting loans from the organization.

Don’t you wish you were a Supervisor so you could get away with this kind of white-collar crime and have the liberal judges and newspapers rush to your defense? It is a double standard that these well-connected Supervisors with a long history of corruption get away with  crimes because of their control over the judicial system.

Apparently, the good folks who run this county don’t have a set of Arizona Revised Statutes.

If they did, Andy Thomas and his top aides wouldn’t be wheeling around town in cars paid for with the public dime.  But that outrageous transgression pales in comparison to what it appears the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be contemplating.

As everybody on the planet knows by now, Thomas is making plans to abandon his office in order to seek better digs over at the state AG’s office. To do that, he’ll have to resign by May.

State law allows the Board of Supervisors to then appoint another Republican to replace him.Of course, there is no way the Sups should touch that job, given that two of its five members are under indictment and would essentially be selecting their own prosecutor. Thomas is correct to assert that neutral party (retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor maybe?) should take over that job.

But even if the supervisors do go against good sense and appearances of a conflict, it seems there may be some private talk under way about how to get around state law – and those pesky people who might want a say in who will run prosecutions in this state for the next two years. Voters, I mean.

In a story this morning, Wade Swanson, the county’s director of general-litigation services, hinted that the supervisors may not be putting Thomas’ job up to a public vote this fall. Here’s an excerpt from the story, by Republic reporters Mike Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett:

“Swanson said county officials are concerned Thomas’ successor would not have enough time to gather thousands of signatures necessary to appear on a ballot. Swanson also confirmed that attorneys are looking at the succession matter but would not release related documents to The Arizona Republic, citing attorney-client privilege. Swanson said contract attorney Tom Irvine has been asked “to find an appropriate expert in this area.”

I don’t know what “an appropriate expert is”.  I do, however, know what the law says.

ARS 16-230. Vacancy in certain state or county offices; election
If a county office becomes vacant, the board of supervisors shall appoint a person of the same political party as the person vacating the office to fill the portion of the term until the next regular general election. If the vacancy occurs within the first two years of the term, and before the date on which a nomination paper is required to be filed as prescribed by section 16-311, a primary election shall be held as otherwise provided by law to determine candidates to fill the unexpired term. At the next regular general election, the person elected shall fill the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacant office.

It doesn’t say if a vacancy occurs within the first two years of the term, a primary election can be held.  It says it shall be held.  If Thomas resigns before the date on which nomination petitions must be filed, the supervisors must let voters have their say.

If Swanson believes Thomas is gaming the system to get his own guy in there, well I’m pretty sure the county sups know how to play games, too, with their own guys.

Or, they can do the sane thing and turn this particular appointment over to someone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight.

Now, can I send the county a bill for this studied legal opinion?

Laurie Roberts is a columnist for The Arizona Republic.