Mark Brnovich is Small Business’ Choice for Top Cop

Eighty-nine percent polled favor ex-gaming chief over former top banking regulator

PHOENIX, Ariz., Sept. 10, 2014 – Appreciating that the state’s attorney general is our last line of defense against the overreach of an aggressive federal government, Arizona’s leading small-business association today announced its endorsement of Mark Brnovich for Arizona’s next attorney general.

“Arizona’s job creators trust Mark Brnovich to enforce the law and protect our communities,” said Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). “Arizona’s entrepreneurs are confident Mark Brnovich will foster a safe and secure environment and ensure a level playing field so our small businesses can thrive.”

This poll of 379 Arizona small-business owners was conducted by NFIB between August 28 and September 4, 2014.

This poll of 379 Arizona small-business owners was conducted by NFIB/Arizona between August 28 and September 4, 2014.

The Brnovich endorsement is the 7,000-Arizona-member-strong, small-business advocacy group’s first endorsement in the attorney general’s race in more than a decade. The decision to endorse was largely driven by the results of a survey of small-business owners that revealed a decisive favorite. In that survey, former federal prosecutor and ex-Gaming Department chief Mark Brnovich received 89 percent support to former top state banking regulator Felecia Rotellini’s 11 percent in the poll of 379 Arizona small-business owners conducted by NFIB August 28 to September 4, 2014.

“As Arizona’s next attorney general, Mark Brnovich will provide solid legal advice to state regulatory agencies in order to prevent overreach, regulatory bullying of small-business owners and to ensure state agencies aren’t acting on bad or inaccurate legal advice,” Quinlan said.

The formal endorsement of Mark Brnovich was made by the NFIB/Arizona Save America’s Free Enterprise (SAFE) Trust, the political action committee of NFIB members in Arizona.

2014_0910_NFIBAZ_Brnovich_05

Republican Attorney General nominee Mark Brnovich discusses small business issues today at the NFIB/Arizona Small Business Forum in Phoenix. Earlier in the day NFIB/Arizona announced its endorsement of Brnovich and reported that 89% of small business owners polled supported the election of the former federal prosecutor.

For more than 70 years, the National Federation of Independent Business has been the Voice of Small Business, taking the message from Main Street to the halls of Congress and all 50 state legislatures. NFIB annually surveys its members on state and federal issues vital to their survival as America’s economic engine and biggest creator of jobs. NFIB’s educational mission is to remind policymakers that small businesses are not smaller versions of bigger businesses; they have very different challenges and priorities.

Unethical Bar prosecutor who disbarred Andrew Thomas finally exposed, loses job

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 July 23rd, 2014

Attorneys in Colorado and Oregon calling out John Gleason for political targeting

“Abused his authority to selectively prosecute effective advocates of their license without due process of law”

Finally some justice is being done. John Gleason, the slimy Colorado Bar prosecutor the Arizona State Bar brought in to disbar Andrew Thomas, because they knew of his history of successfully politically targeting conservative attorneys, has lost his job over it – AGAIN. Gleason was forced out of the Colorado State Bar after his targeting of Thomas, and could only find a job with the State Bar in Oregon, leaving his family behind. Now, only a year later, he’s out there too.

Here are some excerpts from the article in Oregon Live:

After a short, stormy run that antagonized some lawyers around the state and divided the Oregon State Bar, John Gleason, the bar’s high-profile new disciplinary counsel, quietly left the job and Oregon late last month.

“Gleason came here with a goal to radically change Oregon Bar discipline which he disclosed only to (Bar Executive Director) Sylvia Stevens and I’m glad he’s gone,” said Greg Hendrix, a Bend lawyer and former chair of the bar’s State Professional Responsibility Board.
Here are some excerpts from the comment after the article, written by a successful Colorado attorney who Gleason targeted:
Far from being cause for concern, John Gleason’s premature departure from the post of Disciplinary Counsel should be welcomed by anyone devoted to “Equal Justice Under the Law”. Gleason is third-rate lawyer and under- qualified career bureaucrat with little to no meaningful experience in private practice who, even while his Colorado office routinely ignored or countenanced massive ethical lapses by attorneys for the rich and powerful, complaisantly abused his authority to selectively prosecute and unconstitutionally deprive effective advocates for the little guy of their liberty and property interests in their profession and license without due process of law. I am a Stanford Law School graduate with over 25 years of experience in labor and employment counseling and litigation in the private, public, and corporate sector.
In 2006, I won a $1.22 million ADEA jury verdict against the City and County of Denver on behalf of a long-time firefighter whom it had unlawfully terminated on the pretext of fraudulent shoplifting charges after he turned age 50 (and retirement eligible). In Nov. 2006, the presiding judge, Robert Blackburn, entered judgment in the full amount of the verdict, stating that there was more than enough evidence of willful age discrimination to support the jury’s verdict.
In late September, 2007, however, Blackburn fraudulently, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally granted a new trial in the case on the basis of alleged trivial misconduct by me during trial that was never the subject of a motion for mistrial and was therefore waived, as a matter of law, as grounds for a new trial.
As Alan Prendergast of “Westword” reported soon thereafter, and as the new trial order itself impliedly admitted, there were absolutely no grounds for a new trial. As the jurors Prendergast (and, later, Asst. Attorney Regulation Counsel Kim Ikeler) interviewed attested, the judge’s new trial order was completely unfounded, and they had decided the case in full conformity with the evidence and the law, as instructed:
After interviewing the jurors, Asst. Attorney Regulation Counsel Kim Ikeler told me on Jan. 31, 2008 that he found no clear and convincing evidence of misconduct by me during trial, and would therefore recommend dismissal of the complaint against me.
Nonetheless, at the request of the City of Denver, which has numerous Democrat allies on the Colorado Supreme Court, the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel directed Ikeler to defraud the Attorney Regulation Committee by unlawfully and unethically concealing evidence (the juror’s statements) exculpating me in order to gain permission to prosecute me, then subjected me to a retaliatory and completely unfounded witch hunt and show trial for the purpose of: attempting to force me off the case before retrial; providing a fraudulent veneer of credibility to Judge Blackburn’s blatantly unlawful new trial order; retaliating against me for humiliating the City and its lawless officials so very publicly and gleefully; making an example of me to any other maverick, politically unconnected attorney who might be encouraged to do the same, given the massive corruption and stupidity within the City of Denver’s government; punishing me for my searing criticism of Judge Blackburn and the Colorado Supreme Court.
For the serious crime of winning my client’s case, and vindicating his federally protected rights, against the resistance of a massively powerful, corrupt, and dishonest bureaucracy, another massively powerful, dishonest and corrupt bureaucracy, the Colorado Supreme Court, effectively destroyed my reputation, and ability to ever again practice law, by suspending me for a year and a day for the void-for-vagueness offense of “interfering with the administration of justice” by winning my client’s case through very hard work and skillful lawyering. They exploited local mainstream media to defame me from behind the cover of the fair report doctrine by conspiring with them to portray me in the worst possible light, and refrain from reporting the wealth of evidence exculpating me. Only a few isolated bloggers came close to reporting the truth, and then only after they had parroted false reports I encouraged them to retract, for example:|
My very well-founded appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court was, of course, ignored. I was informed by expert counsel that there was no chance the US Supreme Court would take up my case. Because of overbroad abstention and immunity doctrines, I could not sue in federal court for this blatant violation of my right to due process and deprivation of my liberty and property interests in my career and license.
In short, I was judicially lynched by Mr. Gleason and his colleagues in the Colorado Supreme Court as part of a politically-motivated prosecution that had no foundation in the facts or the law. They did the same thing to me for which Gleason was hired (by Andrew Thomas’ political enemies in Arizona) to disbar Andrew Thomas: abusing prosecutorial powers to punish political enemies.
THAT is the sort of bureaucratic weasel the Oregon Bar hired as its Disciplinary Counsel. Maverick Oregon advocates for the little guy should be relieved by his premature departure under pressure.
Here are some excerpts from another article & comments about the complicit judiciary (sound familiar?):
You have experienced what I believe sadly is the norm of the Colorado Judicial Branch. It has become so flagrant and the “players” so comfortable in their roles that there is no possibility of correcting it. Think about it. What can you or anyone possibly do to overcome the corruption that has become so deeply embedded in every facet of our government. Yes, you can try and fight it, but for what purpose? Unless you resign yourself to the role of bending your knee and bowing your head; life will be very difficult for you as an attorney in Colorado.
It is obvious that this is a political prosecution, and that Gleason, a political reptile who has long abused the power of his office to oppress enemies of those who control the State of Colorado, and protect their friends from scrutiny or prosecution for their routine subversion of justice for fun and profit, was called in to provide the result desired by Thomas’ political enemies.
SunnyFebruary 28, 2014 at 7:07 PM
Very good, Mark. Andrew Thomas’s chief political enemy is Conley Wolfswinkel, a Phoenix developer who is partners with S&L crook Charles Keating, who is a “business partner” of Larry Mizel’s, Mizel being a Colorado homebuilder who–like Keating–is also a big S&L crook. He obtained huge loans from Silverado Savings & Loan which he never paid back. It is zillionaire Larry Mizel who picks the public officials in Colorado, via his criminal campaign-contribution shakedowns. (There’s a classic Denver Post picture of Mizel’s “green light” to John Hickenlooper to run for governor over lunch, for example.) The governor then appoints ALL judges in Colorado, and it was one of these, chief justice Mary Mullarkey–herself appointed by Mizel stooge Roy Romer–who selected John Gleason to head the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. That selection is more than a little curious because Gleason flunked out of college and never practiced law before joining OARC, despite lying about his “prosecutorial” and “extensive private practice” experience on his bios which are online. So we come full circle: my take is Gleason was imported to Arizona because Wolfswinkel wanted to end Thomas’s career, and needed a mob plant with “disciplinary power” to do it. Aside from the fact he is a lawyer impersonator, as mentioned, witchhunts and abuses of power are John Gleason’s trademark.

It bears mentioning that Gleason was advanced early in his career by the sheriff of Arapahoe County, Pat Sullivan, who gave him rave reviews on evaluations. Sullivan was arrested in 2010 for offering to exchange drugs for homosexual sex, an offer he also apparently routinely made to jail inmates in return for letting them bond out, when he was sheriff. Gleason currently runs, on the side, a nonprofit called “Warrior Youth Sports,” which I have been told, by a parent of a child involved in it, is engaging in financial improprieties. I’m wondering if there are worse abuses afoot, a la Jerry Sandusky. Are we concerned yet? 

See “John Gleason–Lawyer Impersonator?” (and follow-up posts) on my blog,therealcolorado.blogspog.com, for documentation supporting what I’ve said about this man. There should be more documents, of course, but Gleason’s personnel file at OARC, including his application, has been unlawfully withheld. This sure looks like they’ve got to hide that application, because it shows the reptile lied to get the job–as well as that he was profoundly unqualified. Complying with the Open Records Law and producing these records would, of course, impair Job #1 at the OARC, which–as Mark and I both know firsthand–is to protect white collar crime.
Join Our Mailing List

Hobby and a Lobby of Glass Houses

By Sam Stone

The liberal angst over the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned family businesses is rapidly spinning out of control. Critics have accused Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court of everything short of genocide. Comedian and MSNBC contributor John Fugelsang tweeted that the Hobby Lobby ruling “proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law”, explicitly comparing the atrocities committed in the name of radical Islam to not requiring someone else to pay for the morning-after pill. That’s ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous in light of what Hobby Lobby really is: one of the best examples of corporate humanity and compassion in this country. It’s even more ridiculous when you compare Hobby Lobby to, for example, Staples – a similar retail business run by founder and CEO Tom Stemberg, who was a significant contributor to President Obama’s campaigns.

Hobby Lobby pays a starting wage of $9.50 per hour for part time employees. Full time employees start at $14 an hour. All employees are eligible to enroll in the company-sponsored health care plan (which covers 16 types of birth control). All employees have Sundays off.

Staples employees often start at whatever minimum wage their local jurisdiction has set. Their average wage for associates is $8.55 an hour. Most associates do not qualify for company-sponsored benefits. Staples is open 7 days a week.

And yet, the left is basically claiming that because Hobby Lobby will only pay for 16 of 20 FDA-approved birth control types, they are the Taliban and the Green family are members of ISIS. What on earth does that make Tom Stemberg and Staples? A Staples employee who doesn’t have company health insurance isn’t getting their morning-after pills paid for by the company, either. Or condoms. Or the pill. Or…you get the picture.

I have a ton of liberal friends and family members who pooh-pooh the idea of a War on Christianity. Frankly, I always have as well. The reaction of liberals and their media allies to the Hobby Lobby case is changing my mind. The mainstream media doesn’t so much as bat an eyelash at the Staples of the world, so long as the plutocrats in charge are willing to keep lining the pockets of liberal candidates (and their own networks). But Christian business owners who pay their employees a living wage and provide healthcare benefits are monsters because they won’t pay for a few specific abortifacients?

Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling or Hobby Lobby’s employee handbook prevents employees from going out and purchasing the morning-after pill for themselves. But, apparently, none of this matters so long as liberals can use the ruling to perpetuate a mythological conservative “war on women” that exists mostly in the minds of the Sandra Fluke’s of the world. Perhaps, instead, they should take a look at their own glass houses.

Darryl Jacobson Barnes for Justice of the Peace

Darryl Jacobson Barnes for Justice of the Peace

9th Circuit Court Puts Hold on Arizona Law: Disregards District Court

By Joanne Moudy

There was a time when states had rights and could count on the sovereignty of their own state constitutions and laws.  But with the ever-growing overreach of our tyrannical federal government and liberal judges, that time is long past.  In fact today, as fast as states pass laws to distance themselves from the insanity of unlawful federal mandates and regulations, higher court decisions reverse those efforts.

So it doesn’t come as a huge shock that the 9th Circuit justices issued an injunction against Arizona’s law pertaining to abortion drugs, but it does seem odd that the justices don’t feel obligated to follow federal FDA guidelines on pharmaceutical issues.  I guess all those inconvenient rules are meant to be bent, twisted, and broken as often as necessary to further the socialist agenda.

In 2012, HB 2036 was passed by the Arizona State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.  The law, which took effect in April, 2014, was an important step in tightening regulations on abortion providers to ensure that the medical care they provide to pregnant women is in compliance with federal guidelines and not based upon what’s best for the clinic’s profit margin.

But no sooner had the law taken effect than Planned Parenthood and the Tucson Women’s Center filed suit seeking an injunction against it on the grounds that it puts an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.  However, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury refused to grant an injunction and rejected their argument, stating the law was put in place to protect women from “dangerous and potentially deadly ‘off-label’ uses” of abortion drugs.

But even before Judge Bury could rule on the legal issues, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals slammed down their collective heavy-handed gavel on Tuesday and granted a temporary stay.  Apparently they have no respect for the lower court’s legal process or deliberation, because they stepped right in and took the case away from the District Court.

ru4864

image credit: LifeNews

The absurdity is that the portion of the law in question simply mandates that the abortifacient drug, RU-486, Mifeprex, be used only per the guidelines of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Seems pretty straight forward to most physicians, but Planned Parenthood wants permission to do something no other doctor or hospital in the country can do.  They want to operate outside government rules and collect your tax dollars while doing it.

According to the Center for Arizona Policy, when the FDA approved RU-486, it did so under Subpart H, a much more restrictive section of the FDA’s rules specifically set aside for potentially dangerous drugs.  Out of almost 1800 new drug applications approved by the FDA between 1992 and 2011, only 70 were approved under Subpart H.

The drug itself comes with precise prescribing information, labeled uses, and a lengthy warning list, and the licensing under Subpart H simply reinforced the manufacturer’s intentions.  Clearly, the FDA believed the side effects of using the drug “off-label” – hemorrhage, ruptured uterus, sepsis and/or cardiac arrest – constituted serious threats to the patient.

RU-486 blocks the hormone progesterone, thereby causing the fetus to be starved of all nutrients, die, and detach from the uterine wall.  The manufacturer intended for the drug to be used up until 49 days of gestational age, and not beyond.

“On-label” dosing is for the woman to take 600 milligrams of RU-486 orally at the clinic and then return two days later and take 400 micrograms of Misoprostal in the presence of a licensed healthcare provider.  Misoprostal causes the uterus to contract and expel the dead fetus and any remaining contents.  The idea is that the woman be observed while she expels her uterine contents, on the off chance something goes wrong (other than the obvious).

The FDA also recommends that the woman return to the clinic a third time for a follow-up exam to ensure there are no complications (fragments of the baby still inside, etc.) from the chemical abortion.

As a side note, Arizona State Law requires that all women seeking an abortion must be given a counseling session, followed by a 24-hour waiting period before proceeding with an abortion.  That includes ingesting abortifacient drugs.

But Planned Parenthood wants to skip the initial counseling session and the 24-hour waiting period.  They also want to be able to give the RU-486 up to 63 days gestational age, when the fetus is significantly larger and more difficult to expel.

Planned Parenthood’s normal modus operandi is to do a cursory ‘exam’, convince the woman to swallow the RU-486 and then send her home with instructions to take the second drug at home.  As a matter of fact, they frequently advise their clients to not return to the clinic for a recheck after the abortion and bleeding are finished.

And here’s the rub.  Planned Parenthood dispenses RU-486 in one-third the normal dose (200 milligrams), claiming it’s cheaper and safer for the woman.  Naturally it’s cheaper – it’s one-third the dose.  What Planned Parenthood forgets to mention is that the lower dose also means the baby dies more slowly.

What they also fail to mention is that the dose of the second drug, Misoprostal, – the one the woman will take at home, is double.  So when the uterus starts to violently contract and/or the woman is bleeding heavily, she will be alone, unsupervised and without benefit of medical care.

Since medication abortions now account for 41 percent of all first-trimester abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide, they have a vested interest in making certain they can do as they please, regardless of the risk to the mother.

At least fifteen deaths have been attributed to RU-486 since it was licensed and many more women have had complications serious enough to warrant total hysterectomies.  Regardless of Planned Parenthood’s propaganda, RU-486 is not a benign drug without risk.

Aside from the Court’s reaction, it’s also interesting to see how some of the Arizona candidates from two key races responded.

Chuck Wooten, GOP candidate, U.S. Congress, AZ D-2 said, “Abortion is tragic enough without coupling it with reckless, unsafe “medical” practices.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling categorically invalidates and marginalizes scientific, FDA precautions that are designed to protect the health of the women involved in ingesting abortifacient drugs.  As Americans have watched for far too long, liberal judges, particularly in the 9th Circuit are legislating from the bench at the peril of women, many of whom are already in a crisis situation.”

According to the Arizona Republic, as of May 27th, his opponent in the primary, Martha McSally, had no comment this issue, and the democratic incumbent, Ron Barber, ardently supports Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand.

Wendy Rogers, GOP Candidate, U.S. Congress, AZ D-9 told the Republic, “I’m 100 percent pro-life, because life is a precious gift from God.  We need to help young women understand they have options beyond abortion.”

Although her GOP primary opponent, Andrew Walter, did not respond to the Arizona Republic, Walter is on record as being Pro-life.  The democratic incumbent Kyrsten Sinema supports abortion on demand, up to full-term.

Considering that the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeals have already upheld similar laws in states within their jurisdictions, it seems likely that this battle isn’t over.  The tragedy is that one case at a time, the higher federal courts are rendering states impotent to enforce their own laws and stomping on their unique sovereignty.

Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional

By Joanne Moudy

There is no doubt in any sane mind that Obamacare is a travesty on the U.S. Constitution and a terrible fraud perpetrated on America citizens. Yet it seems as though we’re all stuck with it . . . or are we?

On Friday Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 8th Dist.), led the charge in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in the case of Steven Hotze, M.D. v. Kathleen Sebelius, ramping up efforts to prove, once and for all, that the entire basis for the ACA bill was bogus in the first place.

Mr. Franks, along with 42 of his colleagues, including Rep(s) Michele Bachmann R-MN D-6), Matt Salmon (R-AZ D-5), David Schweikert (R-AZ D-6), and Steve King (R-IA D-4), banded together in a show of support to overturn Obamacare for violating the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Mr. Franks’ office, the case began in a Texas federal court and raises the issue of whether or not Obamacare violated the Origination Clause because the entire language of the bill actually originated in the Senate, instead of the House as required for all bills raising revenue.

The question stems from October 2009, when the House passed H.R. 3590, titled at the time as “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” H.R. 3590 was supposed to make certain changes to the IRS code, specifically to extend or waive the recapture of a first-time homebuyer credit for certain members of the armed forces.

The obvious question any intelligent person should be asking themselves right now is, ‘What exactly does this bill have to do with health care?’ You’re right – absolutely nothing.

The fairly innocuous bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate. Upon receipt, the Senate promptly stripped everything from the bill – except the all important # 3590, then inserted the language of the Affordable Care Act and subsequently passed it on December 24, 2009. The entirely new H.R. 3590 then went back to the House for final approval.

Yet absolutely nothing remained of the original bill and Rep. Pelosi knew it. As the then Speaker of the House, she rammed H.R. 3590 through on March 21, 2010 as amended by the Senate. Concurrently, the House passed H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” which made certain amendments to the ACA. President Obama signed H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010 and H.R. 4872 on March 30, 2010.

The Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that “….all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Since Obamacare contains 17 separate tax provisions raising approximately $500 billion in taxes, it is most assuredly a tax bill, which most assuredly did not originate in the House. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could only be constitutional, if at all, under Congress’s power to tax.

“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history,” Mr. Franks said, “by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill, which does not even raise taxes, and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”

In addition to pressing his case in the courts, Congressman Franks is the sponsor of House Resolution 153, with 56 co-sponsors, expressing the sense of the House of Representative that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause. Just last week, Mr. Franks also held a contentious hearing on the topic before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The saddest thing is that none of the Arizona congressional leaders with a “D” behind their names supported this amicus brief, presumably because of their support of this illegal method of taxation. Offices of Rep(s) Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were contacted, yet neither had a single comment. Maybe it’s time for a significant change.

Wendy Rogers, the retired U.S. Air Force Pilot who’s running against Sinema in AZ D-9 feels strongly the Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster. “Most disingenuous of all, is Rep. Sinema,” Rogers said. “She actually helped to write the original tenets of Obamacare before she went to Congress and has consistently been President Obama’s cheerleader for it in Arizona.”

Rogers went on to explain, “In order for Sinema to save face in her district, she voted with Republicans to delay the individual mandate and extend the workweek to 39 hours. She purposely voted this way, knowing it would never pass the Senate or a presidential veto. Sinema isn’t about caring for sick people at affordable prices, she’s about hijacking the Constitution to control one-sixth of the nation’s GDP. Sinema is what’s wrong with Congress.”

Chuck Wooten, who’s running against Barber in AZ D-2 said, “I roundly applaud Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors for forcing the will of the people, through Constitutionality and precedent, to undo the ACA which has been aptly named, “the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people.”

According to Wooten, it’s no secret the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers intentionally deceived the citizenry – purely for ideological gain. “The American people, led by Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors have busted those responsible for the fraud and I’m confident justice will prevail and this train wreck will be once and for all vaporized into a bad memory,” Wooten said.

Too bad Rogers and Wooten aren’t already in Congress . . . just think how nice it’d be to have these two names on this amicus brief.

For those of us hoping against hope for a way out of the Obamacare nightmare, this seems like the all important light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the elected men and women taking a stand against fraudulent, tyrannical government and lets make sure the right folks make it to Washington in November.

Joanne Moudy is the author of “The Tenth,” a supernatural thriller exploring the very real trauma of abortion in a fictional realm. She proudly served as an officer in the military for nine years, before specializing in emergency nursing until retirement. She’s currently an Ambassador for Alliance Defending Freedom, a member of ASU’s Advisory Board for the Center for Political Thought and Leadership, and regularly speaks about the impact of abortion, liberalism, and secularism on all of humanity. You can follow her on Twitter @composedof1

Front page AZ Republic: AZ Bar disciplinary judge mired in corruption

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 16th,  2014

 

Liberal Arizona Republic finally exposes corruption of AZ Bar disciplinary judge who disbarred Andrew Thomas  
Reporter uncovers cronyism and coverup goes all the way to the top – the AZ Supreme Court! 

Divorce case stirs ethics allegations about judge

Dennis Wagner, The Republic | azcentral.com
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/16/divorce-case-stirs-ethics-allegations-judge/7765749/

This is not a story about a dog or a divorce, but that’s where it begins.
After Mark Dixon and his ex-wife, Carol Johnson, terminated their marriage in late 2009, they got into a custody dispute over Shiloh, an Australian shepherd.
On Dec. 2 of that year, Dixon was pulled over by three plainclothes Pinal County sheriff’s deputies with semiautomatic weapons, according to the incident report and court records.
Dixon alleges he was ordered to surrender the dog or face immediate arrest, so he acquiesced. A civil complaint he filed in federal court against a group of Pinal County deputies and Dixon’s ex-wife says he argued that the disagreement with his wife was a civil matter and that deputies “did knowingly and willingly criminally extort property” by threatening arrest if he did not give up the dog. His lawsuit accused Pinal County officials of conspiracy.
In a court motion, Dixon asserted that his ex-wife, who then worked for a credit union, had assisted Pinal County Superior Court Judge William J. “Bill” O’Neil in obtaining a $300,000 loan prior to the canine-custody dispute.
Dixon, who represented himself during most of the case, speculated that O’Neil, who was not named as a defendant, returned the favor by influencing deputies to seize the dog.
Deputies denied any conspiracy, court records show, and O’Neil also denied any impropriety in an interview with The Arizona Republic. Defense attorneys successfully argued that the lawsuit, which sought $5 million in damages, was legally flawed and failed to show proof.
Thus began a four-year saga of intrigue involving O’Neil, who presides over discipline in the Arizona court system, and Dixon, a 49-year-old construction contractor who acknowledges a 1997 federal fraud conviction.
Dixon and at least two lawyers subjected to discipline by the State Bar of Arizona question the integrity of O’Neil, a key figure responsible for maintaining ethical standards within Arizona’s justice system.
In a court motion filed last month, suspended Phoenix attorney Jane O. Ross asked that O’Neil be removed from Bar disciplinary proceedings against her because of “a pattern of corruption, failure to uphold the due-process rights of disciplinary respondents, failure to acknowledge conflicts of interest, abuses of discretion and power, dereliction of judicial duties and knowingly making false statements.”
The motion to remove O’Neil contains allegations of criminal and unethical behavior. It relies heavily on information gathered by Dixon and includes an affidavit from him sworn under penalty of perjury.
A motion is made
“O’Neil is accused of illegal conduct in his personal affairs and ethical misconduct from the bench,” Ross wrote. “It is patently unfair for a judge, so accused, to continue to sit in judgment of others similarly accused until such accusations are either confirmed or dispelled.”
O’Neil did not respond to a Republic request for comment on Ross’ motion, though he previously spoke to the newspaper and rejected challenges to his integrity. He has not withdrawn from the case, but he did assign another judge to conduct an April 17 hearing on Ross’ motion.
Heather Murphy, director of communications for the Arizona Supreme Court, said she does not know what actions or investigations into the allegations the Supreme Court might launch, if any.
Dixon and O’Neil, both Casa Grande residents, have known one another since Dixon’s daughter began boarding and riding her horse at O’Neil’s stables years ago. In a sworn affidavit and formal complaints, Dixon said a friendship evolved. O’Neil characterizes Dixon as an acquaintance.
Either way, the two men agree that Dixon worked on O’Neil’s property occasionally and that they talked often. The judge presided over Dixon’s wedding. Dixon says they often discussed legal matters; O’Neil says that Dixon sometimes asked for legal advice but that he tried to brush off the queries.
After the dog incident, however, Dixon filed complaints or claims against O’Neil with the Arizona Supreme Court, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Attorney General’s Office and the State Bar of Arizona.
Dixon shared copies with The Arizona Republic. The Commission on Judicial Conduct usually posts complaints online after its investigation, but it opted not to publish the complaint against O’Neil, a spokesman said.
Investigations and litigation proceeded at the same time the Supreme Court was setting up a new ethics system to deal with attorney misconduct – and appointing O’Neil as the state’s first and only “presiding disciplinary judge.”
For the past three years, O’Neil has overseen proceedings against scores of lawyers, including the disbarment of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, while fending off Dixon’s accusations of unethical conduct. He is now considering approval of a proposed Bar reprimand against former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke for ethics violations during a national political scandal involving the Operation Fast and Furious firearms investigation.
In an August 2012 complaint to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, Dixon told the story of Shiloh.
According to a copy of the complaint provided to The Republic, Dixon also asserted that O’Neil was his “ghost writer” in a Pinal County Superior Court motion and secretly authored an ethics complaint Dixon lodged against another judge.
Finally, he wrote that O’Neil acted improperly – or created an appearance of conflict – in transactions involving a residence owned by the judge’s mother-in-law.
According to public records, Sarah Holmes, O’Neil’s mother-in-law, executed a short sale of her Casa Grande house to a family friend. The friend subsequently sold a half-interest in the dwelling to O’Neil. Holmes continued to reside at the house – as a renter, according to O’Neil.
In an interviewlate last year, O’Neil told The Republic that he did not author legal papers for Dixon, did not enlist deputies in a scheme against him and did not engage in a fraudulent real-estate scheme. “I categorically deny the allegations,” he said.
Former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Stanley Feldman, who represents O’Neil, said the judge has been smeared by a felon who bears a grudge. “There’s really nothing to it. … This is just a plain vendetta,” Feldman said.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed Dixon’s complaints after an initial review. A federal judge threw out the conspiracy lawsuit. No other government entity has sustained allegations by Dixon, who says each setback reaffirms his belief that Arizona’s justice system is corrupt.
The chain of events
Documents in the Pinal County Recorder’s Office show the chain of events: In August 2006, Sarah Holmes, O’Neil’s mother-in-law, secured a $204,000 loan on her house. Within months, Holmes borrowed an additional $203,950 using her home as collateral.
Three years elapsed. In January 2010, records show, Holmes executed a short sale of her property for $72,000 cash to a man named BrienBrenfleck. O’Neil confirmed that Brenfleck is a longtime family friend who once lived at O’Neil’s residence.
Short sales usually occur when a property’s mortgage debt exceeds its market value. In order to avoid foreclosure, lenders in some cases allow a homeowner to sell the residence and eliminate debt in excess of the proceeds.
Such transactions typically must be approved by mortgage holders, and the indebted seller generally cannot have close ties with the buyer.
Within days of the short sale, according to records on file with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, Brenfleck and “Bill O’Neal” (sic) were registered as owners of a new Arizona trade name, BOBB Investments, initials from the principles’ names.
Ten months later, Brenfleck transferred half-ownership of the Holmes property to Judge O’Neil and his wife, Tammy. O’Neil signed an affidavit listing his purchase price at $25,000.
O’Neil told The Republic he had “nothing to do with the refinancing” of his mother-in-law’s home or her decision to do a short sale. O’Neil said it was sheer coincidence that Brenfleck was looking to invest in a house and happened to see a real-estate ad about the short sale.
“We did not give him a check (to purchase the residence as a straw buyer),” O’Neil said. “We did not set a bag of money on the doorstep. We were not involved.”
About the same time as the home was advertised, O’Neil said, he and Brenfleck contemplated a business buying depressed real estate and reselling it. He said that BOBB Investments was created for that purpose but that they were unable to borrow funds to get the enterprise started.
O’Neil said Brenfleck called him months later saying that he had lost his job and that the house he had purchased from Holmes needed major repairs. Brenfleck asked if the judge would acquire a half-interest in the residence, then share refurbishment costs. O’Neil said he agreed to do so.
Brenfleck could not be reached for comment.
Short sale detailed
Ross’ recent motion to remove O’Neil describes the short sale and alleges that evidence implicates Arizona’s presiding disciplinary judge in “illegal conduct.”
The motion says an attorney who played a key role as trustee in the transactions, Christopher Perry, later was convicted of negligent homicide and fleeing the scene of a 2011 drunken-driving accident.
Records show that Perry was sentenced to 18 months of incarceration but that he did not get disbarred until March 2013, a month before his release, although the disbarment was retroactive. Ross’ motion alleges Perry received favorable treatment from O’Neil in disciplinary proceedings because the suspension of his license was stayed. She alleges that the entire matter creates a “shocking appearance of impropriety.”
Records show that Perry litigated a number of cases before O’Neil when the judge worked in Pinal County Superior Court. Most were perfunctory evictions where the Phoenix attorney appeared by telephone.
O’Neil told The Republic he has no acquaintanceship with Perry: “Never talked to him. Maybe he was in my court at some time. … But I don’t know Christopher Perry.”
Perry could not be reached to discuss the matter.
Ross is a prominent attorney in Arizona’s gay and lesbian community. Her law license was suspended in March 2013 for four years after a hearing before O’Neil. In that case, she was accused of pressuring a client to pay an additional $10,500 shortly before trial, then withdrawing as counsel when the client refused. She also was charged with signing a false document, making misleading statements and publicly accusing a judge of prejudice because he “just doesn’t like lesbians.”
The current case against Ross is based on Bar allegations that, while her license was inactive, she continued to practice law and failed to notify a client of her suspension.
In a court filing, Ross answered that she had not acted as a lawyer, but utilized a power of attorney available to anyone. She asserted she was unable to locate her client to advise him that she’d been suspended.
In seeking O’Neil’s removal, Ross also alleges that the late Robert Gallo of Casa Grande repeatedly served as an independent “public” member on attorney-discipline panels with O’Neil. Ross contends the judge unethically failed to notify defendants that Gallo was his close friend, neighbor and business associate.
O’Neil previously confirmed to The Republic that he and Gallo were friends. He said that he does not believe the friendship constituted a conflict, but understands that others might disagree.
Ross’ motion also says O’Neil repeatedly violated her legal rights in disciplinary proceedings and discriminated against her based on his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.
Ross concluded that O’Neil should not merely be disqualified from her case, but should no longer serve as Arizona’s presiding disciplinary judge.
Code requirements
The Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct requires jurists to “avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” that occurs when a reasonable person believes a judge’s conduct is unethical.
O’Neil obtained half-ownership of a house for $25,000. The judge conceded that the residence was purchased from his mother-in-law by a family friend. The mother-in-law remained in the home. The friend and the judge contemplated becoming partners in real-estate ventures.
Asked if that scenario was inappropriate, O’Neil responded, “I don’t believe so, no. I ran it by an attorney during the commission (inquiry) … and he said there was no fraud.”
What about the appearance of impropriety? “In hindsight, would I have done this?” O’Neil said. “The answer is ‘No.’ “
Upon learning of O’Neil’s remark, former Justice Feldman said, “I hate to contradict the good judge, but … there isn’t any appearance of impropriety.”
Brenfleck and Holmes, who declined to be interviewed, wrote letters to Feldman declaringthat the transactions were proper. An affidavit of “arm’s length transaction,” signed by Brenfleck, says that no family member or business associate participated in the short sale and that there were “no hidden terms or special understandings.”
Arizona judicial canons say a jurist must conduct private affairs “so as to minimize the risk of conflict. … A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others. … Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety.”
Dixon provided The Republic a copy of his judicial-conduct complaint against O’Neil. It alleged that the judge “did in fact commit mortgage fraud in using Brien Brenfleck as a straw buyer.”
George Riemer, executive director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, recused himself from the case because he serves on lawyer-discipline panels with O’Neil.
The Dixon complaint was referred for screening to Michael O. Miller, a commission member and then-Pima County Superior Court judge.
Miller recommended dismissal of the complaint. On Nov. 12, 2012, the full commission ruled there was “no evidence of ethical misconduct.”
Complaints surface
Dixon’s complaints against O’Neil surfaced in the disbarment proceedings against County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his deputy, Lisa Aubuchon, accused of unethically filing criminal charges against political foes.
Before he became presiding disciplinary judge, O’Neil had been assigned briefly to a key case in the scandal, in which he ruled against the prosecutors. When Bar complaints were lodged against Thomas and Aubuchon, O’Neil was placed in charge of the disciplinary hearings. Aubuchon asked that he withdraw due to a conflict of interest. O’Neil declined.
Thomas and Aubuchon were stripped of their law licenses in April 2012, and O’Neil authored the 232-page decision.
Two weeks later, Mark Dixon signed an affidavit alleging that O’Neil had privately discussed the Maricopa County attorney controversy with him in spring 2009 and had expressed bias against Thomas and Aubuchon. Aubuchon included his statement in an appeal of her disbarment to the Arizona Supreme Court.
O’Neil denied such a conversation occurred and said he had no conflict in overseeing the disbarment case.
The Supreme Court rejected all of Aubuchon’s appellate arguments, including claims of bias by O’Neil, which the court said “lacked merit.” In its September decision, justices saidshe failed to “prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence” and “did not demonstrate that Judge O’Neil’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or that he was biased or prejudiced as a result of his limited roles in the related criminal matters.”
Even if Dixon’s allegations were true, the court said, his affidavit “does not overcome the presumption that Judge O’Neil acted without bias or prejudice.”
O’Neil said Dixon’s unceasing accusations had created safety concerns. He noted that Dixon’s judicial complaint described an incident in which a horse at the judge’s stable was euthanized with a gun while the O’Neils were at church. O’Neil said he had not even been aware that a horse was shot on his property until he read Dixon’s account.
“It terrified us, absolutely terrified us,” he said. “I’m horribly concerned. I lock my doors at night. … We keep our dogs in the house.”
Dixon said the suffering animal was put down by an off-duty police officer, who corroborated that account to The Republic. Dixon said he mentioned the incident in his complaint because he was told of an alleged plan to discredit him by charging him with a weapons violation as a result of the mercy killing.
Dixon, meanwhile, says he is in hiding outside Arizona, fearful of being framed by officials in the justice system as he continues to investigate.
“I just want this (expletive) straightened out,” he said. “I mean, this is so far beyond a man and his dog that it’s not even funny.”
Reach the reporter at dennis.wagner@arizonarepublic.com.

Phoenix to comply with court order, stop funding union activities with taxpayer monies

Great news for Phoenix taxpayers, Councilman Sal DiCiccio and the rule of law!

City of Phoenix Announces Today it Will Stop Using taxpayer monies to fund All Union Activities. Will Comply with Court Ruling

Last week, it was announced that the city of Phoenix will be forced to stop funding Phoenix Law Enforcement Association’s (PLEA) union activities, Today, the City’s administration has decided to apply the ruling to all City of Phoenix unions. (View Court Decision and City Manager’s memo below) 

“This is big news for the taxpayers of Phoenix. Instead of using taxpayers’ money to fund union activities, we can use this money on vital City services. This money should be used to end domestic violence, end human trafficking, and put more police on the street,” said Councilman Sal DiCiccio.

The following quote is from page 8 of the court ruling released on January 29: “This evidence supports the conclusion that the City Council abused their discretion in approving the release time at issue.” This was approved on a 5-4 vote with Mayor Stanton being the swing vote.

It is disappointing that the Mayor and Council were complicit in funding union activities which in turn supported their candidates and then, once those candidates were elected, continued to give millions of taxpayer dollars back to the unions. It was a vicious circle which has caused the large budget deficit we have seen this year.

Mayor Stanton was the swing vote to use taxpayer monies to fund union activity, the swing vote to keep pension spiking and presented a budget supporting the food tax (which was immediately proven to be false).

“It’s time for the Mayor and those council members to protect taxpayers and not the government unions,” said DiCiccio.

-30-

To view the court decision: http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@pcc/@dist6/documents/web_content/d6statementattachmentjan2914.pdf

To view the City Manager’s memo: http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@pcc/@dist6/documents/web_content/d6citymgrmemo.pdf

Andrew Thomas receives standing ovations before and after speech

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, September 22, 2013

 

Leading candidate for Arizona governor discusses out-of-control activist judiciary
Text of speech given to the East Valley Action Alliance Pro-Life Conference on September 21, 2013 

Deserve Victory in 2014

By Andrew Thomas

How do we win in the 2014 elections? In the past, we have defined winning as electing a large crop of candidates who describe themselves as pro-life.

But we now know this not victory, properly defined. True victory means an end to abortion. In political terms, winning entails electing candidates who will move us decisively towards that goal. Given the stakes, and to paraphrase General Douglas MacArthur, there is no substitute for such victory.

Roe v. Wade was handed down forty years ago. The time has come to ask whether we are truly any closer to victory, properly defined, now than we were four decades ago. If not, what must we do differently?

The hard truth is this: We are not winning. This is not for lack of effort, as everyone here well knows. We have tried various strategies over the decades. But the statistics and reality tell a very sobering story that we must honestly confront.

Hitting a Wall

Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the number of abortions in the United States reached its peak of 1.6 million a year in 1990. Ten years later, that number had leveled off slightly to 1.3 million. Since then, for the last 13 years, that figure basically has not budged. Last year, there were just over 1.2 million abortions.

This number is the bottom line, and is now essentially static. Regardless of how many pro-life leaders we elect, the pro-life laws they pass, or the pro-life lawsuits they file, nothing has lowered that number. The goal of ending abortion, in turn, has become ever more elusive. In short, we have hit a wall.

Why are we not winning? The answer is simple and obvious for those who have eyes to see. Liberal elites control the judiciary. They have captured it lock, stock and barrel. Every time we pass a law or file a lawsuit to advance the pro-life cause, the ACLU and their allies simply go to court and enlist activist judges to block us.

It was not supposed to be this way. The founders of our nation intended for the judiciary to be, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the Federalist Papers, the “least dangerous” branch of government. Thomas Jefferson warned that a judiciary of unchecked power would grow into tyranny, an American oligarchy. Over the years, unelected judges have sought to make good on that prediction. They have amassed absolute power over our government and society.

Unelected judges can throw out any law they do not like. They do so typically without any regard to the text or original meaning of the Constitution. They do this for the purpose of advancing a liberal worldview that is popular among lawyers and elites but contrary to the will of the people.

Three recent examples in Arizona show us what we are up against. This year, the Arizona Legislature passed two important pro-life bills. One ended Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. The other banned abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. Our leaders should be commended for these actions.

However, within weeks after passage of this legislation, federal judges struck down both measures. Today, neither is the law of the land.

Then there is the fate of Arizona’s parental-consent measure. Arizona first passed a law requiring parental consent for abortions for minors in 1989. Federal courts overturned the law. Ten years later, I lobbied for passage of a new version of this law as a lobbyist for Arizona Right to Life. Finally, after two decades of litigation, the parental-consent law was allowed to go into effect. That means we won, right?

No, we did not. Recently, Arizona news outlets have reported that in three out of four cases, judges simply allow minors to bypass the consent of their parents and obtain the abortions anyhow. In other words, this law is still being circumvented by activist judges. Even when we manage to win a case after decades of litigation before a hostile liberal judiciary, we lose in the end.

Consider also the cultural climate in which these events are unfolding. For fifty years, unelected judges have driven organized religion from public institutions while permitting every conceivable vulgarity in their place. We avert our eyes even as things worsen every year. Marriage is crumbling around us. Genuine fatherhood is mocked by Hollywood and becoming a relic of the past. Even the most dedicated parents can no longer preserve the innocence of their children amidst a constant barrage of smut and filth from the airwaves. Is it any wonder that more than one out of four teenage American girls, and almost half of African-American teenage girls, are infected with a sexually transmitted disease? Our children are crying out to us for help. Their cries are an indictment of the activist judges and cultural elites who have engendered this moral crisis.

Liberals realized decades ago that if they controlled the courts, they controlled the government. They systematically went about taking over the law schools, where conservative students are hissed and heckled if they dare speak out in class. They took over the bar associations and lawyer class, from which judges are drawn. The very few graduates of law schools who describe themselves as conservative and pro-life must keep their views to themselves, or they risk being professionally marginalized.

Judges have forbidden lawyers, at the risk of losing their law licenses, from publicly criticizing them or the judiciary. This gag order conveniently silences their most effective critics.

Kangaroos in Kansas

For decades, we’ve been told to campaign for Republican presidential candidates because they will appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the federal bench. What have we gained from this? On virtually every major case involving a significant cultural issue, the judges we fight to confirm flip to the other side. Though many of these judges surely tell themselves they would go to the gallows for their beliefs, the truth is that few of them are willing even to endure professional shunning by their self-righteous liberal colleagues. And so they defect, and we lose again and again.

We’ve been told to elect law-enforcement leaders who will enforce the legislation, pro-life and otherwise, we do manage to pass. But consider what happens to those officials who try.

As the elected Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline sought to investigate alleged crimes occurring in that state’s abortion clinics. In retaliation, the liberals who dominate the attorney disciplinary board of Kansas ginned up accusations of professional misconduct against him. They put him through a show trial they controlled, a process denounced by national conservative observers as a kangaroo court. Ultimately, a state judicial panel voted to suspend Kline indefinitely from the practice of law, which is disbarment by another name. Kline already has forfeited his law license by not paying his annual dues. Not content with that outcome, the disciplinary board now has urged formal disbarment by the Kansas Supreme Court; a decision is pending but obviously will not be positive for Kline. Sound familiar?

How do we begin to reform a legal profession and judiciary that are so openly hostile to conservatives and the pro-life cause in particular? Forty years after Roe, it is clear we cannot. These institutions are rotten and cannot be reformed from within. I believe I speak with some authority on the matter.

The only path to genuine reform is for the people to take direct control of these institutions and make judges accountable once again. In Arizona, voters must be given meaningful information so they can make informed decisions about whether to retain judges whose names appear on the ballot. Nationally, federal judges must be stripped of their jurisdiction over select areas of policy where they habitually abuse their powers. Nothing else will work. Be advised these will be very hard fights. The political and cultural left is without moral compass, has many powerful allies, and plays to win.

Our federal and state constitutions already authorize us to take such actions. We must find the courage to do so, so that we may start prevailing in this very difficult but most noble fight.

Jefferson’s Omen

If we fail, we will lose not only on the pro-life front. We will be forced to concede that Jefferson’s omen has proven true. We will have replaced the British crown with black-robed American oligarchs, swapping one unelected tyranny for another. Our democratic experiment will have failed. We cannot let this happen.

For attempting such changes, we will be savaged by the liberal media and legal establishment. We will be scorned and browbeaten in a manner familiar to the first Christians and anyone else throughout history who has advocated significant social reforms. But we must try. We can no longer accept repeated defeats in the culture wars simply because of reluctance to take on the liberal judiciary and their allies. Roe v. Wade was born in the courts, and it is there where it must be slain.

It is time for us to start taking ground again.

During the Second World War, the British put up posters throughout London featuring Prime Minister Winston Churchill flashing his familiar “V for victory” gesture. The slogan on the poster was: Deserve Victory.

We should follow the same standard. That starts with recognizing, in this next election cycle, what true victory requires of us all.

Thank you and God bless you.

Same crime: Jesse Jackson, Jr. gets prison, Don Stapley getting a generous settlement, disbars prosecutor

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, August 20, 2013

Both men grossly misspent campaign funds

Jesse Jackson, Jr. should have gone after the prosecutor and he would have skated too

Jesse Jackson, Jr., being sentenced to 2.5 years in prison We almost felt bad for Jesse Jackson, Jr., hearing that he will be going to prison for 2.5 years for misspending campaign funds. His wife will spend a year in prison. He should have never resigned from Congress. If he’d stayed in Congress, he would have had the best lawyers in the state, like Don Stapley did. Of course, Stapley also had that little advantage of controlling the purse strings of the judges (shhhh!), what judge is going to rule against him? Now Stapley is in negotiations with the county to receive a humongous settlement over the “stress” of being prosecuted. His convicted ex-felon business partner, Conley Wolfswinkel, got a $1 million settlement from the county over “stress” from being prosecuted, his secretary got $500,000, and there have been several more along the way. We predict Stapley will get an even more generous settlement. After all, the judges wouldn’t want to tick off his former cronies on the board of supervisors by showing they aren’t going to pony it up for a former supervisor, would they? They voted to give crooked supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox $900,000.

Let’s compare campaign misspending by the two. According to the Wall Street Journal,

Jesse Jackson, Jr., was sentenced to prison for “treating his campaign fund like a ‘personal piggy bank,’ siphoning $750,000 over the years to pay for personal items such as spa treatments and televisions.”

 

This sounds exactly like what Don Stapley did. Stapley used $4,000 of his campaign funds to buy expensive electronics from Bang & Olafson. He also purchased numerous spa treatments. He spent at least $86,000 of campaign funds on personal luxury items, including lavish vacations for his family in Hawaii, Florida and Utah. Read more about it here.

 

Don Stapley with his powerful, well-connected attorney who helped him beat the charges, former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton
Don Stapley with his powerful, well-connected attorney who helped him beat the charges, former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton

Stapley went out and found the biggest, most connected law firms in the state to represent him – including powerful former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton – (guess how many of Stapley’s attorneys are friends with judges?), who spent hundreds of hours researching obscure case law and the facts to come up with an uber-technical argument that would not fly with any fair judge, but that some sleazy judge could use to get Stapley off the hook. The Arizona legislature had instructed the county supervisors to implement rules stating that county officials who misuse campaign funds commit a crime. The supervisors never bothered to do so. Therefore, sleazy judge John Leonardo found that Stapley is not guilty of anything. Seriously. It should be pointed out that Stapley could have easily been found guilty of a general crime of misuse of funds, fraud, or similar – but Leonardo knows where his bread is buttered, he had a clever way out most of the general public would buy. In return, Leonardo received a plum appointment to – you guessed it – the next U.S. Attorney from Arizona!  Remember, help out those who are in power, and you will be greatly rewarded. I pat your back, you pat my back, and never mind the little guy who gets run over along the way, that little prosecutor Andrew Thomas, who should have been patting backs too.

 

We’re reeling over here, seeing that the corruption in Arizona is even WORSE than in Chicago,. If you can beat the Jesse Jackson family at corruption, there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

When are the grown-ups in Arizona going to stop this? Who’s next in the lineup for another taxpayer handout for stress over being prosecuted the way Jesse Jackson, Jr, was?

 

We have a tip for Jackson. File a bar complaint against the prosecutor and allege prosecutorial misconduct, then sue the government for a really, really large cash settlement! Two juries found probable cause against Don Stapley – that didn’t matter, he still skated. You can still beat it, we’re rooting for you! Can’t let Maricopa County get the reputation of replacing Cook County as the most corrupt county in America.

 

And frankly, where is Jesse Jackson, Sr.? Why is a white man allowed to skate for the exact same crime a black man is sent to prison for?

 

Here is a partial list of what Stapley spent his campaign funds on:

 

Luxury vacations for himself and his family to Florida, Hawaii and Utah. $12,042 for the condo in Hawaii alone.
$1300 for hair implants
$5036 in expensive stereo equipment from Bang & Olufsen
psychological counseling
animal groomingeyewear
massages
spas
$99 at Bath & Body Works
home furnishings
lots of groceries
movies
dermatology
ASU event tickets
Bloomingdale’s
Florists
medical bills
vitamins, minerals, herbs
$1480 on Mesa water/trash/sewer
$471 at Donna Karan for women’s clothing
fitness center
Nordstroms
$350 for an art show in Pasadena
Phoenix Zoo
$104 for women’s clothing from Rampage
$630 for Broadway tickets
$420 for concerts at America West Arena
$100 at Ulta for beauty
$428 for the Utah Shakespeare Festival
$775 for women’s clothing at Zara in New York City

Join Our Mailing List