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

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen -
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  http://briefs.maricopagop.org/  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for www.urapc.org  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

Radio talkshow host Jim Sharpe shocked that nothing has been done about AZ Bar Disciplinary Judge O’Neil

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, July 13, 2013

Jim Sharpe continues to expose Judge O’Neil until something is done 

Time to go to the legislature since the Bar and Arizona Supreme Court will not take action against this crook 

Here is a loose transcript of Jim Sharpe’s radio show on Friday:

I am very very disappointed that nothing has been done since I brought this situation up regarding Arizona Bar Disciplinary Judge William O’Neil.

Judge O’Neil’s mother-in-law’s home sold via short sale to a friend of the judge’s, and then afterwards a 50% interest in the home was then given to O’Neil. If you or I went through a short sale, we’d end up in the street or living in a hotel, yet O’Neil’s mother-in-law has lived in that house all the way through the short sale and remained there, with Judge O’Neil now having half ownership.

Foreclosure attorney Christopher Perry, who at least one time held the loan on the house, ended up going to prison for running over an elderly woman while drunk.

It’s Judge O’Neil’s job as Bar disciplinary judge to take away people’s law licenses. There is no conflict of interest for O’Neil to hear the disciplinary case of Perry’s DUI fatal accident! (facetiousness) O’Neil took away Perry’s law license for ONLY 24 hours! Thanks to O’Neil, Perry practiced law for a year while in prison!

The State Bar has been given the keys to the kingdom, the right to license or not to license attorneys. That’s like basically putting the plumber’s union in charge of whether a plumber gets a contractor’s license. It’s the chickens watching the chicken coop, it’s not even the fox. There’s nobody in charge.

The Office of the Inspector of the Federal Housing Authority has actually assigned a case number to investigate this, but the Arizona Judicial Conduct Commission dismissed the complaint about the short sale. They screwed things up here. It’s law that they are required to post that complaint on their website after adjudication so the public can see it (sans names and other info that must be redacted). They dismissed the complaint against O’Neil, but never posted the complaint on their website per their own rules! They only posted the cover letter on the complaint. The original complaint with exhibits is not on their website. The Supreme Court of Arizona continues to hem and haw.

Mark Dixon who filed these complaints was told he’s not a party to the actions, so he can’t file any complaints with the Supreme Court. So O’Neil is cleared of any wrongdoing.

There’s another issue I told you about, O’Neil’s neighbor sat on the 3-person disciplinary panel with him. This wasn’t revealed by either man. That has NEVER been addressed. Why? I”m confused. It makes me wonder if everyone is scared of O’Neil because he can take away their law license. Apparently with the help of his next door neighbor – there’s not going to be any influence there! (facetiousness)

I’m wondering why this guy is still serving as the Arizona State Bar Disciplinary Judge when there are so many questions, and nobody seems to want to do anything about this.

I think this goes back to Andrew Thomas. I realize some people don’t like him, but if you’re a prosecutor and they can take away your license because they don’t like what you do, nobody will want to become prosecutors. Yet nobody will take this case on. The State Bar, that’s a whole other thing. It’s run by liberal attorneys. They don’t care about the little guy like liberals are supposed to. They’re just concerned with keeping their jobs and making sure their liberal buddies are ok. And if anyone gets in their way, too bad.

Read the full complaint filed with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge O’Neil, that they have failed to post on their website per their own rules: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112852009/William-J-O-Neil-Arizona-Presiding-Disciplinary-Judge-judicial-complaint

So Commission on Judicial Conduct, follow your own rules and post the complaint on oyoru site, along with an explanation of why you dismissed the complaint, finding no wrongdoing on the judge’s part. Also why O’Neil’s neighbor served on the panel and this was not revealed. OR are judges a special class that never, ever face anything in their own legal system?

We recommend concerned people contact your legislators about this situation, because clearly the State Bar and Arizona Supreme Court aren’t going to do anything on their own.

House Speaker Andy Tobin atobin@azleg.gov 602-926-5172
Senate Majority leader Andy Biggs abiggs@azleg.gov 602-926-4371

Rep. John Allen has indicated he would like to help out in this area, so you may want to contact him too – allen@azleg.gov 602-926-4916

Above the law
Above the law

Read our last four exposes on O’Neil here:

http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/08/corrupt-az-bar-disciplinary-judge-teaching-ethics-to-gop-lawyers/
http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/04/az-bar-disciplinary-judge-using-work-resources-to-investigate-political-opponents/
http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/03/bar-disciplinary-judges-unethical-short-sale-going-viral-makes-radio-show/
http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/06/21/az-bar-disciplinary-judge-walks-over-crooked-short-sale-michigan-judge-gets-prison/
 

 

 

Join Our Mailing List

Corrupt AZ Bar Disciplinary judge teaching ethics to GOP lawyers!

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Monday, July 8, 2013

Arizona Republican Lawyers Association hosting ethically challenged judge who targets conservative lawyers 

Why would Republican lawyers promote a dishonest judge embroiled in numerous scandals who also goes after Republicans? 

Unbelievable. Arizona Bar disciplinary judge William O’Neil has made a career of targeting Republican lawyers, and now some Republican lawyers group is having him teach them ethics! Have their heads been buried in the sand the last couple of years? O’Neil is so crooked he has nothing posted on his calendar, looks like the Supreme Court is finally about to dump him. Mark Dixon, a former friend of O’Neil, has been exposing O’Neil’s deep levels of corruption, from the illegal short sale of his mother-in-law’s house, to allowing a DUI offender who killed a women to practice law while in prison, to stacking his disciplinary panels with his friends and neighbors, to participating in a loan transaction with Dixon’s ex-wife which involved forging Dixon’s name on the paperwork. And there’s much, much more. Dixon has been compiling a list of all the conservative and Republican lawyers this tyrant has targeted. It’s not just Andrew Thomas and his former deputies. There are plenty more, and the Pinal County Chief Criminal Deputy is next, simply in order to get him out of the way so he can’t prosecute O’Neil, as a warning to his replacement.

 

Please email the Arizona Republican Lawyers Ass., below, and ask them to rescind their invitation to this monster. If they don’t, RSVP and show up and ask O’Neil about his crooked behavior and targeting of conservative lawyers.

 

 

Arizona Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O’Neill will address the 11:30 am, July 18 Arizona Republican Lawyers Association (ARLA) luncheon at Snell & Wilmer, 400 E. Van Buren, Phx.  Ethics credit will be available. RSVP required:azrepublicanlawyers@gmail.com

Above the law
Above the law

Read our last three exposes on him here:

http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/04/az-bar-disciplinary-judge-using-work-resources-to-investigate-political-opponents/

http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/03/bar-disciplinary-judges-unethical-short-sale-going-viral-makes-radio-show/
http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/06/21/az-bar-disciplinary-judge-walks-over-crooked-short-sale-michigan-judge-gets-prison/
 

 

 

Join Our Mailing List

AZ Bar Disciplinary judge using work resources to investigate political opponents?

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, July 4, 2013

Search performed on Arizona Supreme Court computer for “American Post-Gazette” 

Is Judge William O’Neil or his staff using government resources to target American Post-Gazette for its coverage of his unethical behavior? 

 

Above the law
Above the law

One of our readers who had posted an article from us on his website told us that they saw an IP address identified as coming from the Arizona Supreme Court (67.131.20.93) on his blog yesterday afternoon. The Supreme Court employee was searching for American Post-Gazette, and landed on the page where he had posted our article. This is quite disconcerting to see a government employee using government resources to investigate political opponents – it is illegal. American Post-Gazette is the only media outlet that has dared to publish information about the corruption of Judge O’Neil (other than the Jim Sharpe radio show), so we suspect it’s him. You would think he would at least refrain from breaking the law in order to investigate us, but then again, he’s above the law as we’ve pointed out in the past, no one will dare to investigate him, no matter how many times complaints have been filed against him.

Here is more information on the computer that was used to perform this illegal work, not that anyone will ever follow up and investigate. It is reprehensible that someone with such poor ethics is deciding ethics cases against Arizona attorneys.

Page Views:2Entry Page Time:3 Jul 2013 Visit Length:27 secondsBrowser:Chrome 28.0OS:WinVistaResolution:1280×1024

Read our last two exposes on him here:
http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/07/03/bar-disciplinary-judges-unethical-short-sale-going-viral-makes-radio-show/
http://sonoranalliance.com/2013/06/21/az-bar-disciplinary-judge-walks-over-crooked-short-sale-michigan-judge-gets-prison/
 

 

 

Join Our Mailing List

Bar disciplinary judge’s unethical short sale going viral, makes radio show

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Monday, July 1, 2013

You can get away with anything if you're the judge over all the attorneys in the state.

You can get away with anything if you’re the judge over all the attorneys in the state.

Radio talk show host Jim Sharp fed up with officials ignoring Bar disciplinary judge’s unethical behavior
Among other unethical behavior, Judge O’Neil permitted a DUI offender who killed a woman to continue sleazy real estate legal work from prison

We broke this story a week and a half ago, and now it is getting legs, as respected Phoenix talk show host Jim Sharpe covered it last Friday on his show. The State Bar’s disciplinary judge William O’Neil has been engaging in clearly unethical behavior for years, and no one will touch him because they’re scared of him and his power. His former friend Mark Dixon is now speaking out about the corruption. Mark wrote the story for us here.

In a nutshell, O’Neil facilitated a short sale of his mother-in-law’s house while she was still living in it, through a straw man, who then transferred the home back to him. A judge in Michigan who did a similar short sale was sentenced to prison for one and a half years! The attorney who assisted O’Neil with this, Christoper Perry, killed a woman in a DUI hit and run. O’Neil provided cover for him and allowed him to continue to practice law all while in prison, where who knows how many more unethical short sales he performed.

Meanwhile, O’Neil stacked his disciplinary panel with cronies, to guarantee the outcomes the State Bar told him to make, regardless of the acts. Although the disciplinary panels are supposed to have panelists from different counties, O’Neil stacked many of his panels with his Pinal County neighbor and friend Robert Gallo. Gallo was described as being from Maricopa County to throw everyone off.

Complaints have been made to various agencies to no avail; this man is above the law, serving to punish the enemies of the State Bar and reward his friends through his power. Listen to the Jim Sharpe show here, the part about O’Neil starts about 16 minutes in. Maybe people are starting to wake up. If you look at O’Neil’s disciplinary calendar, it is empty the entire summer, after a lot of activity through May.

 

AZ Bar disciplinary judge walks over crooked short sale; Michigan judge gets prison

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Friday, June 21, 2013

When You Can’t Trust the Judges in Town, What do You do?

AZ Bar disciplinary judge O’Neil untouchable vs. Michigan judge gets thrown in prison for similar crooked short sale

Too bad she wasn't a Bar disciplinary judge
Too bad she wasn’t the state disciplinary judge, or she wouldn’t have gone to prison.

by Mark Dixon

Recently, it was reported that Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway pleaded guilty to bank fraud (mortgage short-sale fraud). Hathaway lied to her bank about her ability to make payments on her home in order to facilitate a short sale. Just prior to the short sale, she tapped more than $350,000 in cash to purchase two different homes that were then put in the names of her stepchildren. Then to hide the additional assets, she quit-claimed her Florida home to a family member. She did this in an effort to hide more than a million dollars in assets. The United States Attorney’s office filed court documents to seize the Florida home in partial relief from the fraud.

 

Contrast this with the situation involving Arizona State Bar disciplinary judge William J. O’Neil. While a Pinal County Superior Court Judge, he arranged for his mother-in-law’s home to be purchased via a short sale by his good friend Bryan Brenfleck, who then transferred a 50% interest to Judge O’Neil and his wife, Tammy. Judge O’Neil’s mother-in-law lived in the home throughout all of the transactions and continues to reside there to this day.

 

This saga of deceit and corruption began with the death of Judge O’Neil’s father-in-law. After his death, O’Neil’s mother-in-law racked up significant debt which led, in August of 2006, to the refinancing of her home with National City Mortgage, a subsidiary of PNC Mortgage, for $204,000. On November 27, 2006, National City Mortgage recorded an “Assignment of Deed of Trust,” transferring their interest to Christopher R. Perry. It appears Perry held or holds the loan on Judge O’Neil’s mother-in-law’s house. The loan for $204,000 was never released according to documents recorded with Pinal County.

 

You can get away with anything if you’re the judge over all the attorneys in the state.

In January 2007, the same home was financed again by National City Mortgage, a subsidiary of PNC Mortgage, with Christopher R. Perry as trustee for $203,950. A short sale was orchestrated selling the home to Judge O’Neil’s good friend and business partner, Bryan Brenfleck, on January 14, 2010 for $72,000. On August 29, 2011 Bryan Brenfleck transferred a 50% interest in the home back to Judge O’Neil and his wife, Tammy. That makes for a gain of $337,950.00 for a home that was originally worth just over $80,000, as suggested by a mortgage taken out in the mid 90′s. Considering how the rest of us have seen a severe dip in our home prices, not a gain, the deal reeks to high heaven.

 

Christopher R. Perry once was a prominent foreclosure attorney working closely with National City Mortgage, a subsidiary of PNC Mortgage. On February 16, 2011, while driving drunk, he ran down an elderly couple with his car, stopped and saw the woman dying, returned to his car, and fled the scene. The woman died of her injuries and Perry was indicted by a grand jury with the following:

 

1) ARS 28-1381A1 DUI (M1) Liquor/Drugs/Vapors/Combo 2) ARS 28-661 (F3) Hit and Run W/Death/Injury

3) ARS 13-1102 (F4) Negligent Homicide

4) ARS 13-1204 (F3) Aggravated Assault

5) ARS 28-661 (F3) Hit and Run W/Death/Injury

 

The case resulted with Mr. Perry entering a plea agreement and being sentenced to only a year and a half in prison. He served just slightly over a year and has since been released. We can thank Maricopa County Superior Court Presiding Criminal Commissioner Steven P. Lynch and the Maricopa County Attorney for ignoring the sentencing guidelines which in this case should have required a minimum of 7 ½ years for such crimes. Just recently, Kevin Millard received a 10 ½ year sentence from Pima County Superior Courtfor the same crimes.

 

Perry’s punishment from the Arizona Supreme Court, thru it’s Presiding Disciplinary Judge William J. O’Neil and the Arizona State Bar was even lighter.

 

Judge O’Neil, in an effort to appear to be following the rules, suspended Perry’s law license on March 10, 2011 which is represented in press releases and public information on the State Bar website. What is secreted and not made public, March 11, 2011, Judge O’Neil issued an Order of Stay of the same suspension, then on March 18, 2011 O’Neil issued an Order of Partial and Temporary Relief from Interim Suspension. The outcome is that Christopher R Perry had his law license suspended for less than 24 hours and in fact continued to practice law the entire time he was incarcerated with the Arizona Department of Corrections. This is evidenced in over 1,600 documents recorded in Maricopa and Pinal Counties, almost all of which Perry is representing PNC Mortgage, parent company to National City Mortgage. It appears Perry was allowed to continue to practice law up until his disbarment and retroactive suspension on April 3, 2013. Ongoing review of documents show that he even used an abbreviated form of his name as an alias, Chris Perry. This is a common practice it seems. Judge William O’Neil’s name, as listed in connection with Brian Brenfleck, is Bill O’Neal. This is just a small sample of the outrageous conduct practiced and accepted by the Arizona State Bar and the Arizona Judiciary.

 

PNC Mortgage is the parent company of both National City Bank and National City Mortgage. National City Mortgage provided financing for O’Neil’s mortgage fraud. Christopher R. Perry is listed as an attorney at/with National City Mortgage. PNC Mortgage and Christopher R. Perry provided Judge William J. O’Neil very lucrative deals, seemingly in exchange for judicial deference in mortgage cases and leniency in Perry’s disciplinary matter.

 

A few interesting “coincidences” or not?

 

A judicial complaint was filed against Judge O’Neil regarding the short sale and other significant violations, yet he was cleared without any explanation. The first screening officer was Hon. Michael O Miller from Pima County Superior Court, he recused himself. Soon thereafter, he was appointed to the Court of Appeals. The second screening officer was a public member, Ms. Colleen Concannon, appointed by the Governor to the Commission on Judicial Conduct . At that time, she was owner of the financially distressed Manning House in Tucson. Although Ms. Concannon did not sign the Order clearing O’Neil, she was integrally involved. It appears she was assisted in staying the foreclosure sale of the Manning House. It is reported that a buyer was suddenly was found. Were there any state funds involved?

 

Moreover, a complaint was made to the Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding Judge O’Neil’s failure to disclose that Robert Gallo, who sat with him as the public member on at least five disciplinary panels, was his close friend, neighbor, and business partner. The Commission first stated they did not review that complaint because it was not filed properly, that is why it wasn’t addressed. Once the complaint was brought to the attention of the Commission again, as well as the Disciplinary division of the Bar, the Commission claimed it was examined and found lacking but still hasn’t issued a formal finding. The Bar, claiming deference to the Commission, refuses to investigate at all. The evidence is clear and irrefutable that Mr. Gallo served on the panels with Judge O’Neil, neither disclosed their relationship. Clearly, this influenced Gallo’s decisions on those trials. In one of the 5 panel’s findings it even represented Gallo as a Public Member from Maricopa County, yet he lived right next door to O’Neil in Pinal County. How many additional disciplinary panels were stacked with bias members controlled by O’Neil.

 

There is one more situation that is exceedingly relevant. It was announced in January 2013 that a complaint was filed against Mr. Richard Wintory, Pinal County’s new Chief Criminal Deputy, replacing Richard Platt who is now Vice President of the Board of Governors of the Bar Association. Now, five months later, after being informed of the illegal acts by O’Neil and others, the State Bar has announced that Mr. Wintory is under investigation. It is no coincidence that Chief Criminal Deputy Mr. Wintory would have been the one to prosecute O’Neil and others. Another Arizona County Attorney is now is facing the wrath of the State Bar for trying to do his job and attempting to stop judicial corruption.

 

Every attempt made in Arizona to expose this has been thwarted by local and state officials. The Arizona Supreme Court, thru Article 6 of the Arizona Constitution, has administrative supervision over all the courts of the state. Regardless of how many commissions, inferior courts, or organizations to which the Supreme Court wishes to delegate its authority, the final responsibility rests with the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice.

 

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Staff Attorney Ellen Crowley was made aware of these matters and tried to deflect all responsibility to the Commission on Judicial Conduct by saying “the Commission is a separate constitutional entity, as set forth in the Arizona Constitution, Art. 6.1.” Although the Commission on Judicial Conduct was established by Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution the Supreme Court can and has the original responsibility to, on its own motion, assume jurisdiction and clean up its own mess.

 

When Ms. Crowley’s efforts to deflect the Supreme Courts responsibility failed, attempts were made to delete emails, send failure receipt notices and block senders from the courts public email system to create plausible deniability and knowledge of the wrongdoing, documents and correspondence. Once made aware of the failure of these efforts, she finally sent a reply to the correspondence. If the Supreme Court is not aware of these issues it is only because its own staff is conspiring to keep these issues in the dark.

 

The problem is that O’Neil holds vast power over attorneys and judges. He is the Supreme Court’s Presiding Disciplinary Judge and with that comes the power to intimidate attorneys and even the judiciary. The State Bar who’s power and authority is delegated to it by the Arizona Supreme Court uses O’Neil as their attack dog apparently with the blessing of the Supreme Court while the Supreme Court ignores his unethical and even illegal behavior. In return, the State Bar and judiciary protect O’Neil, blocking all efforts to expose his wrong doing, not hold him accountable. O’Neil protects those who perform unethical deeds for him, like Perry. Had Perry been held accountable for his past alleged DUI’s and not protected by the Judiciary and others would a woman have died. All those who protected Perry in exchange for the favors he provided are just as guilty of murder as Perry.

 

So where is the Federal Government? An investigation H-12-0133 has been opened by the Office of Inspector General Federal Housing Authority. The truth will come out sooner or later.

 

 

Join Our Mailing List

State Bar assigns Andrew Thomas nemesis to investigate whistleblower’s complaint against Disciplinary Judge

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, April 20, 2013

State Bar assigns candidate who lost race to Thomas, and who was fined, to investigate legitimate complaint about Thomas disciplinary judge
Corruption within State Bar at highest levels ever

—–Original Message—– From: Mark Dixon [mailto:md20033@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:20 PM To: ‘Amelia Cramer’ Cc: ‘levine2005@aol.com‘; ‘whitney@cunninghammott.com‘; ‘rtplattlaw@gmail.com‘; ‘bryan.chambers@azbar.org‘; ‘lisaloo@asu.edu‘; ‘jennifer.rebholz@farmersinsurance.com‘; ‘alex@vakulalaw.net‘; ‘jflagler@flaglerlaw.org‘; ‘mcrawford@mcrazlaw.com‘; ‘Dee-Dee.Samet@azbar.org‘; ‘r.coffinger@gmail.com‘; ‘tom@crowescott.com‘; ‘dderickson@rhlfirm.com‘; ‘DDrain@DianeDrain.com‘; ‘mho@polsinelli.com‘; ‘ssaks@cb-attorney.com‘; ‘gt@ltinjury.com‘; ‘JimmieDeeSmith@azbar.org‘; ‘Kanefieldj@ballardspahr.com‘; ‘smays@phoenixlaw.edu‘; ‘marc.miller@law.arizona.edu‘; ‘Douglas.Sylvester@asu.edu‘; ‘tonyfinley@hotmail.com‘; ‘ajennings@bloodsystems.org‘; ‘meredith_peabody@hotmail.com‘; ‘maritajohn@cox.net‘; ‘jennifer.burns@azbar.org‘; ‘dbyers@courts.az.gov‘; ‘virginia.gonzales@azag.gov‘; ‘John F. Phelps’

Subject: Expected contact regarding State Bar Disciplinary Council and Disciplinary Judge William J. O’Neil

Ms. Cramer,

I have been waiting patiently for the response you promised below. The only communication I have received is an email from Mr. Thomas McCauley:

“RE: 13-0689 (Kent Volkmer); 13-0691 (David Cowles)
Mr. Dixon,
“These matters have been assigned to me for investigation. I will let you know if I need any additional information and the results of my investigation.
Tom McCauley 602-340-7352″

I strongly object to the assignment of Mr. Thomas McCauley to the investigation of these issues. It is impossible for Mr. McCauley to be impartial in any investigation regarding any matter revolving around William J. O’Neil, my issues, or any issue involving Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon, Rachel Alexander etc.

Mr. McCauley ran for Maricopa County Attorney in 2004, a race he lost in the primary, and in which he was, quite frankly, not even a serious contender. Upon losing the primary race he organized Concerned Citizens Against Andrew Thomas. Mr. McCauley subsequently was fined $1,000.00 by the Maricopa County Elections Department for campaign violations under order CF04-35. McCauley supported the Democrat candidate in the General Election over Thomas — who was so out there that even Democrat Mayor Phil Gordon supported Thomas over him in the General election. The Wells Fargo bank account used was out of Portland Oregon. This appears to be an obvious attempt to secret additional finance information.

Mr. McCauley’s loyalties clearly lie against Andrew Thomas and investigating my claims against Judge O’Neil will entail reopening Thomas’s discipline investigation, along with many others that are tainted by Jg. O’Neil and his accomplices at the State Bar. As I revealed in an earlier email, Kent Volkmer warned me that O’Neil and “the establishment” would try to take me down for my attempts to expose the corruption.

My claims, which are fully supported by the evidence, clearly show a severe problem with William J. O’Neil and the attorney discipline process he controls. The true and factual affidavit that Lisa Aubuchon used in her appeal adds to the credible information supporting the fact that O’Neil did not provide Andrew Thomas and his subordinates with a fair and unbiased hearing. Mr. McCauley’s extreme bias against Andrew Thomas is cause to remove him from investigating this matter because the essence of my complaint includes abuses perpetrated against Thomas and the others by O’Neil and the disciplinary arm of the State Bar.

This speaks to the bias of the Arizona State Bar and Ms. Vessella, head of the discipline department. Ms. Vessella would have been the individual to assign these complaints to Mr. McCauley. To put it frankly, upon the inevitable investigation of my claims and exposure of William J. O’Neil, Mr. McCauley, Ms. Vessella and others in her department also will be exposed for abuses of power.

A next logical step is to re-open and question every proceeding brought by the Bar and presided over by O’Neil as the Disciplinary Judge, starting with Andrew Thomas. Mr. McCauley’s personal vendetta against Andrew Thomas compels him to find any reason not to expose the truth. Moreover, we need not look any farther than the actions taken against Mr. Ernest Calderon. Mr. Calderon served as the State Bar President from 2002 – 2003. He worked for the State Bar reviewing hundreds of investigations similar to those brought against Andrew Thomas. Even though he publicly did not agree with Thomas’s immigration policy, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office asked Mr. Calderon to review the many bar complaints filed against Andrew Thomas and the others in his administration. Mr. Calderon determined none were legitimate.

What did Mr. Calderon receive for this? He was removed as one of the four delegates to the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates, a position he had held for four years. Emails reveal that there were no character issues raised regarding Mr. Calderon. The only issues raised were “related to the Thomas matter and concerns about loyalty to the organization.” The emails further reveal the individuals attacking Mr. Calderon: “Several, led by Ed (Novak), Drain and Ditcher wayed[sic] in. Alan defended the recommendation of the Appointments Committee to reappoint you. It seemed the general sentiment was not to reappoint you and a motion was made to appoint Jeff Willis instead.

Tabling the decisions works in your favor because it will buy you time to make your case for reappointment. ” Emotions were running too high to vote today. I’m sorry about all of this, I get the impression that many Board members are unhappy with me also because of my role in the Thomas matter.” Former Bar President Daniel J. McAuliffe stated, as you have, “the members of the State Bar of Arizona’s Board of Governors do not involve themselves in disciplinary matters.”

Yet, in the matter of Mr. Calderon, it is apparent that they do, in fact, involve themselves in disciplinary matters. Specifically Mr. Calderon was punished by being removed as a delegate strictly because he presented an unbiased opinion regarding the numerous bar complaints brought against Mr. Thomas that said complaints were unfounded. Please remember that Ed Novak has been central in all these issues at the State Bar and still is.

A more recent development, just after coming out in support of the allegations I have raised, a NPR radio reported that Mr. Jack Levine, a member of the Bar’s Board of Governors, was accused of assaulting a State Bar staffer. Such an accusation is incredible. Come on, how low will some people stoop? Let’s see that one stick in the face of a claim of retaliation for Mr. Levine trying to do the right thing in attempting to hold members of the Board of the Arizona State Bar accountable.

One of the two complaints Mr. McCauley is “investigating” revolves around Tiffany & Bosco and Mr. David Cowles. Tiffany and Bosco breached an agreement with me regarding my property and they lied to me regarding my rights and their future conduct regarding the property. Since the complaint was filed, the foreclosure sale date has been postponed twice and now is set for April 18, 2013. I contend that if there was no merit to my complaint the property would have sold on the original sale date of March 21, 2013. Tiffany & Bosco committed to a judicial foreclosure on the mortgage and not the property; they further assured me that I would have access to the escrow account on said property. I do not. If there was no merit to the complaint the property would have sold long before now.

The fact that Mr. McCauley has not contacted me needing any additional information on this matter causes additional great concern regarding the integrity of this investigation. I am afraid that in the response to the complaint Tiffany and Bosco will not disclose the volumes of emails and other correspondence validating my claims. I also am sure Tiffany and Bosco will be protected from discipline due to the many Tiffany & Bosco representatives serving at the State Bar, “the establishment” will protect itself.

Currently the most conspicuous event is the change in status of my contractor’s license. In the enclosed attachment “ROC Timeline exhibits 4-15-13.pdf” (which can be found on scribd.com if not now then in the immediate future when I upload it) you will see said license was suspended on May 13, 2010 or September 27, 2010 or February 8, 2011 depending on which document you want to believe. The suspension stems from an unsubstantiated complaint filed on November 16, 2009. The complaint originally was cleared by the ROC investigator but reopened through the persistence of Maxine M. Becker Esq. with Salmon Lewis & Weldon, P. L. C. I ask you to review the file and realize that this was all done at the request of William J. O’Neil. The enclosed documents and timeline backs up this accusation and it is further substantiated by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, along with the Arizona Attorney General’s office, removing the complaint history etc. from the file. This pleases me of course but, does nothing to compensate me for the years I was not able to use my license (asset) to earn a living.

I was informed that the Arizona State Bar had no intention of looking into a complaint against William J. O’Neil regarding Robert M. Gallo as mentioned in the previous email. The State Bar disciplinary counsel has misinformed you that the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct cleared O’Neil in this matter. O’Neil was NOT cleared on these charges by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. They didn’t even consider them; the charges were just flat ignored, see the attachment “oneil complaint dismissal 12-4-12.pdf.” (check scribd.com in a few days for this file)

I want to make it clear that these charges were never addressed by the Commission and the attachment “william j oneil judicial complaint 4-16-13.pdf” (check scribd.com in a few days) is a new complaint to the Commission on Judicial Conduct addressing, in detail, those charges. I will also formally ask you to investigate those charges as it is very apparent the State Bar Disciplinary Counsel lacks the credibility to pursue this matter.

In my initial conversation with Mr. Jack Levine, we agreed that there were just a few bad apples in the system and some things needed to be straightened out. My opinion is quickly changing. A conclusion I am coming to is the Arizona Supreme Court is unable or incapable of policing its own and nothing short of a constitutional amendment abolishing the current judicial selection process and attorney discipline process will solve the problem. The Judiciary seems to thumb their nose at the legislature and governor all the while doing whatever they want, violating anyone’s rights who cross them and placing themselves above any and all A. R. S. statutes. It is time to remove this absolute power from the judiciary and put some serious oversight in the hands of the other branches of government.

I will remind you that I did not ask for this fight, it was visited upon me. What have I gotten for demanding my constitutional rights? I have had my family and business destroyed, my reputation attacked and my civil rights denied. When all this has not shut me up, then the cowards who are protected by the State Bar of Arizona attempt physical threats and intimidation. I have received death threat phone calls telling me to back off. I won’t. It is time to clean up this mess and restore the judicial process to its legitimate, respectful status. Are you part of the solution or the problem?

Sincerely, Mark Dixon

Join Our Mailing List

Rep. Allen proposes HB2480 to eliminate mandatory Bar Association

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, March 10, 2013

Arizona is a right to work state; so why are attorneys required to be part of a union?
Rep. Allen believes mandatory Bar is unconstitutional; eliminating the Bar would eliminate many of the injustices it commits against attorneys

Representative John Allen has introduced a bill which is well overdue, HB2480. It would remove the left wing Arizona Bar’s stranglehold over attorneys, ending its ability to target and discipline conservatives in politically motivated attacks. It is no coincidence that half of the candidates who ran for the Bar’s Board of Governors last year included “reigning in the Bar’s excessive discipline” in their platforms. This is evidence of an epidemic and a cancer in Arizona’s legal community.

We have been seeing the corruption of the Bar’s disciplinary judge William O’Neil exposed over the last few months from his former friend Mark Dixon. It’s time to end this reign of terror and Allen’s bill will do that. Attorneys in Arizona are terrified to speak up about their political views or their opposition to the Bar for fear of being targeted. They have no free speech in their profession. Every attorney who has been disciplined by Judge O’Neil has coincidentally never been allowed back into the practice of law – with the exception of Tom Horne’s “close friend” Carmen Chenal, who we suspect had the power through Horne to broker a deal with O’Neil, unlike Andrew Thomas and other conservatives.

Rep. Allen does an excellent job explaining the unconstitutionality of a mandatory Bar in this hearing. Rep. Eddie Farnsworth observes that even if an attorney is not practicing law, they are required to pay an annual fee of $280 just to continue to “have” the ability to practice law ever again (without being required to take the Bar exam again).

Any discipline of attorneys would be done by the Supreme Court instead, not a left wing State Bar. 20 other states do not have mandatory Bar associations. Here is the language in the bill  – B.  AN ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A LICENSED ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE. Read the full text of the bill here. Please support Rep. Allen’s bill and let’s get this passed, NOW!

Arizona Supreme Court's control over state bar debated, contested in House hearing
Arizona Supreme Court’s control over state bar debated, contested in House hearing
Join Our Mailing List