Time for a Congressional Investigation? Shattering New Developments of Corruption in Rep. Renzi Trial

rckrnz3by Rachel Alexander
Reprinted from Townhall

The case of the corrupt prosecution against imprisoned former Congressman Rick Renzi continues to explode with new evidence of wrongdoing – literally every few weeks something else comes out. It is beginning to look like Fast and Furious as more information pours out implicating the government.

As I’ve explained previously, the crux of the case against Renzi was he had proposed a federal land exchange that allegedly would have benefited himself. Evidence came out during the trial and especially afterward revealing this wasn’t true. The FBI offered to give money to the government’s key witness/”victim,” Philip Aries, to change his story and say the land exchange was Renzi’s idea. The DOJ prosecutor, Gary Restaino, whose wife worked closely under Janet Napolitano, never disclosed this information to the defense.

As more evidence came out about this collusion in July, U.S. Federal District Court Judge David Bury granted a hearing to consider a new trial. I attended the hearing,  where I met several of Renzi’s 12 children, who have developed into impressive young adults, sure of their dad’s innocence. I was shocked by what I heard as Aries and the main FBI agent repeatedly contradicted each other’s testimony on the witness stand. How can you convict someone based on that?

The prosecution offered Renzi a deal right before the trial where he would have only done 10 months in prison if he would just lie and plead guilty to a small public corruption charge of failure to properly disclose his financial interest. If Renzi didn’t accept it, he was looking at possibly more than 35 felony charges and over 150 years in prison. Renzi prayed and fasted for seven days, drinking only water and asking God for wisdom. At the end of the fast, his son had to help assist him so he could eat. After eating, decided he could not accept the deal.

His children recall him telling them he would rather die than get up in court and lie that he ever misused his public office. He could not in good conscience allow a despicable deal which would have covered up the truth – that the South African former president of a foreign-owned mining company, Resolution Copper Company, named Bruno Hagner, along with a corrupt FBI agent, took out an innocent U.S. Congressman. Renzi would rather let the world know the truth, even if it meant a life behind bars.

Ever since I started writing about the corruption in this case beginning in July, people all over the country are finally hearing what really happened and are emailing me information that even Renzi’s defense team was unaware of. Someone in Colorado told me a couple of weeks ago that Aries’ father Frank has a history of sleazy real estate deals – yet more evidence it was Aries who had proposed the land exchange, not Renzi.

The Phoenix New Times described real estate developer Frank Aries in 1990, “Aries, who drove a Rolls-Royce, lived in a $1.6 million home in the ritzy Broadmoor district of Colorado Springs and liked to brag about the multimillion-dollar sailboat he had his eye on, was not a man who thought small.” The article explains how he connived $240 million from Western Savings & Loan to invest in a real estate project in Colorado Springs that had little chance of surviving,

Aries’ willingness to pay top dollar for raw land in a time of economic uncertainty and Western’s blind faith in the bet-it-all principles of Sun Belt real estate are straight out of a financial fairy tale…The remarkable loan agreement he worked out with Western saw to it that he wasn’t personally responsible for a dime of the money. At last word, the 56-year-old Aries was making plans to sail “probably all over the world…As Aries sails off into the sunset, Western Savings is now under the control of the government’s thrift bailout agency, the RTC. The taxpayers will pick up the tab.

Yet what may be the most alarming new piece of information is the role former U.S. Secretary of the Interior, powerful Democrat Bruce Babbitt from Arizona, played in the land exchange. Aries’ proposal to Renzi at their first – and only – meeting contained a document that contained a footer revealing it had been drafted from the computer of Babbitt’s current law firm. It included the “Sandlin property,” something the prosecutors had claimed was Renzi’s idea to include in the exchange all along to make it look like he was setting up the exchange to benefit himself. At that meeting, Aries even boasted to Renzi that the entire proposed land exchange – which included the Sandlin property – “met Babbitt’s gold standard.” Why would Renzi not feel comfortable at that point, with a former powerful Democratic Secretary of the Interior approving of the exchange? If including the Sandlin property was so wrongful, why did Babbitt give it his approval?

The problem is, what judge is going to risk taking on and implicating Babbitt in all this? The Babbitts are one of the most  powerful, longstanding families in Arizona, heavily tied into the Democrats who control much of the legal system.

This sordid prosecution also ties back to the powerful Keating Five – another powerhouse Renzi was facing. Ron Ober, campaign manager and chief of staff for former Arizona Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini – who successfully escaped anything but a mere wrist-slap finding against him for his role in the scandal due to his immense power and influence – was hired as a lobbyist to represent the Resolution Copper Company to procure the land exchange through Renzi. Ober was also a friend of Charles Keating, Jr. Keating served four and a half years in prison, but Ober managed to distance himself and escape any tarnishing from that association.

Ober told Renzi that if he didn’t agree to push through the land exchange, RCC would go to Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe instead, which would make Renzi look bad since the land exchange was located in Renzi’s district. Ober asked him if there were any other properties that should be included in the land exchange, and Renzi suggested he speak with The Nature Conservancy, the military officials at Fort Huachuca and Senator McCain’s office – all of who had told him that they wanted to see the Sandlin property included in the next land exchange in order to save the Fort and the San Pedro River. In fact, the court record shows that many supported including the Sandlin property in the exchange, including two mayors from Sierra Vista, the chair of the Cochise County Supervisors, the Fort Huachaca 50 business council and a host of other officials from around the state. The alfalfa farmer using the Sandlin property was draining massive water from the land. Renzi finally reluctantly agreed to the land exchange, but he still had concerns about allowing a foreign-owned company run by a South African to buy out a significant amount of Arizona’s resources. Renzi also revealed verbally to RCC and on his public financial disclosure statements that Sandlin was a former business associate and that Renzi would recuse himself if that was an issue.

Ober and the powerful, connected Democrats working with him representing RCC then started getting pushy, demanding that Renzi ram through the legislation on their timeline. They never liked Renzi from the start, not wanting a Republican to get the credit for a land exchange that would benefit so many parties – including Native Americans, the Fort Huachuca military base, and the Nature Conservancy – and finally turned against him. They secretly decided to scrap the deal and just went through the motions, setting Renzi up for a fall by pretending that he had proposed the land exchange – namely the Sandlin property inclusion – since they had figured out Sandlin loosely owed Renzi money and they could say that Renzi had set it up to benefit him so Sandlin could pay him back. Eventually Renzi discovered they even had a name for the plot to take him down, “Operation Eagle.”

The reality is, Sandlin easily could have paid Renzi back the money at any time from all of his real estate holdings. He owned free and clear a property that was worth in excess of $5 million which would have been simply to obtain a 20 percent loan from.

But the powerful Democrats who controlled the governorship and much of the legal system weren’t going to risk a chance that Renzi might eventually run against Janet Napolitano for governor or continue on his successful path as a Republican who even Democrats liked. Evidence came in discovery during the trial that RCC had gone to Janet Napolitano and told her that the deal must be killed or it would help Renzi, who had become a #1 target of Democrats. No one doubts at this point that Napolitano was calling the shots, telling Restaino through his wife to continue the prosecution against Renzi no matter how trumped up.

I’ve still never met Rick Renzi. But the more I investigate this case, the sicker I get to my stomach.

What is now beyond doubt in the Renzi case is that a foreigner from South Africa named Bruno Hagner, who lived in Arizona, developed and executed a plan called Operation Eagle to take out an innocent U.S. Congressman. This former executive of RCC and his conspirators should be investigated by an independent counsel. All electronic records where Hagner discusses Operation Eagle should be investigated and turned over to Renzi’s attorneys. There also needs to be an electioneering investigation into Hagner and the the DOJ employees named in a memo from the Justice Department who were targeting Renzi and leaking information deliberately about the FBI investigation to hurt Renzi’s reelection chances.

Just like Fast and Furious, now that the criminal activity continues to leak out, it is time for a reexamination of the entire land exchange and prosecution – maybe it’s time for a congressional investigation. Otherwise the process of how we elect our representatives will never be safe from foreign predators.

It has now been since July that Judge Bury was made aware of this new information. Will he stand up to the powerful corrupt interests, or will he let an innocent man sit in prison?

How to Vote on Arizona Judges

As Election Day draws near, many conservatives are seeking information on how to vote for the judges. We’ve compiled a brief list of resources that will help prepare you in this important vote.

The first place to start is the Center for Arizona Policy website “AZVoterGuide.com.” This is a compilation of lists of the various judges up for retention along with links to their surveys. You will find everything from the Arizona Supreme Court Justices to the Superior Court Judges in Maricopa, Pima and Pinal Couties. It is quite an extensive list so plan on spending a little time reviewing the judges’ surveys.

Here’s a link to the AZVoterGuide.com site: http://azvoterguide.com/candidates/2014/judges/az/

We also receive recommendations from fellow conservatives like Representative Warren Petersen. Here is his list also making the rounds: (Thanks Rep, Petersen!)

**** My exception to this list is Gerald Porter – PLEASE VOTE FOR GERALD PORTER! ****

Vote YES on these judges:

Bailey, Cynthia J.
Blomo, James T.
Brodman, Roger R.
Crawford, Janice K.
Dunn, Boyd W.
Herrod, Michael J.
Hyatt, Carey S.
Ishikawa, Brian K.
Sinclair, Joan M.
Svoboda, Pamela Hearn
Viola, Danielle J.

Vote NO on these judges:

Aceto, Mark F.
Anderson, Aimee L.
Anderson, Arthur T
Astrowsky, Bradley
Bales, Scott
Barton, Janet R.
Bassett, Edward
Bergin, Dawn M.
Brain, Mark H.
Brotherton, William L.
Brutinel, Robert
Cooper, Katherine M
Cunanan, David O.
Davis, Norman J.
Duncan, Sally S.
Fenzel, Alfred M.
Fink, Dean M.
Foster, Jr., George H.
Gama, J. Richard
Granville, Warren
Hegyl, Hugh E.
Hicks, Bethany G.
Howe, Randall M.
Johnsen, Diane M.
Kreamer, Joseph C.
Martin, David G.
Mroz, Rosa, P.
Myers, Samuel J.
Norris, Benjamin R.
O’Connor, Karen L.
Pineda, Suzanna C.
Polk, Jay
Porter, Gerald J.
Rea, John C.
Reinstein, Peter C.
Ronan, Emmet J.
Talamante, David M.
Thumma, Samuel A.
Warner, Randall H.
Welty, Joseph C.
Willet, Eileen S.

This list also matches a list being circulated by local conservative activist Sandi Bartlett. Thanks Sandi!

AZ Judicial Commission recommends not retaining two judges – but are they right?

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,  October 29th, 2014

Two judges not recommended due to “temperament,” vague criteria

Disgruntled attorneys who lost cases in front of them likely big part of the reason for poor reviews

Contributed by a reader


In the past, the Arizona Judicial Commission has rarely recommended not retaining any judges – which is obviously greatly flawed, considering all the judicial activism and political targeting that goes on. The commission is run by leftist busybodies tied to the State Bar, so this is no surprise. It contains attorneys/judges like Robert Carter Olson, considered one of the crookedest judges in the state.


Note that virtually all of the judges receive a unanimous YES from all 29 members of the commission. What does that tell you? They’re not thinking independently; everyone is scared to death of voting against a judge because of the risk of retaliation.


Let’s look at the commission’s history. The last time the commission actually recommended not retaining one judge, it was the wrong decision.The full story behind their recommendation not to retain Judge Crane McClennan has been covered by the conservative website azjudgesreview here and here. What it came down to was left-wing criminal defense attorneys didn’t like him.


This year, the commission is recommending not retaining Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Norris and Pima County Superior Court Judge Catherine Woods. Let’s look at the evidence. Both judges received poor marks for “temperament” and “communications.” Not even the vague word “ethics.” They are being accused of not having the right personality. Are you kidding??? What about factors like judicial activism, targeting or favoritism, the real things that matter?


Let’s look a little closer at their background and qualifications. Woods was appointed by Governor Brewer in 2011 – ok, probably a Republican, that makes sense why she’s on their hit list. She is a juvenile judge. Nothing in her bio jumps out to us as a problem, in fact it’s fairly impressive. The commission lists nothing other than that against her. Tellingly, their opinion is based on the fact that 21 out of 106 attorneys returned scores of 60 to 88% about her temperament, etc. Just TWENTY-ONE attorneys. What you’re not hearing is that of the 7 out of 89 litigant witnesses who returned surveys about her, ALL SEVEN gave her 100% scores. That’s right. Who do you believe, some attorneys who may have represented the losing party in a case in front of her, or witnesses who likely have nothing to gain financially or professionally?


It sounds to us like the good ole boys club looking out for the good ole boys club. The busybody attorneys on the commission are looking out for their buddies – Democrat attorneys – who lost their cases in front of this Republican judge.


Next, let’s examine the other attorney the commission recommended not to retain. Norris was appointed in 2008 by Napolitano and has been a family law judge. A quick google search reveals that he appears to be biased against fathers in custody cases. The votes against him are worse, 35 out of 93 attorneys returned surveys rating him from 59% to 84% in various areas. 42 out of 398 litigant witnesses returned surveys rating him from 86% to 96%. Four attorneys rated him as unsatisfactory when it came to fairness towards gender.


Based on a more objective analysis that takes into account a conservative political perspective, we’d recommend retaining Woods and not retaining Norris. More GOP recommendations on voting for judges can be found here. With such a lack of real information about judges, the system needs to be changed to electing judges, not appointing them with low-information retention elections.

Join Our Mailing List


For Marriage Supporters: Grief Yes, Despair No

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod

Arizona’s marriage amendment which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been overturned by the courts.

PHOENIX – “I am heartbroken for a country and a state that has had the redefinition of marriage forced upon them by an out of control federal judiciary.

In what amounts to the de-facto Roe v Wade of marriage, voters throughout the nation have watched their voices be silenced, and their votes voided. Now, Arizona’s marriage amendment and our voters are the latest victims. While the United States Supreme Court may still take up the issue of marriage redefinition, for now the courts have settled the issue in our state.

Today, we grieve. We grieve for the children who now have no chance of growing up with a mom and a dad. We mourn the loss of a culture and its ethical foundation. We mourn a culture that continues to turn its back on timeless principles.

But we do not despair. We do not throw in the towel. We do not give up.

Just as we have worked to build a culture of life, we will focus on rebuilding a culture of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

To read the statement online visit: http://www.azpolicy.org/newsroom/for-marriage-supporters-grief-yes-despair-no

Citizens4CleanCourts-AZ.org places billboards against judges this election

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, October 14th, 2014
Brand-new organization seeks to reform corruption in the courts

Recommends removing/voting against Bar disciplinary judge, certain AZ Supreme Court Justices and more 

Citizens4CleanCourts-AZ.org is taking Arizona by storm with its tall billboards announcing the worst judges in Arizona today, mostly activist progressives who have abused the system to the advantage of themselves and their friends, at great expense to the innocent people who have had their lives ruined by them. Remember who they when you cast your ballot on November 4th or by early ballot. It is time to start cleaning the corrupt judges out of office, and stop retaining them every year. Visit the website at http://www.citizens4cleancourts-az.org/ for more information.

Join Our Mailing List

Mark Brnovich is Small Business’ Choice for Top Cop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday July 23rd, 2014

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts from the article in Oregon Live:

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

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

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

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

Hobby and a Lobby of Glass Houses

By Sam Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darryl Jacobson Barnes for Justice of the Peace

Darryl Jacobson Barnes for Justice of the Peace

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

By Joanne Moudy

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

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

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

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

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


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.