Even harshest critics call bar association case ‘gross overcharging’
n 2009, left to right, are Supervisors Don Stapley, Fulton Brock and Max Wilson, Cardinals officials Steve Ryan and Luis Zendejas, and Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox
It is in this atmosphere that a case has developed in Arizona that is blasting a former prosecutor and two associates for their attempts to follow the book and apply the law to actions by the systems power brokers as well as others.
It is so egregious that it has even the former prosecutor’s harshest critics are saying that the overreaching “gives credence to [Andrew] Thomas’ claim that he is the victim of a witch hunt.”
That was from columnist Robert Robb, who has made made no display of supporting Thomas.
“I have written scathingly about the gross abuse of power by former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” he said. “Thomas and Arpaio proclaimed that there was a giant conspiracy involving the county board of supervisors, senior county management and several judges in which the judges agreed to protect county officials against criminal probes in exchange for the county constructing a new office building for the judges.”
By: Selwyn Duke
When we think of political persecution, places such as Tiananmen Square may come to mind. Increasingly, however, this tool of tyranny is coming to our shores – and it is not made in China. It is, in the case I’ll discuss today, made in Maricopa County.
Every avid news reader knows about the battles between Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the federal government; Leviathan has targeted him because of his principled stand against illegal immigration. What is not quite as well known, however, is that the sheriff and his supporters – most notably, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas – have long been battling a corrupt local political machine bent on thwarting the rule of law and benefitting itself. Not surprisingly, as in the film Walking Tall, Arpaio’s and Thomas’ attempt to end local corruption has come at a price: the State Bar of Arizona (SBA) has begun prosecuting Thomas and two of his deputies in a move that reeks of political retaliation.
One of these underlings is ex-deputy county attorney Lisa Aubuchon. The other is ex-deputy county attorney Rachel Alexander, whom some readers may recognize as the proprietor of the website Intellectual Conservative. Alexander, despite having played only the smallest of roles in a racketeering case against the Maricopa County Supervisors, now faces suspension of her law license and significant career damage. And outrageously, Alexander’s supervisor, Pete Spaw, has not been charged despite having played a far larger role in the RICO case. This has led many to conclude that Alexander is the victim of selective prosecution.
The problems for Thomas and his deputies started when the County Supervisors filed wrongful prosecution charges against them with the SBA, which their leftist allies in the bar association ran with. What were these local politicians so upset about? John Hawkins at RightWingNews.com provides some background, writing:
Thomas came up with a unique way to prosecute illegal immigrants with a felony, instead of just letting them go with a slap on the wrist. He used a felony smuggling statute to prosecute them, describing them as “smuggling themselves.” With a felony conviction, they would be required to serve time and would not be able to return to the U.S. He even distributed money – which was seized from racketeering funds – to programs for youth run by the Boy Scouts and churches. By law, that money is to be distributed to organizations that keep youth away from crime and drugs. Thomas ensured that it was no longer only distributed to left wing politically correct organizations. Due to the proactive efforts of Thomas, along with Joe Arpaio and Senator Russell Pearce, illegal immigration has greatly decreased in Arizona. The population of illegal immigrants dropped by one-third over two years.
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 7, 2011
More improper behavior exposed in a case involving AG Tom Horne Maricopa County Crime Examiner
by Linda Bentley
PHOENIX – Thursday, June 30 was Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe’s last day on the bench.
In his May 5, 2011 letter of resignation to Gov. Jan Brewer, he quoted Seneca: “You must know for which harbor you are headed if you are to catch the right wind to take you there.”
He then wrote, “For over 21 years, my harbor has been the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. I have felt a fresh wind at my back pushing me in a new direction …”
Some say he’s leaving due to too many forces breathing down the back of his neck, including Dr. James Houston, a former Northern Arizona University instructor, whose case against Attorney General Tom Horne, in his former capacities as Arizona State Superintendent of Schools and member of the Arizona Board of Education, was pending in Donahoe’s court.
Pima County Superior Court Judge John Leonardo, who was appointed to hear the case, said Thomas faced a conflict of interest in prosecuting Mary Rose Wilcox and ruled that the conflict violated Wilcox’s rights when Thomas’ office presented allegations against her to a grand jury in January.
“Because the defendant has no representative to watch out for his or her interests before the grand jury, the prosecutor has a duty (to) not take advantage of this role to unfairly influence the grand jury,” Leonardo wrote.
Wilcox, 60, was accused of voting on contracts involving a Hispanic advocacy group that had given her loans and never filing conflict-of-interest statements. She had pleaded not guilty to felony charges of conflict of interest, perjury, forgery and false swearing.
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ pursuit of a spate of lawsuits and indictments against county leaders and judges won’t rob any other criminal defendants of their right to a fair trial, a judge ruled Tuesday.
Judge Wallace Hoggatt of Cochise County Superior Court ruled against more than 40 criminal defendants who sought to disqualify the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office from their cases on claims the office had a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in representing the state.
Thomas also got indictments against Stapley and County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, and he filed a criminal complaint against Judge Gary Donahoe.
Read the rest here | here
Maricopa County officials are waiting for County Attorney Andrew Thomas to resign to run for state attorney general because they believe it gives them carte blanche to appoint his successor.
However, in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors Thursday, Thomas pointed out that if he leaves office before the mandated May 26 deadline, state statutes call for a special election so the general electorate can choose his replacement.
Under that scenario, the supervisors would choose an interim county attorney who serves until the results of the November general election are final.
The Arizona Republic has printed a barrage of articles, editorials, and guest op-eds by attorneys lately highly critical of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County
Attorney Andrew Thomas. When attorneys like Dennis Riccio, below, try to submit an article with a positive viewpoint of Arpaio and Thomas, the Republic can’t turn their bias aside enough to print even one positive article.
My Turn: Enough of Prejudging Thomas and Arpaio
It is disturbing reading many of the editorials and op-eds in this this newspaper about Sheriff Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas’s attempts to prosecute Supervisors Stapley and Wilcox and investigate the Court Tower. The writers rush to judgment accusing Arpaio and Thomas of unethical behavior, without knowing the full facts. Only Arpaio and Thomas have seen the results of the investigations, search warrants and subpoenas. Most of this information is still privileged until the prosecution is over, and some of it – the Grand Jury information – will never be publicly releasable. The newspaper editorial board and criminal defense attorneys are acting as judge and jury prematurely deciding cases in public they know very little about.
The public has a right to be skeptical of a $341 million state of the art, luxury Court Tower being built during a recession, while county agencies, including law enforcement, are forced to cut 15% of their budgets by laying off employees. With the exception of columnist Laurie Roberts, this newspaper has failed to ask the hard questions, and even her questions have gone unanswered. Why is this luxury tower being built even though the county cannot afford it? People deserve to know answers.
