Megalomania in Maricopa

Yesterday, Andy Thomas was disbarred for being corrupt.  His response was to declare,

Today corruption has won and justice has lost.

A friend described that as "delusional hubris."

Of course, that was an off-the-cuff comment.  Now that he's had a full day to consider, his words are more measured. Michael Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez in the Arizona Republic report.

"Someone has to fight for justice," Thomas said, comparing himself to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Really?  Gandhi?  Martin Luther King, Jr.? 

Another friend saw that and wrote

Delusional and paranoid is a bad combo.

Which led yet a third friend to respond.

Not to mention the fact that if either of them were active during his reign, he would have indicted both of them.

Me, I wondered if Thomas just forget to add that his suffering was like that of Jesus on the cross or whether some editor at the Republic deleted that reference?

In yesterday's comments, Thomas referred to a study of state corruption conducted by the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International.  Arizona, Thomas said,

has some of the worst corruption in America.

It's true, maybe.  Arizona got a D+, putting it in the bottom half of the states.  Barely.  It actually ranked 27th out of 50.  (You can read the details here.)  In the Buckeye State, we did worse.  A grade of D, 34th out of 50.

Ohio has no shortage of ethics laws, but it has a history of state officials violating them. 

And our former attorney general, Marc Dann, resigned from office in disgrace, entered guilty pleas to ethics reporting violations, and is fighting not to have his license yanked for 6 months.

But that's for ethical incompetence.  Dann ran the AG's office like a frat house complete with pizza and pajama parties and sexual harassment.  And he screwed up his financial disclosure forms.  No excuse, but not exactly corruption in office, either.

Andy used his office to go after political opponents, really, to go after anyone who looked askance at  Sheriff Joe and his gang of thugs deputies.

And now he's a self-declared martyr.

One more time.

h/t Kathy G, Nick F, & Brian S

Smoke Slowly Curling Skyward

Today corruption has won and justice has lost.

That was Andy Thomas, former member of Joe 'n' Andy, former prosecutor in Maricopa County (they call the job "County Attorney").  Unrepentent sinner.  And, oh, yeah, former lawyer.

Most importantly, a man who's just wrong.  Today, and it may only be preliminary, and it may not last, and there's sure more to do, but today corruption lost and justice, whatever exactly that might be, pretty clearly won.

Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Michael Kiefer in the Arizona Republic.

Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his onetime deputy, Lisa Aubuchon, were stripped of their law licenses today as a disciplinary panel handed down the toughest sanctions possible for ethical violations in a case that attracted national interest.

The panel also suspended Rachel Alexander, another Thomas deputy, from practicing law for six months and one day for her role in filing a federal civil racketeering lawsuit against judges and county officials.

After the verdict, Thomas spoke only briefly [and with what a friend rightly describes as "delusional hubris."]

"Today corruption has won and justice has lost," he said. "I brought corruption cases in good faith involving powerful people, and the political and legal establishment blatantly covered up and retaliated by targeting my law license. Arizona has some of the worst corruption in America, according to a recent national survey. The political witch hunt that's just ended makes things worse by sending a chilling message to prosecutors: Those who take on the powerful will lose their livelihood."

Because today Andy Thomas was disbarred (it actually takes effect in 30 days, giving him time to appeal).  Law license yanked by a 3-member disciplinary panel appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court.  The panel examined 33 charges of misconduct against Andy and two of his deputies as "respondents."  They took weeks of testimony.  And then they decided.  

Andy Thomas Discipline

You should read the whole thing (yeah, right), but here's a snapshot from the last substantive paragraph of the 232 page opinion, written by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, William J. O'Neil. It ends this way, with reference to the framers and the pledge of allegiance.

With time, a pledge was created to underscore the foundational principles of our great country. That pledge ends with four words. The words may be simple, but they are profound. “And justice for all.” This Panel is firmly convinced justice for all has occurred in this case. It is also firmly convinced Respondents never intended the same.

If that's not clear enough, maybe the 15 page concurring opinion by the public member of the panel, Rev., Dr. John C.N. Hall will make the point.

This is the story of three unethical attorneys, Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon, and to a lesser extent, Rachel Alexander. This is the story of County Attorneys who did not “let justice be done,” but rather, birthed injustice after injustice. This is the story of the public trust dishonored, desecrated, and defiled. This multi-year-wreck-of-a-ride, operated by Andrew Thomas and staffed by Aubuchon and Alexander, outrageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law. By the time Andrew Thomas resigned, with his hopes of attaining higher public office and greater public trust, his legacy lay in a smoldering heap, its smoke slowly curling skyward like a prayer for relief.

Of course, this isn't the end.  There will be that appeal.  And Andy's real partner in all of this, Sheriff Joe, is still going strong.  But it seems that whatever justice is, for the moment it's prevailed.  Corruption, hubris, megalomania, the powerful struck down.

A first step.  Not a small one.  But just a step.

Pay attention.  Let's see what happens next.

Gifts That Keep On Giving

There's Maricopa County, of course, and frankly the whole state of Ariz (show-me-your-papers) ona.  But Andy hasn't made much fuss since the dead Rhino ad, and Joe chickened out of the run for Governor.

Sharon Keller's been lying low since she was fined $100,000 last week (though if they do prosecute her criminally for ethics violations that will be a circus worth attending) and while we wait for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to decide what to do about the disciplinary charges against her (no links, it's everywhere, do your own homework).

John Bradley continues to do his best to ensure that the Texas Forensic Science Commission won't actually do a thing until at least 2011, and then will do it in secret and whitewash the whole Willingham fiasco.  Hell, I didn't even write about the last Commission meeting.

Fortunately, there's still Shirley Strickland Saffold and her not-so-secret identity as "lawmiss."

Saffold, of course, is the judge in Cuyahoga County who comments on stories on the Cleveland Plain Dealer web site - including on stories about the cases and before her.   (Oops, my bad.  It's probably not her.  I don't want to be sued for $50 million for a mistake like that.)

Turns out that, like all serial commentators, lawmiss doesn't have just one place at which she mouths off.  Per yesterday's Plain Dealer:

Now, a search of Web sites visited by Saffold's courthouse computer has turned up lawmiss usernames on at least 10 other Internet domains. Lawmiss comments on sites other than cleveland.com attack Arabs, disparage Asians and vilify white men. They sneer at inter-racial relations, condemn homosexuals and rail against police.

The PD doesn't exactly say that Saffold is lawmiss, but they sure make clear that it's likely.  And they give us plenty of examples of just what - too much fun.  I'll reprint the offensive stuff from the paper.

Lawmiss called Asians "flat face morons" when remarking on a story about the Chinese volleyball team.

And a story about a racist remark against the president prompted lawmiss to rail against whites: "how can white men be christan's, it's impossible. Their nature is to be nasty, convining, and decietful. They lie, they cheat, and they steal. And, they do it in a suit."

Lawmiss on AOL also insults people based on religion.

After France proposed banning burqas, lawmiss wrote "yeah, they ought to ban them, and if the muslims don't like it, then go home. you can't see their faces, you can't tell if they're men or women and they're criminals. if they want to wear that crap, then they ought to stay in saudi arabia, where it's acceptable and they have no intention of blowing anyone up."

An article about Ellen DeGeneres prompted Lawmiss to attack gays.

"She's s dyke, and that's all she's competent at. She's no dancer. Nest think you'll know the gays will take over."

Lawmiss attacks law enforcement, too.

A story about a police shooting in New Orleans induced lawmiss to comment
"Add this incident as another reason that Black people can NOT trust the police," lawmiss states. "What pigs---and what made them think they could get away. I suppose they considered that they could put on white hoods and ride in the middle of the night and scare the be-jesus out of people, so no one would tell." 

The story appeared yesterday.  Perhaps as a Mother's Day present, her daughter will take responsibility for all these comments, too.

And perhaps we ought to reconsider how people get to be judges in the great state of Ohio.

h/t Terry G

Cleveland - Where the Fun Never Stops

So we wait to see what happens in Maricopa County now that Joe no longer has his lapdog Andy Thomas handy. What, you didn't know Thomas resigned as County Attorney so he could run for state Attorney General?

Arpaio said he was not surprised by Thomas' resignation, though he admitted that his departure could jeopardize the prosecution of illegal immigrants in Maricopa County.

"I still have the authority to arrest people," Arpaio said. "We'll see if they prosecute them."

Arizona law says the County Supervisors appoint Andy's successor, but he wants the Governor to make the pick. Who draws the short straw may go some toward answering Joe's question.

Meanwhile Adam Stoddard waits to find out whether he'll have to ask Joe to pay his fine or he'll have to write 500 times, "I will no longer read privileged attorney-client communications when I might get caught."

Up in Connecticut, Steve Hayes has decided not to ask the state to assist him in a suicide attempt, which moots for the time being the question of whether his lawyers' obligation is to assist him in the endeavor or intervene to prevent their client from getting his wish. So the trial can proceed - actually jury selection. The trial is scheduled in the fall.

Then there's Juneau County, Wisconsin where District Attorney Scott Southworth sent a letter warning school boards that he stands ready and willing to prosecute teachers who obey the state law and teach sex education including instruction in contraception. Further, he warns that since the ACLU will be monitoring compliance with the law, teachers should consult counsel.*

So with that set of constitutional crises on hold for the moment, and with another week yet before

So let us drop in again on the ever curious happenings in and around the common pleas courtroom of Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. You remember her.

She's the one who, back in 1995, was lecturing a woman who'd entered a guilty plea credit card fraud as part of an effort to find a good man. From the bench, in open court, Saffold told the woman:

Men are easy. You can go sit at the bus stop, put on a short skirt, cross your legs and pick up 25. Ten of them will give you their money. It's the truth. If you don't pick up the first 10, then all you got to do is open your legs a little bit and cross them at the bottom and then they'll stop.

But I just retell that story because, well, because I can't resist. What's relevant about her now is that she's the judge (at least for the moment) to whom Anthony Sowell's death penalty case has been assigned. And she's the judge who, it turns out, holds the AOL account from which "lawmiss" posts comments to news stories, including those about cases of hers, on the website of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Saffold, you'll recall, denied that she did the posting. It was all the work of her daughter Sydney, she (and Sydney) said.

To which I, for reasons, that may be apparent a few paragraphs from now, say merely, "No comment."

Anyway, there have been, as they say, developments.

First, she's been asked to recuse herself from the Sowell case. In fact, she's being asked to recuse herself from every case in which Rufus Sims is counsel. As the Plain Dealer reports:

One lawmiss post, regarding a 2009 trial of an RTA bus driver, accused Sims of doing a disservice to a client.

"If only he could shut his Amos and Andy style mouth," the post reads. " What makes him think that is [sic] he insults and acts like buffon [sic] that it will cause the judge to think and see it his way. There are so many lawyers that could've done a much better job. This was not a tough case, folks. She should've hired a lawyer with the experience to truly handle her needs. Amos and Andy, shuffling around did not do it."

She's declined to do that, though she has a hearing scheduled for next week on recusal from the Sowell case.

But, of course, that's not the end of things. Because there's the principle of the thing. That's a $50,000,000 principle, if you were wondering. Or at least, the judge thinks it is.

Yesterday Shirley and Sydney filed suit (copy of complaint here) against the Plain Dealer and related entities and 990

currently unknown individuals that published defamatory and attacking statements against Plaintiffs under anonymous User Names on Cleveland.com that Plaintiffs will be able to locate once Defendants provide their Registration Information.

As I say, Shirley and Sydney want a cool 50 million - 25 in actual damages and 25 in punitive damages. Their complaint? Six counts:

Breach of Contract
Tortious Interference with a Contract
Promissory Estoppel
Fraud
Invasion of Privacy/False Light
Defamation

OK, the various forms of contract claims make some sense. Lawmiss signed up as a commentor with the promise of privacy and anonymity, a promise the PD broke. But the false light claims seems to rest mostly on the fact that the PD described the lawmiss e-mail address as the judge's personal address when she claims it's a family address used jointly by she and her daughter. As for defamation? That's all those folks who read the story and think the judge is a . . . . I don't want to say it lest I be sued.

Then there's the small matter of 25 million in actual damages. Hard to see how they came up with that figure. (Actually, it's not hard at all. Shirley, Sydney, and their lawyer pulled it out of their collective asses; that's how it's done.)

Here's what I do know.

They just ensured a whole lot more people would read the words of "lawmiss." And it seems that their lawyer, at least according to the PD, has conceded what neither Sydney nor Shirley would: The judge is responsible for at least some of what "lawmiss" said.

Cleveland. Someplace special.

-----------------

*I haven't a clue why he thinks ACLU monitoring will be a problem for teachers who obey the law, but I can see that he might think just flinging the words ACLU around will scare the bejesus out of the Juneau County locals.

Maricopa: Once More Into the Breach

It's been almost a week since we paid a visit to Maricopa County where things aren't looking up for Joe 'n' Andy.
The counter suits proliferate.
Last time, we learned that Don Stapley, the twice indicted County Supervisor is planning to sue Sheriff Joe and Andy Thomas (and also himself as one of the County Supervisors) but will settle for $5 million.  Now, the AP reports that he declared Joe 'n' Andy are "evil" and can cause harm.
Another of the dysfunctional duo's victims, Judge Gary Donahoe, has now indicated that he's planning to sue.  His preliminary act, the Arizona Republic reports, was to send a letter to Joe, Andy, and the county demanding that "all information, physical and electronic, relevant to or bearing on Judge Donahoe" and any investigation or prosecution or lawsuit against him be preserved.  That demand letter isn't as advanced as the Notice of Claim letter Stapely sent last week, but that will likely be following.  Donahoe hasn't yet said it will take to buy him off.  (Hint:  There'll be a lot of zeros before the decimal point.)
While Stapley and Donahoe have been huddling with their own lawyers in Maricopa, another target of Joe 'n' Andy hopped a bus to the nation's capital.  Dennis Gilman took this video of  County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox delivering a speech at the big immigration rally in D.C.

The highlights, as Stephen Lemons, the Feathered Bastard notes are all about Joe.  To boos at his name, Wilcox says that Joe "terrorizes our communities."

He goes out in sweeps, and he tries to silence all his critics. I know because I was one of them. We spoke out against immigration policies that were repressive, and the sheriff charged me and tried to put me in jail.

Then she led the crowd of some 250,000 in chants of "Indict Arpaio."

And the investigation of Andy Thomas is heating up.  Ray Stern, writing in Valley Fever, picked up on this Administrative Order from the Arizona Supreme Court appointing John Gleason, "Regulation Counsel" for the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation as independent bar counsel to investigate Andy.  The court went outside the state to ensure that the person they charged with conducting the investigation would have no "perceived bias."  I'm not sure about hidden bias, but mine's not to quibble.  In any event, here's what Gleason is to do.

3. Independent Bar Counsel Gleason shall investigate and, as he determines appropriate, prosecute allegations of ethical misconduct stemming from the prosecution in State v. Wilcox.

4. Independent Bar Counsel Gleason shall investigate and, as he determines appropriate, prosecute any other allegations of misconduct filed against Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas or lawyers in his employ, arising out of criminal investigations or prosecutions involving the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and its staff, collectively or individually, or the judges of the Superior Court in Maricopa and their staff, collectively or individually.

5. Independent Bar Counsel Gleason shall investigate and, as appropriate, prosecute any other allegations of misconduct filed against Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, or lawyers in his employ, arising out of matters assigned by Special Master Ruth V. McGregor.

6. Independent Bar Counsel Gleason shall investigate and, as appropriate, prosecute any other allegations of misconduct that are substantially similar or related to the allegations arising out of the matters set forth in number 4 above.

Think Ken Starr and Bill Clinton but probably without cigars and semen stains.

Finally, and really it's maybe the most astounding thing, Joe seems to have cloned Adam Stoddard.

You remember Adam.  He's the one who went on camera and lifted the letter from attorney Joanne Cuccia's file, thereby focusing the attention of the blawgosphere on Maricopa.  It's happened again, though this time we don't have video.  We do, though, have a transcript.

Scene:  The courtroom of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Connie Contes.

Dramatis Personae: 

Eric Crocker, public defender

Randall Marc Korelc, client facing charges of second degree murder

The Honorable Connie Contes, judge (preoccupied, paying no attention)

Moses Rodriguez, Sheriff's Deputy

Valley Fever's Paul Rubin is our narrator:

Crocker says Korelc, who was handcuffed, handed him a file that included a two-page letter from the defendant instructing the attorney on legal strategies.

"I saw the deputy looking at me kind of funny, so in the interest of keeping things running smoothly I asked him if he wanted to check the file for contraband," Crocker says (though the   notion of an inmate trying to sneak something to an outsider sounds dubious on its face).

At this point, Crocker was at the defense table in front of the judge, as was his client. The deputy, Moses Rodriguez, was standing next to the table, closer to Korelc than to Crocker.

Crocker says he gave the file to Deputy Rodriguez and then turned his attention to the judge, who was starting the hearing -- a pretrial management conference. Crocker says he was about to formally announce his presence to the judge when he heard a rustling of papers.

"I looked over and saw this deputy turning my client's legal letter to me around -- it was upside-down when he pulled it out of the file--and he was reading it," Crocker tells us. "He wasn't looking for contraband, believe me. He was scanning attorney-client documents."

According to a transcript of the proceedings, here's what happened next:

Crocker: "Hold on. Don't read my client's writings."

Rodriguez: "Hold on a second. I'm not going to read it."

At this point, Crocker says, he had stepped around and was standing very close to Deputy Rodriguez, worried about what was going to happen next.

Crocker: "Give it back. All you do is look for contraband. Judge, can you intervene? I want my client's letter back."

Rodriguez: "Okay. I'm giving it back to you, okay? You want me to put it back inside the sleeve?"

Crocker: "No, that's all right. Thank you. Sorry about that, Your Honor. Just trying to avoid another problem [referring to the Adam Stoddard fiasco]." 

Apparently it worked out so well the last time.

Maricopa Blowin' in the Wind

How many times must a County Supervisor be arrested before he decides he should sue?


Exhibit A: Don Stapley.  Yvonne Wingett gives the history in today's Arizona Republic.

In November 2008, a grand jury indicted Stapley on 118 counts related to his yearly personal financial-disclosure forms. In August 2009, a judge dismissed many of the counts, and prosecutors dismissed the rest in mid-September.

Stapley thought his legal battles were over.

But just three days later, sheriff's deputies took Stapley into custody in the county parking garage on charges of fraud and theft related to his campaign for a leadership position with the National Association of Counties.


"They put me in a patrol car," Stapley told The Republic last month. "(They) took me to the First Avenue Jail, booked me in, took photos, fingerprinting, the whole thing a second time, and put me in an isolation cell."

The case was set aside when no prosecutor filed charges.

Then, last December, a grand jury indicted Stapley on 22 felony charges including theft, fraud, perjury and forgery, all largely related to his fundraising efforts for the national organization.

Last month, a judge threw out an unrelated case against fellow Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. Hours later, Thomas filed a motion to dismiss the Stapley indictment because of similar underlying legal problems. 

The answer, it seems is 3.


And Stapley's had enough.  Thursday, he sent a Notice of Claim to the County Board of Supervisors (of which he's a member), Sheriff Joe, Joe's puppet Andy Thomas, and Joe's chief deputy Dave Hendershott.  


0319stapley Claim Letter


The Notice, apparently a prerequisite to a lawsuit under Arizona law, lays out the history of those arrests and prosecutions, details a pattern of abuse, sets out the extensive stress and reputational damage Stapley and his wife have endured, and indicates forthcoming legal claims

for negligence, gross negligence, false or wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of their Constitutional rights, and law enforcement retaliation and vindictive and/or selective prosecution.

And, the letter says, there will be more.  But not to worry.  Stapley will settle right now for a quick $5 million.  He says that's fair, and besides, he's already shelled out  $1.25 million defending himself.  


Note to readers in legal trouble with very large wallets: I'd have moved to Arizona and represented Stapley for little more than half of that.


The most interesting question, of course, is how Stapley will vote when the County Supervisors have to vote on whether to settle with him.  But it's Maricopa.  What's a little conflict of interest among friends?

Maricopa merriment

Remember how on Thursday, Joe 'n' Andy dismissed their RICO lawsuit against the corrupt Supervisors and judges who run Maricopa County everyone in Maricopa County who doesn't pay sufficient obeisance to their every whim, explaining that they'd passed all the evidence of corruption to the Public Integrity Office of the Justice Department in Washington which had promised to take over and ensure that the evildoers were prosecuted or forced from office or something.

Except for that one thing: There was no promise.

Oh, Joe 'n' Andy did "refer" the matter to Public Integrity.   Anyone can do that about anything.  Orly Taitz presumably brought them Obama's Kenyan birth and the massive conspiracy to give the US to bin Laden.  Doesn't mean they'll act on it.

Which is what DOJ said on Friday, per the Arizona Republic.

A U.S. Department of Justice section chief on Friday chastised a lawyer for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for giving the impression that federal agents would likely assume the sheriff's investigations into corruption in Maricopa County.

In a strongly worded letter, Raymond Hulser, acting chief of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice, wrote that he was "dismayed to learn that your mere referral of information to the Public Integrity Section was cited and relied upon in a pleading in federal court, and then used as a platform for a press conference."

Joe 'n' Andy foiled again.

Maricopa Hokey Pokey

Imagine, if you will, that you're Andy Thomas or Sheriff Joe, that you've done all you can this round to intimidate the County Supervisors and the judges you hate.  Imagine, further, that none of them seem to be intimidated.

Imagine that the consequence of your long and loud investigation, prosecution, and civil corruption lawsuit of every government official who's ever crossed you, none of them is behind bars.  None of them has been removed from office.  None of them is under federal investigation.

Instead, the federales are investigating you for abuse of power and corruption.  So are your own state's officials.  And your own state's Supreme Court.

Imagine that all you can see is that you're losing.  And turning into something of a laughingstock.

So you have to do something.  Regain the initiative.  Find a new strategy.  Snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.  Try a Hail Mary pass.

And so it came to pass that on the eleventh day of the third month of the year 2010, Joe 'n' Andy dismissed the civil RICO lawsuit they filed back in December against the Supervisors, the judges, and their lawyers.

Here's Sarah Fenske in New Times (stripped of its links).

This just in: Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio have dismissed the lawsuit that accused county officials, judges, and their lawyers of being part of a "criminal enterprise."
The suit -- which the duo filed in December -- spared no detail in exploring Thomas' allegations that the Board of Supervisors, county judges, and their shared legal counsel at Polsinelli Shughart were racketeers, working to thwart criminal investigations into the county's new court tower and ultimately deprive Thomas of his law license.

. . . 

In their brief, one-page letter dismissing the suit, Thomas and Arpaio's lawyers say they've referred the matters in the lawsuit to the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section. Seriously. We can only imagine that the lawyers at Justice are dying to probe such matters as The Day That County Lawyers Laughed at Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon and The Threat that Thomas' Wife Might Have to Foot the Bill for His Frivolous Litigation. 'Cause, you know, this is some major, major corruption here -- a metaphor for everything that's wrong in Maricopa County!

The Arizona Republic (also stripped of links) offers this version.

The lawsuit recounted a year of legal and political battles between Thomas and Arpaio on one side and county management and the Superior Court on the other. By December, the dispute was so heated that the Arizona Supreme Court appointed a former chief justice as a "special master" arbiter.
Since then, Thomas and Arpaio have lost ruling after ruling and federal investigators are looking into their activities. The racketeering suit hung in the balance until Thursday.
At a joint news conference Thursday, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing Arpaio said he used his connections to get the Justice Department to look at the sheriff's court-tower investigation and other unspecified matters, with no promise that they would pick up the cases.

You put your left foot in,

You take your left foot out,

You put your right foot in,

And you shake it all about.

You do the hokey-pokey,

And you turn yourself around.

That's what it's all about.

Madcap Maricopians

A quick update.

So there's this pending lawsuit in federal court.  They claim that Sheriff Joe and the boys are engaged in racial profiling.  Oh, and the federal grand jury has subpoenaed them, too.  Joe says no, and you don't have the evidence to prove it, because we've destroyed the e-mails.  Nyah, nyah, nyah.  Go ahead judge.  Sanction us.

And then, whoops.  Turns out that because of another lawsuit, Maricopa County has been archiving the things for a couple of years.  Except nobody bothered to tell Joe.

Joe says they're his property.  The County Supervisors (you know, the folks Joe and Andy sued and indicted and then dismissed the charges and over his misconduct with Joe's being investigated by the feds) say they belong to Maricopa itself.  And tomorrow morning a judge in Pima County (that's Tucson to us tinhorns) will try to sort it out.

Too complicated.  The Arizona Republic helps sort it out.

The Sheriff's Office says the e-mails belong to them, and they should have been deleted from an emergency backup system after 28 days.

County management says the e-mails are county property. And the messages play into two federal cases, a racial-profiling civil lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and an FBI criminal investigation into Arpaio's office, so they refused to turn them over to the sheriff.

A Pima County judge will try to sort out ownership in an emergency hearing Wednesday morning.

The issue first arose in February when the Sheriff's Office claimed in the civil lawsuit that e-mails concerning Arpaio's controversial "crime-suppression operations" had been deleted from the system. The federal judge imposed sanctions against the office.

But last week, county officials announced they had recovered the e-mails - though actually, they had been archived.

The news caught the Sheriff's Office by surprise.

On Friday afternoon, Sheriff's Commander Bob Rampy confronted county technology managers and demanded the e-mails be turned over to him, first by e-mail and later in person. County officials turned Rampy down. 

County lawyers filed an emergency motion for an order of protection against the Sheriff's Office with the Pima County judge, who is handling an ongoing case between the county and the sheriff over management of a county law-enforcement computer database.

In that motion, attorney Julie Pace, who represents the county, revealed that not only were some of the e-mails subject to the racial-profiling suit, but that other, unspecified e-mails also had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating Arpaio's office. The two sets of e-mails may overlap, but county officials will not reveal the contents of the latest subpoena.

Judge Theodore Borek, who was assigned to the computer case last year, granted the order of protection and set a hearing for Wednesday in Tucson.

And, of course, there's video.


Of course, I don't know what's in those e-mails.  But you don't tend to go around destroying evidence a judge is asking for unless you think there's something damaging in it.
Perhaps we'll know more after tomorrow's festivities in Tucson.
Meanwhile, on the lapdog front, it seems that Andy Thomas is being investigated by the FBI for abuse of power and now, finally, by the Arizona Supreme Court.


  
h/t NF

More Maricopa

While we've been watching the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals turning back flips to avoid actually dealing with the problem presented by Charles Hood who ended up on death row after a trial presided over by a judge who'd been having an affair with the prosecutor behind the backs of their respective spouses, the good folks in Maricopa County have been sorting things out in their own playground.

ANDY THOMAS GETS TO KEEP PROSECUTING CRIMINAL CASES EVEN THOUGH ITS WEIRD AND CREEPY AND IFFY AND NO ONE TRUSTS HIM TO BE HONEST (AND HE THINKS HE'S BEEN VINDICATED)

You'll recall that after Andy Thomas and Sheriff Joe brought civil and criminal charges against, and otherwise harassed and threatened bunches of Superior Court judges and other county officials who pissed them off  failed to kowtow to them were perhaps corrupt, the defense bar began filing motions asking that Andy's entire office be disqualified from handling criminal prosecutions.  After all, if the prosecutor is intimidating the judge - directly or indirectly - how fair can the trial be?

Since all legal action in the county's courts that might involve any official is now in a sort of receivership, those motions were assigned to Judge Wallace Hoggatt of Cochise County.  On Tuesday, Hoggatt issued an order dismissing 27 of them that had no direct connection to any of the county's insanity (hearings are to be held in March on 12 more).  A spokesman for Andy Thomas told the Arizona Republic that Thomas had been vindicated.

[A] complete and total victory for the County Attorney's Office.

I suppose it depends on your definition of vindicated. 

The motions were not made, Judge Hoggatt wrote, "to harass the prosecution."

They were filed to address a bizarre and unprecedented state of affairs in Maricopa County. If Mr. Thomas is the kind of the person his detractors make him out to be, he has no one to blame but himself for the flood of disqualification motions. Even if he ultimately proves not to be the kind of person described in the motions, one thing would nonetheless remain true: the present defendants and their attorneys did not create the current circumstances.

Still, if you're going to argue that taking Thomas and his office off the cases would reduce the level of distrust and suspicion in Maricopa, well, it's way too late for such a simple remedy.

[F]rom what this Court can gather from afar, public suspicion in Maricopa County is intense and is directed at many different actors in the ongoing controversy. Nothing this Court could ever say or order would have any realistic likelihood of reducing the level of public suspicion.

Maricopa, you see, is a mess.  It's really beyond help.  But there's too much work to do (the court is the fifth busiest in the nation, and granting the motions would screw up, literally, thousands of prosecutions.

JUDGE: THOMAS PROSECUTES FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE;

SHERIFF JOE MISUSES POWER OF HIS OFFICE 

Even Andy might have a harder time finding the silver lining in the decision of Pima County Judge John Leonardo 's order first disqualifying him from the prosecution of County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and then dismissing the 42 count criminal indictment against her.  Sarah Fenske put it plainly in the Valley Fever blog at New Times.

In his ruling today, Pima County Superior Court Judge John Leonardo did not just smack down Maricopa County [Atttorney] Andrew Thomas and his ambitions of prosecuting the case against Superviosor Mary Rose Wilcox.

He smacked him down, he smoked him, and then he stomped on him for good measure.

That may sound over the top, but it sure isn't by much. Andy, you see (and his good pal Joe) had an actual conflict of interest that corrupted the entire proceeding.  What sort of conflict?

Based on substantial evidence contained in the record, it is the finding of the court that the County Attorney has the following conflicts of interest between his duty to impartially exercise his prosecutorial discretion and:

1) his efforts to retaliate against members of the MCBS, including defendant, for actions they allegedly carried out in concert with each other against his office and against him personally as alleged in the civil RICO complaint;

2) his attempts to gain political advantage by prosecuting those who oppose him politically, including Defendant;
3) his political alliance with the Maricopa County Sheriff who misused the power of his office to target members of the MCBS for criminal investigation;
4) his duty to provide confidential, uncompromised legal advice to members of the MCBS, including Defendant, on matters forming the basis of charges in the indictment.

That's strong stuff.

Leonardo does allow that the case could be brought again if Thomas were to appoint not a special prosecutor but a wholly independent one.  Thomas would have to "relinquish total control" to that prosecutor.  

When your case is based not on evidence of corruption but on the hope of "gain[ing] political advantage," a truly independent prosecutor isn't likely to be particularly helpful.

Thomas, of course, said he plans to appeal.

And as Ron Popeil might say, "That's not all!"

Shortly after the Leonardo smackdown, Thomas himself dismissed the criminal case against Don Stapley, another of the Maricopa County Supervisors.  And then he dismissed the criminal case against Judge Gary Donahoe.

Oh, he did ask the County Supervisors for a meeting to discuss appointing special prosecutors to bring charges against them. 

Shockingly, they declined.

h/t Balco via Bobby Frederick and to Nick of dicta.

Honest and Honorable v. Andy Thomas

My near-obsession with the constitutional crisis and legal chaos in Maricopa County notwithstanding (to use a lawyer word and syntactical locution I try to avoid), I'm neither particularly knowledgeable nor particularly interested in Arizona politics. But sometimes you hear about a race or a candidate that cries out for attention.

Here's the deal. We know that Sheriff Joe's lapdog Andy Thomas has been planning to run for Arizona Attorney General. Ho hum. Thomas is truly dangerous, and probably more than just Joe's poodle, but really, who cares much about the attorney general of a distant state unless there's an obvious national hook (Martha Coakley, anyone)? And if we don't care about the AG, how worked up are we likely to be about the election? And the primary?

But as Matt Brown points out, this one could be worth watching.

Some background.

You know that old adage that any man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client? Let's talk for a bit about Tajudeen Oladiran. He's a lawyer in Chandler, a suburb it looks like from a map, of Phoenix. In July of last year, Taj, as it appears he is known, filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and his wife Charlotte Oladiran complaining about predatory lending practices and charging civil racketeering activity by Suntrust Morgtage, Inc., Suntrust Banks, Inc., and various individuals and entities (many unidentified by name, which is perfectly legal) associated with them.

Way too boring for me to wade through all the legal papers (access to which I have to actually buy at 8 cents a page, which adds up if you do enough work in federal court, but that's for another day) to give you any of the details about the case. I don't care. Unless you do that sort of legal work (or have a case against one of the Sunforest entities), you probably don't either.

Except that there's this (courtesy of Above the Law). I keep it in folder on my computer labeled "Motions to Savor" where I store legal documents that are brought to my attention and tell truths one doesn't often enough hear in the courts. It's captioned this way, which in the hands of a lesser author might be all you'd want to read:

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR A HONEST AND HONORABLE COURT SYSTEM

But Taj isn't a lesser author, and I'm going to reprint the whole body of the motion here (I am omitting the footnote) so you don't have actually to follow the link to enjoy it.

This motion is filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Tajudeen O. Oladiran, Esq. (“Mr. Oladiran” or “Taj”), pursuant to the law of, what goes around comes around. Judge Bolton, I just read your Order and I am very disappointed in the fact that a brainless coward like you is a federal judge.

I accused Suntrust Bank of racketeering etc, and many good lawyers in town told me the bank’s executives would never be deposed, and that the case would go nowhere. I stupidly stuck to the notion that everyone is equal under the law etc. Boy was I wrong. The bank cancelled depositions set by the court, cancelled a hearing set by the court, and walked away without as much as a scratch.

My thanks go out to Larry Folks and Kathleen Weber who both warned me that I would lose (I should have listened to them).

I apologize to all my clients. I know, I’m sorry does not repair the mess I made but, that’s all I’ve got.

To my family, words can’t express my apologies; please remember me kindly.

Finally, to Susan Bolton, we shall meet again you know where.

In the original, there's a smiley at the end of the last line, but I can't figure out how to get Blogger to reproduce it.

It all sounds like a valedictory, and when I first saw it, back in October, I made inquiry to ensure that Mr. Oladiran was still among the living. He is. (And so is his lawsuit, by the way, though with a different judge presiding, Judge Bolton having recused herself shortly after the motion was filed.) It also sounds like the sort of thing that gets lawyer's sanctioned for ethical violations, though there's no public evidence that Oladiran faces any such charges.

In fact (and of course there's a reason I've been telling you about this today), it seems he's running in the Republican primary for Arizona Attorney General. Against, one assumes, Andy Thomas.

Oh, and there's another candidate, too. Last Thursday, Tom Horne, Arizona's Superintendent of Schools announced his candidacy. According to the Arizona Republic,

In his announcement Thursday, Horne sought to distinguish himself from Thomas, saying the state's business climate would suffer if an "out-of-control prosecutor" became the highest-ranking law-enforcement officer in the state.

Asked whether he was referring to Thomas, Horne said only, "I'm trying to be subtle."

Of course, Thomas got his own dig right back.

In return, Thomas' camp criticized Horne's fundraising practices, noting that last year Horne retreated from a pledge to have quarterly lunches with donors who gave the maximum amount to his campaign.

A bill under consideration in the Legislature would make it a crime for elected officials to solicit contributions in exchange for access to the official.

"It's always an inauspicious start for an attorney-general campaign when you're the subject of legislation at the state Capitol for your audacious, transparent and arguably corrupt fundraising practices," said Jason Rose, a Thomas spokesman.

Like I say, I'm no expert on Arizona politics, but this primary could be fun to watch.

And if Oladiran should win? Maybe an AG who'd push for honest and honorable courts.

Maricopa - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

I've been without internet access for a few days. I return, and so do the madmen in Maricopa County where there are two important updates.

David DeCosta

Charges have been dismissed against David DeCosta.

You may remember DeCosta. He's the defense lawyer who was charged with smuggling drugs to his client, Jesse Alejandro, while the latter was in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jail. Matt Brown got savaged for his comments on it.

Well, Matt's now the first out of the gate with the news that the charges were dismissed and the wish, which he recognizes as close to fantasy, that DeCosta's being cleared will get as much publicity as his getting arrested.

DeCosta was falsely accused in a flurry of publicity, yet he was exonerated in relative obscurity. The dismissal of the case against him hasn’t received nearly enough press. It’s shameful that multiple news outlets would jump all over the case when it’s filed then ignore the dismissal altogether. It’s shameful that the first page on Google when you search for his name still includes an article containing the blatantly false claim that he admitted to receiving sexual favors as incentive.

I doubt anyone in the news media is going to pick up the story if they haven’t already. Unfortunately, that’s often the bitter reality of how criminal charges work. It’s hard to see clients endure it, and it’s no easier seeing it happen to a colleague. I truly wish DeCosta the best and hope he’s able to bounce back.

Bennett promptly joined in, with some speculation about why Sheriff Joe's boys and the Phoenix PD chose DeCosta as a target.

I don’t know why DeCosta was targeted. He may just have been convenient, the criminal defense lawyer who was nearest when the time came to show that being a criminal defense lawyer in Maricopa County is dangerous.

It’s also possible that the Phoenix cops are so incompetent that they can’t even successfully frame a guilty man.

I like to think, though, that David DeCosta became the object of Phoenix law enforcement’s unwanted attentions by working harder than they liked, and being more successful than they liked, at defending his clients—in other words, that David was attacked because he was doing his job too well.

And Greenfield notes that the DeCosta mess ultimately helped focus our attention on the extent to which Sheriff Joe and his henchmen aren't just crazy and corrupt but are, in fact, an actual danger to constitutional order.

Matt, a young but tough criminal defense lawyer, got ripped by fellow criminal defense lawyers for posting about DeCosta's arrest. He was slammed hard for not writing about how DeCosta was innocent, how the allegations were lies, how he relied on a report from the Arizona Republic rather than investigate all the facts on his own. Mind you, none of his detractors provided comments showing the merit of their claims. Their only purpose was to go after Matt for commenting on a story in the paper, one that was quite similar to another criminal defense lawyer, Jason Keller, who had pleaded guilty to the crime.

But the poor showing by the locals in their attacks on Matt opened another door, one that spread nearly viral across the internet, about how the rest of us didn't grasp just how bad Sheriff Joe Arpaio was. While we knew about Crazy Joe, they were right. We didn't grasp the depth of the problem. On the other hand, they didn't grasp the depth of their misdirected anger. Without this level of anger, however, there's a good chance that the situation in Maricopa County would not have had the staying power to grab and hold the attention of so many blawgers and others across the country. Silver lining to the cloud.

In passing, Greenfield also observed that the brief story in the Arizona Republic contains this altogether misleading last paragraph.

According to a spokesman for the Pinal County Attorney's Office, the charges were dropped without prejudice for lack of evidence, which means they can be filed again if further evidence emerges.

He tells his readers to

[i]gnore the end of the last sentence, reflecting mere poor reporting and a dumb as dirt reporter who doesn't understand that cases dismissed before jeopardy attaches are inherently "without prejudice," not because there's any expectation that new evidence might emerge. It was a gratuitous, and dopey, inclusion that marred an otherwise triumphant report.

But it goes back to Matt Brown's point about how criminal charges haunt and damage. Exonerations don't have the same force. Wonder what I mean? Take a look at the comment by one "WileE" to the Republic story.

coz - If the charges were frivolous, they would have been dismissed WITH prejudice so no new prosecution could be brought.

The fact that charges here were dismissed WITHOUT prejudice shows there is validity to them. But apparently the Pinal county attorney wasn't prepared to get a conviction, so the judges is leaving the door open in case he can get his act together.

Which is the same as what happened with Dowling, and the reason Thomas has outside attorneys handling Stapley and Wilcox.

We are tired of incompetent local attorneys blowing these cases.

Got that.

Couple bad reporting with ignorance and the message is that an exoneration proves guilt.

Andy Thomas

It's been no secret that Maricopa County Attorney Andy Thomas, Radley Balko calls him Sheriff Joe's enabler, wants to be Arizona's next attorney general. The catch is that he has to run for the office. And to do that, under Arizona law, he has to step down from his current job. No big deal. I mean, it's not like the mortgage payments can't get made during the campaign. Except, well, who'll be doing Joe's dirty work?

Let's take a moment to regroup.

Arizona law says that when the county attorney resigns, the county supervisors appoint the successor, who serves until the next election. But Thomas doesn't like the Maricopa County Supervisors. Hell, he's got two of them under indictment and has four civil lawsuits against all five of the Supervisors. And even if the cases are all somewhere between frivolous and nonsense (which seems likely, but far be it from me to trash Andy's integrity), there's something messy about the Supervisors picking the guy who'll be in charge of the litigation against them.

So Andy sent the Supervisors a letter telling them that they can't fill his slot, no matter what the law says. He has a couple of solutions to offer:

• He can stay in office.
• The governor can appoint his successor.
• The court can appoint his successor.

In essence, Andy wants to be sure that his successor will do his bidding. As the Republic gently puts it, "[H]e wants a role in picking his successor."

Of course, Andy doesn't like to sue the Supervisors, so he suggests mediation. It's not at all clear just what mediation might entail here. Usually, mediation is a process designed to achieve some kind of compromise with which everyone can live. In this case, that would seem to be something like having the Supervisors agree that Thomas can stay on while he runs for office. And reappoint him before he resigns, so there won't be any glitch.

Not shockingly, the Supervisors declined the invitation. Until you resign, they said, there's nothing for us to do. And when you do, well, "[A]ll of our actions will be lawful and ethical."

I'm glad that's cleared up. As Ray Stern wrote for Valley Fever in New Times yesterday,

Listen closely tonight and you may hear the sound of a new lawsuit being typed up over at Thomas' office...