Liberal Activist Judges in Arizona Allow Fraud

Maricopa County officials have voted to retain a mediator to approve payouts to themselves of frivolous claims against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Such blatant self-dealing by government officials was made possible by Arizona's judiciary - including some of the judges now seeking millions of dollars in greedy, undeserved payouts.

As part of his campaign for Attorney General, which includes a promise to seek judicial reform, Andrew Thomas noted today that the $46 million fraud on the taxpayers now occurring in Maricopa County is the result of an unaccountable state judiciary.

Today's column by Laurie Roberts in the Arizona Republic, "County officials stand to score with claims as taxpayers pay," discussed how Maricopa County officials have voted to retain a mediator to approve payouts to themselves of frivolous claims against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas. The officials have rigged the system so they can avoid going to court like anyone else and testifying under oath. The claimants seeking these taxpayer payouts are two county politicians twice indicted by a Maricopa County grand jury (Donald Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox), a convicted felon (Conley Wolfswinkel), and employees and public officials who claim they each can collect millions of taxpayer dollars for the "distress" caused by being questioned or scrutinized by police officers or sued in a court of law.

Worse yet, all of the claims involve criminal investigations that are ongoing and would be barred by immunity laws designed to protect police and prosecutors from frivolous lawsuits. But if Arpaio and Thomas don't go along with this underhanded system, the lawyer representing the Board of Supervisors has threatened they will settle the claims anyhow and go after the sheriff and former county attorney personally. And the Board of Supervisors refuses to appoint a lawyer to represent Arpaio and Thomas and the interests of the taxpayers.

How has such a thing happened? Such blatant self-dealing by government officials was made possible by Arizona's judiciary - including some of the judges now seeking millions of dollars in greedy, undeserved payouts.

Working with the Maricopa County judiciary, the Board of Supervisors has usurped the powers of the County Attorney's Office to gain total control over county litigation. As a result, they're finally in a position to pay themselves millions of dollars in taxpayer money without any check on their abuse of power for baseless claims that otherwise would be dismissed from court.

In December 2008, Arpaio and Thomas sued the Board of Supervisors when they voted to "fire" Thomas as their lawyer in retaliation for the indictment of Supervisor Donald Stapley. The board's actions plainly violated Arizona's statutes and prior court rulings. Recent revelations by the Arizona Republic have validated the criminal prosecution of Stapley in particular, the action that touched off the retaliation and lawsuits.

However, Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell circumvented the court's own "blind draw" system, which allows for the random selection of judges, and handpicked a retired judge, Donald Daughton, to hear the case. A liberal activist judge who has contributed to the campaigns of Barack Obama and U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, Daughton struck down legal restrictions on abortion passed by the Legislature in 2009. A federal judge, in contrast, refused to do so.

Daughton allowed the board's firing of Thomas due to alleged ethical misconduct by Thomas. However, he never explained what that conduct was. One of the nation's preeminent experts on legal ethics, Peter Jarvis, has stated under oath that Thomas had done nothing wrong. The record shows that, when asked by Thomas's attorneys in open court to state Thomas's alleged violations, Daughton could not explain.

As a result of this ruling, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has achieved total control over county litigation. This allows them to pay themselves and their friends these payouts - including Judge Mundell, whose appointment of Daughton makes this travesty possible.

Arizona's appellate courts have not addressed the situation. After accepting a special action appeal filed by Thomas, the Arizona Court of Appeals has not issued a ruling for almost a year - even though such appeals are supposed to be expedited. This is despite the crisis in Maricopa County government and the scam now being done on county taxpayers. Why? The Court of Appeals faces an awkward choice. It could ratify Daughton's ruling. But this would uphold an activist ruling that ignores state statutes passed by the Legislature, and would allow such power grabs to occur in the other 14 counties in Arizona. The alternative: The Court of Appeals would have to admit that Thomas was right, at least in part. Consequently, the Court of Appeals has done nothing.

It's become increasingly clear that left-wing activist members of Arizona's judiciary will do virtually anything to prevent Thomas's election as Attorney General and to bedevil Sheriff Arpaio because of their crackdowns on illegal immigration and investigations of judicial corruption.

A Pima County judge ruled that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors can subpoena documents from Arpaio, hold a court hearing if Sheriff Arpaio doesn't comply, and even find him in contempt by acting as a quasi-judicial officer. Such a ruling violates the Separation of Powers Clause in the Arizona Constitution and any notion of due process going back to the Magna Carta. But since Arpaio is the target, it is allowed.

Chief Deputy Sheriff David Hendershott filed detailed, documented and well-grounded ethics complaints against the four judges now seeking payouts from Maricopa County taxpayers. Notably, four esteemed experts in legal and judicial ethics from across the nation opined under oath that one judge, Kenneth Fields, was ethically required to recuse himself from the first Stapley criminal case. Fields declined to do so. Other judges now also seeking payouts from county taxpayers refused to allow a hearing challenging Fields' decision. Fields ultimately dismissed numerous criminal counts based on novel reasoning, forcing prosecutors to dismiss the case and appeal it. The experts who stated Fields was required to recuse himself from the first Stapley case included a former Supreme Court justice in Oregon, a former presiding judge from Detroit, Michigan, and Mr. Jarvis. Despite all of this, Arizona's Commission on Judicial Conduct, run by Arizona judges, summarily dismissed Hendershott's complaints in a whitewash.

A Pima County judge, John Leonardo, threw out a Maricopa County grand jury's indictment of Mary Rose Wilcox, claiming there was evidence of "political retaliation" by Thomas. However, in response to Thomas's challenge to Arizona journalists, not a single reporter or commentator has been able to find evidence in the record to support such findings. Leonardo's activist ruling invalidated the actions of Maricopa County's grand jury and falsely accused Thomas and Arpaio of misconduct for which there is no evidence. In contrast, at a press conference last week, Arpaio and Thomas released new evidence in support of their RICO lawsuit and criminal case against Maricopa County Judge Gary Donahoe.

The State Bar, an arm of the judiciary, has launched yet another election-year investigation of Thomas. This time, the nation's preeminent expert on legal ethics and constitutional law, Ronald Rotunda, has stated under oath the investigation is illegal and unconstitutional, violating the Supreme Court's own rules.

Unlike in the other 13 counties, judges in Maricopa and Pima County are not elected by the citizens but chosen essentially by left-of-center insiders. The same is true of Arizona's appeals court judges. Recent activist rulings reflect this process and lack of accountability to the public. It has become increasingly evident that virtually any claim or attack on Arpaio or Thomas will be sympathetically received by large swaths of Arizona's unaccountable judiciary, no matter how ludicrous, no matter what the facts or the law require. Critics of Arpaio and Thomas have taken advantage of the void, exploiting the situation to amass power at the expense of taxpayers.

As a result, there's the imminent prospect of $46 million in taxpayer payouts to county officials, judges and their associates for bogus legal claims. Arpaio and Thomas aren't even given lawyers to challenge the action. And the courts allow it all.

Thomas has battled leading members of the judiciary to ensure enforcement of voter-approved crackdowns on illegal immigration. To address liberal judicial activism, Thomas has promised to pursue judicial and State Bar reform if elected Attorney General to improve the accountability to the public of judges and attorneys. Thomas's plan would give voters more information about judges so they can make appropriate decisions in judicial retention elections, which are currently a farce. As Thomas campaigns throughout Arizona, complaints about lack of information regarding judges at election time resound through one town hall and meeting house after another. Thomas alone has a plan to address this situation.

That is one tangled and corrupt mess. We have a McCain supporter or two here who have presented this as a clear cut case of misconduct by Sheriff Joe and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas (and current candidate for state AG), but it does seem to be much more complicated than that. What a shock!

Thomas and Arpaio are enforcing the illegal alien laws.

The open borders powers-that-be in Arizona are planning to destroy both men.

” Thomas and Arpaio are enforcing the illegal alien laws.

The open borders powers-that-be in Arizona are planning to destroy both men. “

And they will fail.

Yes she can, and is already doing so.

Today she called Obama a liar, and his speech on immigration “pitiful”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.