Homeless in Arizona

Disbarred Maricopa County Attorney Thomas to run for governor

Of course I wouldn't like him any better then Hitler, Bush, Mecham or Brewer. But Steve Benson would have 4 years of editorial cartoonist fun making fun of the moron in the Republic editorial cartoons

Source

Disbarred former Maricopa County Attorney Thomas to run for governor

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:14 PM

Disbarred former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has announced he will run for governor in 2014.

In an e-mail to members of the media, the Republican said he file paperwork today with the Secretary of State’s Office.

“I’ll be focusing on the need to protect public safety, ensure border security and fight corruption, among other issues,” Thomas said in the e-mail. “Voters will be urged to watch the video of my State Bar hearing and see for themselves how honest prosecutors are railroaded for fighting corruption in this state.”

Thomas served as county attorney from 2005 until he resigned in 2010 to unsuccessfully run for Arizona attorney general. He was stripped of his law license last year after a court panel found he acted unethically.

Thomas was once a conservative Republican icon, making his name pushing immigration control at the state and county levels. His political downfall came after he was accused of using his prosecutorial powers while in office for political purposes.

A disciplinary panel convened by the Arizona Supreme Court found clear and convincing evidence of ethical misconduct that merited disbarment.

Among the most serious findings were that he and his former prosecutors pressed unwarranted criminal charges, obtained indictments, filed a federal racketeering lawsuit and initiated investigations against his political enemies and those of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio from 2006 to 2010. Targets included judges, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and other county officials.

Thomas did not respond to an e-mail from The Arizona Republic seeking additional comment about his decision to run for governor.

Thomas joins a growing list of candidates.

Democrat and former Arizona Board of Regents Chairman Fred DuVal, Republican and former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman and Americans Elect party candidate John Mealer have already formally filed to run. Republicans Sen. Al Melvin and Secretary of State Ken Bennett have formed exploratory committees, and numerous others have indicated an interest.

Andrew (Evan) Thomas (Mecham) for Governor

Andrew (Evan) Thomas (Mecham) for Governor

Andrew Thomas is Evan Mecham.

He may not know it. And unless you were living here in the late 1980s you may not know it either. But he is.

He is one of those politicians who comes around in Arizona every decade or so. (Or is it every year? Or every month? Or every minute?) Anyway, we get these politicians who adopt an extreme philosophy that catches on with a portion of the population. They rocket into the political stratosphere, self-destruct, and then, while plummeting back to earth, blame a conspiracy of “them” for the flame-out.

In the 1980s, after Mecham was impeached and removed from office he said, “I was in their way when I came in and followed through on my campaign promises. It didn’t take me too long to find out how this state operated.”

Andrew Thomas, the disbarred former Maricopa County Attorney who now wants to be governor saw the same type of conspiracy after he was dumped from the legal profession for having used his office to pursue political vendettas.

“Arizona continues to have some of the worst corruption in America,” he said.

Thomas played the martyr, like Mecham.

After being caught up in a shaky campaign loan and charges of obstruction of justice, Mecham said, “This whole thing (his impeachment) is a cooked-up deal.”

Thomas was even more sanctimonious.

“Other men, far greater than I, have gone to jail in defense of principles they believed in and so they would not kowtow to a corrupt ruler,” he said. “People like Gandhi, people like Dr. King, people like Solzhenitsyn, people like Thomas More, people who stood for something….and I’m going to stand firm.”

Gandhi?

Dr. King?

(Ironically, Mecham’s first act as governor was to rescind the previous governor’s decree of a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.)

Mecham said his downfall was due to the “pure and simple raw political power exercised by those groups who wanted to remain in control.”

Thomas, in turn, said, “The state Bar is run by a small clique of criminal defense lawyers and ACLU left-wing partisans who detest this office and my policies. And giving such people absolute regulatory power over the prosecutor’s office is to invite a debacle, and a debacle is what we have in my case.”

A debacle is also what we may have in the Republican primary for governor.

With that in mind, I asked readers on azcentral.com and Facebook to submit suggestions for an Andrew Thomas campaign slogan.

One suggested slogan, from reader Dave Smith, echoed the feelings of many readers:

“Just when you thought the bar (no pun intended) couldn’t be set any lower…”

John Walker came up with, “Who better to fight corruption than someone totally familiar with it?”

Reader Mike Martinez borrowed a line from the television series “Breaking Bad.”

His suggestion was: “You don’t want a criminal lawyer; you want a criminal lawyer.”

Not all of the suggestions were uncomplimentary. Although you probably could take this Thomas campaign slogan offered by reader Debbie Slater either way:

“Vote for me, at least I’m not a Democrat.”

Reader Carole Rosenblat suggested: “Helping keep Arizona politics embarrassing for years to come.”

John Juarez thought a line from the Marx Brothers might be appropriate:

“If you think this country’s messed up now, just wait ’til I get through with it.”

A few readers suggested a more direct approach.

Vicki Venhuizen’s idea was: “I’m Broke, Vote for Me!”

And I heard from several readers who were around during the Mecham era and thought Thomas could borrow the former governor’s much-repeated excuse in which he shifted the blame to his brother. One man told me he still had a bumper sticker from those days that Thomas could replicate. It reads:

“Willard did it.”

My personal favorite, however, comes from reader Juli Myers, who decided that a variation of the late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1960 Republican convention speech might be appropriate for the Thomas campaign. She suggests:

“Corruption in the defense of insanity is no vice.”

(Column for May 2, 2013, Arizona Republic)

Maricopa County to settles Andrew Thomas Sheriff Joe lawsuit

County to settle another lawsuit over Thomas-Arpaio corruption probes

By Michael Kiefer and Michelle Ye Hee Lee The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:26 PM

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors reached settlement Friday in the next to the last of the lawsuits filed in the wake of the 2008-09 battles among former County Attorney and current gubernatorial hopeful Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio with county officials, judges and citizens associated with them.

Conley Wolfswinkel, a longtime Valley land developer, and two of his sons will receive $1.4 million to compensate for search warrants served on the developers’ offices by sheriff’s deputies looking for evidence of fraud. Wolfswinkel was a friend and business associate of former County Supervisor Don Stapley. Stapley, incidentally, is the remaining claimant against the county who has not yet settled.

“The board voted to settle this case to avoid incurring additional attorneys’ fees including the possible imposition of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees at trial,” said county spokeswoman Cari Gerchick. “The cost to the county of defending this case is significant because there are seven different defendants who each required separate attorneys.”

Wolfswinkel’s is the ninth settlement stemming from the so-called corruption investigations carried out by Thomas’ and Arpaio’s offices. The county has now paid $4,190,110 in settlements for the lawsuits, according to Gerchick. Another settlement offer — $975,000 — approved for Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox has not been paid and is being disputed in court. Those totals do not include millions of dollars more in attorneys’ fees for the plaintiffs and costs to defend the county against the lawsuits.

“Conley and the family felt obligated to try to right this wrong,” said Lawrence Wright, one of the Wolfswinkels’ attorneys. “They felt the need to take a stand against the reign of terror that was being conducted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas.”

Thomas still contends that he was only doing his job, rooting out corruption. He filed criminal charges against Stapley, Wilcox and Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, and filed a civil racketeering lawsuit in federal court against those same defendants and others. Many of the allegations had to do with the construction of the Superior Court’s south tower, which is now in service.

Thomas and one of his deputies were disbarred because of those actions; another deputy was sanctioned. Former sheriff’s Chief Deputy David Hendershott, who helped mastermind the corruption investigations, was fired.

Thomas announced Thursday that he will run for governor of Arizona.

Stapley was indicted twice. At the time that search warrants were served on the Wolfswinkels, Stapley faced 118 criminal counts related to properties and real-estate deals that prosecutors said he did not include in his annual financial-disclosure forms. Some of those deals related to business associations with Wolfswinkel, who was convicted of felony check-kiting in the 1990s and was a figure in the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s.

According to a search-warrant affidavit from 2009, investigators were looking for evidence of fraud and bribery involving Wolfswinkel. Investigators also believed Stapley voted on “land-related issues” regarding property in which he had business interests.

All of the criminal charges and the racketeering suit were dismissed.

Sanctions upheld against Thomas aide Alexander

Source

Sanctions upheld against Thomas aide Alexander

By Sean Holstege The Republic | azcentral.com Thu May 2, 2013 9:57 PM

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld sanctions Thursday against a former Maricopa County prosecutor who was involved in then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ corruption investigations against judges and county officials.

After a lengthy 2012 hearing, Rachel Alexander was suspended for six months and a day by a court disciplinary panel for her role in bringing a doomed federal racketeering lawsuit against Thomas’ perceived political enemies.

However, the high court reduced the suspension by one day. That means Alexander won’t have to go through a rigorous rehabilitation to work again as a lawyer. The judges reasoned that such penalties have been reserved for cases when a lawyer knowingly misled a jury. She was also ordered to take 10 hours of ethics course work.

The court agreed that Alexander violated six rules of conduct. Her transgressions include filing a frivolous case, incompetence and interfering with the course of justice.

Judges wrote that Alexander had not exhibited a pattern of misconduct or acted with malice or dishonestly. Nor had she breached four other rules of conduct, the court ruled, reversing the findings of the court’s Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, after an independent investigation on behalf of the State Bar of Arizona.

Thursday’s rulings stem from Alexander’s handling of a 2009 civil Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organizations case that fizzled three months after it was filed.

“Alexander’s most serious misconduct was maintaining the RICO lawsuit while knowing it lacked legal and factual merit, thereby violating the duties she owed to the public and the legal system,” the court ruled.

In that case, then-Deputy County Attorney Lisa Abuchon alleged that county officials, including elected supervisors, conspired with their attorneys to commit bribery and extortion. The theory was that county officials were illegally trying to thwart a joint investigation by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and County Attorney’s Office into corruption allegations related to the building of a new court tower.

When the case went nowhere, the county attorneys added the names of judges to the list of defendants. The case was dropped, and none of the allegations stuck.

Abuchon and Thomas were disbarred. Abuchon appealed, and that case is pending. Thomas did not. Last week, another deputy county attorney and Alexander’s boss, Peter Spaw, accepted a two-year probation for his role.

Alexander could not be reached by phone or e-mail for reaction to the decision, which can only be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In her appeal to the state Supreme Court, Alexander tried to shift blame onto superiors. She argued that she acted on their advice and under their direction.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

“She was ethically required to assess her legal skill level and refuse the assignment as beyond her capabilities,” the court wrote.

It based that finding on the fact that Alexander had never tried a case. Before taking over from Abuchon, she had served on a grant committee, worked on the department’s social-media outreach and made community presentations.

The court noted that Spaw and outside attorneys told Alexander that the racketeering complaint was “dead on arrival” and that she needed to beef up the allegations with solid facts or it would be like “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”

But, in preparing a motion to keep the case alive, Alexander never got Abuchon’s investigative file, help from case investigators or saw a police report, the court found. Instead, when asked in an earlier disciplinary hearing to back up the allegations, she could not recall specific facts and vaguely cited “hundreds of documents.”

Lives were damaged by her refusal to drop the case. The court cited three examples:

A lawyer accused of bribing a judge spent $300,000 to clear his name and had his reputation maligned.

A judge “became severely depressed.”

Another judge resigned rather than let her presence on the bench tarnish the court and her colleagues.

“Alexander impeded the administration of justice by demonstrating to all judges in Maricopa County that they risked having to defend against a civil damages suit if they made rulings that displeased MCAO,” the court ruled.

Phoenix City Council members are gun grabbers

Source

Phoenix police to hold gun-buyback event Saturday

New law soon will hinder similar efforts

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Fri May 3, 2013 10:11 PM

Three months before a new state law goes into effect requiring police to sell any weapon they receive, Phoenix officials plan to destroy as many guns as residents bring them.

Those efforts begin Saturday with a gun buyback at three churches in the city, and two more events are scheduled later this month.

After that, gun buybacks coordinated with Phoenix police will likely cease.

A law Gov. Jan Brewer signed this week requires police to sell any weapons they receive, whether the guns are abandoned, lost or forfeited to the agency through a court order. A bill with the same intent — requiring agencies to sell weapons instead of destroying them — was approved last year, but officials in Phoenix, Tucson and other cities took a literal reading of that legislation and determined that it applied only to weapons that departments receive through court-ordered forfeiture.

Police have until the new law takes effect to continue their current practices. In Phoenix, that means destroying weapons.

“There’s been no emergency clause indicating that (the law) is going to go into effect immediately,” Phoenix police Sgt. Steve Martos said of the legislation.

The checks that police want to run on each weapon, which include records queries to ensure that the gun was not reported stolen and a ballis-tics test to determine if the weapon was used in a crime, will take additional time, Martos said.

“Obviously, there’s a little bit of pressure,” said Martos, a department spokesman.

The buyback is anonymous, with no information collected on the donor, and police ask that weapons arrive unloaded and in a trunk or pickup bed where officers can safely remove the guns.

As long as the guns are functioning, they can be exchanged for gift cards.

“It’ll almost be like a drive-through process,” Martos said.

The buybacks should not result in additional costs for police personnel.

The events will be staffed with Phoenix’s neighborhood-enforcement team officers who would already be on the clock and do not typically have “first-responder” duties, Martos said.

A group called Arizonans for Gun Safety donated $100,000 to purchase grocery-store gift cards that will be given out in exchange for weapons, including $200 for assault weapons and $100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles.

That’s far more than police have offered at similar past events, Martos said.

Phoenix police brought in a little more than 200 weapons at the city’s last buyback in 2011, when they had $10,000 worth of gift cards.

“We almost had to start turning people away because we were running out of gift cards,” Martos said.

An event in Tucson in January produced similar results — about 200 weapons for $10,000 worth of grocery gift cards — but came with an unanticipated wave of controversy.

Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik organized the event, which was paid for through private donations he coordinated in about two weeks.

Charles Heller, spokesman for a Tucson-based non-profit that promotes gun rights, said the event was a self-gratifying effort put on by people who want to believe that removing a few hundred weapons from circulation could somehow impact the crime rate.

The new legislation has spurred Tucson residents into action, Kozachik said.

He added that there is no shortage of ideas about how to get around the new law, including suggestions that the weapons be auctioned with a minimum bid of $100,000 to thwart buyers or sold for 1 cent to artists who will melt them down and use them in installations.

He applauded Phoenix’s effort to beat the legislative clock.

The buyback events will be held at from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Southminster Presbyterian, 1923 E. Broadway; Sunnyslope Mennonite Church, 9835 N. Seventh St.; and BetaniaPresbyterian, 2811 N. 39th Ave.

For more information, call 602-547-0976 or go to www.azfgs.com.

8 Reasons not to vote for Andrew Thomas for Governor

Top Eight Reasons Why Nobody Should Vote for Andrew Thomas for Governor in 2014

By Ray Stern Fri., Apr. 26 2013 at 5:33 PM

Andrew Thomas is running for governor. Here are our eight top reasons why he shouldn't get a single vote.

Andrew Thomas followed up on last year's rumor that he might run for governor with an official announcement today.

Knowing that anything's possible in Arizona, the so-called meth lab of democracy, we thought we'd put out this helpful voting guide.

So, without further ado, we offer you our best eight reasons why you'd have to be nuts to vote for Thomas:

See also: Andrew Thomas, Disbarred and Disgraced Ex-Prosecutor, Is Actually Running for Governor

8. Two words: Cuckoo, cuckoo. When we heard he'd announced, we grew more worried than ever for his mental health. Powerful evidence he's lost it: Thomas said he believes a survey would show he's the most popular candidate among voters for the 2014 election. Since his disbarment, Thomas has been known to bring a piece of lumber to interviews like he thinks he's Buford Pusser.

7. He's a loser. Sure, Thomas won two elections to become county attorney, in 2004 and 2008. But his political career is better defined by his losses. Thomas blew a bid for Arizona attorney general in 2002, failing to win against Democrat Terry Goddard. Seeing that his political career was on shaky ground following his legal abuses from 2008-2010, Thomas resigned from his office in April of 2010 and launched another campaign for state attorney general. It was close, but he lost to Tom Horne. A couple of years later, Thomas lost the biggest the fight of his life -- for his law license. Thomas didn't even bother to appeal the state's decision to disbar him.

6. Thomas is a Harvard-educated moron. You know what we mean -- he's book-smart and very well-educated, but without a lick of common sense. Why did he think launching a dirty attack on a newspaper that criticized him (this one) would be a good idea? Of course he ended up making a public apology for that one. Stoo-pid!

5. Thomas has displayed a severe lack of judgment in picking his allies. He put a great deal of his trust in Dave Hendershott, Sheriff Arpaio's ultra-shady former chief deputy, who told others that Thomas was an "idiot."

4. Maricopa County voters have long though of themselves as "tough on crime." Thomas, an ideologue who once wrote a book on crime that suggested a return to public stockades, took the concept to abusive ends. He failed to make plea deals when appropriate, threw the book at nearly everyone and brought criminal charges when none were warranted. "He horrendously overcharged cases," says Valley lawyer Marc Victor. Back in 2007, Victor represented a woman who's brother loaded a gun without the woman's knowledge, leading to an accident in which the woman grazed her daughter with a bullet. Thomas' office wanted the woman convicted for a designated "dangerous" offense that would have given her mandatory prison time, even though the daughter hadn't wanted to press charges.

3. The bigoted policies he pushed against undocumented immigrants were a failure. Immigrant criminals were not deterred by the possibility that they might not be able to post bail. Immigrant smugglers continued to work the Phoenix metro area; the general decline in immigrants of the past few years is due to the weaker economy and boosted border enforcement, not fear of Thomas or Sheriff Arpaio. A scheme started by Thomas and continued by County Attorney Bill Montgomery that jails and prosecutes low-level immigrants for conspiracy to smuggle themselves into the country has brought only extra suffering to would-be workers, not stemmed the tide of immigrants.

2. Thomas is dishonest. He's a disgrace to the legal profession. He's a liar. He's a perjurer. He's a corrupt politician and grand-stander. He's incompetent. He's vindictive. He's a bad lawyer, in general. And that's just what the legal panel that disbarred him had to say about him. Some folks think he's even worse.

1. His misguided sense of "justice" and inability to play nice with others has cost Maricopa County many millions of dollars. The financial damage he could cause to the state if put in an even more powerful position could run into the billions. Just today, the Board of Supervisors voted to approve a hefty, $1.4 million settlement to more of the victims of Thomas and Arpaio's ill-fated political schemes. As we noted in a blog post about the settlement, Arizona simply could not afford Thomas as governor.

Imprisoned at Guantanamo - America's Honor!!!!

San Jose cop frames man for rape with phoney lab report!!!

Next if you are naive as a 3 year old you probably think San Jose Police officer Sgt. Matthew Christian was fired and sent to prison for his crimes. Again don't make me laugh!!!

However, the police officer, Sgt. Matthew Christian, remains on the job and is now assigned to the Traffic Investigations Unit, said SJPD spokesman Albert Morales.

In hopes of extracting a confession, Christian created a "ruse" crime report indicating that Kerkeles' semen had been found on a blanket, while the actual report revealed no semen. Such a tactic is legal -- at that stage of a case.

If you read up on the "9 Step Reid Method" you will discover it is a modern variation of the old "beat em with a rubber hose" method used to get confessions by the police.

Only the physical rubber hose is replaced with a "mental rubber hose", and the physical beating is replaced by a "mental beating".

The "9 Step Reid Method" routinely gets false confessions.

Source

San Jose poised to settle case involving cop and phony lab report

By Tracey Kaplan

tkaplan@mercurynews.com

Posted: 05/06/2013 06:12:00 PM PDT

SAN JOSE -- A local man who was held over for trial on the basis of a phony lab report cooked up by a police officer and presented in court by a prosecutor is poised to win a legal settlement with the city for $150,000.

On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council is expected to approve the settlement with Michael Kerkeles of San Jose. Under the agreement, the city must also pay Kerkeles' legal fees, which could be at least $1 million because the federal civil rights case dragged on for six years and included a hard-fought appeal.

Kerkeles declined to comment, but one of his lawyers said the case has taken a major toll on him. Not only was Kerkeles at work when the sexual assault of a developmentally disabled woman supposedly occurred, the lawyer said, but his wife also was in her home office, steps from where the alleged rape took place.

"It's a significant sum, but Mr. Kerkeles certainly wouldn't trade the money he got for what he went through," lawyer Matt Davis said.

Fake crime report

The evidence that Kerkeles' rights had been violated was bolstered last year when prosecutor Jaime Stringfield admitted she misled the court about the lab report. She was suspended for a month by the state Supreme Court, based on a recommendation by the State Bar, which licenses attorneys. She had already resigned from the District Attorney's Office to pursue a teaching career, but is currently licensed to practice law.

However, the police officer, Sgt. Matthew Christian, remains on the job and is now assigned to the Traffic Investigations Unit, said SJPD spokesman Albert Morales.

The injustice unfolded after Kerkeles was accused in 2005 of sexually assaulting the developmentally disabled neighbor with the mental acuity of a 7-year-old.

In hopes of extracting a confession, Christian created a "ruse" crime report indicating that Kerkeles' semen had been found on a blanket, while the actual report revealed no semen. Such a tactic is legal -- at that stage of a case.

Kerkeles asked for an attorney, so the report was never actually used as a ruse. Instead, it was presented in court after the District Attorney's Office lost two preliminary hearings in the case.

'Huge mistake'

On both occasions, the judge found the woman was not a competent witness and there was insufficient evidence to hold Kerkeles over for trial on charges.

But at the third preliminary hearing, then-prosecutor Stringfield elicited testimony from officer Christian regarding the contents of the ruse report. The officer's testimony was that semen had been found on the blanket, prompting the court to find there was probable cause to hold Kerkeles over for trial.

"In our view, that was a huge mistake," San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle said, referring to the presentation of the phony document in court and Sgt. Matthew Christian's testimony about it.

There were several indications that the report was false. For one thing, the officer used a phony name for the crime lab analyst. It was also dated within a day of the evidence being seized -- contrary to normal DNA examinations, which take considerably longer to complete. Stringfield had in her file a real report that did not find semen on the bedspread.

"It's a good number ($150,000) to settle the case for," the city attorney said, "given the (legal) risks."

Contact Tracey Kaplan at 408-278-3482. Follow her at Twitter.com/tkaplanreport.

AZ deputy from Glendale pleads guilty in assault in N.D.

Former AZ deputy from Glendale pleads guilty in assault in N.D.

Associated Press Tue May 7, 2013 9:44 AM

An Arizona sheriff’s deputy accused of driving to North Dakota and assaulting a man who had an affair with his wife has pleaded guilty to felony aggravated assault.

A sentencing date was not immediately set for 41-year-old Timothy Abrahamson, of Glendale, Ariz. He faces up to five years in prison.

Abrahamson was accused of driving to West Fargo last September and confronting Jason Swart in Swart’s driveway. Court documents state Swart lost part of an ear in the assault.

The Forum newspaper reports (http://bit.ly/13f8fdo) that Swart was a high school classmate of Abrahamson’s wife.

Abrahamson no longer works for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in Arizona.

———

Information from: The Forum, http://www.in-forum.com

Source Former Arizona sheriff's deputy pleads guilty in West Fargo attack

FARGO – A former sheriff’s deputy for Maricopa County in Arizona pleaded guilty Monday in a Cass County court case that alleges he drove to West Fargo to beat up a man who slept with his wife.

Timothy Abrahamson, 41, of Glendale, Ariz. pleaded guilty to one count of Class C felony aggravated assault.

Charging documents state Abrahamson drove to West Fargo Sept. 16 and confronted the victim, Jason Swart, in the driveway of Swart’s home.

Swart, an high school classmate of Abrahamson’s wife, reconnected with her on Facebook. Court documents state Swart lost part of an ear in the assault.

The judge ordered a presentencing investigation. A sentencing date hasn’t been set.

Why does justice take so long and cost so much?

I suspect the legal system is pretty much the same. It has evolved from serving the people, to serving the judges, lawyers and government bureaucrats that run it.

Source

Posted on May 10, 2013 2:36 pm by Robert Robb

Arias trial: Why does justice take so long and cost so much?

From the political notebook:

* I watched not a minute of the Arias trial. I followed the news about it only casually and haphazardly. It was a cultural phenomenon I was quite happy to just pass me by.

In the aftermath, what strikes my dull mind is the timeline and cost.

Travis Alexander was killed June 4, 2008, four years and 11 months ago. Jodi Arias was arrested for the murder July 15, 2008, four years and nearly 10 months ago. It was another three and a half years before she came to trial. The trial took another 4 months. It cost taxpayers millions.

Did it really require nearly five years and millions of dollars to decide whether Arias did the deed? [A good example is the OJ trail. Even if OJ was innocent, the legal system is so expensive that it bankrupted him. For poor people who can't afford lawyers, the system usually just railroads them, because they don't have any money for the lawyers to grab]

The Arias trial is, of course, a monumental exception. Most criminal cases are disposed of through assembly-line justice. An overworked prosecutor strikes a plea bargain with an overworked public defender in a case regarding which both have only a passing familiarity. [I think 99 percent of the criminal cases are done with plea bargains. People cop pleas because they can't afford a lawyer to properly defend themselves. And sadly most of these people were not arrested for real crimes, but for victimless drug war crimes.]

Does justice have to take so long and cost so much? Has it gotten so expensive that we can only afford it as an exception rather than the rule?

The same question plagues the civil justice system, except that there isn’t really an official assembly-line alternative. The civil justice system has become a place where large corporations can settle business disputes and severely injured people can receive compensation. The process is just too expensive and time-consuming for anyone else. [One way around this is to use binding arbitration, which is offered, not by the government, but by the private sector. And ALL the parties must agree in advance to the conditions.]

So, we now have criminal and civil justice systems that don’t really dispense justice for average Jacks and Jills.

That’s obviously not a good thing. The problem with reform is that doing anything meaningful would probably require rethinking the adversarial ethos that is the heart of the American justice system.

In our system each side gets a lawyer-gladiator who is supposed to do his best, not to ensure that truth emerges, but to get the best result for his side. Public prosecutors are supposed to keep an eye out for justice, but the competitive nature of the process distorts the lens through which that is evaluated. [That's a lie. Public prosecutors look out for themselves and the government, not the people they pretend to serve. I have posted numerous articles where people were framed by prosecutors who hid evidence that would have set them free. As of now 300+ people have been freed from death row when DNA testing proved they were framed by the police and prosecutors. I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg]

In the American credo, everyone deserves his day in court, so there is great caution about limiting what the lawyer-gladiators can do. The result, however, is a justice system that is too costly and time-consuming for most people and most disputes.

Someone needs to be thinking about big reforms.

* Congressional Democrats are making a mistake in piling up the political sandbags on Benghazi.

Yes, Republican investigations into Benghazi are politically motivated. It’s Washington, D.C. That’s a given.

Nevertheless, there are three salient questions Republicans are raising:

Was security at the Benghazi consulate negligently neglected?

Could more have been done to save American personnel at the consulate during the attack?

How did a terrorist attack get inaccurately described as a protest over a video gone amuck?

The first two involve the kind of judgment calls for which clear-cut answers are unlikely.

There are always more legitimate requests for resources than there are resources. There’s at least some indication that the Benghazi consulate was partially, and perhaps principally, a CIA cover. There was no firepower close at hand that could have come to the rescue. Whether firepower elsewhere could have arrived in time, and whether it would have been wise to deploy it given the uncertainty on the ground, is speculative.

On the third question, however, things are starting to stink. At this point, it is clear that reporting from Libya and the conclusion of frontline analysts was, from the beginning, that this was a terrorist attack. The false video-protest-gone-amuck description was developed someplace higher up. Where and why are important and unanswered, although answerable, questions.

Congressional Democrats aren’t going to be able to protect the Obama administration on this. And there are risks to them in appearing indifferent to what frontline officials are risking their careers to say.

* The person who was most hurt by the false video-protest-gone-amuck story was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was put on all the weekend talk shows to spread it. At the time, she was being profiled to boost her chances to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Instead, her appearances killed them.

Maybe she should be put in charge of finding out who in the administration decided that was to be the story.

More articles on Andrew Thomas