Homeless in Arizona

County attorney blocked from Horne campaign case

County attorney blocked from Horne campaign case

By Lindsey Collom The Republic | azcentral.com Thu May 2, 2013 7:51 PM

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has ruled that a campaign-finance case against Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and an aide that was due to be heard next week cannot move forward because of legal technicalities and procedural failings by the Secretary of State's Office.

The ruling issued Thursday prevents Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery from taking any further action against Horne and employee-turned-staffer Kathleen Winn, dismisses a related administrative proceeding, and awards the pair attorneys fees.

But the case against Horne and Winn isn’t dead. The matter now goes back for review to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, which has already determined that reasonable cause exists to believe a campaign-finance violation occurred and can still pursue the case through another prosecutor.

Horne and Winn are accused of unlawfully coordinating campaign spending during the 2010 election, when he was the Republican candidate for attorney general and she was chairwoman of Business Leaders for Arizona, an independent-expenditure committee. Both continue to deny any wrongdoing.

Stephanie Grisham, an Attorney General’s spokesperson, said Horne did not want to comment on the ruling, except to say that the decision speaks for itself. Winn said she looks forward to an independent prosecutor’s review of the case.

“We want to get the facts out, but not with someone who has already declared you to the public as guilty,” she added.

In the ruling, Civil Presiding Judge John Rea said Secretary Ken Bennett did not follow the enforcement procedure outlined in statute, which dictates that Bennett’s office must send campaign-finance allegations involving statewide officeholders to the attorney general, meaning to Horne himself. Bennett referred the case to Montgomery.

“Going through the seemingly formalized dance of the Secretary referring the matter to the Attorney General and the Attorney General recusing himself and the matter going to another agency is not senseless or meaningless,” Rea wrote in his judgment. “The fact that observance of the express statutory procedure would require a few extra steps in these circumstances does not justify simply abandoning it.”

According to Montgomery, a 14-month inquiry by the FBI and his office revealed that Horne collaborated with Winn’s committee to quickly raise more than $500,000 to run negative ads against his Democratic foe, Felecia Rotellini. Montgomery issued a civil order last October for Horne and Winn to revise their campaign-finance reports and refund about $400,000 in donations to bring them into compliance, or face three times that amount in penalties.

Horne and Winn appealed to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent arbiter over decisions made by certain state agencies, boards and commissions. An evidentiary hearing that was scheduled to begin May 7 is now moot.

In a statement issued after the ruling, Montgomery said he disagreed with the outcome but his office will transfer the matter to the Secretary of State’s Office for further handling.

“I will not appeal. That would only further delay a review of this matter on the merits,” Montgomery said. “In my judgment, it is more important for the issues in this case to be fully and fairly addressed and resolved as soon as possible so that the people of Arizona can determine whether or not a statewide law enforcement official violated the law.”

But Winn’s attorney, Tim LaSota, said the ruling throws Montgomery’s entire case against his client into question.

"It's now obvious that our civil accuser, he’s the one who hasn’t followed the law and I think now his actions have been repudiated,” LaSota said. “Here we have someone who has gotten the law wrong in such a critical respect, why would we assign any credibility to the civil allegations against Kathleen and the attorney general?”

Tom Horne will decide who will investigate Tom Horne

Posted on May 2, 2013 4:44 pm by Laurie Roberts

Tom Horne will decide who will investigate Tom Horne

From the only-in-Arizona files: Attorney General Tom Horne will get to decide who will investigate Attorney General Tom Horne.

No…really.

A judge on Thursday tossed out a finding by Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery that Horne violated campaign-finance laws.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Rea ruled that Secretary of State Ken Bennett erred in asking Montgomery to investigate Horne. Instead, state law required that Bennett send the complaint about Horne to Horne.

Montgomery last year initiated a civil enforcement action against Horne at the request of Bennett. Montgomery found that the attorney general violated campaign-finance laws by working with a so-called independent campaign committee to order to raise a truckload of cash to fend off Democrat Felecia Rotellini in the 2010 AG’s race.

As a result of that fundraising blitz, the independent campaign was able to launch $500,000 worth of last-minute attack ads against Rotellini, allowing Horne to eke out a win.

Horne has denied any wrongdoing and was due before an administrative judge next week to appeal Montgomery’s civil enforcement action. Meanwhile, he petitioned Superior Court to dismiss the case, contending that Bennett didn’t forward the case to the proper authority — himself, that is.

In his ruling, Rea, agreed that Montgomery had no authority to cite Horne under ARS 16-924(A).

“Ignoring a clear statute for the sake of expediency means that we are no longer under a rule of law but the rule of some official or court’s notion of convenience and practicality,” Rea wrote.

So the case against Horne and Kathleen Winn – the independent campaign chairwoman who now works for the AG’s office – returns to Bennett, who will have to send the case to Horne, who will, presumably, declare a conflict and send it along to some other prosecutor’s office.

The judge makes it sound so simple, as if it is merely a matter of a few extra steps.

“Going through the seemingly formalized dance of the Secretary referring the matter to the Attorney General and the Attorney General recusing himself and the matter going to another agency is not senseless or meaningless,” Rea wrote. “The fact that observance of the express statutory procedure would require a few extra steps in these circumstances does not justify simply abandoning it.”

The problem is, those extra steps result in a wholesale trampling of the public’s trust.

So now Horne will decide who should take the case against Horne — perhaps a prosecutor a bit friendlier than Montgomery.

Only in Arizona could the state’s top law enforcement officer get to decide who will investigate the state’s top law enforcement officer.

Tom Horne pays fine for hit and run accident.

Source

Horne pays $300 traffic ticket tied to probe

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Wed May 8, 2013 10:54 PM

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announced Wednesday that he has settled a traffic ticket that arose as a result of a federal investigation into allegations of campaign-finance violations.

In a statement released by his press secretary, Horne said he paid a $300 fine and reiterated prior comments that the hit-and-run fender-bender last year in a downtown Phoenix parking garage “at most left a paint scratch and no dent.” [I wonder if the cops would let me go if I claimed the hit and run accident I was in caused almost no damage. Probably not. I guess AG Tom Horne thinks he is special because he is a royal government ruler.]

Records from Phoenix Municipal Court indicate Horne pleaded no contest and will pay a total of $582, which includes the fine plus a surcharge. [Wow those fine surcharges almost doubled the fine bumping it from $300 to almost $600 or $582 to be exact!]

Horne received a misdemeanor citation alleging that he caused paint damage to the bumper of a parked vehicle during the March 27, 2012, incident that he did not report. The citation was for one count of leaving the scene of a crash with an unattended vehicle, a Class 3 misdemeanor.

Horne had argued that he was being unfairly targeted for prosecution for the fender-bender. [Why??? Does Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne think elected officials and government bureaucrats should be above the law???]

The accident was witnessed by two FBI agents who were tailing Horne as part of a joint investigation with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office into the alleged campaign-finance violations. Last week, a county Superior Court judge ruled that the campaign-finance case against Horne and an aide that was due to be heard this week cannot move forward because of legal technicalities and procedural failings by the secretary of state.

The campaign-finance case now goes back for review to the Secretary of State’s Office, which has already determined that reasonable cause exists to believe a campaign-finance violation occurred and can still pursue the case through another prosecutor — after first submitting it to Horne in his role as state attorney general.

The FBI turned the information about the car accident over to the County Attorney’s Office, which referred the matter to the Phoenix Police Department.

Public records obtained by The Arizona Republic from the County Attorney’s Office detail the accident. County attorney’s Detective Mark Stribling wrote a memo in April last year describing how FBI Agents Brian Grehoski and Merv Mason watched the crash and the minutes leading up to it.

Stribling wrote that agents saw Carmen Chenal, a longtime Horne confidante and employee, leave the Attorney General’s Office during lunch hour, get into a borrowed Volkswagen car and drive to a downtown Phoenix parking garage.

Horne then left the office and drove his gold Jaguar into the same garage.

Horne and Chenal then left the garage, with Horne driving the vehicle originally driven by Chenal, Stribling wrote. Chenal was in the passenger seat. Horne was wearing a baseball cap as they drove to Chenal’s home.

After the accident at Chenal’s apartment complex, the Phoenix report states, Horne “stopped for an estimated 10 to 20 seconds.”

“Neither Tom nor Carmen got out or opened the windows to look out to see the damage,” the report said. “Tom pulled away and parked the vehicle in another area of the parking garage, and the two of them walked through the resident gate and went into Carmen’s apartment.”

Authorities concluded that Horne, a married man, did not leave a note so that he could hide a relationship with Chenal.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne scores!

Source

Posted on May 3, 2013 5:00 pm by Laurie Roberts

Tom Horne scores! (No, not like that)

Attorney General Tom Horne scored this week – a victory, that is — as a judge tossed out a finding that he violated campaign-finance laws and ruled that only Horne can decide who should investigate Horne.

No…really.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Rea’s ruling on Thursday had Team Horne predicting exoneration and questioning the credibility of his accuser, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery.

“He keeps getting everything wrong and yet we’re treating his civil allegations against Horne and my client as if they’re credible. They’re not,” said Tim LaSota, attorney for Kathleen Winn, who along with Horne was found by Montgomery to have violated campaign-finance laws. “Look at his jihad against medical marijuana. He’s been wrong on everything on that. He keeps losing in court. … It raises questions about whether this guy is completely full of beans.”

Montgomery’s spokesman fired back, calling LaSota’s comments “uninformed, unprofessional and unbecoming of an attorney involved in a pending matter.”

“They are, none the less, consistent with the manner in which he has comported himself throughout his unremarkable career,” Jerry Cobb said.

Thursday’s ruling wipes Horne’s record clean, for the moment. Well, except for a pending misdemeanor hit-and-run charge and one fairly disturbing mental image of the AG, incognito in a baseball cap, out for a lunchtime retreat at the apartment of one of the female attorneys in his office.

Horne has been living under a cloud since last fall when Montgomery found that he violated campaign-finance laws during his 2010 campaign. Montgomery said a 14-month investigation turned up evidence that Horne was illegally working with an independent campaign chaired by Winn, in order to raise $500,000 for last-minute attack ads against Democrat Felecia Rotellini. Horne won with 51.8 percent of the vote – surviving some attacks aimed at him from an innocuous sounding independent group that turned out to be the Democratic Attorneys General Association. But that’s another story.

Montgomery forwarded the information about Horne’s suspected misconduct to Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who found reasonable cause to believe a campaign-finance violation had occurred. He then referred the case back to Montgomery, who proceeded to file a civil enforcement action.

Horne and Winn, who now works for the AG’s Office, contend they did nothing wrong and petitioned Superior Court to dismiss the case, contending that Bennett didn’t forward it to the proper authority.

Horne, that is.

On Thursday, Judge Rea agreed, ruling that Bennett erred in asking Montgomery handle the Horne case. Instead, Rea wrote that state law required that Bennett send the complaint about Horne to Horne. This, even though the Legislature last year passed a temporary law, allowing Bennett to bypass the AG and hire independent counsel.

“Ignoring a clear statute for the sake of expediency means that we are no longer under a rule of law but the rule of some official or court’s notion of convenience and practicality,” Rea wrote.

LaSota says it’s a clear win for the rule of law and says he’s sure an impartial prosecutor – read: not Montgomery – will find no wrongdoing.

I’d say there’s a pretty fair chance of that, too, though perhaps not for the same reason as LaSota.

The case against Horne and Winn now returns to Bennett, who will have to send it to Horne. Horne’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, told the Arizona Capitol Times that Horne will “scrub himself” from the case and ask somebody else in his office to decide which agency should handle it.

As if it’s even possible to scrub yourself clean, when someone beholden to you will decide how to proceed with a case that could crater your political career.

Apparently the judge doesn’t see a problem, though.

“Going through the seemingly formalized dance of the Secretary referring the matter to the Attorney General and the Attorney General recusing himself and the matter going to another agency is not senseless or meaningless,” Rea wrote. “The fact that observance of the express statutory procedure would require a few extra steps in these circumstances does not justify simply abandoning it.”

Never mind that those extra steps threaten to result in a wholesale trampling of the public’s trust.

So now Horne – or someone beholden to Horne — will decide who should take the case against Horne.

Perhaps a hand-picked prosecutor a bit friendlier than Montgomery?

Only in Arizona could the state’s top law enforcement officer get to decide who will investigate the state’s top law enforcement officer.

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.

State Take-Back day gathers 13,000 lbs. of prescription medication

And remember these cops who are effectively working a janitors throwing away old unused drugs are very well paid. In Arizona most local cops start at $50,000 a year and many easily make over $100,000 a year. A few make $150,000 a year. Federal cops are paid much more.

Source

State Take-Back day gathers 13,000 lbs. of prescription medication

Posted: Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:35 pm

Douglas W. Coleman, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), announced Thursday that Arizonans turned in 60 percent more pills than last year's Take-Back event, demonstrating the public’s continued appreciation and need for the opportunity to discard unwanted, unused and expired prescription drugs from medicine cabinets, bedside tables and kitchen drawers.

On April 27, 13,069 pounds (6½ tons) of prescription medications were collected from members of the public at more than 95 locations manned by over 60 state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies that partnered with DEA on the event. When added to the collections from DEA’s previous five Take-Back events, more than 48,000 pounds (24 tons) of prescription medications have been removed from circulation.

“We are pleased at the response of our communities once again, and we thank them for participating and contributing to the battle against prescription drug abuse,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Doug Coleman. “Our take-back events highlight the problems related to prescription drug abuse and give our citizens an opportunity to contribute to the solution. “These events are only made possible through the dedicated work and commitment of our state, local and tribal law enforcement partners, and DEA thanks each and every one of them for their efforts on behalf of the American people.”

The DEA’s Take-Back events are a significant piece of the White House’s prescription drug abuse prevention strategy released in 2011 by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Disposal of unwanted, unused or expired drugs is one of four strategies for reducing prescription drug abuse and diversion laid out in Epidemic: Responding to America’s Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis. The other strategies include education of health care providers, patients, parents and youth; enhancing and encouraging the establishment of prescription drug monitoring programs in all the states; and increased enforcement to address doctor shopping and pill mills.

U.S. used severe torture on detainees

Mercury News editorial: U.S. used severe torture on detainees

Posted: 05/03/2013 01:00:00 PM PDT

It is indisputable that agents of our government used severe torture techniques on detainees suspected of having terrorist ties. That is the conclusion of a report by an independent panel after an intense, two-year investigation into America's treatment of detainees.

Most of us already figured that was the case, and some -- former Vice President Dick Cheney -- comes to mind -- probably don't care. But to have it confirmed by a credible source is agonizing.

The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment found that the interrogation techniques used were "cruel, inhuman or degrading" and violated U.S. laws as well as international treaties. They ran counter to the values of the Constitution Americans claim to hold sacred.

And despite assertions in the movie "Zero Dark Thirty," the report says little credible information was derived from such techniques, especially as to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

The panel acknowledges that it had no subpoena power and that some people claim national security prevents disclosure of what was truly learned. But the task force decided to accept the assertions of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had access to sensitive documents, and found no connection.

The Constitution Project -- a watchdog group that has been around for about 15 years -- undertook the detainee project because no one else would.

Both President Barack Obama and Congress refused to do so. Obama said it would be "unproductive to look backward" and Congress rejected a proposal by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to investigate.

The report is the opposite of unproductive. An honest self-examination is vital to the very essence of democracy and informs future decisions.

For example, panel extensively examined issues surrounding the infamous U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; whether it should be closed and, if so, what should be done with the detainees who are there. Fortunately, Obama is again raising the topic of closing the prison. We suggest this report as good reading for him and Congress as they move forward.

The lengthy report is nonpartisan, fair and doesn't bash individuals. It notes that while much of the rendition activity was prompted by Sept. 11 fear and occurred during the Bush administration, such practices began in the Clinton administration. It also acknowledges that those who undertook questionable measures did so "as their best efforts to protect their fellow citizens."

The Constitutional Project has no veiled agenda. It is co-chaired by Asa Hutchison, a former Republican congressman who served in the Bush administration, and James Jones, a former Democrat congressman who Camp Delta military-run prison, at the Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base, Cuba. (Brennan Linsley/AP) was chairman of the House Budget Committee and later U.S. ambassador to Mexico. The membership list includes such luminaries as William Sessions, FBI director under three presidents. It conducted on-the-ground fact-finding in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lithuania, Poland, the United Kingdom and, yes, Guantánamo Bay.

Every American should read the findings. The report is online at www.detaineetaskforce.org.

Former U.S. Rep. Renzi’s corruption trial set

Former U.S. Rep. Renzi’s corruption trial set

By Dennis Wagner The Republic | azcentral.com Sat May 4, 2013 9:28 PM

Six years after his congressional career ended amid an FBI corruption probe, former U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi is expected to get his day in court with a trial that opens on Tuesday in Tucson.

The three-term Republican House member, who pleaded not guilty, is accused of extortion, fraud, racketeering, money laundering and other crimes involving his insurance business and his conduct as a legislator.

The U.S. District Court case file reveals a web of political intrigue amid a tangle of legal complications. So far, three dozen attorneys have taken part in litigation, which has produced more than 1,145 motions, briefs, responses, judicial rulings and appeals.

Among the mysteries as the trial convenes: Who tipped off federal investigators? Why? What will Renzi’s defense strategy be? And will he take the witness stand?

The defense team declined comment, but it is clear from legal papers that the trial will involve contrasting depictions of the 54-year-old businessman turned politician.

Prosecutors are poised to describe Renzi as a manipulator who embezzled money from business customers, funneled the cash into his election treasury and used his legislative power to profit from an extortion conspiracy.

The defense is geared to present Renzi as a pragmatist whose private and public dealings overlapped but were not criminal; or, perhaps, as the victim of political enemies who dragged him down with help from overzealous federal agents.

Spelling out narratives likely will require more than a month of the trial, dozens of witnesses and tens of thousands of pages of evidence.

“This is just going to be fascinating,” said Mike Black, a Phoenix attorney who briefly represented one of Renzi’s co-defendants. “I might even go down there just to watch.”

Winding through appeals

Renzi was first indicted in February 2008 and eventually faced 49 felony counts.

The charges arise from two sets of allegations that, if true, would constitute a betrayal of the public trust and corruption of the U.S. political system: First, Renzi is accused of defrauding clients at his Patriot Insurance Agency by taking funds that were intended as premiums and using the money to win his first House race in 2002. Second, Renzi is charged with orchestrating a land-swap deal after taking office to benefit a real-estate investor who owed him money.

While it is not unusual for white-collar cases to defy the speedy-trial model of justice, Renzi’s litigation has been particularly glacial due to rare constitutional issues that come with prosecution of a former member of Congress.

Delays included two appeals handled by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and numerous hearings to resolve disputes.

Defense attorneys partially succeeded in efforts to get charges thrown out and evidence suppressed but failed in a bid to disqualify the Justice Department team based on claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Among the pretrial issues that had to be sorted out by U.S. District Judge David Bury:

FBI agents who monitored wiretaps improperly listened to phone calls between Renzi and his attorneys, destroyed their notes and misled a judge about the conversations. Bury found the government’s conduct egregious and suppressed all evidence from electronic surveillance. [Sadly the police routinely act like the criminals they are trying to arrest. When FBI agents and other cops routinely lie in their daily work, how can we possibly expect them to tell the truth in a trial.]

Defense attorneys contended that charges of embezzlement were bogus because, as Renzi’s companies were structured, he merely borrowed money. The Appeals Court agreed.

Perhaps most significantly, defense lawyers contended that all charges related to the land-swap deal should be dropped because a clause in the U.S. Constitution prohibits the criminal investigation of a federal lawmaker for legislative acts.

Under the so-called Speech or Debate Clause, Renzi’s attorneys argued, the Justice Department violated U.S. law not just by wiretapping the congressman, but by interviewing his staffers and obtaining his records.

The constitutional provision was drafted to prevent the executive branch from using its law-enforcement authority as a political weapon against opponents in Congress. Members of the House and Senate are generally immune to criminal prosecution for their legislative conduct.

In this case, House lawyers filed briefs supporting Renzi’s legal position while the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argued on behalf of the government.

The Speech or Debate question went to the 9th Circuit, which ruled that Renzi’s conduct was not protected.

Still, the issue is likely to resurface during the trial, and House lawyers have asked to remain as players in future courtroom disputes.

Setbacks for prosecutors

The government has suffered a number of setbacks leading up to the trial.

Sixteen counts against Renzi have been dismissed so far, including a tax charge that was thrown out a few weeks ago. Andrew Beardall, Renzi’s lawyer in the insurance case, was acquitted. Dwayne Lequire, the insurance-company accountant, was found guilty but the Appeals Court overturned his verdict and issued an acquittal.

The investigation and prosecution have cost U.S. taxpayers and defendants untold millions. Lequire is now seeking more than $400,000 from the government as compensation for his legal expenses. His attorney, Mark Willimann, said the Justice Department keeps losing in Renzi’s case because prosecutors went “well beyond the realm of decency” in filing charges.

Although the case was launched under the administration of Republican President George W. Bush and former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, also a Republican, Willimann said he believes it was orchestrated by Democrats to oust a GOP incumbent.

“This is purely political,” he said. “Renzi did nothing wrong here. ... I think the government is in (cover-up) mode. They’ve got a tiger by the tail, and they didn’t realize the tail was long enough for Mr. Renzi to turn around and bite them.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined comment.

Controversial mine plan

Richard George Renzi, an insurance and real-estate entrepreneur who also owned a southern Arizona vineyard, was elected to Arizona’s 1st Congressional District in 2002, the year he got his law degree. He was viewed as a conservative Catholic with 12 kids and a wide-open political future.

In 2005, Resolution Copper Mining was seeking to trade about 5,000 acres of private property for 2,400 acres of government land near Superior — a parcel containing one of America’s richest remaining copper deposits. Mining plans call for excavation up to 7,000 feet underground to exploit an estimated $61 billion in ore, providing 3,700 jobs.

Such real-estate swaps require congressional approval.

According to prosecutors, Renzi vowed to block legislation unless Resolution purchased and included a 480-acre alfalfa field from business associate James Sandlin, who owed him money. On the other hand, if Sandlin’s property was part of the deal, Renzi ensured approval, according to prosecutors. [If you ask me that sure sounds like a conflict of interest.]

Sandlin, convicted by a Texas jury in 2008 on related charges of filing false financial information, is going to trial on Tuesday with Renzi to face additional charges. His attorney did not respond to an interview request.

The indictment says Resolution balked at Renzi’s extortion attempt. A group of other speculators, including former Arizona governor and ex-Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, then bought Sandlin’s land and agreed to make it part of the exchange, according to the indictment, and Renzi introduced legislation to authorize the deal.

That bill died after FBI agents raided Renzi’s home and news leaked of a possible indictment. It is impossible to say whether the scandal damaged future prospects for the controversial land swap. However, 11 bills have failed in Congress so far, opposed by some conservation groups, the Apache tribe and Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz..

In December, Resolution announced that it was dismissing 400 workers and essentially abandoning the project.

Two months later, Arizona’s congressional delegation offered a 12th version of the land-exchange bill. That, too, appears to be stalled.

Grijalva said he has repeatedly voted against the project because Resolution and its congressional sponsors will not agree to an environmental review and a more careful valuation of the copper reserves before the deal is struck. He said the Superior mine could have severe ecological impacts but would be nearly impossible to stop if land is transferred into private ownership.

Grijalva said Renzi’s trial may bring out more information about the land-exchange deal and the mining company’s role.

“It puts Resolution Copper front and center,” he said. “I think there’s some exposure that’s going to happen. ... And I believe the asset in the ground — the copper — is worth much, much more than the trade we’re getting.”

Grijalva and others said Resolution officials have been portrayed as “white hats” — good guys who blew the whistle on corruption — but Renzi’s defense attorneys likely will challenge their motives and credibility.

“This trial is as much a difficult situation for the company as it is for Renzi,” he said. “The defense is going to be vigorous, and it has to be against the company.”

Resolution Copper has been represented by lobbyist Ron Ober, a longtime Democratic Party operative who once served as chief of staff for former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz. Ober works with public-relations specialist Troy Corder, a former staffer for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former Arizona Govs. Fife Symington and Jane Dee Hull.

Neither Ober nor Corder would comment on the Renzi trial or its impact on the planned copper project in Superior.

Jennifer Russo, director of communications at Resolution’s parent company, Rio Tinto Copper Group, said the land-swap bill was affected by Renzi’s controversy while he was in office, but today’s legislation is moving forward with bipartisan support. She emphasized that, in the criminal case, Resolution “did nothing wrong and is a cooperating government witness.”

If a land swap is approved, Russo said, a full environmental report will be completed before mining gets under way.

“We are pleased with the progress being made in the 113th Congress,” she added, “and we are working through all issues and concerns that have been raised.”

Reach the reporter at dennis.wagner@arizonarepublic.com.

Timeline

2001

Republican Rick Renzi runs for Congress. Authorities later allege that he funneled money from insurance clients into his campaign treasury.

2002

Renzi wins election over Democrat George Cordova.

Federal Election Commission orders audit of Renzi campaign finances.

2004

FEC audit says Renzi made $369,000 in “impermissible” loans to his campaign.

Renzi is re-elected, defeating Paul Babbitt.

2005

Resolution Copper begins trying to orchestrate a real-estate swap to obtain copper-rich federal land near Superior.

Authorities allege that Renzi told Resolution that there will be no deal unless property owned by business associate James Sandlin is included. Resolution reportedly balks.

2006

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington names Renzi among 20 “most corrupt” members of Congress.

Department of Justice secretly approves FBI wiretaps and search warrants targeting Renzi.

News leaks of possible indictment.

Renzi is elected to a third term, defeating Ellen Simon.

2007

FBI raids Renzi’s business.

Renzi resigns from House Intelligence Committee, then announces he will not seek a fourth term.

2008

Renzi is indicted on 35 counts.

A superseding indictment lists 49 felonies.

2010

All wiretap evidence is suppressed from Renzi’s future trial due to FBI misconduct.

Judge refuses to disqualify Justice Department team for prosecutorial misconduct.

2011

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to throw out case based on claims of congressional immunity.

2012

After failure of 11 land-swap bills, Resolution Copper shuts down planned operations near Superior.

2013

Members of Arizona delegation introduce new land-exchange measure.

May 7: Renzi trial scheduled to begin.

Source: U.S. District Court records and Arizona Republic archives

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

Police officer accidentally shot in leg by fellow cop

Source

Police officer accidentally shot in leg by fellow cop

By Rosemary Regina Sobol and Adam Sege Tribune reporters

7:33 a.m. CDT, May 7, 2013

A Chicago police officer was shot in the leg by a fellow officer who had fired at a charging dog Monday night in the Englewood neighborhood, authorities said.

The shooting happened about 9 p.m. in the 1200 block of West 72nd Place as Englewood District officers were responding to a call of a burglary in progress, according to a police statement.

Two officers and a supervisor went to the second-floor landing of the building, where they were confronted by a "vicious dog," according to police.

When the dog charged toward them, an officer fired a single shot that struck the dog and also hit another officer in the thigh, according to a police source. It was unclear if the bullet struck the officer or the dog first, the source said.

Paramedics took the 42-year-old officer in good condition to John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, where he was treated and released, authorities said.

Investigators from the Chicago Independent Police Review Authority responded to the scene, spokesman Larry Merritt said.

chicagobreaking@tribune.com

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.

Tom Horne 0 - Tohono O'odham Indians 1

Source

Judge rules in favor of Tohono O'odham in Arizona gaming dispute

Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:30 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

A federal judge on Tuesday slapped down the latest efforts by the state to block the Tohono O'odham from building a casino on the edge of Glendale.

U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell threw out claims by Attorney General Tom Horne and two Maricopa County tribes that construction of a casino on the site violates the specific terms of the 2002 voter-approved deal allowing gaming on Indian reservations.

"The written compact contains no such limitation,'' Campbell wrote in his 28-page ruling. "The court concludes that the parties did not reach such an agreement and that the (Tohono) Nation's construction of a casino on the Glendale-area land will not violate the compact.''

Tuesday's ruling is a major setback for foes of the casino who had thrown every legal theory they could into the mix in a bid to stop construction of the casino by the tribe which is based in the Tucson area.

It also comes about six months after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a separate challenge by the state, ruled that Congress did not illegally allow the tribe to create a reservation on the land on the edge of Glendale. That ruling is important because the tribe needs reservation status to allow casino construction.

But Campbell, in Tuesday's ruling, did offer foes one glimmer of hope.

He said those challenging the casino contend that the Tohono Nation knew that the publicity surrounding the 2002 election clearly indicated "the voters understood there would be no such casino'' built in the Phoenix metro area.

In fact, Campbell said, the state and the other tribes say the Tohono "actively encouraged this understanding of the compact while secretly planning to build a casino.'' That was backed with notes taken by Tohono tribal council officials ahead of the 2002 vote about acquiring some land west of Phoenix, putting it into a shell company, and stressing the "need to keep it quiet'' during negotiations.

Campbell said he wants to hear more legal arguments before deciding whether this claim is legally sufficient to support a lawsuit to halt the casino.

The 2002 initiative pushed by a consortium of tribes gave them the exclusive right to operate casinos in the state in exchange for a share of the profits.

Of note in this case is that the measure was promoted as saying gaming would be limited to existing reservations, with specific limits on the number of casinos each tribe could possess.

The following year the Tohono purchase a parcel of land near Glendale, near where the Arizona Cardinals stadium eventually would be built. That deal was authorized under a 1986 federal law designed to compensate the tribe for flooding from the Painted Rock Dam.

Federal officials eventually agreed to make the land part of the reservation.

Attorneys for the state and the other tribes contend that land purchased after the 2002 initiative cannot legally have gaming under the terms of what voters had approved.

But Campbell pointed out that a strict reading of the compact entitles the Tohono Nation to do exactly what it did.

Voters did in fact require gaming to be "located on the Indian lands of the tribe.'' That also mirrors federal law.

But the initiative also specifically says that gaming can be allowed on lands acquired later if they were "taken into trust as part of a settlement of a land claim.'' And Campbell said that, no matter how you look at it, the property the Tohono acquired in 2003 was, in fact, part of such a land claim.

Challengers also point to language in the initiative which said the Tohono O'odham would be limited to four casinos, at least one of which would have to be located at least 50 miles from Tucson. That, they argued, was designed to give the tribe three casinos in the Tucson area with the fourth at Why.

But Campbell said nothing in what voters approved specifically limited the tribe to a single casino away from Tucson.

Tuesday's ruling leaves the issue of what the parties understood. And that goes, in part, to the publicity surrounding the 2002 vote.

Part of the claim of challengers is based on a brochure of "common questions'' distributed ahead of the election. One asks whether the measure would limit the number of tribal casinos in Arizona.

Its answer: Under Prop 202, there will be no additional facilities authorized in Phoenix, and only one additional facility permitted in Tucson.

Attorneys for the Tohono conceded the brochure was produced in part with funds it provided. But they said it was inaccurate because it was drafted by "public relations consultants'' who "did not necessarily seek to depict the compact with legal precision.''

But Jane Hull, who was governor at that time, made similar statements.

The state is also relying on notes taken by members of the tribe's legislative council at meetings ahead of the 2002 vote which not only suggest buying land west of Phoenix but putting it in a "shell company'' to "keep it quiet'' while compact negotiations were taking place.

All that, Campbell wrote, requires him to look further about what the state understood when the gaming compacts were negotiated -- and what the tribe knew about the state's understanding -- in determining whether the tribe effectively agreed not to build a casino near Glendale.

Campbell said this is not a simple question, if for no other reason than it requires him to figure out who is "the state.'' He said that could be the governor, the Legislature, individuals who represented the state in negotiations or even the voters themselves.

IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups

Source

IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups

Associated Press Fri May 10, 2013 9:03 AM

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.

Organizations were singled out because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.

In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

“That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review,” Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.

“The IRS would like to apologize for that,” she added.

Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. After her talk, she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. She did not say when they found out.

Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

The forms, which the groups made available at the time, sought information about group members’ political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members.

Certain tax-exempt charitable groups can conduct political activities but it cannot be their primary activity.

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views.

“There’s absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman told a House Ways and Means subcommittee.

Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack

Senator Steve Gallardo - Impeach AG Tom Horne

Source

Arizona senator calls for impeachment trial for Attorney General Horne

By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez The Republic | azcentral.com Fri May 10, 2013 5:16 PM

A state Democratic senator is calling for lawmakers to initiate an impeachment trial against Arizona’s Republican Attorney General Tom Horne in the wake of his admission to a driving offense.

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, told The Arizona Republic that lawmakers should scrutinize the state’s top prosecutor because of his no-contest plea this week to a misdemeanor hit-and-run charge. Gallardo said Horne should be held “to a higher standard.”

Horne on Wednesday agreed to pay a $300 fine to resolve the charge, filed last year after FBI agents saw him back a borrowed car into a Range Rover and leave without leaving a note. The FBI agents were tailing Horne as part of an investigation into alleged campaign-finance violations and witnessed the incident.

Horne has said the fender bender “at most left a paint scratch and no dent.”

Gallardo said Horne’s actions may not rise to the level of removal of office but that the state Legislature “has the responsibility” to look into it.

Gallardo is pitching the idea to members of his party in the House of Representatives, which has the power to impeach public officials.

“Politics aside, I think we have an obligation to have this type of hearing,” Gallardo said Friday. “We’d determine if his actions rise to level of impeachment, censure other punishment, or nothing. We have an obligation to hold him accountable.”

In response to Gallardo’s call, Horne’s press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, said, “When you're in the political minority, asking for impeachment of opponents is insignificant because it's not going anywhere.”

“Senator Gallardo already called for the Attorney General's resignation back in October. When you couple that with his involvement in the attempt to recall Sheriff (Joe) Arpaio, he is clearly the go to guy for political charades,” Grisham said.

It is unclear how much support — if any — an impeachment effort would have. With the 2014 attorney general’s race on the horizon, some Democrats say Horne is weakened by several controversies surrounding his tenure, making it easier for Democrats to re-take the post. Republicans have been reluctant to publicly criticize Horne and may be less inclined to try to force a fellow party member out of office.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said the impeachment process should be considered and that he may talk with members about it.

“We need to look at all possible avenues to make sure that Mr. Horne and all the activities surrounding Mr. Horne are fully investigated, and the public feels due process has been given,” Campbell said. “If you look at what’s happened so far, it seems to have been a series of technicalities and loopholes that have saved Mr. Horne.”

Horne and an aide were under investigation for 14 months by the FBI and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office over allegations he violated campaign-finance violations. Last week, a county Superior Court judge ruled that the campaign-finance case against them cannot move forward because of legal technicalities and procedural failings by the Secretary of State.

The campaign-finance case now goes back for review to the Secretary of State’s Office, which has already determined that reasonable cause exists to believe a campaign-finance violation occurred and can still pursue the case through another prosecutor — after first submitting it to Horne in his role as state attorney general.

Horne and his aide have denied all wrongdoing, with Horne saying the case is based on speculation and that he will be vindicated through legal proceedings.

The impeachment process can be used to investigate and remove public officials who are accused of committing high crimes, misdemeanors or misconduct in office. The process involves a hearing, and if warranted, removal from office.

The process must be initiated by a majority vote of the Arizona House of Representatives, according to the state Supreme Court. Impeachment requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

The impeachment process was last used in the 1980s on former Gov. Evan Mecham. He was elected in 1986, impeached and ousted by the Senate in 1988. In a separate action, Mecham was indicted by a state grand jury on allegations that he tried to conceal a loan from a developer, but he was later acquitted of criminal charges.

Gallardo and Campbell said they hold members of their party accountable, pointing out that last year, Tucson Rep. Daniel Patterson resigned his House seat minutes before his colleagues were expected to vote to remove him as part of an ethics investigation.

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.

Two good reasons why you should take the 5th and refuse to answer all police questions!!!!

Remember the police are experts at questioning people and do it day in and day out, and become experts at manipulating people. Many of the questions the police ask are rigged and any answer you give will be an admission of guilt, which can be used to arrest you.

Susan Sanchez who is a Maricopa County public defender told us about how the cops rig the questions they ask people suspected of drunk driving at the "Know your rights forums" she used to give for Phoenix Copwatch.

The cops ask people how drunk they are on a scale of one to ten. A person who has only had one beer or drink will answer "one".

And of course that is admitting you are legally drunk because under Arizona law ANY amount of liquor which impairs your driving ability is considered to make you guilty of the crime of DUI.

Of course the only way to answer the question is to say an answer that officer friendly doesn't give you when he asks the question, which is the answer of ZERO.

Remember the cop doesn't ask you how drunk you are on a scale of zero to 10, he asks how drunk you are on a scale of 1 to ten, because if you give him the answer he asked for that is all it takes for him to tell a jury you admitted to driving drunk.

Of course this all sounds like bullsh*t and it is bullsh*t, but when a jury hears the cop say that you admitted to being drunk when he questioned you, that will almost certainly cause the jury to convict you. And even if it doesn't it is going to cause your lawyer to do a lot of work to undo the damage you cause by telling the cop you were drunk.

So remember just say NO to any and all police questioning.

Last but not least, I wouldn't put it past the TSA thugs to have framed this guy by ripping out a page of his passport to use as a lame excuse to arrest the guy.

Source

Saudi traveler with pressure cooker arrested at Detroit airport

By Tresa Baldas Detroit Free Press Mon May 13, 2013 12:48 PM

DETROIT -- Federal agents arrested a suspicious traveler with an altered Saudi Arabian passport at Detroit Metro Airport over the weekend after discovering a pressure cooker in his luggage.

According to a criminal complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, the passenger, Hussain Al Khawahir arrived Friday at the Detroit airport from Saudi Arabia via Amersterdam. He had a visa and a Saudi Arabian passport and told officers in the baggage control area that he would be visiting his nephew at the University of Toledo, the complaint said.

In the baggage area, two customs officers interviewed the passenger and noticed a page had been removed from the man’s passport, the complaint said.

The man said he did not know how the page was removed and stated that the passport was locked in a box that only he, his wife and three minor children had access to in his home, the complaint said. His hometown was not listed in court documents.

While at the airport, customs and border officials also examined his luggage and found a pressure cooker inside. When questioned about it, the man initially said that he brought the pressure cooker for his nephew because pressure cookers are not sold in Saudi Arabia, the complaint said. The man then changed his story and admitted his nephew had purchased a pressure cooker in America before, but it “was cheap” and broke after the first use.

Pressure cookers were used in last month’s Boston marathon bombings.

Then a U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforcement officer read Khawahir his Miranda rights.

The man acknowledged that he understood those rights, both verbally and in writing at 4:25 p.m. Friday. A minute later, he invoked his right to remain silent, the complaint said.

On Monday afternoon, Kawahir was in federal court in Detroit, making his initial appearance on charges that he knowingly used an altered Saudi Arabian passport with missing pages, and made a materially false statement to a customs officer about the pressure cooker in his possession, all to gain entry into the United States.

Customs and Border Protection officials and the FBI declined comment.

On Christmas Day 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian student turned al Qaida operative, tried to blow up a Detroit-bound jetliner by concealing a bomb in his underwear. The bomb fizzled, a flight attendant put out the flames and passengers subdued him. He was sentenced Feb. 16, 2012, in U.S. District Court in Detroit to multiple life sentences.

More articles on Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

More articles on Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne.