|
Source
Case may end Andrew Thomas' career Disciplinary hearing starts for former county attorney by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Michael Kiefer - Sept. 13, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic Andrew Thomas wasn't there to hear it when the independent counsel for the State Bar of Arizona laid out a case against him that could end his legal career. Thomas faces disbarment, but the former Maricopa County attorney did not attend Monday's opening statements in his disciplinary hearing at the Arizona Supreme Court. His co-defendants and former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander, sat silently in the front row of the gallery in a dark-paneled courtroom as other attorneys explained why they should or should not face sanctions for their investigations of or legal complaints against judges, county supervisors and others they believed engaged in "corruption." "The evidence and testimony that we will present will establish a four-year period of prosecutorial abuse by Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon," said John Gleason, the attorney prosecuting the case. "Under the direction and supervision of Mr. Thomas, he and Ms. Aubuchon engaged in personal retribution against their enemies." "If you crossed paths with the county attorney, Sheriff (Joe) Arpaio, or former (sheriff's) Chief Deputy David Hendershott, you should expect to be sued, criminally charged, or both, by the county attorney," Gleason said. "The evidence will show that the primary purpose of the prosecutions was to punish those individuals with whom Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon disagreed." A three-member panel will weigh evidence in the disciplinary hearing, which could stretch into November. The burden is on state Bar counsel to prove the allegations against the three attorneys. The panel must make a decision on their fate within 30 days of the last day of the hearing. The three former prosecutors are charged with a total of 33 ethical violations stemming from actions against other county officials and judges between 2006 and 2010. Charges against them include conflicts of interest; filing criminal and civil cases to embarrass or burden rivals, or filing without probable cause or sufficient evidence; criminal conduct; and conduct involving dishonesty and fraud. Among the allegations are that Thomas and Aubuchon filed bribery and obstruction charges against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe without probable cause; that they pursued a grand-jury investigation of Donahoe, county supervisors and other officials despite conflicts of interest; and that they filed misdemeanor charges against Supervisor Don Stapley in 2008 despite the statute of limitations having lapsed. Alexander's role is limited to joining Thomas and Aubuchon in what Gleason described as a "meritless and frivolous" federal-racketeering lawsuit against officials and judges. The three also are accused of failing to cooperate with the Bar investigation, and instead attempting to delay and obstruct the extensive initial investigation conducted by Gleason and his team. Gleason said he and his co-counsel, James Sudler, would prove their case with new testimony from judges, investigators with sheriff's and county attorney's offices, county supervisors, and others to show the depths of the unethical conduct. The disciplinary hearing will be the first time most of the witnesses will tell their stories under oath. Gleason promised a glimpse into a "Bizarro World" of investigative techniques, where indictments were written before investigations began, and where tips came from newspaper articles, not shoe-leather detective work. Search warrants, he said, were drafted based on "creative writing . . . and a little fluff above, and a little fluff below." But Thomas' lawyer, Don Wilson, said Thomas sincerely believed he was rooting out corruption at the highest levels of county government. "He tried to investigate it, he tried to prosecute it," Wilson said, but, "he was stonewalled and stymied. He confronted bitter and powerful antagonists. He confronted a hostile judiciary." The consequences, Wilson said, were that the county Board of Supervisors stripped Thomas of his civil litigation department and its budget, and interfered with his ability to hire special prosecutors to try the cases against them. Thomas brought charges against Stapley in 2008, Wilson said, because of what he believed were improper dealings among Stapley, then-Presiding Superior Court Judge Barbara Mundell, and private attorney Tom Irvine, who represented both the county and the courts in planning a $340 million court-tower project in downtown Phoenix. Aubuchon's attorney, Ed Moriarity, offered a summary of what he believes was a conspiracy among politicians and judges to bring his client to this point. Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil has already ruled that the defendants cannot gather new evidence to try to prove that they were right in bringing cases against county officials. Still, Moriarity hinted that he would still try to prove that all of Aubuchon's actions were justified but were thwarted. "Let's face it head-on: This is not a normal case . . . this is a political case. You will see the evidence and know what I mean by the time I am finished," he said. Furthermore, Moriarity said, the press and even the Bar have distorted facts of the case for a "selective prosecution." Alexander's lawyer, Scott Zwillinger, argued his client should not be part of the hearing. She was simply doing her job, he said, and was working at the direction of her boss. She was drafted into the racketeering suit, he said, because Thomas told her it was a "crisis." Alexander's initial role in the racketeering suit was to research whether Aubuchon could sue the same people she was prosecuting criminally. The answer was no, Zwillinger said, at which point Alexander was asked to take over the racketeering case, even against her better judgment. Zwillinger questioned why Alexander was singled out for disciplinary proceedings when her supervisor and private attorneys from consulting law firms were not. "Each of the charges brought against Rachel will fail," Zwillinger said. "Why is Rachel here? The answer is: she shouldn't be." The hearing continues today with testimony scheduled from retired Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields, former Deputy County Attorney Sally Wells and Irvine.
Andrew Thomas warned, ex-aide says Former deputy says he cautioned against filing charges by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Michael Kiefer - Sept. 17, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic Former County Attorney Andrew Thomas' chief deputy repeatedly warned his boss not to file civil and criminal charges against county supervisors, sitting judges and others, saying early on that Thomas would create "a bloodbath" that would destroy him. Though Thomas initially agreed with the analysis and said he would not pursue the cases, his former chief deputy said he eventually ignored the advice and moved ahead with the cases anyway. Those revelations capped a week's testimony in an ethics hearing for Thomas and his former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander, at the Arizona State Supreme Court. The hearing is expected to continue into November. A day of testimony by Thomas' former chief deputy, Phil MacDonnell, shed new light on what was occurring inside the executive suite of the County Attorney's Office as Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio tried to expose what they perceived as corruption among politicians and the judiciary from 2006 to 2010. All of their cases fell apart or were dismissed. Thomas, Aubuchon and Alexander now face disbarment or other professional sanctions. The three former prosecutors are charged with a total of 33 ethical violations stemming from their actions. Charges include conflicts of interest; filing criminal and civil cases to embarrass or burden rivals, or filing them without probable cause or sufficient evidence; criminal conduct; conduct involving dishonesty and fraud; and failing to cooperate with investigators working for the State Bar of Arizona, which licenses and regulates lawyers. The court is streaming the hearing live. The case has drawn unprecedented interest and local and national media coverage. The Web page that holds the link to the video had seen about 4,400 hits as of Friday, representing 3,200 unique visitors. This week's witnesses were retired Judge Kenneth Fields, whom Thomas and Aubuchon accused of being biased against them; Sally Wells, Thomas' former assistant chief deputy; and Tom Irvine, a private attorney the three prosecutors named in a civil-racketeering suit and placed under investigation for his role in a county-construction project they believed was improper. Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil repeatedly challenged the relevance of questions Aubuchon's lead attorney, Ed Moriarity, asked during Irvine's testimony. O'Neil scolded Moriarity for orating, being argumentative and attempting to gather new information about old cases. O'Neil has already ruled the defendants cannot use the proceedings to try to prove their old cases or show they were justified in bringing the actions against county officials and judges in the first place. The testimony offered few new facts. Wells, third-in-command during Thomas' tenure, testified under questioning that she could not recall details of key events. In a moment of unintended comic relief Thursday, MacDonnell was asked by Independent Bar Counsel James Sudler if Wells had memory problems. MacDonnell, who had been excluded from hearing her testimony, responded, "No. She was a detail person. That was her strength, focusing on details." But the bulk of MacDonnell's testimony Thursday focused on Thomas' refusal to heed his most-experienced aides when it came to his pursuit of corruption cases. MacDonnell's testimony was punctuated by periods of intense concentration, when MacDonnell would close his eyes, rub his forehead and try to recall key details and conversation. In late 2008, Thomas obtained a criminal indictment against county Supervisor Don Stapley, even though MacDonnell had cautioned his boss against going after a powerful politician. "These are huge battles - they are bloodbaths, and if you win, you lose," MacDonnell recounted. "If you lose, you're dead. If you succeed in taking down political figures, you earn enemies in doing so. I basically told him, 'You are crazy to file this case. It will destroy you.' " MacDonnell said he told Thomas his office wasn't equipped to handle such a case and advised him to send it to the FBI or another prosecutorial agency. He also advised Thomas not to give the case to Aubuchon. "Lisa, I didn't think, was capable. I didn't think she had good judgment," MacDonnell said. When Sudler pressed him for details, he added, "She tends to think she can win cases when no one else does. And she's too eager to prosecute." MacDonnell said he didn't think she could dispassionately analyze the merits of a case, adding, "She tended to be more 'He's guilty.' " MacDonnell told a similar story about a 2009 civil-racketeering suit filed jointly by Thomas and Arpaio against county officials. "There was no proof of any sort of conspiracy or criminal enterprise against Mr. Thomas," MacDonnell said. "I don't think it amounted to evidence - it amounted to supposition." After a series of discussions with Thomas about the case, MacDonnell said Thomas told him he was not going to file it. MacDonnell later learned from an assistant that the complaint was "being typed up for Lisa." MacDonnell is expected to take the stand again Monday. Members of the Board of Supervisors, including Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox, also are scheduled to testify next week.
Officers testify about concerns in Thomas, MCSO probes by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez - Oct. 4, 2011 08:30 PM The Arizona Republic Two Maricopa County law-enforcement officers testified Tuesday that they had grave concerns about the way former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and the Sheriff's Office ran their past investigations of other county officials. County Attorney Cmdr. Mark Stribling and sheriff's Sgt. Jeff Gentry both testified at a State Bar of Arizona hearing that their concerns were so substantial that they found reasons to distance themselves from the probes. One lied to Thomas to avoid participating in an investigation of Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley. Another defied orders from former sheriff's Chief Deputy David Hendershott and former Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon to write a search warrant for an inquiry into whether the Board of Supervisors had swept its chambers for listening devices. Both officers previously made similar statements in investigative reports. They made the statements under oath at a hearing that will determine whether Thomas and Aubuchon face Bar sanctions, potentially including loss of their law licenses. Thomas, Aubuchon and former Deputy County Attorney Rachel Alexander are accused of 33 ethical violations stemming from actions against or investigations of judges and county officials in recent years. Much of Stribling's testimony focused on his involvement with Thomas and with Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa Anti-Corruption Enforcement unit, known as MACE. Stribling said he "had a bad feeling from the beginning," when Thomas on May 8, 2008, asked him to participate in a meeting about an investigation of Stapley. The probe was to focus on information Stapley was believed to have omitted from financial disclosure forms that public officials file. Stribling said Thomas wanted the investigation completed within one month. Aubuchon at a May 14, 2008, meeting passed out copies of a suggested draft indictment against Stapley based on her own Internet research, Stribling said. "That concerned me that we already had a draft indictment of an individual, and we were at the first meeting . . . to discuss this investigation," Stribling said. "In my mind, it was absolutely outrageous that we were given a draft indictment before we ever did an investigation or wrote a report." Stribling also noted that the dates on documents Aubuchon handed out were dated early 2007. Stapley was eventually indicted in November 2008, raising questions about whether the statute of limitations had expired on the charges. Stribling grew so uncomfortable with the handling of the case that he lied to Thomas and Aubuchon, telling them he was too busy and needed to move off the Stapley case, he testified. Stapley was later indicted on 118 counts tied to his financial disclosure forms. Gentry, meanwhile, testified that he was transferred out of the MACE unit after he refused to write a warrant to search county offices for information about a bug sweep. Hendershott and Aubuchon wanted the warrant written. During a March 2009 meeting, Gentry recalled, he told Aubuchon that "we didn't have probable cause, no crime had been committed. She told me to be creative. To actually do some police work," he said, saying he thought she was asking him to lie. Gentry said Aubuchon was upset at his refusal, slamming the door so hard on her way out of the room that a plaque fell off the wall. "Lisa Aubuchon told the rest of us that if she couldn't try them in court, that she would try them in the media," Gentry said. "I refused to write a search warrant." The hearing continues today. Follow the hearing live on Twitter @yvonnewingett.
If a rich, powerful judge has a difficult time defending himself against bogus criminal charges just think how bad it is for the average person on the street who is being falsely accused of a crime. According to this article it cost Judge Gary Donahoe $200,000 to defend himself against these bogus charges. Thomas case: Judge says bribery case was bogus by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez - Oct. 6, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic The first thing Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe did after two sheriff's deputies served him with a criminal complaint alleging three felonies was shut his office door and call his wife. He asked her to call their two grown children so they would not hear about it first in the news. He told his assistant to cancel a hearing set for that afternoon, where arguments were to be made involving the appointment of special prosecutors to a criminal case involving a county supervisor. Then, he mulled how he would pay defense attorneys to fight allegations of hindering prosecution, obstructing a criminal investigation and bribery. He figured he would have to mortgage his house. He doesn't remember much more about that day, he testified Wednesday during a state Bar hearing. He was too stunned by the charges that had been lodged against him by then-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Donahoe, who served as commissioner and judge for more than 20 years, testified at an ongoing hearing that will determine whether disciplinary measures should be taken against Thomas and two former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander. Combined, they are accused of 33 ethical violations stemming from actions against or investigations of judges and county officials in recent years. Thomas and Aubuchon face potential disbarment. Donahoe's role in county controversies began in March 2009 when he disqualified the County Attorney's Office from investigating a court-tower construction project. Two months later, he tried to force the Sheriff's Office to do a better job of getting inmates to the courts for hearings. In December 2009, Thomas and Arpaio accused Donahoe of being part of a conspiracy against them in a federal racketeering suit. A week later, Thomas filed criminal charges against Donahoe as the judge was about to hear a motion from the County Board of Supervisors asking for a role in selection of special prosecutors in criminal cases. Thomas at the time was trying to get approval for a special prosecutor to try a criminal case against County Supervisor Don Stapley. The prosecutors have consistently maintained they did nothing wrong and that their investigations and charges were legitimate. Attorneys for the former prosecutors cross-examined Donahoe on Wednesday, focusing on court rules and procedures and specifics about documents filed as the prosecutors battled Donahoe and others over the new court tower and their attempts to hire special prosecutors. After three decades building his professional reputation, Donahoe testified, the charges damaged his career, he became depressed, and he began to fear law enforcement. Donahoe has since filed a $4.75 million claim and lawsuit against Maricopa County. The matter is still in litigation. "I've got the two most powerful politicians in Maricopa County, maybe in Arizona, calling me a criminal enterprise, that I accepted bribes," Donahoe said. "I thought, 'Thirty years of trying to build a good reputation, it's is gone because of their conduct.' It was like my whole world - everything I tried to build was ruined by this. My reputation is ruined, my family is fearful. I tried a lot of cases, sent a lot of people to prison. I wondered, 'If they can do this to me, I wonder if they have done this to anyone else?' " During his testimony Wednesday, Donahoe described the criminal complaint and the racketeering suit as a "one-two punch" that sickened him, angered his wife, and prompted him to retire as presiding judge of the criminal courts. He said he couldn't get hired by the Arizona Supreme Court because he was tarnished. And he said the process server who delivered the RICO suit was the same man who years ago had threatened to kill him. Donahoe said he incurred $200,000 in legal fees that he has not paid. In a personal moment, he described growing up in a "dysfunctional family." "I thought I had extracted myself from all of the drama going on with my family," he said. "For 30 years I was modest, law-abiding . . . and then all of the sudden, this is right back on my plate. It was horrible," he said. The three felony charges filed against Donahoe were tied to his handling of criminal investigations into county officials, particularly a controversial court tower under construction in downtown Phoenix. The racketeering suit filed by Thomas and Arpaio alleged racketeering and conspiracy among county officials, judges including Donahoe, and private attorneys. Thomas voluntarily withdrew that suit. The hearing continues today with testimony from County Attorney's Office employees. For live updates on Twitter, follow the case at @yvonnewingett.
What's the difference between cops & criminals? In this case there isn't any. Thomas case: Search warrant called 'creative writing' Oct. 6, 2011 05:46 PM Associated Press A former official on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's public corruption squad testified Thursday that a prosecutor urged him to use "creative writing" in preparing a search warrant in an investigation of county officials, even though no police work had been done to support it. The search warrant affidavit was based on a newspaper story about a decision by county officials to have their offices swept for possible listening devices, Lt. Richard Burden testified at an attorney disciplinary hearing for former Maricopa County prosecutors Andrew Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon. Burden said Aubuchon told him at a March 2009 meeting to use creative writing in handling the draft affidavit that was given to him. Burden regarded the document as a press release and not a legitimate police record. "She said if I can't prosecute them in court, I'll prosecute them in the media," said Burden, who interpreted the creative writing comment as a request to lie. Thomas is accused of bringing criminal cases against two county officials to embarrass them and charging a judge with bribery when Thomas knew the charges were false. All three cases collapsed in court. Thomas contends that he was trying to root out corruption in county government. County officials say the investigations were baseless and an abuse of power. If an ethics panel finds that Thomas and Aubuchon violated the professional rules of conduct, they could face a wide range of punishments, including an informal reprimand, censure, suspension or disbarment. During the meeting with Aubuchon, Burden said he told other sheriff's investigators working under him that they'd be fired if they signed on to such a warrant. Burden said Aubuchon reacted angrily to his viewpoint and slammed the door behind her as she left the room, causing a picture to fall off the wall and its glass to break. Burden said he was instructed to work with Aubuchon by the sheriff's office's then-No. 2 official, David Hendershott, Burden said he was later transferred by Hendershott out of the corruption squad after working there for only 14 days. Burden now works as a sheriff's commander for an area in northern Maricopa County.
Many watching high-profile Andrew Thomas case Legal and political experts following Thomas' state Bar ethics hearing by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Michael Kiefer - Oct. 16, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic Several years ago, when then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas had embarked on a populist crusade against the judiciary, crooked politicians and illegal immigration, a courthouse insider told an Arizona Republic reporter, "The establishment will take care of Andrew Thomas." In effect, that has been playing out for five weeks at the Arizona Courts Building in downtown Phoenix, where Thomas and two of his former deputies are fighting for their legal careers. As legal ethics cases go, this is a landmark case. Even if it hasn't captured the general public's attention, it has a devoted audience among attorneys and politicians in Arizona and elsewhere. Karen Clark, a legal-ethics expert and former prosecutor for the state Bar, said the hearing is unique because it involves years of alleged ethical violations. "This is not about a prosecutor's conduct in one case; it's about how a prosecutor perceives his job, and how he goes about doing it," she said. "What also strikes me is the height of the emotions in the hearings," Clark said. "This is not a typical dispassionate argument where you're hearing about technical violations. This was a political war and there were victims, and watching them testify about it is pretty powerful." Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander are accused of 33 ethical violations stemming from actions against other county officials and judges over four years. The accusations against them include conflicts of interest; filing criminal and civil cases to embarrass or burden rivals, or filing without probable cause or sufficient evidence; criminal conduct; and conduct involving dishonesty and fraud. Among the allegations are that Thomas and Aubuchon filed bribery and obstruction charges against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe without probable cause; that they pursued a grand-jury investigation of Donahoe, county supervisors and other officials despite conflicts of interest; and that they filed misdemeanor charges against Supervisor Don Stapley in 2008 knowing that the statute of limitations had lapsed. In effect, this may be a trial run. This is the first test of the actions of Thomas, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and their employees from 2006 through 2010, and it is being heard by a panel that serves as judge and jury. Similar allegations are being weighed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office. A special agent with the FBI has sat in on the proceedings, signaling that the agency continues to gather information for its abuse of power investigation into Arpaio, Thomas and their employees. A spokesman with the U.S. Attorney's Office confirmed Friday that the investigation remains ongoing. Case interests many Since the hearing's opening statements in mid-September, the legal and political communities have been fixated on the proceedings. They watch live feeds from the court's Internet stream while others stop by the courtroom to observe for themselves, saying they want to witness what has become the largest Bar hearing in state history. Attorneys and politicians discuss the case over lunch. Across the country, some talkabout it on list-servers. Attorneys such as Domingos Santos can't turn away. He worked at the County Attorney's Office while the infighting was at its peak. The ethics hearing, he said, is helping him "close a chapter" on those days. "This was a real feud," he said. "We are seeing people provide testimony under oath regarding details that none of us were ever privy to. It's an insider's view . . . and seeing it play out in the disciplinary process is interesting." Attorneys in other states are taking notice as well. Diane Karpman, a Beverly Hills legal-ethics expert, said the hearing is "extraordinarily unprecedented." She said the case has been discussed online by members of the Professional Responsibility of Lawyers, where they also talk about other cases in the news, from the Casey Anthony trial to the trial involving Michael Jackson's doctor. "Ordinarily, disciplinary trials are not like 'Perry Mason' moments," Karpman said. "They're pretty boring, they're slow, they're kind of plodding. But this is a highly controversial and very important case. It's different." She said the heightened interest is partly because the hearing involves former public prosecutors, "known as ministers of justice. They have authority, the power of the state. So when the power of the state goes after you, it's hard to even contemplate." Hearings are unique Typically, Bar ethics hearings involve problems between lawyers and clients or lawyers and the court, said attorney Mark Harrison, who has been defending lawyer-discipline cases for more than 25 years. He has the court's live-stream website bookmarked on his computer. A recent high-profile Bar discipline case in Arizona involved TV pitchman Jeffrey Phillips of the law firm Phillips and Associates, who last year was suspended for six months and one day. Phillips was disciplined for not properly supervising the attorneys who worked for him, many of whom handled more than 500 cases at a time; because clients were misled by intake specialists who were salesmen on commission, not lawyers; and that refunds were difficult to obtain. The last high-profile ethics case against an Arizona prosecutor involved former Deputy Pima County Attorney Kenneth Peasley, who was disbarred for his actions in two murder cases in the 1990s. The Thomas case rose out of a political setting in which judges were increasingly portrayed as liberal and permissive and government officials with differing political opinions were pilloried. A similar scenario recently played out in Kansas. On Thursday, an attorney disciplinary panel recommended suspension for a former state attorney general and county district attorney for violating ethics while targeting abortion providers. Like Thomas, the respondent in that case told the media that his only "mistake" was to "investigate politically powerful people and to let that investigation go where the evidence led." Thomas also acted on his political convictions - the ones that got him elected to office - when he filed charges and civil actions against his political and ideological foes. As the cases played out, there was debate about whether prosecutors and judges were immune from prosecution and lawsuits, and whether charging a judge was an attack on judicial independence. "If you're going after a judge on the basis of a ruling, it significantly diminishes, if not destroys, a judge's independence," said Keith Swisher, a legal-ethics authority and professor at Phoenix School of Law. "It is perhaps the biggest disciplinary case that we have seen, and will see, for a while," Swisher said. The fact that it is being Web-streamed, and watched by attorneys across the country, makes it more unique. "If sanctions follow, I would think that county attorneys and district attorneys would think twice about charging a sitting judge," Swisher said. "They would also give thought to filing criminal or civil matters against government officials."
Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Alexander was Andrew Thomas's propaganda master! Source Thomas trial: Ex-prosecutor takes stand, pleads ignorance by Michael Kiefer and JJ Hensley - Oct. 21, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic One of former Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Alexander's duties was to handle social media for her boss, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas. She would write articles about him and his policies for conservative publications, even writing favorable reviews of his books on Amazon.com. Alexander is a tireless tweeter and blogger. She hosts a website called "Intellectual Conservative." She has appeared on numerous television talk shows as a freewheeling conservative pundit. Her voice is big in those media, and she usually has quick and self-assured answers to all the questions. But on Thursday, she took the witness stand in her own state Bar disciplinary hearing, and she was flustered and visibly uncomfortable. She was hard-pressed to explain the very legal documents she filed that got her into trouble with the Bar. Alexander is charged with seven ethics violations in connection with a federal civil racketeering lawsuit she filed against county supervisors and other officials, Superior Court judges and private attorneys. Among the allegations are that she filed a frivolous proceeding and used means to burden and embarrass the judiciary and Board of Supervisors. She faces sanctions if a three-member disciplinary panel hearing the case determines she committed those ethical violations. Thomas and a third former prosecutor, Lisa Aubuchon, face possible disbarment in the same case. Alexander was the lead prosecutor in the federal racketeering lawsuit. Like several witnesses before her, she pointed her finger at someone else when pressed for the legal reasoning and supporting evidence that led to the allegations in the racketeering suit. In her case, it was Peter Spaw, the office's racketeering chief, to whom she pointed. Spaw, in turn, offered scathing testimony against Aubuchon in Aubuchon's earlier hearings to keep her job. Spaw has appeared multiple times during the current proceedings, and he announced from the stand earlier this week that he himself has become a target of investigation because of the racketeering suit. Alexander pleaded ignorance on the witness stand Thursday. "I wasn't experienced enough to really fully grasp the level of what (Spaw) was concerned with," she said. "He seemed to be concerned about the fact that it wasn't fleshed out. . . . Once he brought that up, I'm looking to him as the senior RICO attorney, and I'm going to go with his judgment on this." But ultimately, she said, she got mixed messages from Spaw. "Honestly, I didn't know what to think," she said. "I think he was covering his . . . you know." Independent Bar Counsel John Gleason repeatedly asked Alexander what evidence she had to support the allegations in the racketeering suit, which claimed that county supervisors and judges were conspiring against Thomas and his office to keep them from prosecuting several of the supervisors and to keep them from investigating a county construction project for the downtown criminal courts. Alexander vaguely referred to "documents" and talk among senior prosecutors in her office. More than once, she testified that she did not write the racketeering complaint or that she would be able to compile the evidence through "discovery." "I never thought we had to have all the smoking guns together at the beginning," Alexander told Gleason. "It looked like something was going on," she said, but she admitted that she saw no law-enforcement investigation to substantiate that crimes were committed. Gleason persisted with questions about what evidence she had before she filed the complaint. Alexander could not answer. Gleason directed her attention to an article by a conservative blogger that Alexander published on her website earlier this month. Alexander publicized the story on the social-networking site Twitter on a day that one of the people mentioned in the story was on the witness stand in the Bar hearing, testifying against her, Thomas and Aubuchon. Gleason read a passage aloud that characterized the ethics hearings as a misuse of the justice system. "This is nothing but a trumped-up, meritless witch hunt, and it is particularly galling to see Rachel Alexander dragged into it since she was a minor player in the legal proceedings," the blog article said. "Unfortunately, her blogging has long since made her a juicy political target in Maricopa County. In other words, Rachel Alexander's inclusion despite her tangential involvement in the issue appears to be little more than a shot across the bow of conservative bloggers. The message is, 'If you're a conservative and stick your head up high to let people know where you stand politically, no matter how far we have to reach, we'll find a way to drag you through the mud.' "Blogging while conservative is not a crime. Fighting against illegal immigration and corruption is not a crime. However, misusing the justice system for purely political purposes is absolutely despicable and the more sunlight that shines in on this issue in Arizona, the more the cockroaches who are persecuting conservatives will start to scatter." The Arizona Republic wrote about the column last week, but it was the first the disciplinary panelists had heard of it, and their faces darkened as they read along in the courtroom. Gleason asked Alexander to recall her answer in an earlier deposition as to whether she felt remorse for her actions. She didn't remember. Gleason reminded her that she had said that the only thing she regretted was being involved in the disciplinary proceedings.
Andrew Thomas reveals why ignored key aide's advice by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez - Oct. 27, 2011 10:12 AM The Arizona Republic Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said he could not take the advice of his second-in-command, Phil MacDonnell, because he believed MacDonnell had a professional and financial interest in advising Thomas against pursuing a criminal case against County Supervisor Don Stapley. Taking the stand Thursday morning in the ethics hearing that could end in his disbarment, Thomas was questioned by one of his four attorneys, Brian Holohan, and for the first time explained why he did not heed MacDonnell's advice. "I respected MacDonnell," Thomas said. "But I couldn't follow advice. By statute, the supervisors determined his salary. That, in my mind, impacted the weight to be given to his opinion. He had a direct financial conflict with advising me with how to interact with the supervisors and their members." Thomas said he didn't want to "besmirch" MacDonnell, but he believed his former aide was unable to provide unbiased advice on the Board of Supervisors. Thomas also testified that MacDonnell appeared fearful of the powerful "constellation" of forces against him. He said MacDonnell knew Thomas was considering a potential run for state attorney general, and that MacDonnell was interested in applying as an interim county attorney when his boss resigned to run in 2010. "It would not be helpful to him to be adverse to the board in any way," Thomas said. Following Thomas' April 2010 resignation, MacDonnell did apply to the Board of Supervisors as one of several attorneys to serve out the remainder of Thomas' term. The board did not select him. Thomas' second day of testimony comes as part of a weeks-long administrative hearing on his actions against county leaders, judges and private attorneys between 2006 and 2010. Thomas and his former Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon face potential disbarment or other professional sanctions. A third former deputy county attorney, Rachel Alexander, faces lesser sanctions. The three former prosecutors are charged with a total of 33 ethical violations stemming from their actions. Charges include conflicts of interest; filing criminal and civil cases to embarrass or burden rivals, or filing them without probable cause or sufficient evidence; criminal conduct; conduct involving dishonesty and fraud; and failing to cooperate with investigators working for the State Bar of Arizona, which licenses and regulates lawyers. In earlier testimony, MacDonnell testified that he repeatedly warned Thomas to not file civil and criminal charges against county supervisors, sitting judges and others, saying Thomas would create "a bloodbath" that would destroy him. Much of MacDonnell's testimony focused on Thomas' refusal to heed the advice of his most experienced aides when it came to his pursuit of corruption cases. In late 2008, Thomas obtained a criminal indictment against county Supervisor Don Stapley, even though MacDonnell had cautioned his boss against going after a powerful politician. "These are huge battles - they are bloodbaths, and if you win, you lose," MacDonnell recounted in his testimony. "If you lose, you're dead. If you succeed in taking down political figures, you earn enemies in doing so. I basically told him, 'You are crazy to file this case. It will destroy you'." MacDonnell said he told Thomas his office wasn't equipped to handle such a case and advised him to send it to the FBI or another prosecutorial agency. He also advised Thomas not to give the case to Aubuchon. On Thursday, Thomas acknowledged that MacDonnell's warning proved true. "His political advice was dead-on. He said I'd suffer for going after politicians. And he was right."
Andrew Thomas maintains corruption probes of county officials were justified by Michael Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez - Oct. 27, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic The heart of the ethics case against former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas revolves around the fact that he and his deputies filed criminal charges and a civil racketeering suit against Superior Court judges who ruled against them in their so-called corruption investigations. The question is whether that constituted unethical behavior that could lead to disbarment. Thomas took the stand to defend his actions Wednesday in the lengthy ethics hearing that began Sept. 12 and will decide the future of his legal career. Until Wednesday, he had not even attended. He took the stand with a smile, but it quickly faded under aggressive questioning by Independent Bar Counsel James Sudler. Sudler chased him down on details of the various legal actions taken against judges, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and others between 2006 and 2010. At times, Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil warned Sudler that he was argumentative or that his questions were not relevant. Thomas was frequently scolded for talking around questions instead of answering them. O'Neil and two panelists are weighing the evidence and will decide what sanctions, if any, to impose against Thomas and two former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander. Together, they are accused of 33 ethical violations including conflicts of interest; filing criminal and civil cases to embarrass or burden rivals or filing without probable cause or sufficient evidence; criminal conduct; and conduct involving dishonesty and fraud. Thomas and Aubuchon face potential disbarment. Alexander faces lesser sanctions. The hearing is expected to stretch into early- to mid-November. A decision by the panel, however, may not come for months. Ultimately, any of the three can appeal a decision and extend the process. During his testimony, Thomas, like Alexander and Aubuchon before him, was hard-pressed to articulate what evidence they had in the cases they filed against other public officials. Yet he remained steadfast in his belief that crimes were being committed. "There was a pattern of lawless behavior, and I felt that the public needed to know," he said. But at the same time, he portrayed himself as measured and logical in his actions and denied any personal animosity toward Supervisor Don Stapley or former Superior Court Judges Gary Donahoe, Barbara Mundell, Kenneth Fields and Anna Baca - despite the great vitriol and gamesmanship on both sides that continues to cost taxpayers millions of dollars. To Thomas, the supervisors were usurping power of other elected county officials, and he questioned them about it. Then, in December 2008, when he revealed a grand-jury indictment against Stapley, the entire board and county management retaliated against him, he asserted. "Don Stapley was corrupt, and he should be held accountable," he said. His concerns grew to include the judiciary. "I thought we were seeing a travesty unfolding in our courts," he said. "These are things I've seen in Third World countries, but I literally have never heard of these things happening in the United States." They were conspiring against his office, he asserted, and he "needed something out of the box," namely, the racketeering suit. "It was an extraordinary remedy, but we had an extraordinary situation," he said. But when asked if he felt personal animosity, he said, "Not at all. I was doing my job in both cases." He tried to distance himself from the legal actions, describing them as being carried out by his office, not by him personally. And several times, he characterized the MACE unit, an anti-corruption collaboration between the County Attorney's and Sheriff's offices, as being Aubuchon's domain. Thomas assigned her to the unit. But Donahoe was the subject of much of the testimony. The judge had disqualified Thomas' office from investigating a court tower under construction in downtown Phoenix. He had tangled with the sheriff over problems getting jail inmates to court and a detention officer who took papers from a defense attorney's files. Finally, Donahoe was entertaining a motion that would have allowed the supervisors and the county to have the last word over appointing special prosecutors, which would have directly affected the Stapley case. Donahoe, he said, was "like a hockey goalie knocking down pucks," which made him a player in the racketeering conspiracy. Then Thomas charged him with obstructing a criminal investigation, hindering prosecution and bribery. The ethics complaint accused Thomas of filing the charges against Donahoe to muzzle him and stop him from holding a hearing the prosecutor did not want to go forward. When Thomas took the witness stand on Wednesday to discuss the matter, his recollection of events varied widely from what Arizona Republic reporters saw - and wrote - when he announced charges against the judge in December 2009. On Wednesday, Thomas said he had only invited the media to attend the hearing and was surprised the hearing did not take place. In 2009, however, he claimed the judge should have canceled the hearing when a judicial complaint was filed against him or after he was named as a defendant in the racketeering suit. To hold the hearing, Thomas told reporters at the time, would have been an ongoing criminal act, giving the impression that he did file the charges to stop the hearing. At that same news conference, Thomas could not explain how Donahoe had committed bribery at the time of the charges and even asked a Republic reporter to help explain it to other media. On Wednesday, he said Donahoe was "an accessory." Based on a tip that was never substantiated and has been refuted in other testimony, Thomas believed that Stapley had forced then-Presiding Judge Mundell to hire a certain lawyer or else the court tower would never be built. In Thomas' view, Donahoe made sure that Thomas could not investigate the alleged conspiracy. That, he said, constituted bribery. Looking back, Thomas told the court, he would not have done anything differently. He will take the stand again at 9 a.m. today.
|