LIGHTHOUSE BLOG

Rachel Alexander Charges Are Bogus & Embarrass AZ Legal Community

Former Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Alexander faces disciplinary action for following orders from her boss, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with Thomas' office's allegations against some of the county supervisors is irrelevant.  The issue here is what appears to be nothing short of a political assassination of a dedicated employee and public servant in Alexander.  Others who also worked on the racketeering suit have had no such allegations made against them, interestingly.

According the the Arizona Republic, "Alexander is charged with seven ethical violations stemming from her work on the racketeering suit. Charges include using means to burden or embarrass, filing and asserting a frivolous proceeding, and disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal."

Most of the above ethics charges stem from Alexander following orders from her boss.  As a Maricopa County Attorney's Office employee, anyone would and should feel comfortable that their boss, the duly elected County Attorney, was following the law, and that what he was directing his employee to do was legal.  He was the county's highest ranking lawyer, after all.  So of course, if one is asked to file paperwork and pursue a case, an employee would do so, even if she objected.  It was her job.

Alexander is being charged, despite a long, unblemished record at MCAO, solely for her role working on the RICO case. What was her role?  She worked under her supervisor Pete Spaw's direction.  Spaw was an experienced RICO attorney who, according to my sources, started the drafts of the pleadings, finalized the drafts of the pleadings with Andrew Thomas, and developed the key theories in them.  He exclusively dealt with opposing counsel, and filed all of the pleadings electronically.  Alexander's role consisted of mostly research for the pleadings, and taking direction from Spaw, nothing further. Yet Spaw was not charged by the Bar, only Alexander.

The "filing, asserting, & disobeying an obligation" charges are mostly just there for the purpose of piling on.  The real issue here is the allegation that Alexander sought to burden and embarrass county supervisors.  The allegation is nothing short of hilarious on its face, if anyone has ever heard or read a statement from Mary Rose Wilcox, or followed the Brock sex-scandal case, or followed the new court house boondoggle.  The supervisors, with a few exceptions, have done a pretty good job of bringing poor press and embarrassment upon themselves.  And they did so all without the help of Alexander.

But digging deeper, the charges against Alexander reek of fulfilling a vendetta for running a political blog, and a conservative one at that.  Most of their unfettered discontent comes from blog posts they attribute to Alexander, that she in fact did not write.  The Arizona State Bar is anything but a right-leaning organization, and it appears to seek to censor a person with whom they disagree, while leaving others untouched. 

As Alexander's attorney, Scott Zwillinger, says, "She was simply one lawyer of several assigned to a controversial matter, but unfortunately for her, she is the one now fighting for her career."

Alexander will hopefully prevail in this matter, but the tragedy will remain that the Arizona State Bar used it's power to try to silence a grass-roots activist with whom they have political disagreements.  Arizona is not being served well in this, and its legal community is being embarrassed.  And, of course, political blogging isn't going anywhere....

 

 

 

 

 

J.D. Hayworth The Only True Choice for Pro-Lifers

  

   Of the two viable candidates running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Arizona, only one is worthy of a vote from true pro-life voters.  That candidate is J.D Hayworth.  The other candidate, John McCain, has a spotty pro-life record and has not been an advocate for pro-life causes.  For instance, McCain supports experimenting on baby embryos, which of course kills them.  McCain also supports using federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.  J.D. Hayworth opposes both.

   As far as ratings from pro-life groups, JD Hayworth has a 100% rating from ProLife Arizona, and a 100% rating from National Right to Life.   Even Arizona Right to Life said, "AZRTL PAC acknowledges that J.D. Hayworth had a perfect pro-life voting record during his service in the U.S. House of Representatives."  It does NOT say the same about McCain.

   John McCain, on the other hand, received a 0% rating from ProLife Arizona for not completing its survey.  He has only a 75% rating from National Right to Life.  Though controversially endorsed by Arizona Right to Life this year, he was passed over in 2008 for his support of embryonic stem cell research, a position he still holds.  

   Arizona Right to Life has taken a public relations thrashing for its endorsement of McCain.

   National Right to Life endorsed Fred Thompson in 2008 over John McCain because of McCain's support for testing embryos, in addition to McCain's support of McCain-Feingold, legislation which heavily restricted the 1st Amendment rights of pro-life groups.

   As recently as 1999, John McCain is quoted as saying about abortion, "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."  San Francisco Chronicle & CNN, August 1999

   Arizona pro-lifer voters have a clear choice on Tuesday to protect and advance the sanctity of life, and that choice is J.D. Hayworth.

A Contrast In Leadership - Phil Gordan v. Maricopa Supervisors

The Arizona Republic today ran a story about Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon putting one of his top aides on administrative leave until he can resolve charges of domestic violence.  The charge would be a misdemeanor, but Gordon, with whom I rarely agree, did the right thing by moving the issue away from the work of the people until it is resolved.

Contrast that with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, who unanimously voted to elect beleaguered politician Don Stapley as Chairman of the Board.  Stapley, in case you've been under a rock, "was indicted in December on 22 felony counts of fraud, perjury, theft and forgery in the misuse of campaign funds," according to the Arizona Republic.  Stapley had at one time faced over 100 felony and misdemeanor counts.  Yet, the Board of Supervisors felt he was fit to run their Board and do the people's work.

This is the same group of Supervisors, mind you, that decided to fire the elected County Attorney, and replace him with a crony, rather than have Mr. Stapley answer to the charges.  It begs the question of why, if someone is innocent, do they need to take such drastic steps to avoid answering to criminal charges?  I hope if I ever get indicted, I can just fire the County Attorney in order to avoid defending myself.  

Mayor Gordon showed leadership in his placing his misdemeanor-facing aide on administrative leave.  How shameful of the Maricopa County Supervisors that they promoted their felony-facing peer to the highest position on the Board.  It's nothing short of a slap in the face to the people who elected them.  A contrast in leadership indeed.

County Attorney's Office Responds to Bizarre Request from County Manager Smith

From the Maricopa County Attorney's Office:

Good afternoon

County Manager David Smith is demanding disclosure of any communication between several employees at the County Attorney’s Office and a number of media outlets including , The Arizona Republic, the East Valley Tribune, The New Times, several conservative web sites “or any other internet site or address.” A letter sent to a number of County Attorney employees also demands details of communications that happened during non work hours using personal computers. A copy of the letter is attached.  Download Smith letter

 

The move comes days after the Board of Supervisors stalled a criminal probe of county government by refusing to hire outside prosecutors while at the same time demanding that the County Attorney ’s Office not prosecute potential cases.

 

Among those receiving the letter is the Public Information Officer for the County Attorney ’s Office, whose job it is to communicate with the media.

Mike Scerbo and Barnett Lotstein are available for comment   

Also available for comment are two conservative bloggers targeted by county management.  Shane Wikfors, SonoranAlliance.com 480.332.3440   David Roney, CactusAlliance.com 480.443.8500 x101

Michael Anthony Scerbo

MCAO PIO

Office 602-506-3170

Cell    602-489-6913

Fry's Food Stores Fund Planned Parenthood Through Komen Foundation's Race For The Cure

Fry's Food Stores continues its 5 year partnership with the Susan G. Komen Foundation's Race for the Cure this year, hoping to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the dual purpose cancer "research" and Planned Parenthood fund-raising organization.

It has long been known that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has a strong partnership with Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, which was founded in an effort to eradicate minority children, among other things (see below).  Despite pleas from cancer patients and donors year after year to direct all cancer research money to find a cure, as Komen advertises, Komen continues to donate a portion of the "research" money to Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood does no cancer research.

While Komen and Planned Parenthood claim none of the money goes directly toward abortions, but instead toward post-its, pencils, and other things, none of the money Komen gives to Planned Parenthood goes toward cancer research.  Essentially, Komen is lying to its donors, many of whom are victims of cancer struggling with their diseases while hoping for a cure.

Further, anyone who's ever run a budget knows that Komen's and Planned Parenthood's claims are a bogus shell game.  By funding office supplies, Planned Parenthood is free to allocate more funds for abortions.  Think of Saddam Hussein's Oil for Food Program.

Susan Komen's Foundation is tragically but legally free to raise money for Planned Parenthood if it so pleases, however, misleading donors that their money goes to cancer research is unconscionable, immoral, and should be illegal.

Fry's Food Stores is also free to raise funds for the Komen Foundation, but we are free to not shop there.  

___________________________

Quotes from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

And finally:

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)  (*Quote collection compiled and available at dianedew.com)

Party of Purity vs. Party of Anything Goes

Republicans have taken flak lately for being willing to lose Colin Powell as a Republican.  Good riddance, many say, since Powell supported Obama and has questionable Republican values.

Republicans are usually willing to kick fallen members from their ranks in an effort to retain a purified ideological core.  In essence, if you're not acting like a Republican, Republicans say, why should you be allowed to call yourself one and confuse the public?

Such was the case with the recent Republican Congress, who was booted from office for ignoring the principled values that got them elected in the first place.   They gave Republicans and fiscal responsibility a bad name.

On the flip side you have the Democrats, who are truly a party of anything is acceptable as long as your check clears.  There are few real lasting principles associated with the Democrat Party, save for the negative ones of high taxes, abortion on demand, weak on defense, and fiscally irresponsible government.  Sure, Democrats favor some good things, but in the end they support whatever keeps them in power.

A good example is how they took control of Congress in 2006, promising to have the troops home in mere weeks.  Three years later, liberal President Obama is putting MORE troops in harms way, and the liberal-controlled Congress lifts nary an eyebrow in opposition.

So too does it go with President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor, who has questionable qualifications for such an important position.  Her own recorded statements about her nationality making her more qualified, and that judges make policy, should make her questionable to anyone.  Add to that her statements that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for individual gun ownership, and we should all be up in arms - Democrats and Republicans alike.

However, she is expected to win confirmation in the Senate easily - not because people thinks she's anywhere near the best candidate - but because politicians are too afraid to oppose a Hispanic woman.  That's frightening to me.  Regardless if she is the first one-armed, red-headed, albino Eskimo, she should be evaluated on her qualifications, not ethnicity.

So what we have are Republicans who strive perhaps to deep into the ideological purity pool, and perhaps lose some good men like Powell, and Democrats, who are willing to put up with anything as long as there is political gain. 

Republicans would do well to remember Reagan's line that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend.  Democrats would benefit from actually standing for something by opposing poor choices once in a while.  Sotomayor is hardly the best choice for the Supreme Court, and Democrats should, for a change, put substance above symbolism. 

AG Goddard To File Suit Against Planned Parenthood?

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said this week, " "I am committed to protecting Arizonans' right to make informed decisions about their medical care. I will aggressively pursue any company that deceives consumers and puts profit ahead of patient well-being."  See story.

Though this comment was in reference to a confusing birth control advertisement, I can't help but wonder if the AG will apply the same standard and pursue a case against Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest and most profitable abortion provider. Planned Parenthood has long been known for misleading women and withholding critical information regarding the status of their babies as well as the abortion affects on the women themselves.

Somehow I doubt that AG Goddard has the moral courage and political will to fight members of his own political party and make sure women make informed decisions regarding abortion.

No wonder Democrat politicians favor tax hikes; they don't pay taxes

Tim Geithner, US Treasury Secretary and head of the IRS was sent continual reminders to pay his taxes but refused until he was nominated for Treasury Secretary.

Congressman Charlie Rangel, Chairman of House Way and Means Committee, didn't pay income taxes for several years on a rental property.

Tom Daschle, former US Senator, senate leader, and nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services evaded paying over $175,000 in taxes.

These were not "honest mistakes," but instead purposeful evasions of taxes by powerful Democrats who thought they could get away with it.  It's no wonder Democrat politicians have no problem supporting raising taxes on the rest of us.  No matter the tax rate, they just pick and chose which taxes they want to pay.

The Obama Administration continues to be tainted by scandals.

Democrats: Rolan Burris Is Only 3/5 A Senator?

Illinois Governor-appointed Senator, Roland Burris, was barred from entering the Senate today.  Meanwhile, Senate Democrats scramble to cover up allegations of racism, brought on largely due to the weak legal standing for blocking a legally appointed replacement for President-Elect Obama. 

Due to the controversy, Mr. Burris is probably beginning to feel like 3/5 a Senator, which is a reference to the tragic time in our history when black men were only counted as 3/5 of a person instead of a whole person.

Arizona Supreme Court Responds

I received the following email from the Communications Director of the Arizona Supreme Court, Cari Gerchick.  In the interest of fairness, I thought I'd print her rebuttal to the news that the Arizona Supreme Court is banning certain language in order to protect the sensitivities of illegal aliens.  Read original post here.  Read my response to her below her email.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your website currently has on it a story stating that words were banned from Arizona courtrooms. Please know that despite internet and media information to the contrary, the Chief Justice has not banned the use of any words in the court system. Arizona's Code of Judicial Conduct requires that judges be "patient, dignified and courteous" to all who appear in the courts. In accord with that direction, our judges make every attempt to be respectful and courteous in court proceedings.

If I may be of any other assistance, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Cari Gerchick, Esq.

Communications Director

Arizona Supreme Court

Ms. Gerchick,

Your email seems to indicate that while no words are "banned," certain words may no longer be used because of the potential that they may be found to be offensive to people who have allegedly committed crimes.   This, to me, is political correctness way out of control.   Soon we will be calling rapes "inadvertent sexual opportunities," to soften their meaning.

Until such time as I receive clarification from the court that no language will be banned OR discouraged on the grounds that it may be insensitive, I will stick with my story.

Respectfully,

Lighthouse Keeper