Written by John Rudolf, Huffington Post, April 11, 2012
A former top Arizona prosecutor and anti-illegal immigration crusader used his office to destroy political enemies, filed malicious and unfounded criminal charges and committed perjury and other crimes, a state legal ethics panel ruled on Tuesday in Phoenix.
The three-member panel voted unanimously to disbar Andrew Thomas, the former Maricopa County attorney, and his former top deputy, Lisa Aubuchon. Thomas was elected in 2004 and resigned in 2010 during his second term to pursue an unsuccessful run for Arizona attorney general.
"This is the story of the public trust dishonored, desecrated and defiled," the ethics panel said.
As chief prosecutor for Arizona's most populous county, which covers much of the Phoenix area, Thomas, a Republican, gained national prominence after joining forces with Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County's controversial sheriff, in aggressively pursuing, detaining and prosecuting undocumented immigrants.
A series of failed public corruption prosecutions, also closely plotted with Arpaio, proved Thomas's downfall. After the cases collapsed, a far-reaching independent investigation authorized by the Arizona Supreme Court revealed stunning ethical lapses, according to the scathing 247-page report by the review panel.
Thomas suffered from "profound arrogance" that led him into "ethical ruin," said the panel, headed by William O'Neill, the state's presiding disciplinary judge.
Thomas, aided by Aubuchon, "outrageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law," the panel said.
In a decision read from the bench, O'Neill said the panel found "clear and convincing evidence" that Thomas and his deputy brought unfounded and malicious criminal and civil charges against political opponents, including four state judges and the state attorney general.
The charges were ultimately rejected by state grand juries or thrown out of court as meritless, but not before wrecking havoc on the lives of those targeted.
Thomas used his office to settle political scores and worked closely with Arpaio's office in the discredited prosecutions, said Bennett Gershman, a national expert on prosecutor misconduct who acted as a consultant for the ethics investigation.
"Anybody who disagreed with them, they indicted," Gershman said.
In one instance, Thomas brought criminal charges against a state judge with no evidence and no investigation, in order to stop the judge from filing an adverse ruling the following day in a corruption case. In another case, Thomas indicted a county official on more than 120 misdemeanor and felony counts, despite having clear knowledge that the statute of limitations for almost all of the alleged crimes had passed more than a year earlier.
Thomas and Arpaio are under investigation by a federal grand jury for possible civil rights and other charges, according to court documents obtained by the Arizona Republic in 2010. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Phoenix declined to comment on the grand jury proceedings.
Despite the harsh sanctions, Thomas remained defiant on Tuesday, declaring in a statement that his disbarment was the result of a "political witch hunt."
"Today, corruption has won and justice has lost," Thomas said. "I brought corruption cases in good faith involving powerful people, and the political and legal establishment blatantly covered up and retaliated by targeting my law license."
Thomas' claims of persecution rang false to Rick Romley, a fellow Republican who served as Maricopa County attorney for 16 years prior to Thomas's election to the office in 2004.
"There is no credibility in that statement," Romley said in an interview with The Huffington Post. "It really begs the question of whether or not he is delusional."
Romley, who led several major corruption probes during his tenure, applauded the ethics panel's ruling.
"It's absolutely clear that this wasn't a search for justice," he said of Thomas's contested prosecutions. "This is an issue of vindictiveness and a clear abuse of power."
Arpaio issued a statement on the disciplinary panel's decision, but did not leap to his former ally's defense.
"Today's decision no doubt is a disappointment to Andrew Thomas, his family and his colleagues," said Arpaio, dubbed "America's Toughest Sheriff" by conservatives. "He was a hard-working professional who served the people of this county for many years."
"As there are several lawsuits involving some of the same parties and issues involved in today's decision, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further," Arpaio said.
Showing posts with label disbarment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disbarment. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Monday, September 19, 2011
Case May End Andrew Thomas' Career
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
