Ice Rink at CityScape

Starts: Saturday, November 26,2011
Ends: Wednesday, January 11,2012
Location: Patriots Square
Real ice in Downtown Phoenix? The outdoor NRG Ice Rink returns on November 26th and will feature a larger rink, visits from Santa and holiday entertainment.

NRG Ice rink admission is $10 and includes skate rental.
Groups of 10+ are $8 per person

$1 from each skate rental will be donated to a different local charity each week.

Recieve a coupon with each skate rental to access special deals at several CityScape retailers and restaurants.

November 26 through December 18:
-Monday through Friday, 5pm to 11pm
-Saturday and Sunday, 3pm to 11pm

December 19 through December 31:
-Noon to 11pm daily
-Christmas Eve from Noon to 5pm
-Christmas Day from 1pm to 5pm
-New Year’s Eve Noon to 1am
-CLOSED New Years Day

January 2 through January 11:
-Monday through Friday, 5pm to 11pm
-Saturday and Sunday, 3pm to 11pm

Please contact CityScape for further information: 602.772.3900 or email Elena Fernandez.

Today’s Video is a reminder that the Phoenix Metro area Winter Holiday 2011 DUI task force comes into effect this Thanksgiving weekend.

Between 10pm and 2am for the next 7 weeks police in the Phoenix Metro area will be pulling over all traffic infractions. If you get pulled over and have been drinking be sure to immediately ask to speak to your lawyer.

Remember the best way to avoid having to call the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor over the holidays is to either have a designated driver or take a cab.

(UPDATE)Here are the official Details:

The Phoenix Police Department is participating in the Eat Valley DUI Task Force this holiday season. In addition to East Valley, the Phoenix Police Trafic Bureau will be delploying DUI Motor Officers, DUI Vans and operators citywide in support of this annual hioliday enforcement campaign.

The Phoenix Police Department will once again use a citywide deployment model to strategically place DUI Vans and Motor Officers in each precinct each Wednesday, through Saturday nights. During the month of December, DUI Vans will be set up for processing at each of the pre-determined locations listed below, and will serve as command post/processing areas in each precinct. Motor officers will be assigned in the same area at athe cans and Spanish speakers will be available at most locations.

Patrol officers are encouraged to bring all arrested DUI suspects to the command post in their precinct and all arrests will be counted as part of the 2011 East Valley Holiday DUI Task Force to combat impaired driving.

Precinct Command Post Locations:
Cactus Park(900) – 2710 W. Thunderbird in QT parking lot
Squaw Peak (700) – 1610 E. Highland in QT parking lot
Desert Horizon (600) – 4011 E. Greenway Rd. in QT parking lot
Central City (500) – 3130 E. Thomas Rd. N/S
South Mountain (400) – Souther Command Station parking lot
Maryvale(800) – 1155 N. 51st Ave in the QT parking lot

On Saturday, December 17th, and Thursday, December 29th, 2011, the Command Post for the Squaw Peak Precinct will be located at the Devonshire Senior Center at 2802 E. Devonshire Dr.

Today David Michael Cantor, a Sex Crime Lawyer, based in Phoenix, AZ, discusses Child Pornography Cases and Computer Forensics.

As David mentioned in last years video post about Limewire closing down, more people are finding themselves on the wrong end of the law because of various file sharing programs. Almost immediately after Limewire closed the network was shifted over to Frostwire allowing people to continue to download files from other users computers easily and with unforeseen dangers. As David explains again, but in more detail in this video, when you download files from other peoples computers it is very easy to unknowingly download child pornography and other files that can result in decades of prison time.

In this video David goes into further technical detail about how various files end up on your computer. Even when you delete a file from your computer there can still be parts of the file on your computer that can be used as evidence against you.

If you do find yourself or someone you know in trouble for this type of activity it is important that you get competent and experienced legal representation. It is also critical that a computer forensics expert be involved as well.

Tami Loehrs: Computer Forensics Expert (520) 219-6807

Kim Hart: False Allegation of Abuse Trial Consultant (419) 868-6016

A women in New Jersey is being prosecuted for Identity Theft, not based on stealing credit cards, writing fake checks, or using false social security information however like we would normally think. The basis for her prosecution is that she created a fake Facebook account for her ex-boyfriend and posted nasty things about him on it.

It is unclear which laws allow someone to be prosecuted for creating one of these fake social media accounts, but it is safe to say that if the website is one where the user is claiming to be that person (as in Facebook), you SHOULD NOT ever create one pretending to be someone else, even as a joke!

So, if you really want to get even with your ex, you are going to have to think of a new way to embarrass them. The last thing you want is to end up giving them the last laugh by ending up in the slammer…

Some cities have started outfitting their police officers with miniature video cameras to wear while on duty, that look like a radio. The purpose of these cameras is to videotape their encounters with suspects to be used as evidence at trial against the suspect, and also to refute any claims of police coercion or brutality. There is a heated debate about whether these cameras will result in more benefits to a defendant or whether the use of them will be more damaging.
As a benefit:

• The video footage could be introduced to contradict testimony by a police officer that is inaccurate or untruthful.
• The video can demonstrate an individuals’ tone and demeanor when reiterating what was said
• The video can give a judge or jury a first-hand more clear picture of what occurred rather than being filtered through the eyes of a witness who may have a bias or personal motive to portray the story in a certain light

Detriments:

• Potentially embarrassing images or charges can be immortalized in digital format. We would hope that the videos would not get leaked or end up in the wrong place, but once the image is created, there is a chance it could always become available to the public somehow.
• The intrusion into personal privacy when every encounter, no matter how insignificant, is immortalized into videotape format. Not to mention how much other conduct or conversations could accidentally be recorded even though not the target of any investigation. It seems a bit Big Brother…
• The prosecution does not have to rely on officer’s memories or reports about the defendant’s symptoms of impairment, conduct, or statements. They have hard evidence which can bolster the credibility of other unrecorded testimony by an officer that may be untruthful or inaccurate.

What do YOU think? Have you seen these cameras being used, and do you think it is a good idea?

Image Credit to greenmelinda

The biggest mistake people make is to assume that since they are not guilty of any wrongdoing, that there is no harm in talking with police. In a perfect world, that would be a great assumption. However, in the real world, that is just not true. Literally, anything that you say can be used against you, in reference to this crime or to another crime. Your words, however innocent they may appear to you, can be twisted into a manner that you did not intend. If you are being questioned, always ask for an attorney and call us immediately. As the old cliché goes, it is much better to be safe than sorry.

Image credit to ScriptingNews

The U.S. has 25% of the world’s prisons and spends a whopping $77 billion on prisons each year. However, these prisons rarely do their rehabilitative job efficiently and effectively, and many times only succeed in turning first-time non-violent offenders into life-long hardened criminals.

This Commission would seek to reform the prison system by changing the mentality that the only solution for every crime is jail or prison. With state and federal budgets in crisis, this Commission is long overdue. We cannot afford to continue wasting money on ineffective correction policies that do not work. So far, Republicans are attempting to block this Bill from passing by citing State’s rights. Write to your Senators and tell them that it is time to make our criminal justice system do its job, and limit prison to individuals who truly need to be there.

At this point, it should not come as a surprise to anyone who pays attention that the government has carved out statutory exceptions to the Constitutional requirement of a warrant prior to a search or seizure. There are many reasons cited by the government as to why they should not be required to get a warrant that is supported by probable cause, including exigency, unfeasibility, public safety, and national security. One such warrant exception is contained in the now-controversial PATRIOT Act.

Section 215 of the Act allows the FBI to require the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue orders to persons or businesses to hand over tangible items such as documents and any type of business records, so long as the FBI states that it requires those items “for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” The FBI need not demonstrate any facts to support this assertion. (Do we forget that the FBI is comprised of persons, who are just as likely to lie, have biases, and personal motives for getting access to highly confidential information as any other person on this planet?) The worst part about this process is that you won’t even be notified once your personal information has been accessed.

The judicial branch is supposed to be a check on the executive branch’s powers to reach into the private lives of citizens to complete investigations. This statute basically strips the judiciary of any regulatory role, and requires them to serve as mere tools of the executive department officials, while handing the FBI a blank check to a wide range of your information.

It is provisions in Acts like this that slowly begin to chip away at our civil liberties and the privacy that we enjoy as Americans. Write to your Senators and tell them to repeal this provision because you like your privacy, and will not allow anyone to take it from you! And please, if you think police or other government entities have violated your privacy with an unauthorized search or seizure, please contact our offices.

Recently a Boston court upheld a lawsuit against the city and police for violating a citizen’s right to video the police in public. As reported from PetaPixel.com this is great news for citizen rights. David Michael Cantor, a Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyer, discusses how he has seen similar cases in the last year and that it is encouraging to see the courts uphold this right.

As a side note PetaPixel does sell a Photographers Rights Grey Card Set which has the dual purpose of getting your white balance right and helping your know your rights.

Prior Story:
Nationwide Trend? Police Deleting Video Evidence

Today David Michael Cantor, a Phoenix Criminal Defense Attorney, discusses a case in Philadelphia where a woman used Facebook to solicit a ‘hit’ on her baby’s daddy. By itself the story is unremarkable except that it happened on the popular social networking website. The problem is that hours after their arraignment the baby daddy was shot and killed.
David does not think the prosecution will be able to link the events based on the current evidence, but he does point out that the sentences will be much harsher now.
What do you think?

From the Los Angeles Times:

A cautionary tale of Internet oversharing has emerged from Philadelphia, where London Eley and Timothy Bynum landed in jail for discussing on Facebook a plot to kill the father of Eley’s baby.

Eley’s attorneys insist that she was only venting on the social-networking site about her ex-boyfriend, Corey White, when she wrote on her Facebook page: “I will pay somebody a stack to kill my baby father.” A stack is slang for $1,000.

Bynum’s attorneys said he had no intention of killing White when he allegedly responded to the post with, “Say no more … what he look like … where he be at … need that stack 1st.”

On Monday, a Philadelphia judge upheld charges of murder solicitation against Eley and murder conspiracy against Bynum, both of whom have been in custody since their June arrests.

Hours later, White was shot to death, the Associated Press reported.

But is it a conspiracy? Or a coincidence?

Police must sift through several theories on his killing, including whether it was related to the Facebook exchange or was retaliation for a July nightclub shooting.

Detectives in nearby Upper Darby had heard that White may have been the getaway driver at a nightclub shooting there and wanted to question him, Upper Darby Police Supt. Michael Chitwood told the Associated Press on Tuesday.

Philadelphia police think the man who shot White had carjacked a vehicle in Upper Darby and drove to White’s neighborhood. One or two of the men in the car then argued with White before he was shot in the chest.

Defense attorney Gerald Stein, who represents Eley, said he understood the speculation about his client. “The hearing being yesterday and then, boom, the guy’s dead a couple of hours later?” he said. But he noted that his client had an ironclad alibi: She was in jail.

Today David Michael Cantor, a Phoenix DUI Lawyer, talks about the Phoenix Light Rail, Raillife.com, and having a fun/safe night out on the town.

At the beginning of May the Cantor Law Group moved into our new office location in downtown Phoenix, AZ at the Cityscape building. Our new offices put us literally in the center of town at Central and Washington on 1 East Washington Street, Suite 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004. We welcome you to stop by and take a look.

Our new phone number is 602-307-0808 and all of our old numbers still work as well.

Here is a post with more information for directions to the Cantor Law Group offices at Cityscape in Phoenix, AZ.

Yesterday David Michael Cantor commented on how overboard CNN is going with its coverage of the Casey Anthony trial. Well it looks like we hit a few people’s soft spots and got some comments which disagreed with David’s points. So we made a follow up to talk about what else CNN might spend time covering instead of the Casey Anthony Trial.

As you can see today alone there were at least 5 stories which directly affect millions of people and are therefore a much better topic for CNN to be focusing its energy on:
1)John Edwards Indicted
2)Yemini Prime Minister attacked by Rocket Fire
3)North Korea promises military action against South Korea
4)Jordan’s President asked to resign
5)US Unemployment back over 9%

If CNN wants to keep its patronage they need to fix their news cycle to cover stories that might actually have meaning to its viewers.

What do you think?

Today David Michael Cantor talks about the Casey Anthony trial and the amazing amount of media attention CNN has been giving it. For the uninitiated Casey Anthony was indicted on October 14, 2008 for the death of her toddler. David feels that this case is garnering way too much attention for how interesting it is and it’s importance in US Legal news.

Currently CNN is devoting a significant portion of its daily coverage to this trial both on Headline News and CNN. Apparently Nancy Grace, the TV super heavy in unimportant trial coverage, has been brought in to provide the critical coverage that the US public needs.

As of today, May 1st, 2011, the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor announce our new downtown Phoenix location at the CityScape building and development located at Central Avenue and Washington Street. This move marks a significant stage in the development of our practice to better serve the Phoenix Metro and greater state of Arizona in DUI and Criminal Law proceedings. As downtown Phoenix continues to redevelop and revitalize both businesses and the community with mixed use developments like CityScape we are excited to join this growth and progression.

With our new location we are in walking distance of the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County courthouses, making us even more available for your legal needs. Our new address is 1 E Washington Street, Suite 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004 which literally puts us in the middle of everything going on in Phoenix. For Google Directions click on this link.

The CityScape facilities provide garage parking or you can ride the Phoenix METRO Light Rail to within easy walking distance of our office.

Driving Directions:

If you are coming from west of Central Avenue you will want to make your way to Jefferson Street, which is one way heading East, and after you cross over Central Avenue you will take a left into the basement parking structure.

If you are coming from east of Central Avenue you will want to make your way to Washington Street, which is one way heading West, and after crossing 1st Street take a left into the basement parking structure.

Phoenix METRO Light Rail Directions:

If you are riding the Phoenix METRO Light Rail headed eastbound you will want to exit at the 1st Avenue and Jefferson Street station and turn right, or north, toward Washington Street where you will take another right to cross over 1st Avenue heading east. From there you will continue crossing over Central Avenue and reach the main entrance to CityScape building on your right. Enter and take the elevator to the 18th floor.

If you are riding the Phoenix METRO Light Rail headed westbound you will want to exit at the Central Avenue and Washington Street station and head to the left, or south, toward Washington Street. Cross Washington Street and take an immediate left to cross Central Avenue heading east. Continue forward till you see the main main entrance to CityScape building on your right. Enter and take the elevator to the 18th floor.

In either case if you reach 1st Street you have gone past the entrance. Turn around and the entrance will be on your left.

As always feel free to call us at 602-307-0808 or fill out our Contact Us form by clicking here.

Today’s video from David Michael Cantor, a Phoenix DUI Defense Lawyer, is about the infamous Immigration Bill known as SB 1070. This bill was set to go into effect this month, April of 2011, but has been held up in Federal Court on Appeal after U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton halted key provisions of the bill in Nov 2010. At this time it is not clear when the Appeal will be heard and decided on leaving the controversial bill in limbo.

In April of 2010 Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law and became an immediate lightning rod for the debate concerning Illegal Immigration. Many people felt that this law was unconstitutional as it required the police to ask for identification from anyone they suspected to be an illegal immigrant. The people who felt this way include the President of the United States, Brack Obama, and his administration filed a suit against the bill.

A new wrinkle in the debate is Arizona Senator Russel Pearce’s request to be added to the lawsuit so that he can make his voice heard. Pearce is the author of SB 1070 and feels he can best describe the bill’s intent. He cites a new Arizona law that was passed this year which would allow him to be added to this type of lawsuit. Others point out that this action would be unprecidented in legal history.

What do you think about SB 1070? Is it a good law? Should Russel Pearce be added to the lawsuit simply because the Arizona legislature passed a law saying its okay?

Here is more from the Arizona Republic:

The future of Arizona’s controversial Senate Bill 1070 will remain in limbo until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling, a federal judge decided Friday.

And there’s no telling when that will be.

The court heard arguments on Nov. 1 regarding U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to halt most of the key provisions of SB 1070 from going into effect. The immigration bill was signed into law last April.

Bolton said Friday that she had been waiting to move forward with a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which challenges the law’s constitutionality, until there was a ruling on her injunction. It now has been five months, she said.

“I had anticipated that we would have had a decision. I was betting for February, and now, March has come and gone,” Bolton said, adding that she gets no advance notice on when a ruling might come.

Bolton said that she was reluctant to continue to wait but that she and attorneys representing the federal government on one side and the state and Gov. Jan Brewer on the other agreed that they couldn’t move forward with the underlying case until they had an appeals-court decision.

Bolton said once a ruling does come down, the two sides will have 30 days to let her know whether they will appeal again, which could take the case as high as the U.S. Supreme Court.

But there are some things that will happen while they continue to wait.

Bolton said they will move forward with a countersuit that Brewer filed in February alleging that the federal government has failed to secure the border.

Varu Chilakamarri of the Justice Department said it will file a motion to dismiss the countersuit within the next couple of weeks.

Bolton also will make a decision on a request by Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, to join the lawsuit as a defendant. She had initially denied Pearce’s request, but the Legislature passed a measure earlier this year authorizing Pearce and Speaker of the House Kirk Adams to intervene on behalf of the Legislature.

Brewer supports Pearce’s request; the Justice Department opposes it. On Friday, Bolton heard arguments from all the involved parties.

Pearce said he needs a seat at the table because he can best explain the intent of the Legislature in writing and passing SB 1070.

“I think we would enhance the debate,” he said. “This impacts the entire nation, and we need to be at the table.”

Attorney Paul Orfanedes of Judicial Watch, a conservative non-profit, is representing Pearce at no cost to the state.

Orfanedes admitted to Bolton that it is unprecedented for a legislature to ask to join a lawsuit in which state or gubernatorial attorneys are already defending a state law. But, he said, passing a law saying that the state wants the legislature to be represented in such a case also has never happened.

“This is the Legislature’s baby,” he said. “It knows this very controversial legislation better than anybody else.”

Chilakamarri said it would be unwarranted and unprecedented for Bolton to allow Pearce to intervene just because the state passed a law saying he could.

Bolton said she will rule on the matter later. She said she is concerned that adding another party to the case would mean more lawyers, more documents filed and more time.

“You are really not offering me anything that says the interests of the state Legislature are not being adequately represented,” she told Orfanedes.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/04/02/20110402xgr-1070hearing0402.html#ixzz1K6903hur

Here is Phoenix DUI Lawyer David M Cantor’s third video talking about the Sweat Lodge trial of James Arthur Ray. In this video David discusses two new versions of the retreat that Ray organized where three people died following a ceremony in the sweat lodge. David identifies a new possible defense that Ray’s lawyers might want to use: the fact that there was a licensed medical doctor at the event as a participant. This helps to show that Ray could not have foreseen the deaths or danger to persons since not even a trained medical professional saw it coming. What do you think?

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/18/20110318arizona-sweat-lodge-trial-doctor-testimony.html

CAMP VERDE – Jurors in a self-help author’s manslaughter trial heard two different versions of a self-help author’s “Spiritual Warrior” retreat Friday.

Dr. Jeanne Armstrong says breathing exercises, a 36-hour fast in the desert and a hair-shaving event had no bearing on her decision to take part in the October 2009 ceremony, nor was she pressured.

Laurie Gennari likened the week’s events to junior high school where students are taunted and to participate in activities and called out if they don’t.

Three people died following the sweat lodge ceremony. Ray has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter charges.

Prosecutors say that Ray conditioned the participants to remain in the sweltering structure despite signs all around that things were going wrong.

Defense attorneys say the deaths were a tragic accident that Ray couldn’t have predicted.

Earlier this year Arizona experienced a horrible tragedy in Tucson when Jared Laughner shot and killed numerous people at a public meeting coordinated by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Since then the debate for allowing guns on campus has heated up significantly with proponents citing Utah as a poster child for allowing guns on campus. Recently, Lawrence M. Krauss, a Professor at Arizona State University came up with his own method for handling this issue by simply not allowing students with weapons to attend his classes. David M Cantor, a Phoenix DUI Lawyer, discusses this technique in todays video.

What do you think?

Read more at the Arizona Republic:

I moved to Arizona three years ago to direct the Origins Project at what is becoming one of the most dynamic institutions of higher education in the country, Arizona State University.

Our successes are now at risk as some members of the state Legislature seem bent on leading Arizona backward in matters of both higher education and business investment, while risking the safety of the university community.

Less than two months after the tragic shooting near Tucson, the Legislature is debating Senate Bill 1467, which will forbid the governing board of an educational institution from adopting or enforcing a policy that prohibits the possession of concealed weapons by students or faculty, as long as they have a permit.

All this, despite the fact that the chief law-enforcement officers of the three state universities in Arizona have come out strongly against the law.

They all voice the same concern: Law-enforcement officials entering any area of possible conflict in which numerous individuals are carrying guns will not be able to determine who the perpetrator is.

In addition, they are aware that all but highly trained weapons experts tend to miss their targets, so that use of weapons on campus is likely to result in injury or fatalities to innocent bystanders.

This pending legislation is already having a chilling effect. The Origins Project has brought the world’s preeminent scholars to campus over the past three years. However, we are now getting e-mails from several prominent academics who are concerned about lecturing in locations in which some students may carry weapons.

If SB 1467 is signed into law, despite overwhelming faculty, parent and student objections, we who work at the university will have difficult choices to make about our future.

I have come up with a plan, however, which I hope obviates at least some of the most odious impacts of this legislation.

First, throughout the university, we now try to maintain an intellectual atmosphere that promotes open inquiry and questioning. For this reason, I now tell students they should not bring calculators or skateboards to my classroom.

No matter what the form of any final legislation is, I will have the same policy for weapons in my classroom. Outside classrooms, I will adopt a policy of refusing to interact with or host events with students who have indicated they intend to carry weapons on campus.

I view this as an issue of academic freedom, and I believe that achieving the proper atmosphere of intellectual inquiry is an essential part of such freedom.

Nevertheless, there may be some legal challenge to my actions. Should it be successful, I have another plan, and I am recommending both proposals to others.

I plan to register a disability with the university: an uncontrollable fear of guns in public places.

This didn’t used to be a disability that affected me, but I will make it clear that I cannot function properly in my role as a teacher and researcher in the presence of firearms on campus. I will request that students be informed that because of this, only those not carrying weapons can register for my classes.

There is an irony here. Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol can ban the presence of firearms. However, although the Legislature trusts students with handguns, they do not feel they can drink responsibly and legally, so the campus is alcohol-free.

If this were not the case, the Arizona Board of Regents would seem within its rights to refuse to allow guns on campus.

Whether or not my civil disobedience will work, it is important, as we consider how to ensure our safety and our students’ safety on campuses, that we also consider how we can protect ourselves against a potentially more invasive threat: the reckless shortsightedness of some of our own elected officials.

Lawrence M. Krauss is foundation professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. His newest book, “Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science” is being released this month.

Its no secret that David M Cantor, a Phoenix DUI Lawyer, has issue with how Andrew Thomas conducted himself as Maricopa County Attorney. We have posted a few videos regarding this here and here and here and here and here and here. Today David talks about Thomas’ response to the “legitimacy of the State Bar of Arizona’s case to have him disbarred”. Thomas is arguing that “the state Bar’s independent investigator, John Gleason” is not qualified to handle the case since he is not licensed to practice law in Arizona. He also argues that the Supreme Court’s probable-cause panelist, former Chief Justice Charles Jones, went beyond his authority by recommending that Thomas be disbarred.

If you have watched our Blog before you may have seen our video on Pro Hoc Vice. In that video David explains how Lawyers can practice law in any state whether they are licensed for that particular state or not. This is how OJ’s dream team was brought together. So it seems that Mr. Thomas is confused about how that part of the law works.

His statement about Chief Justice Charles Jones going too far in his recommendation of disbarment for the former Maricopa County Attorney. So the body responsible for ruling on a lawyers disbarment cannot make the recommendation? That is another odd interpretation of Law Mr. Thomas.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses now that Thomas has formally filed against the State Bar complaint. He is due back for hearings on April 14 along with his two former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander.

Read the AZ Central story here:

Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has filed motions before the presiding disciplinary judge of the Arizona Supreme Court attacking the legitimacy of the State Bar of Arizona’s case to have him disbarred.

Thomas was formally charged Feb. 3 with ethics violations after a lengthy investigation. The state Bar, which licenses and polices attorneys, accused Thomas and two of his former deputies with conflicts of interest and filing criminal and civil cases without probable cause or sufficient evidence.

The allegations stem from Thomas’ political and legal fights with other county officials.

In his motions to the court on Friday, Thomas argued that the state Bar’s independent investigator, John Gleason, was not qualified to do the inquest that led to charges because he is not licensed to practice law in Arizona. He also argued that the Supreme Court’s probable-cause panelist, former Chief Justice Charles Jones, exceeded his authority by recommending additional charges.

Thomas has made some of the same allegations in a notice of claim filed against the state.

Gleason was brought in by the Supreme Court to avoid conflict between Thomas and Arizona attorneys. Through the end of 2010, the state Bar paid $90,000 for the independent investigation. It was funded by member dues to the association.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/26/20110226maricopa-county-attorney-andrew-thomas-lawsuit.html#ixzz1HGDrmQLo

Things are never dull around here and today’s post is quite the whopper. As reported last month it looks like Clarence Thomas, US Supreme Court Justice for over 20 years, has failed to report his wife’s six figure income for over 5 years. Added up the total of omitted taxable income comes to almost $700k for Virginia Thomas’ income from lobbying for the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. David M Cantor, a Phoenix Arizona DUI Attorney, gives his point of view and discusses the LA Time’s article in todays video.

As David mentions the experts that were interviewed for this story have varying takes on what this means and what should happen next. On the one hand Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law, explains that by law Federal judges must disclose the source of their spouses income. The idea here is to have transparency for high level judges to see how they might be influenced. Mr. Gillers points out that this “could not have been an oversight.”

The other expert Steven Lubet, an expert on judicial ethics at Northwestern University School of Law, feels that this will likely not result in any type of penalty based on past cases. At worst Thomas might be looking at a Civil penalty.

Since this story ran Justice Thomas has updates his tax forms to accurately report his wife’s source of invome. David M Cantor feels that this should be looked into a little more carefully due to the special nature of the US Supreme Court. The reason for this is because generally when their is an impropriety with a Judge a presiding Judge is brought in to determine the degree of impropriety and handle the situation. This is a bit different when we are dealing with a US Supreme Court Justice as the only Judge who can decide if their conduct is inappropriate is that same judge.

So the only person who can decide if Clarence Thomas is in an inappropriate position to rule on a case is Clarence Thomas. Now we have a situation where Justice Thomas has been caught hiding the nature of his wife’s income source from a conservative think tank who lobbies for cases that come to the Supreme Court. Is this the best way to handle such an issue? What do you think?