Moffatt Media Report
Episode #1 (Hearing Panel)
Whether “Third World Justice” undermines equal access to justice against April Sponsel, Former Maricopa County Prosecutor?
A Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions, with two year Suspension, was filed against Sponsel’s law license on 12/19/2023 by the Arizona Supreme Court Hearing Panel. The Hearing Panel, which is NOT in compliance with the Arizona Constitution.
Whether the Hearing Panel has exceeded jurisdiction and authority against Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s?
The Hearing Panel was created under Arizona State Supreme Court Rule 52, Administrative Order No.: 2010-136, dated: 12/22/2010, issued by former Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch. “A three-person hearing board consisting of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, a volunteer, lawyer and a public member will hear any cases proceeding to hearing. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and the hearing boards will have the authority to impose all sanctions including disbarment,” said Berch.
Berch proceeded in 2010, with creating the Hearing Panel in Administrative Order# 2010-136, knowing such panel lacks constitutional infrastructure compliance.
Essentially the Hearing Panel operating under Administrative Order 2010-136, creates an administrative fourth branch of judiciary government without approval by ANY Governor or Arizona House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
MOFFATT MEDIA’S RECOMMENDATION ON SUPREME COURT RULE 52
(HEARING PANEL)
Stay Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions by the Hearing Panel dated 12/19/2023 against Sponsel;
Suspend Supreme Court Rule 52, until there has been a constitutional review to determine Rule 52, contingent on constitutionally legally valid and does not conflict with the Arizona Constitution; and
Suspend Supreme Court Rule 52, that gives the Hearing Panel, a murder weapon to fatally “kill” Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s professional occupational Lawyer’s licenses and their financial livelihoods.
The “Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions,” filed: 12/19/2023, against April Sponsel reads in pertinent part: “The hearing panel was comprised of Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret H. Downie, attorney member Mark S. Sifferman, and public member Randall Clark.”
Sponsel was prosecuted by the Hearing Panel under Count Two alleged violation of ER 1.1. and ER to mean: (Ethical Rule). Do you know the Ethical Rules, are NOT adopted into any Arizona statutory civil or criminal laws?
Conclusion paragraph within the “Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions,” reads in pertinent part: … “April Arlene Sponsel is suspended from the practice of law in Arizona for two years.” …
A two year suspension has the same effect as a disbarment and taking of Sponsel’s vested law license.
The taking of Sponsel’s law license and livelihood has NOT been done by a real “Court of Record,” because the Hearing Panel is nothing more than an administrative hearing body, that does NOT uphold State or Federal constitutional laws.
Do you know the administrative Hearing Panel proceedings against Sponsel denied Sponsel a Jury Trial?
Do you know Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s do NOT have First Amendment Protections?
Because the Arizona legislative Judiciary Branch of government has not been able to force the Supreme Court of Arizona into compliance with implementing First Amendment protections for Sponsel and Arizona Lawyer’s.
ER to mean Ethical Rules
The Ethical Rules are only policy guidelines of Non-Profit Corporation doing business as: State Bar of Arizona. All proceedings are nothing more than sui generis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 48(a) and administrative.
Arizona Supreme Court, enough is enough STOP the kangaroo unconstitutional proceedings against Arizona Lawyer’s.
The Hearing Panel’s Infrastructure has been unconstitutional since its inception.
WHY:
Courts, including the State Supreme Court of Arizona, do NOT make laws they interpret and decide laws!
____
Moffatt Media, has been conducting Case Studies since 2015, regarding the State Bar of Arizona, the Hearing Panel and the State Supreme Court of Arizona.
It continues to be unfortunate that the Arizona Supreme Court appears to have gone rogue against persons like Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s.
Maybe it’s time for Congress to conduct Congressional Inquiries against the Arizona Supreme Court, Hearing Panel and including Supreme Court Rule 52.
Novice users click on areas highlighted in purple to view supportive documents or other references.
###
About Investigative Journalist
Star Moffatt, CEO & Founder of Moffatt Media, Investigative Journalist, Certified Paralegal. Lead Paralegal in two U.S. Supreme Court cases and Completed First Year of Law School.
Email on this article topic issue: [email protected]
Follow Star on Twitter / X: @star_moffatt