• Moffatt Media America's Taxpayer Watchdog News

Rally Mask Mandates-Mandated Vaccine Passports

Rally Mask Mandates-Mandated Vaccine Passports

January 12, 2022, Wednesday

Moffatt Media, Palmdale, California
By: Moffatt Media Staff
Moffatt Media brings to you a Public Service Announcement

(“Rally Mask Mandates and Mandated Vaccine Passports”)
When: Today, 1/12/2022, Wednesday
Where: Palmdale, California – Front of City Council
Time: 6:00pm

Purpose: Rally Opposing – “Mask Mandates” and “Mandated Vaccine Passports” in the City of Palmdale, California
Take Action: Get involved with the Palmdale Freedom Coalition by Supporting this Rally. It is Time!
About Palmdale Freedom Coalition: “We believe that the government should not force vaccines or mask mandates on its citizens and that vaccine passports should be banned.” …
Today the City of Palmdale will vote whether or not to impose “Mask Mandates” and Mandated Vaccines.


Brnovich says Vaccine Mandates “Unconstitutional” Hypocrite?

Moffatt Media Arizona Attorney General BRNOVICH

Mark Brnovich said on Fox News in part moments ago: “Vaccine Mandates” are unconstitutional.”  

Moffatt Media Arizona Attorney General BRNOVICH


However, YOU Bronovich have turned a blind eye to an “unconstitutionally seated judge” seated on the Supreme Court bench from (2010-2021).   The same “Unconstitutionally Seated Judge William J. O’Neil that adversely impacted constitutional rights of thousands of Arizona Lawyer’s.

Hopefully, the people will see your appearance on Fox News as nothing more than political rhetoric since now seeking a U.S. Senate seat.

Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench

reuters thousands of judges broke the law or their oath misconduct-lead

In the past dozen years, state and local judges have repeatedly escaped public accountability for misdeeds that have victimized thousands. Nine of 10 kept their jobs, a Reuters investigation found – including an Alabama judge who unlawfully jailed hundreds of poor people, many of them Black, over traffic fines.


Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide.

Marquita Johnson, who was locked up in April 2012, says the impact of her time in jail endures today. Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused.

“Judge Hayes took away my life and didn’t care how my children suffered,” said Johnson, now 36. “My girls will never be the same.”

Fellow inmates found her sentence hard to believe. “They had a nickname for me: The Woman with All the Days,” Johnson said. “That’s what they called me: The Woman with All the Days. There were people who had committed real crimes who got out before me.”


In 2016, the state agency that oversees judges charged Hayes with violating Alabama’s code of judicial conduct. According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission, Hayes broke state and federal laws by jailing Johnson and hundreds of other Montgomery residents too poor to pay fines. Among those jailed: a plumber struggling to make rent, a mother who skipped meals to cover the medical bills of her disabled son, and a hotel housekeeper working her way through college.

Hayes, a judge since 2000, admitted in court documents to violating 10 different parts of the state’s judicial conduct code. One of the counts was a breach of a judge’s most essential duty: failing to “respect and comply with the law.”

Despite the severity of the ruling, Hayes wasn’t barred from serving as a judge. Instead, the judicial commission and Hayes reached a deal. The former Eagle Scout would serve an 11-month unpaid suspension. Then he could return to the bench.

Until he was disciplined, Hayes said in an interview with Reuters, “I never thought I was doing something wrong.”

This week, Hayes is set to retire after 20 years as a judge. In a statement to Reuters, Hayes said he was “very remorseful” for his misdeeds.

Community activists say his departure is long overdue. Yet the decision to leave, they say, should never have been his to make, given his record of misconduct.

“He should have been fired years ago,” said Willie Knight, pastor of North Montgomery Baptist Church. “He broke the law and wanted to get away with it. His sudden retirement is years too late.”

Hayes is among thousands of state and local judges across America who were allowed to keep positions of extraordinary power and prestige after violating judicial ethics rules or breaking laws they pledged to uphold, a Reuters investigation found.

Judges have made racist statements, lied to state officials and forced defendants to languish in jail without a lawyer – and then returned to the bench, sometimes with little more than a rebuke from the state agencies overseeing their conduct.

Recent media reports have documented failures in judicial oversight in South Carolina, Louisiana and Illinois. Reuters went further.

In the first comprehensive accounting of judicial misconduct nationally, Reuters identified and reviewed 1,509 cases from the last dozen years – 2008 through 2019 – in which judges resigned, retired or were publicly disciplined following accusations of misconduct. In addition, reporters identified another 3,613 cases from 2008 through 2018 in which states disciplined wayward judges but kept hidden from the public key details of their offenses – including the identities of the judges themselves.

All told, 9 of every 10 judges were allowed to return to the bench after they were sanctioned for misconduct, Reuters determined. They included a California judge who had sex in his courthouse chambers, once with his former law intern and separately with an attorney; a New York judge who berated domestic violence victims; and a Maryland judge who, after his arrest for driving drunk, was allowed to return to the bench provided he took a Breathalyzer test before each appearance.

The news agency’s findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who writes about judicial ethics. Although punishment short of removal from the bench is appropriate for most misconduct cases, Gillers said, the public “would be appalled at some of the lenient treatment judges get” for substantial transgressions.

Among the cases from the past year alone:

In Utah, a judge texted a video of a man’s scrotum to court clerks. He was reprimanded but remains on the bench.

In Indiana, three judges attending a conference last spring got drunk and sparked a 3 a.m. brawl outside a White Castle fast-food restaurant that ended with two of the judges shot. Although the state supreme court found the three judges had “discredited the entire Indiana judiciary,” each returned to the bench after a suspension.

In Texas, a judge burst in on jurors deliberating the case of a woman charged with sex trafficking and declared that God told him the defendant was innocent. The offending judge received a warning and returned to the bench. The defendant was convicted after a new judge took over the case.

“There are certain things where there should be a level of zero tolerance,” the jury foreman, Mark House, told Reuters. The judge should have been fined, House said, and kicked off the bench. “There is no justice, because he is still doing his job.”

Judicial misconduct specialists say such behavior has the potential to erode trust in America’s courts and, absent tough consequences, could give judges license to behave with impunity.

“When you see cases like that, the public starts to wonder about the integrity and honesty of the system,” said Steve Scheckman, a lawyer who directed Louisiana’s oversight agency and served as deputy director of New York’s. “It looks like a good ol’ boys club.”

That’s how local lawyers viewed the case of a longtime Alabama judge who concurrently served on the state’s judicial oversight commission. The judge, Cullman District Court’s Kim Chaney, remained on the bench for three years after being accused of violating the same nepotism rules he was tasked with enforcing on the oversight commission. In at least 200 cases, court records show, Judge Chaney chose his own son to serve as a court-appointed defense lawyer for the indigent, enabling the younger Chaney to earn at least $105,000 in fees over two years.

In February, months after Reuters repeatedly asked Chaney and the state judicial commission about those cases, he retired from the bench as part of a deal with state authorities to end the investigation.

Tommy Drake, the lawyer who first filed a complaint against Chaney in 2016, said he doubts the judge would have been forced from the bench if Reuters hadn’t examined the case.

“You know the only reason they did anything about Chaney is because you guys started asking questions,” Drake said. “Otherwise, he’d still be there.”


“Oath” Breached by “Brnovich” Arizona Attorney General

Arizona Attorney Mark Brnovich
By Moffatt Media Staff, Palmdale, California

Whether Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, has breached his “Oath?”

Maybe a better question would be why has Brnovich failed to uphold his own “Oath” of Office guaranteeing Constitutional promises to the public and Arizona Lawyers?


Brnovich has failed to uphold his own “Oath” of Office, by failing to protect a certain group of people defined as Arizona Lawyer’s.

Brnovich has breached his own “Oath” of Office to enforce and uphold constitutional equal protections and constitutional rights even applicable with Arizona Lawyer’s.

For sure Brnovich is aware that the “Judiciary Committee” Arizona House of Representatives on January 4, 2016, issued a Final Report and Recommendation against the Arizona Supreme Court.

One particular Finding by this “Judiciary Committee” Arizona House of Representatives, Recommended the Supreme Court to implement First Amendment Protections for Arizona Lawyer’s.

Fast forward to year 2021 and the Arizona Supreme Court has still defied Final Report with a Recommendation by its own legislative branch of government being the Arizona House of Representatives “Judiciary Committee,” to implement First Amendment Protections for Arizona Lawyer’s.

Thus, history shall not be forgotten when Former Sheriff Arpaio set up a Task Force, to investigate judicial corruption related to an approximate $330 Million Maricopa County Courthouse, to be built including underground tunnels all without Arizonan Voter Approval.

The Task Force consisted of “Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney, Lisa Aubuchon, Division Chief; and Rachel Alexander Deputy County Attorney.” … However, these former prosecutors claim they were all retaliated against even as government employees, for “blowing the whistle,” to expose judicial corruption, on Maricopa’s $330 Million Taj Mahal Courthouse.

According to Thomas, Aubuchon and Alexander, they were placed on the chopping blocks as targets. Thomas and Aubuchon did in fact suffer Disbarment-revocation of their professional Lawyer’s licenses, however, Suspension was only imposed against (Alexander), for six months and one day, that has the same effects as a Disbarment.

Essentially the Task Force Members (Thomas, Aubuchon and Alexander) were Disbarred for taking a stand to Speak Up and Speak Out, while only uttering words that they too assumed guaranteed to have First Amendment constitutional protections.

Contrary to the “Judiciary Committee” Arizona House of Representatives, identified in January 4, 2016, Findings and Recommendation Report, at Page 3, Section D, admitting the Supreme Court has failed to have policies in place to uphold First Amendment Constitutional Protections that protect Arizona Lawyer’s and recommended: “Arizona Supreme Court to modify … protect the first amendment freedoms of Arizona attorneys.”

Yet the issues of (Thomas, Aubuchon and Alexander) were in 2012, Brnovich has been derelict from 2016 and presently with assuring the Supreme Court to comply and implement First Amendment Protections for Arizona Lawyers, recommended by the “Judiciary Committee” Arizona House of Representatives.

Brnovich even closed his eyes when Arizona was sued back in August 2017, by an Arizona Lawyer, in Federal District Court. The same Arizona Lawyer, who has raised numerous constitutional infrastructure violations by the State of Arizona and State Bar of Arizona. Same $10 Million civil lawsuit against Arizona places the State in a precarious position, because Brnovich intentionally failed to file an Answer, to protect its State’s interest.

Two core issues raised in the $10 Million civil lawsuit against Arizona, still awaiting decision by the Federal District Court, Plaintiff raised constitutional challenges regarding: (1). invalid “Oath” of Office applicable to the same judge (2). not constitutionally seated on the Arizona Supreme Court bench from years 2010 through April 2021.

Brnovich has failed to uphold even his own “Oath of Office,” to include constitutional equal protections of Arizona Lawyer’s;

Bronovich’ promised: “I will enforce the Law” said in the May 7, 2020 statement, is nothing more than soundbite regurgitated political rhetoric;

Bronovich has failed to assure the Arizona Supreme Court comply with Arizona House of Representatives “Judiciary Committee” January 4, 2016, Final Report with Findings and Recommendation Report, that the Court implement First Amendment Protections for Arizona Lawyer’s;

Brnonvich, has even failed to file an Answer to the $10 Million Civil Lawsuit filed against the State in 2017;

Brnovich has allegedly participated in a public corruption coverup scheme conspiring with a judge (William J. O’Neil, Supreme Court of Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge) who was unconstitutionally seated on the Arizona Supreme Court bench from years 2010 through 2021.

The same unconstitutionally seated judge O’Neil, who operated from the supreme court bench also without a valid “Oath,” committed criminal Judicial False Impersonation, then Disbars Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon, Division Chief and suspended Rachel Alexander Deputy County Attorney, but still Brnovich continues to turned a blind eye; and

Surely for all the foregoing reasons mentioned above warrant inclusion of ANY “Ethical or Criminal Investigation” against Brnovich.

West Valley Water District $51K Legal Bill Due “The Ethics Saga Continues with Legal Woes for Key Players at WVWD”



Gail Fry | IE Voice News Contributor

As previously reported by The Voice/Black Voice News, after years of corruption, power struggles, settlements paid to disgruntled employees, investigations, a state audit, and disputes between board members leaving ongoing litigation, beleaguered West Valley Water District (WVWD) ratepayers find themselves not only struggling to pay for their life-sustaining water service but also footing the bill for the alleged unethical actions of their combative directors.

Ongoing Litigation 
The whistleblower lawsuit brought on behalf of the district by its director Dr. Clifford Young along with former WVWD employees Patricia Romero and Naisha Davis against Defendants Tafoya & Garcia, LLP., Robert N. Tafoya, Kaufman Law Firm PC., Martin Kaufman, Albright, Yee & Schmidt, APC. (AYS), Clifton Albright, and Robert Katherman and Rob Katherman Consulting was dismissed, leaving a $50,878.40 legal bill due.

Los Angeles Superior Court (Source: Wikiwand)

At a June 16, hearing at the Los Angeles Superior Court, the court denied Defendants Tafoya & Garcia, LLP, Robert N.Tafoya’s motion for legal fees and costs in the amount of $50,878.40 against plaintiffs C. Young, Romero, and/or Davis finding the defendants “have not submitted any detailed billing records to substantiate their attorneys’ fees” while allowing defendants to refile its motion with “evidentiary support.”  No hearing date has been scheduled.

Defendants Tafoya & Garcia, LLP and Robert N.Tafoya were the only defendants to file a motion for attorney fees and costs.  In his motion Tafoya points the finger directly at C. Young, Romero and Davis claiming they used the whistleblower lawsuit as a “sword” against him and to “chill” the investigations Tafoya was conducting into C. Young’s “illegal and unethical behavior.”

The tables in the case were turned on December 1, 2020, when Albright, Yee & Schmidt, APC. filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against C. Young, Romero, Davis, as well as their attorneys Rachel Fiset, Erin Perez-Coleman, Michael Zweiback, Zweiback Fiset & Coleman LLP.  alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, negligent interference with economic advantage, and intentional interference with economic advantage.

There are now three ongoing lawsuits pending in San Bernardino Superior Court related to this fiasco filed against the district by its former employees, Davis, Romero, and a third former employee, Nadia Loukeh, who filed a lawsuit on June 3, naming WVWD as well as C. Young, and Romero personally. She alleges sex and gender discrimination, retaliation, harassment, a hostile work environment and wrongful termination.

Additionally, according to WVWD press releases and February 23 meeting minutes, the district has paid about $1.3 million in settlements to its terminated, “disgruntled employees.”

Alleged Unethical Directors, Current and Former Employees, and a  Potentially Criminal General Counsel

The IE Voice and Black Voice News provided an opportunity to comment about this article to every individual allegedly involved in either unethical behavior or implicated in criminality as written in this story.

WVWD Director Michael Taylor
Michael Taylor joined the WVWD Board of Directors in December 2017. Formerly the police chief of the City of Baldwin Park, he came under immediate scrutiny according to a Southern California News Group report (SCNG) when his first action was to nominate Baldwin Park City Attorney Robert Tafoya to serve as WVWD’s general counsel.

Three weeks before this nomination, Tafoya, as city attorney for Baldwin Park, recommended its City Council approve a controversial, one-year police chief contract with Taylor, one year and two months after Taylor was fired from that same position.  Tafoya purportedly helped Taylor negotiate the new contract with Baldwin Park.

West Valley Water District Director and former Baldwin Park Police Chief Dr. Michael Taylor.

Former WVWD Director Don Olinger once described Taylor and Tafoya’s actions as a quid pro quo. Others purportedly recognized Taylor and Tafoya benefited from each other’s actions. Also, experts described Taylo’s contract as “extremely unusual,” :”highly inappropriate,” and even “unprecedented.”

As part of the negotiated contract Taylor would receive a $20,000 annual salary increase,  a $25,000 annual pension increase, it prohibited any annual performance evaluation and included a provision protecting him from termination unless he committed a felony offense.
This is the same Taylor now running for the Rialto City Council.

Former WVWD Assistant General Manager Ricardo Pacheco
Ricardo Pacheco, formerly a council member of Baldwin Park, was recommended by Taylor and hired as WVWD’s assistant general manager in December 2017. He was terminated in November 2019 with a severance package, and by June 2020, pleaded guilty to accepting $37,900 in bribes from a Baldwin Park Police officer working at the  Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) direction.  The Justice Department reported Pacheco accepted bribes in exchange for his political support of the Baldwin Park Police Association’s contract.

C. Young, Romero and Davis alleged in their Second Amended Whistleblower Complaint, that Pacheco managed Baldwin Park matters on WVWD’s time, maxed out his district credit card with non-district entertainment expenses, and patronized strip clubs during work hours.

Ricardo Pacheco former Baldwin Park City Council member and former Assistant Manager West Valley Water District.

In 2019 as a member of the Baldwin Park City Council, Pacheco voted in favor of releasing then Baldwin Park Police Chief Lili Hadsell. She later filed a civil lawsuit against the city alleging gender discrimination, specifically alleging Pacheco and Taylor made sexist comments to her subordinates and conducted a pattern of harassment after Hadsell replaced Taylor.  In March 2019, Hadsell was awarded a seven million dollar judgment against the City of Baldwin Park.

Former WVWD Human Resources Director Deborah Martinez
Former WVWD Human Resources Director Deborah Martinez was hired in August 2016,  promoted at Taylor’s recommendation in December 2017, placed on leave in December 2019, and terminated in April 2020 after it was confirmed she was facing criminal charges for tax fraud–the charges were not related to WVWD.  WVWD officials learned of the criminal charges in September 2019, and kept them under wraps for three months until the story broke in the press.

WVWD General Counsel Robert Tafoya 
In November 2020, the Los Angeles Times reported the downtown Los Angeles law office of WVWD General Counsel Robert Tafoya and current Baldwin Park City Attorney, were searched by the FBI in an ongoing probe into how Baldwin Park administers cannabis businesses.

The FBI also served search warrants at the home of San Bernardino Planning Commissioner, Gabriel Chavez, a San Bernardino County planning commissioner.  The report noted a former Baldwin Park police officer testified to receiving complaints from three cannabis operators alleging “questionable business practices” and $250,000 in bribes paid to Baldwin Park officials.

Following the FBI search of Tafoya’s office, the City of Baldwin Park issued a press release stating it had not been contacted by federal agents, and would cooperate fully with authorities while distancing itself from Tafoya explaining he works for the city on contract.

Robert Tafoya WVWD General Counsel and current Baldwin Park City Attorney.

In a separate incident, the Los Angeles Superior Court sanctioned Attorney Robert Tafoya and his client Lorena Cabrera, $60,153.56 for filing a frivolous claim for disability discrimination against Cabrera’s employer Sonora Foods, Inc. doing business as Popchips, Inc.

A review of WVWD meeting agendas from December 3, 2020 through May 20, 2021, found one closed session item at its May 20 meeting to conduct a performance evaluation of its general counsel, minutes reflect “no reportable action was taken.” .

The IE Voice and Black Voice News inquired about  whether Tafoya’s contract with WVWD should be reconsidered in light of the FBI search of his office and his sanction for filing and pursuing a frivolous lawsuit.

WVWD Director Greg Young explained, “As much as the district could benefit from new counsel, I have little faith that the present administration and board majority will ever seriously consider making a change.”

Director Greg Young West Valley Water District Board of Directors.

“Numerous ratepayers have asked me about why the district continues to use the general council we do even after many of these and past revelations,” Greg Young revealed, concluding, “Sadly, talk is cheap and politics never change.”

WVWD Director Dr. Clifford Young
WVWD Director Dr. Clifford Young has faced his own allegations of unethical behavior such as using ratepayers’ money for personal political purposes involving an event in December 2017. He purportedly presented a political victory event as a Christmas celebration, requested and received reimbursement from WVWD totalling  $1,897.43.

At the time, former WVWD Ratepayers Association President (RPA) Don Griggs filed a detailed report to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The FPPC found “insufficient evidence” and forwarded the complaint to the California State Attorney General’s Office.

Clifford Young Director West Valley Water District Board of Directors.
In October 2018, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office issued a written assessment to WVWD’s attorney regarding two complaints filed against C. Young concerning the reimbursement of $1,378.58 for travel expenses for a canceled 2016 business trip to Washington, DC and a $538.41 reimbursement by WVWD in 2016, for fees on his personal Linkedin account.

The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit reported that C. Young, without admitting any liability, acknowledged the payments in question were inappropriate, the payments were inadvertent and the money repaid.

The allegations continued to dog C.Young, and when pressured by the RPA in September 2018, WVWD retained the law firm Milon Pluas LLP (Pluas) to investigate the allegations in the FPPC complaint.  In March 2019, Plaus substantiated the allegations and in April 2019, then WVWD General Manager Clarence Mansell submitted the report to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit.

In response to a request for comment for this article, Public Affairs Officer Mike Bires of the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office explained, “Unfortunately, we are prohibited in speaking about any matters or investigations by our Public Integrity Unit.”

Adding, “Should our office determine a crime has in fact been committed by any elected official and there is evidence which will support us pursuing a criminal case, we will issue a news release..”

Meanwhile, C. Young was primarily at the helm of WVWD during the period, July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, audited by the State Controller’s Office.
State auditors found WVWD officials overrode established processes for hiring and promoting employees and failed to retain sufficient documentation to support its hiring selections or to justify promotions and salary increases that did not adhere to district policy.

They found WVWD held two expensive district meetings outside the district costing ratepayers $73,602. The auditors could not find justification for the meetings and described them as “lavish” retreats. Directors were compensated without documenting its business purpose or having prior board approval.

Auditors also found questionable reimbursements for travel and meals where they could not verify whether the expenses were district-related or who attended.

WVWD’s credit card practices were also determined to be highly susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse, where no written justifications were provided and no receipts were maintained.

In addition, state auditors found WVWD failed to comply with its own procurement requirements for professional services requiring contracts over $10,000 awarded to the lowest qualified bidder with written contracts and purchase orders.  The auditor found sole source contracts and in one instance, WVWD paid almost $100,000 without a written contract.

CA Atty “Philip Ganong” alleged $22 Mil extorted from insurance Companies makes Avenatti look like a Saint


Did you know attorneys are deemed court officers because they are admitted to practice law before various California Courts?
Now ask yourself, how is one able to keep their court job when alleged to have extorted  $22 Million from Healthcare Insurance Companies, Money Laundering? …
“2 left-wing lawyers walk into a state bar …
Rachel Alexander explains widespread bias against conservative attorneys in matters of discipline
November 16, 2020 at 7:20pm

…A typical example of state bar bias regarding lawyers involves a trial attorney in California, Philip Ganong, who has been indicted on 94 counts of medical fraud involving $22 million.
This is clearly not a small accusation. The Ganong family operated multiple businesses, including a medical testing lab and a staffing agency that were used as a “front to overbill insurance companies,” Orange County prosecutors said.
It probably falls under “body-brokering,” a practice plaguing Southern California “where addiction centers lure substance abusers into treatment and max out their insurance benefits. …” The State Bar of California has taken no action against Ganong even though one defendant has already served time in prison, and it’s been three and a half years since the felony complaint warrant was filed against Ganong. In fact, he bragged about his good standing with the bar as a defense to the media.”… Source: https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/2-left-wing-lawyers-walk-state-bar/
Thus, how refreshing to see a journalist like Rachel Alexander, bring forth this real life public awareness issue, because many legal consumers are often mentally and financially vulnerable, when needing legal help from California attorneys.
Additionally, the article written by Alexander, is a document that is beyond shocking to one’s conscious mind.
Yet, only within the California court systems does it allow one of their own “good ole boys:” Philip Ganong, to keep his job as a court officer, even when alleged with  94 Criminal Counts, Extortion “over billing” $22 Million against insurance companies, Money Laundering…
How many say, innocent until proven guilty, although the reality is that several persons are already seen as guilty, before proven innocent and their equal protections “High Jacked!”
Keeping in mind, let it be a black male, black female (African American), poor person or other minority caught stealing a candy bar he or she will lose their job, housing, separated from family, do not receive get out of jail free cards and may often times gets 25 to Life, with added sentence time defined as “enhancements.”
The enhancements supposedly imposed  to deter one from committing future crimes.
Nevertheless, has anyone raised the arguments if “enhancements,” are unconstitutional?  Because California still holds its position on the Three Strikes Law.
Even though in November 2012, Proposition 36 was passed by California voters to revise the California Three Strikes Law, under California Penal Code 667, to impose life sentences only on those individuals convicted of a new serious or violent felony.
Hence, with the voters passing Prop 36, it is apparent there exists a three tier criminal justice system for the poor, middle class and elite, while the third tier elitist, buy their justice.
Not to mention, certain persons were focused on “defunding police” and maybe their efforts would have been better spent on reforming the three tier criminal court systems.
To this end, should Courts post “Public Warning Disclaimer Hot Sheets – Consumer Alerts,” on their court websites in order to prevent the appearance of conflict, regarding any California Attorney-Court Officer, alleged with committing criminal acts against the public?

State of Arizona “Election Discrimination'”


June 17, 2021, Thursday
By Moffatt Media Staff

Maricopa City, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona and it’s (2020) Election Audit, is almost at completion.

However, did you know the State of Arizona, has a pattern and practice with deterring a certain group of people from Voting during Elections?

The specific group of people targeted and deterred from Voting during Arizona elections consist of the following:  Disabled or persons suffering with illness, according to reliable research data by MIT.EdU

According to MIT.EDU Research Election Data –
(2018)   7.86%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona;

(2016)  8.29%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona;

(2014)  7.7%,  Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona;

(2012)  12.53%,  Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona; and

(2010)  8.73%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona.

MIT Election Research Data speaks for itself and beyond, that the State of Arizona, has a pattern and practice for inducing discrimination against “Disabled or Ill Persons,” during Elections, which now places Arizona in the “States Hall of Shame!”

Hence, should the Federal Government consider disbarring or sanctioning the State of Arizona, from continuing to receive “Federal Financial Assistance,” since Arizona has breached its certification not to have a pattern and practice with inducing discrimination against “Disabled or Ill Persons,” during ANY Voting Elections?