• Moffatt Media America's Taxpayer Watchdog News

Category: State

Mike Garcia “Congressman” is not Broken

  By , ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

By  Star Moffatt, CEO & Founder / Investigative Journalist

Palmdale, CA (Moffatt Media) —

 

Reelect Mike Garcia Congressional Member-Military Veteran because Garcia is not broken.

You Smart Voters recall there is a saying “If it is NOT broken don’t try and fix it!”

As such don’t try to fix Garcia by replacing Garcia with an opposing candidate who does NOT have an established track record within Congressional District (CD) 27.   

Moffatt Media endorses Mike Garcia for the 27th Congressional District. 

Garcia has earned an established track record in representing the people-constituents and businesses (small, medium and large), in (CD) 25, since 2020-2023 and serving (CD) 27, from 2023 to present.     

Moffatt Media has also come to learn that Garcia opposes: Open Borders, Sanctuary Cities and Excessive Taxation’s.

Watch and Listen to the below reason why Moffatt Media endorses Garcia:

 

Do you know that Garcia is a Military Navy Veteran who earned the ranked: Lieutenant Commander?  Garcia, himself a pilot, was even “deployed as an F/A-18 aviator from the USS Nimitz.  … Garcia has “participated in over 30 Combat Missions,” in order to defend your freedoms against foreign enemy Terrorists? 

Garcia’s track record proves he (Garcia) can fight in combat against enemies and will continue to fight for you in Congress. 

If you love your country (USA) and Congressional District 27, is where you reside, mark your calendar to VOTE for GARCIA, on November 5, 2024, Tuesday.

Garcia fights on real life-issues affecting real life people within CD 27.

 “Reducing regulations to increase California jobs,” says Garcia. …  

Today marks Memorial Day of 05/27/2024, in “tribute to commemorate the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice and never came home.  Their bravery and selflessness are the bedrock of our nation’s freedom, and it is our duty to ensure their sacrifice is never forgotten,” said Garcia.

Because Garcia will NOT stop fighting in Congress for YOU the Smart Voters.

Thank you Garcia for your ultimate sacrifice of “30 Military Combat Missions” and serving Congressional District’s: 25 and 27.

Vote on November 5, 2024, to Re-Elect Mike Garcia, Congressional Member and Veteran Hero!

###

 

Murders have more ‘Constitutional Rights’ than Lawyer’s

  By , , ,

Moffatt Media Report

By Star Moffatt, CEO of Moffatt Media –

 

It has become a sad day in the proud (USA) when murderers have more constitutional protections than Lawyers. ~ Star Moffatt

Proud (USA) what a shame that you give Murder’s access to equal justice, yet trample on the constitutional rights and equal protections of a certain group of people whose lives also matter: Lawyer’s.

(USA) you turn a blind eye by allowing certain State Supreme Courts to delegate court prosecutorial powers to corporations.  Those same corporations then operate past their jurisdictions, authorities, Mission Statements, Articles and By-Laws.

The State Supreme Courts delegate court prosecutorial powers to corporations that investigate, criminally charge and prosecute Lawyer’s with using administrative judges and sui generis proceedings (make it up as you go), without affording Lawyer’s Civil or Criminal jurisdictional “Jury Trials within Courts of Record, among their peers! “    Consequently, denying lawful judgment before one’s peers, under the Seventh Amendment Constitution.

These same corporations have a pattern and practice NOT to uphold State or Federal Constitutional laws, because they often out rightly ignore constitutional challenges when confronted.

Moffatt Media Recommends

Congressional inquiries begin against the State Supreme Court of Arizona and the State Supreme Court of California, for failing to uphold Separation of Powers … by delegating court prosecutorial powers to Corporations to regulate, investigate, charge and prosecute (discipline) Lawyers by corporate entities State Bar of Arizona and the State Bar of California.

See Supreme Court of Arizona Court Rule 32 (2)(D).  The State Bar of Arizona “is both investigator and prosecutor.” … said John Phelps, CEO and Executive Director, State Bar of Arizona, source:  The Arizona Republic.

 State Bar of Arizona  – See abstracted 2019 AZ BAR TAX RETURN Tax Year 2019

 

State Bar of California Corporation – See California Constitution Article VI Section 9). 

 Also See California Business Professions Code Section 6001.1 regarding the State Bar of California, “… regulatory, and disciplinary functions.”…

States such as California and Arizona, have not modified their State Constitutions, to delegate prosecutorial powers to the State Bar of Arizona and the State Bar of California.  The failure to modify State Constitutions makes it unconstitutional and illegal, for delegating prosecutorial powers to ANY corporations including the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Arizona.

Hence corporations State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of California, do not uphold First & Seventh Amendment constitutional protections applicable to a certain group of people too mean: Lawyers, who are Protected Class Members defined:  Disabled, “particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin,” and Older American Lawyers.

Corporations like the State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of California, only look out for the interest of alignment with State Supreme Courts and their own policy guideline Ethical Rules.

Injustices not to preserve upholding constitutional rights and equal protections, kills off law degrees, to become worthless, which are already exacerbated in existing inequalities within the labor industry of Lawyers.

Corporate entity State Bar of Arizona, provided the murder weapon and proceeded to fatally “kill” my forty year legal career, while denying my constitutional rights, says: Tony Guajardo.

The injustice against Tony Guajardo is now a norm to fatally kill and wipe out a Lawyer’s seasoned career without offering ANY diversion solutions, which would preserve upholding constitutional rights and equal protections to alleged first time non-violent offenders.

Guajardo Disabled Vietnam Veteran, Former Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Former Counsel with the United States Supreme Court, Administrative Law Judge, Senior Trial Attorney with the EEOC, Federal Bar Association President, Bexar County Criminal District Attorney, Staff Attorney with the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation and Former Arizona Lawyer.

Tribute to Tony Guajardo: J.D.M, Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon, Andrew Thomas, Dr. Jane Ross, John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Kurt Olsen, Bryan Blehm, Connie Reguli and other fallen Lawyers who have spoken up and out, exposing government public corruption!

###

 

 

Supreme Court of Arizona Hearing Panel Rule 52

  By ,

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

 

 

 

“John Eastman” scholarly attorney has been investigated, charged, prosecuted and convicted by Public CORPORATION – State Bar of California

  By , ,

Public Interest Concern:  PUBLIC CORPORATION having a corporate name: The State Bar of California (SBC) has illegally investigated, charged and prosecuted Trump Adviser John Eastman.    (SBC) proceedings against Eastman have been done before an unconstitutional illegal Court. 

Eastman has been Illegally investigated, charged (administratively) and prosecuted by “CORPORATION,” State Bar of California, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO) “Public Corporation?”  

The proceedings before (SBC) are illegal and administrative proceedings only against Eastman, because (SBC) is NOT a real court of law.   The administrative proceedings are done by (SBC), which does NOT have to uphold State or Federal Constitutional laws that protect Eastman and other California Lawyer’s.

 

The California Constitution admits that the State Bar of California is only a public corporation.   See California Constitution Article 6 Section 9, which  reads in pertinent part: “[t]he State Bar of California is a Public Corporation.” … 

 

Do you know the State Bar of California has NOT been delegated STATE POLICE PROSECUTORIAL POWERS?  Only the County District Attorney’s Office usually conducts investigations to criminally charge people.  Not a “Public Corporation.”  

 

“This Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677.” 

 

There have NOT been ANY amendments to the California Constitution to allow the public corporation State Bar of California (SBC) to receive prosecutorial or court powers to be recognized as an official “Court of Record,” or a prosecutorial agency similar to a District Attorney’s Office. 

 

Shame on the State Supreme Court of California for going rogue in delegating your court powers to CORPORATION: The State Bar of California (SBC) . 

 

It’s time to take back your wrongfully delegated regulatory powers to CORPORATION (SBC) and retain both jurisdiction and regulatory powers over California Lawyer’s.  Failure by the State Supreme Court of California to take back wrongfully delegating powers outside of the California Constitution will continue to cause  imminent public safety dangers to both consumers  and California Lawyer’s. 

 

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION 

WHETHER  the State Bar of California,  has committed  Prosecutorial Misconduct, against Eastman?

California Bar you’re now exposed and no longer permitted to conceal from the public your legendary myth inferring to be a licensing body when in fact only a mere “Public Corporation.”

 

The State Supreme Court of California nor the State of California can delegate prosecutorial or judicial powers to ANY “Public Corporation,” because “judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.”

 

“[t]his Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677.   See  Department of Transportation v Association of American Railroads 575 U.S 43 2015 Amtrak

Thus, an abhorrent appearance of “Conflict of Interest” exists between the State Supreme Court of California and the State Bar of California.   The “Conflict of Interest” is problematic because it violates Constitutional Separation of Powers. 

A conflict of interest scheme causes the Supreme Court to run afoul of the Separation of Powers, with (NGO), Public Corporation State Bar of California against Eastman.

Eastman’s own attorneys will NOT challenge the abhorrent constitutional conflict of interest in violation with Separation of  Powers, between the Supreme Court and State Bar of California, are they too will find themselves DISBARRED!

To this end, the State Supreme Court of California, was the only licensing government body that issued  Eastman lawyer’s license to practice law and  hang his lawyer’s license on his wall of fame for public viewing.  

Sidebar: 

The power of history is in telling the truth:  California 2020 admits spent $134mil Voting Machines outdated beyond repair. 

 

Note areas highlighted in “purple” click on to read: supportive documents or sources of references.

###

Prosecutor “Unclean Hands” against Mark Ridley Thomas

  By , ,

Prosecutor Dirty COP “Unclean Hands” Weaponizes Indictment schemes against Mark Ridley Thomas and other American Citizens.  

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Prosecutor (Dirty COP) Tracy Wilkison had “Unclean Hands” when she impaneled Grand Juries, filed (FAKE) criminal Indictments and targeted American Citizens:

 

  •   Mark Ridley Thomas, Former City Council Member of Los Angeles County.  Prosecutor Wilkison impaneled Grand Jury 4/1/2021, filed  (FAKE) Indictment, 10/13/2021, against Thomas.   Mark Ridgley Thomas INDICTMENT
  •  Criminal Docket # cr 2:21-cr-00485-PA  $100,000.00 alleged Bribery, Conspiracy. …  Twenty Counts

Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes “Life In Prison.”  Sentencing August 28, 2023. 

 

  • Jeff Fortenberry, Former Nebraska Congressman.  Prosecutor Wilkison impaneled Grand Jury 6/1/2021, filed (FAKE) Indictment 10/19/2021, against Fortenberry.

INDICTMENT: JEFF FORTENBERRY NEBRASA CONGRESSMAN GJ JUNE 2021

  • Criminal Docket # cr 2:21-cr-00491-SB

        $30,000.00 alleged Foreign Campaign donation received in California.   – Three counts of alleged False Statements to FBI agents.  Federal Mandatory Minimum Statutes- Sentencing 15 years in prison.  Convicted and Sentenced only two years probation with a $25,000 Fine. Fortenberry filed an Appeal, October 29, 2022.

 

  • Dr. Jeff Moffatt, Former Congressional Candidate- (Retired) Federal Attorney. Prosecutor Wilkison impaneled Grand Jury 6/1/2021, filed  (FAKE) Indictment 7/23/2021, against Moffatt. 

9/3/2021 False and Illegal Arrest against Moffatt.  Criminal Docket # cr 2:21-cr-00335-JAK-1

INDICTMENT:  GRAND JURY CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AGAINST JEFF MOFFATT JUNE 2021

        $30,000.00 SSA Disabled Attorney Fees Awarded, alleged Five Counts Wire Fraud  and one Count False Statement to SSA.  Series 1 Episode 1: Stay Tuned 

Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes – 105 years in prison.   Trial Scheduled October 24, 2023.

 

Moffatt Media has conducted Case Studies on several purported Indictments filed against American Citizens.   

Our Findings reveal that Tracy Wilkison, Prosecutor Dirty COP with “Unclean Hands” Weaponized Indictment schemes against American Citizens.  

Unless one is legally trained in Constitutional Law applicable to: (Appointment Clauses and Separation of Powers …), such (FAKE) Indictment schemes induced by Wilkison, Prosecutor-Dirty COP, would have gone unnoticed. 

 

(FAKE) Indictments against:  Thomas, Fortenberry and Moffatt:

1).  Wilkison was NOT constitutionally seated as a United States Attorney for the Central District of California, at the time when Wilkison filed the Indictments against all (3) American Citizens: Thomas, Fortenberry and Moffatt;

2).  Wilkison did NOT even affix her own signature onto ANY of the (3) (FAKE) Indictments, to make the Indictments as legally binding criminal charging documents, against all (3) American Citizens listed above;

3).  According to the United States Department of Justice, (DOJ),  even admitted in a Freedom of Information Act Request response, that Wilkison, had NOT been Appointed as a United States Attorney for the Central District of California;

4).  Wilkison when Impaneled Grand Juries and submitted the (FAKE) Indictments before the Court, against all (3) American Citizens listed above, Wilkison, had not received ANY Presidential inherent power “Nomination,” from Former President Trump or  President Biden, as a United States Attorney and Wilkison had NOT been Senate Confirmed.

5).  November 16, 2021, Merrick Garland, United States Attorney General, for DOJ, Appointed Tracy Wilkison as the Interim (Acting Officer) United States Attorney for the Central District of California. 

Wilkison filled the vacant seat that was previously held by Nicola Hanna, United States Attorney – Central District.  Hanna did receive a Presidential Nomination by Former President Trump and was Senate Confirmed, as a United States Attorney. 

6).  Wilkison even failed to indicate on the (FAKE) Indictments against all three (3) American Citizens: Thomas, Fortenberry and Moffatt, what Federal agency was her employer, having jurisdiction on the alleged Indictments; and 

7).  July 2022, Wilkison (RESIGNED) from the US DOJ and entirely from the Federal government sector.  It is suspected that Wilkison’s resignation was prompted due to violating the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1988 (Vacancies Act).  5 U.S. Code Section 3348.  …

Tracy Wilkison, Prosecutor who became a Dirty COP and committed acts of Prosecutorial Misconduct, developed schemes to undermine our criminal justice system.   

Wilkison conspired and targeted American Citizens by filing (FAKE)  fraudulent Indictments into the United States District Court – Central District of California.   

Keeping in mind, not one of the above listed three (3) American Citizens have committed ANY violent offenses against the United States of America or violent offenses against ANY persons defined as victims.    

Consequently, the Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes of One-Size-Fits-All, lopsided Federal laws, all three (3) American Citizens, are facing a two-tiered unequal justice system, that will significantly adversely impact their lives, with the loss of livelihoods, costly college degrees down the toilets, loss of life, liberty and freedoms on alleged non-violent offenses and (FAKE) Indictments, how UnAmerican. 

Even all three (3) American Citizens, their families, friends and supporters’ lives they too will be shattered unless the (FAKE) INDICTMENTS are promptly investigated and summarily dismissed by the United States District Court – Central District of California, because Wilkison was NOT constitutionally seated, and committed illegal Indictment schemes not in accordance with Federal laws.  

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION

Did you know Federal District Court Judge’s hands are usually tied when Sentencing under Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes?

To this end, unless United We Stand against the Unconstitutional (FAKE) Fraudulent Indictments against all three (3) American Citizens, listed above, they will face unjust Court Lynchings, by the United States of America, based on Wilkison Prosecutor- Dirty COP, (FAKE) Indictments and Grand Jury Schemes.

Alert:  You could be next facing a (FAKE) Indictment, because Weaponization against American Citizens does not discriminate!  

Share this Real Talk- Real Fact Story, in front of three (3) persuadable people that you know, because it’s NOT about whether one is Republican or Democrat, it is about doing the right thing to expose unjust and lopsided  Federal laws in America. 

It is also about exposing Tracy Wilkison, United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Dirty COP, who has stained the fabric of good COP’s!

###

Disbar Alvin Bragg New York District Attorney Prosecutor for Targeting Former President

  By , , ,

Alvin Bragg Jr., District Attorney (Prosecutor), on the job one-year, targets Former President Donald Trump, is so un-American.  Should Bragg  be DISBARRED? 

One has to ask, why would anyone allow Rookie Bragg to pursue former President Trump?  Because he (Bragg) is indispensable and other smart tenured staff in the Manhattan DA’s Office do not wish to jeopardize their own Retirement Plans and livelihoods. 

But did you know that between 2018 & 2020 the Federal government under the Trump administration fed the State of New York with $41.4 Million?  

 And did you know that the Federal government then fed the State of New York with another $3.2 Million in the year 2022?   

The Federal government fed the State of New York, multiple millions of dollars ($45 Mil) in years 2018-2022 for Voting Cyber Security enhancements and “Remediation.”  Does the State of New York not realize the saying:  “Never bite the hand that feeds you.” 

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION

Is the State of New York suffering from memory lapse, that from 2018 through 2020 Former President Trump and his Administration, has fed New York with multiple millions of dollars for Voting Cyber Security enhancements (improvements)?  

Public Interest Parting Question: Should the Federal government request a refund of the ($45 Mil), Sanction and investigate Voting Irregularities, in the 2021 Manhattan District Attorney General Election?  

Bragg won his DA (Prosecutor) seat on November 2 2021 at: 83.2% and took office January 1, 2022.  During the General Election, one opponent only garnered 16.7%.   Something seems suspicious with this District Attorney Election on its surface. 

Maybe The Project 65 should look at filing a lawyer licensing complaint against Bragg, to have him DISBARRED, for maybe exceeding his scope of employment, job duties and job functions by targeting Former President Trump, on a subject matter of 2016, past the statute of limitations. 

Shameful justice State of New York, in condoning  Alvin Bragg’s illegal targeting Former President Trump.   The same man, former President Trump and his administration, who has helped feed your state.   

“Moffatt Media,” waits for the unsealed purported Indictment against former President Trump! 

###

Dismantle the State Bar of Arizona – “Suspend” Supreme Court Rule 32

  By , ,

“Moffatt Media,” supports in part to Dismantle the State Bar of Arizona under Senate Bill 1435 (SB 1435).   “Moffatt Media,” also recommends that (SB 1435), be in Tribute to Lisa Aubuchon, Rachel Alexander & Andrew Thomas … because they have been constitutionally impacted by the Supreme Court of Arizona and private nonprofit corporation Arizona Bar.   

Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas were retaliated against for doing the right thing to investigate Maricopa County Arizona (Phoenix), $340 Mil (South Court Tower), Courthouse, that should have not escaped Voter Approval.  

“Moffatt Media,” supports (SB1435) in pertinent part at: Section 7, 12-119.06 “Attorney Licensing Requirements  … The supreme court may not require an attorney to be a member of any organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in this state.”  Bold for emphasis. 

Conflicts:  The Supreme Court mandates that attorneys become Members within the State Bar of Arizona, conflicts because:   (1) Arizona is a “Right to Work State.” See Arizona Constitution Article XXV (25) Section 0 and (2) In Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), landmark case of the  United States Supreme Court, recognized mandatory union dues violated constitutional First Amendment right to free speech.   

Supreme Court Rule 32(1): “Practice of law. Every person licensed by this Court to engage in the practice of law must be a member of the State Bar of Arizona in accordance with these rules.”

Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1) mandatory membership is unconstitutional and illegal and must be Suspended inclusive in (SB 1435). 

Yet to this present date, the ​Supreme Court of Arizona continues to give in Don Bongino fashion, a “double barrel middle finger” towards the Arizona Legislatures, by refusing to reform, restore and implement First Amendment Protections.  

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Any continued refusal by the Supreme Court of Arizona,  NOT to reform, restore, implement and uphold State and Federal First Amendment constitutional laws, that apply to all people, including Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas and other Arizona Lawyers, then it’s time to call upon the Federal Government for intervention.  

Any continued refusal by the Supreme Court of Arizona,  NOT to Suspend Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1) Mandatory Membership, then legislatures must move for Articles of Impeachment against Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona for: public corruption, incompetency, neglect of duty while in their capacity as Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona.  Remember no one is above the law including Judges-Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court. 

Any continued failure to remove Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1), Mandatory Membership, in light of the Supreme Court case in  Janus v. AFSCME, is a “systemic structural implosion,” regulating attorneys. Continued failures by the Arizona Supreme Court not to uphold constitutional protections, the Federal Funds issued to the State of Arizona, should be Sanctioned for constitutional violations, along with disgorging Supreme Court Justices salaries.  

Since turning a blind eye to constitutional violations have adversely impacted ALL THREE: Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas … is illegal,  unconstitutional and needs immediate ratification into (SB 1435).  Extending legislative language into (SB 1435), would not be a difficult process to supplement.  

(SB 1435) should also be amended to state that Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas’ convictions were illegal, unconstitutional and subsequently null and void, under  Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 32(1), mandatory membership.

Conclusive findings do exist with good cause to Reinstate All Three:  Aubuchon, Alexander and Thomas …  it’s time! 

For all the foregoing reasons stated above “Moffatt Media,” supports (SB1435) in pertinent  part, that: “The supreme court may not require an attorney to be a member of any organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in this state.”  …

###

 

Reinstate ALL3​ Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon – Andrew Thomas

  By ,
​“David Stringer arrested in 1983 paying teens for sex.” …  says KTAR NEWS.
     Since Baltimore ​Child Pedophile (David Stringer) is able to  retain​​ his Arizona Lawyer’s license, surely there is no reason NOT to REINSTATE ALL3:  Rachel Alexander, Lisa  Aubuchon & Andrew Thomas​, just to name a few.
​

    Arizona remove the excessive cruel and unusual $101,000.00 illegal Sanction (Fine) imposed against All3 and REINSTATE All3: Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon and Andrew Thomas Lawyer’s License. Recommendation by Moffatt Media.

###

Katie Hobbs Arizona Secretary of State Concealed 2020 Election Document

  By ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OPINION – “ARIZONA  ELECTION NEWS” 

Moffatt Media, Palmdale, California

By Star Moffatt, CEO and Gordon Wiborg, Chief of Police (Ret.) Captain, Armor, US Army (Ret.) – Disabled Veteran

Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary’s concealed document dated Jan 30 2020 AZ Funding Request Letter AND Received $8.3 Mil from Fed EAC-1 .  This document speaks for itself of (2020) Arizona Election Security Irregularities.

Did you know that in January 2020, just two months prior to the Arizona 2020 Primary Election, Hobbs requested $8.3 Million from the Federal government, for the benefit of 2020 Arizona “Election Securities?”

Hobbs herself could have prevented the massive physical election audits by disclosing, that she identified Election Security problems.   Because Hobbs requested $8.3 Million from the Federal government and specifically the Federal Funding agency: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, (EAC).

(2020) “Program Narrative by: Katie Hobbs Secretary of State – Grant Funding Information – Amount of Award $8,362,741;  Matching Funds Commitment $1,672,548 … Cyber Vulnerabilities.” …  HAVA to mean: “Help America Vote Act  (HAVA) of 2002 was passed by the United States Congress to make sweeping reforms to the nation’s voting process.” …

Hobbs also justified $8.3 Million for Voter Registration System Upgrades,” and “security fortification at state and local levels.” …

But Hobbs said that the actual physical audit was a “political stunt,” according to the Washington Examiner.

(2020) Public Election Deception schemes was Hobbs own concealment by requesting (2020) $8.3 Million from the Federal Government.

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION:

How many 2020 Arizona Voters have been disenfranchised because Hobbs concealed actual Election Security problems? 

Hobbs herself could have prevented the prior massive physical election audits by disclosing that she identified Election Security issues. See also FED FINANCIAL REPORT FROM 2018 THROUGH 2023 ON $7M

Contrary to her claims of transparency, now being revealed to the Arizonians and public, is Katie Hobbs, Secretary of State’s own January 30, 2020, election document, which she had intentionally concealed from the public.

Voting Security Election Irregularities, if didn’t exist within Arizona, then there would have NOT  been a need for Hobbs to request $8.3 Mil in (2020), from the Federal Government Election Assistance Commission!

 

###

Jeff Fortenberry’s Criminal Conviction scheduled to be overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals California

  By ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(“Prosecutor News”)

Moffatt Media, Palmdale, California

Indictment was filed on October 19, 2021, against Fortenberry, Former Nebraska Congressman.  The Indictment filed by Tracy Wilkison, United States Acting Attorney General (“Prosecutor”), was invalid.  Because Wilkison’s  TERM EXPIRED, under the Vacancy Reform Act of 1998.

There also existed an impossibility in Wilkison filling the shoes within the United States Attorney General’s position because she had NOT received a Presidential Nomination from President Biden,  pursuant to 5 U.S. Code §3345.   Wilkison was also not Senate confirmed.

Wilkison did NOT even receive ANY Nomination by Donald Trump, Former President to fulfill the United States Attorney General shoes for Central District.

Recent 10 28 2022 9TH CIR CT APPEAL FILED BY FORTENBERRY  within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is likely to be granted for improper Venue and problems with Jury Instructions.    

Along with granting Fortenberry’s appeal following an “unprecedented prosecution in which the Department of Justice hauled a sitting member of Congress across the country to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction on charges of making false statements more than a thousand miles away.”

The appeal cites two key reasons for the conviction to be overturned: improper venue for the case, with the allegedly false statements being made in Nebraska and Washington, D.C.,  Charges filed in California and inadequate jury instructions that failed to appropriately define a key element of the charge; and the materiality of Fortenberry’s statements.

The case against  Fortenberry never should have been brought in the first place.   Criminal charges should have not resulted in California or a conviction, said Glen Summers.   Summers, a leading member of Fortenberry’s legal team and partner with Bartlit Beck LLP.  “This appeal calls on the Ninth Circuit to vacate these convictions to protect Fortenberry and other Americans from having their Constitutional rights trampled.”

FBI agents knew Jeff Fortenberry had no knowledge of illegal contributions to his campaign from a 2016 fundraiser. So, they directed an informant to call him years later and make a few comments in a roughly 10-minute phone call suggesting that people might have made improper contributions at the event.

Nine months later, the very same FBI agent who orchestrated the setup call went to the Congressman’s home in Nebraska and used a “ruse” that he was conducting a background check with a national security aspect to convince the Congressman to speak with him.

Even though the Congressman told the FBI agent about the comments from the informant, both at the first conversation and again in a subsequent interview in Washington, D.C., prosecutors indicted the Congressman for allegedly making false statements to them when he failed to recall some details of the nearly year-old conversation and explained that he was not “aware” of any illegal contributions to his campaign.

Prosecutors with the Department of Justice (DOJ) charged Congressman Fortenberry in Los Angeles. 

(DOJ) Prosecutors required Fortenerry to stand trial in Los Angeles, California Central District United States Federal Court.  Even though the alleged false statements were made at interviews conducted in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Washington, D.C.  Fortenberry asserts on appeal that subjecting him to prosecution in Los Angeles was contrary to law.  Subjecting Fortenberry within the wrong Venue (Jurisdiction) and requires that the conviction be set aside.

In Fortenberry’s appeal brief, the conviction should also be set aside.  Because the trial judge gave the jury instructions that inadequately defined critical elements of materiality.  Lacking elements then allowed the jury to convict Fortenberry.   Even though the alleged false statements could not possibly have had any impact or injury on the government.

For a statement to be material, eligible for a false statements charge,  such law requires it to influence governmental decision.

Fortenberry’s statements were not material to the government’s investigation.  Since prosecutors already knew from their own investigation, that Fortenberry had no knowledge of the illegal contributions to his campaign.

Jury Instructions Why Important “Voice Removed” Lawyer Connie Reguli, Listen

###