• Moffatt Media America's Taxpayer Watchdog News

Tag: State Bar of Arizona

SEX with prospect legal clients is allowed by the State Bar of Arizona did you know? But ask for a “PIC” will get you Disbarred

  By ,

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Arizona Lawyer SEX Freak off Spotlight Case #1 – State Bar of Arizona (SBA), you didn’t disbar your Arizona Lawyer:  Charna Johnson.  You reported in part: “Johnson claimed to communicate with the dead, and had sexual contact with a client.”  Johnson was merely “suspended from the practice of law for one year and ordered to serve two years of probation upon reinstatement.”     Johnson was NOT Disbarred.

(SBA) lets refresh your memory in part from your Press Release:  

…“The State Bar of Arizona initiated an investigation after finding probable cause that Johnson had lied under oath in a disciplinary hearing, claimed to communicate with the dead, and had sexual contact with a client.” 

 “Johnson’s client claimed that she began to communicate his ex-wife’s thoughts to him and initiated ongoing communication with him as his wife. He also claimed that he and Johnson engaged in sexual conduct.”  … Again Johnson was NOT Disbarred.

SEX with prospect legal clients is allowed as long as the Lawyer has “consensual sex,” before signing a Retainer Agreement.   See State Bar of Arizona Ethical Rule 42 Section1.8 (j) reads in pertinent part:  

“[a] lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.”

Yet Rule 42 Section 1.8((j) promotes Sexual Exploitation, Sexual Harassment’s, Sexual Assaults against court clerks, individuals who are already mentally and financially vulnerable when seeking legal help.  

1.8(j) allows an Arizona Lawyer to get their freak offs before signing a Retainer Agreement.   This pattern and practice of the 1.8(j) must be SUSPENDED and investigated immediately for societal immorality in preventing individuals from being targeted for SEX before signing a Retainer Agreement, with an Arizona Lawyer.    

(SBA) now compare with the other Arizona Lawyer who only jokingly asked for a mere “PIC” from a woman during his private time on Facebook, in 2013; the same woman who never became a legal client; and the same woman, wherein the State of New Mexico Carlsbad Police Department, were able to obtain Confession Audio Tapes, that the woman named: Lisa Childers and boyfriend Pat Hershal Spurlin, had committed $25k political extortion schemes against the Arizona Lawyer and his wife running for Senate.

Detective Brian Burke, advised that Spurlin accepted a Class Three Felony Charge.   Detective Burke then submitted to both the FBI and the District Attorney’s Office for filing Criminal charges in Report # S1602144. 

However, you State Bar of Arizona (SBA), Disbarred the other Arizona Lawyer for the mere asking of a “PIC,” during private time on Facebook.  Did you (SBA) forget Freedom of Speech is protected under both State and Federal Constitutional laws? Yet you criminally charged the other Arizona Lawyer under your Rule 8.4(b), criminal sui generis.

Watch and Listen at below YouTube Source Link to how William J. O’Neil, State Employee of the Supreme Court (FAKE JUDGE), who brags about  criminal sui generis proceedings.  See at footage: 2:26 and at 1.29 Introduced: “Judge William J. O’Neil, Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court here in Arizona,” said Little.

https://youtu.be/d1nUf5QE_0c

SBA, remember you gave your middle finger to the AZ House Legislatures Judiciary Committee, when they highly recommended that the State Supreme Court of Arizona, implement First Amendment Protections, for Arizona Lawyers.

Last time Moffatt Media checked an agency like the AZ Supreme Court, is in receipt of Federal Financial Assistance and must uphold First Amendment Constitutional protections for all individuals and persons also defined as Arizona Lawyers.

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTIONS

 (SBA) why the favoritism treatment with Spotlight Case #1 Charna Johnson, who was only suspended for one year?

  • Disparate Treatment:  Why the Disparate Treatment against Jeffrey Dean Moffatt, with your purported Disbarment when Moffatt only asked for a “PIC” and did NOT f..king (have SEX), with the  Prospect Legal Client: Lisa Childers?

Maybe Moffatt would have been better off to have had SEX with prospective legal client Childers and Moffatt probably would have only been Suspended instead of Disbarred.

California State Bar –
Position the “California Bar” has taken to “ban” … “sex between lawyers and their clients.  See Reference Source by Associated Press:   

SEX BAN: “The sex ban has divided the rules revision commission, though similar restrictions are in place in other states. As of May 2015, 17 states had adopted a blanket sex ban drafted by the American Bar Association, according to an ABA committee that looked at implementation of the group’s ban.”

Source Link:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/27/california-considers-ban-on-sex-between-lawyers-and-clients.html

Jeffrey Dean Moffatt, Disparate Treatment Victim #2 induced 2016 Fraudulent Disbarment.  

###

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!

###

 

 

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.”  …

###