News‎ > ‎



Lisa Aubuchon         
                                                 Lisa Aubuchon                     Former Co Atty Andy Thomas                    Rachael Alexander

May 10, 2012


Ed Moriarty, Aubuchon's attorney said it best:  the public has never been in danger from Lisa Aubuchon and the BAR tribunal never provided any proof that she was a danger to the public.  Follow the link and read what he said about Aubuchon.

As the Supreme Court decides the stay, this website will bring the news to you.  In summary, here's what's important:

If Aubuchon was such a "danger," then why didn't O'Neill have her work monitored while the "proceeding" (I won't call it a BAR trial) was in progress?  Why wait 4 months after the tribunal was concluded to issue a ruling?  Wasn't the public in danger all that time?  These are the questions Aubuchon's lawyer, Ed Moriarty makes in his reply to the response to the stay by the BAR's ethically-challenged John Gleason.  Bar rules and the law specify that if the attorney appeals, then the disbarment must be stayed until the appeal is adjudicated, per Rule 59.  I really hope the Supreme Court believes in following the law, since the BAR doesn’t believe in following the Rules of Evidence.

This just in:   AZ State Supreme Court says Aubuchon can

continue her law practice while she waits for her appeal to

be heard!

The Truth About the Aubuchon Disbarment

What The Media Doesn't Want You to Know


The State Bar of Arizona, an extreme left-wing non-profit organization with no accountability, has prosecuted three lawyers from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.  The purely political prosecution proved that Andrew Thomas and some of those who worked for him had made enemies in high places, including the Board of Supervisors and in the judiciary.  The defendants were denied the protections of due process and the Rules of Evidence were thrown out the window by the “Independent Bar Counsel” (IBC), which consisted of three biased gunslingers hired for the express purpose of making sure the trio went down.  In a travesty of justice, two attorneys were disbarred, and one was suspended for six months.  They will appeal the decision to the Arizona State Supreme Court.

The mainstream media trumpet their dissatisfaction by complaining that none of the three attorneys has expressed any remorse for embarrassing and inconveniencing any of the powerful people they indicted for charges related to corruption.  The reason why they have not shown proper contrition is this:

No Guilt = No Remorse!

Like most legal stories, the disbarment proceeding against Andy Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachael Alexander is complex and tedious.  The backstory is even more torturous and challenging for those with internet-influenced attention spans who like to think they’re smart.  It’s so much easier to believe the character assassinations perpetrated by the leftist drive-by media who despise everything conservative.  The minute Thomas made a decision to challenge corrupt, powerful forces in Maricopa County his goose was cooked.  Those in power don’t give up easily, and if they are the black-robed tyrants occupying courtrooms they will try to destroy anyone who challenges their authority.  The judiciary is seldom criticized; and in one case in another state, a lawyer was disbarred for five years.  It is small comfort to him that the judge was later unseated for corruption.

The media is trying to confuse the public by muddling the issues.  Every aspect of this sordid legal affair is either black or white.  The County Attorney’s Office was right; those who were charged with crimes, and those who participated in the destruction of these lawyers’ careers, were wrong.  The Arizona Bar Association, I’ve been told by a conservative reporter, is as far Left as any organization can get.  Based on my experience filing complaints against some really bad lawyers, I can only conclude that the Bar protects bad lawyers and persecutes good ones!  The Arizona Bar needs to undergo a massive Roto-Rooter job to unconstipate its corruption blockage.

Ordeal by Tribunal

The IBC (I really want to call it the Irritable Bowel Commission) was a Stalinesque tribunal, not a proper disbarment proceeding.  Lisa Aubuchon filed an objection to William O’Neill serving as the chief judge as there was evidence that he was close to Gary Donahoe, one of the judges the County Attorney was investigating.  O’Neill, if he had followed proper procedure, should have recused himself, as he had an obvious conflict of interest.  The same gunslingers from Colorado who did the prosecuting also did the investigating, which is highly irregular in American jurisprudence.  Aubuchon was not allowed any discovery, where the prosecutors show the defense the evidence against the defendant.  When her lawyer filed an objection to this denial of due process, Aubuchon was charged with another count:  failure to cooperate!

Throughout the proceeding, Aubuchon’s last name was intentionally mispronounced by the Judge.  (It’s OH-bu-shon, not AM-bu-shon.)  Without the Constitutional guarantees to due process and adherence to the rules of evidence, the trial resembled a show put on by some dictator who was sending his enemies to a gulag.  The chief judge didn’t appear to even look at the witnesses as they testified. 

The “trial” reminded me of a comment by Clinton flack Paul Begala when he said:  “Stroke of the pen—law of the land.  Kinda cool.”  IBC hung Aubuchon by inference and conjecture; there was no evidence, and especially not that of a “clear and convincing” kind.  As if playing characters in a Kafka story, the tribunal made it up as they went along. 

Defense lawyers were not allowed to make closing arguments in front of the judges; they had to write them all down and submit them.  However, when the tribunal (IBC) made its judgment, they put on a complete dog-and-pony show for the media, with political enemies Supervisors Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox included just so they could gloat for the cameras.

Aubuchon's Work History

The evidence is that Lisa Aubuchon was a career public servant who intended to work for government until retirement age.  As her lawyer, Edward Moriarty points out, being a prosecutor is a thankless task.  Win or lose, there is someone who will find fault with you.  During her 20 year law career, she has never been disciplined by the Bar, and she received Lawyer of the Year award in her Pre-Trial Criminal Division, as well as awards from the Scottsdale Police, and from Victim’s Rights groups.

When I asked Lisa what she liked the most about her job, she said, “I liked the idea that I could help others achieve justice, whether that involved supporting crime victims, prosecuting the right person, or dismissing charges against someone who had been wrongfully accused.”

She was a model employee, receiving an A+ grade in all her evaluations, even those from Rick Romley, who fired her in 2010 because it was a politically expedient.  In fact, Romley gave her nothing but praise during the 8 years she worked for him, and he even promoted her to bureau chief and recommended her for a city judge position! 

As the IBC plodded toward its turgid, bad novella-like conclusion, many witnesses took the stand to testify about Aubuchon’s character.  It seemed she was liked and her work respected by everyone, whether they were her superiors or other lawyers being managed by her.  She was uniformly portrayed as being honest, hard-working, ethical, and competent.  I doubt there are many people who could receive such laudatory praise from their co-workers.

She’s been my attorney for a short time, and is representing me in more than one matter, including a lawsuit against Sheriff Dupnik and PimaCounty for withholding public records from me.  In that time, I’ve found she does one thing most attorneys don’t do:  communicate with their clients and make them a part of the process.  Attorneys are notoriously poor at simple tasks such as returning client phone calls, and explaining legal processes.  Lisa has involved me in every step, and made me feel like I was a partner, not just something to make money from.  And more importantly, I haven’t heard one lie from her, which is a relief, considering my encounters with other attorneys in Arizona have been marred by multiple prevarications embedded in their smoke-and-mirrors.

I asked her if she found the transition from prosecutor to defense attorney difficult.  She said, “Not really.  I’m still able to help others achieve justice.”

Aubuchon is currently representing a prisoner who nearly died from medical neglect while in prison.  She is doing family law, personal injury, and legal malpractice cases, as well as some criminal defense.

In the two years she has worked as a private attorney, none of her clients have complained about her to the Arizona State Bar. 

Even lib columnist Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic is commenting on the awkwardness of the judges’ report, saying it reads “like a poorly-written morality play.”  He concludes:  To the extent the panel departed from its job as the dispassionate evaluator of facts and instead played amateur psychologist, third-rate philosopher and bad novelist, it regrettably gave credence to Thomas’ claim that he and his colleagues weren’t given a fair shot.”

In another column, he finds further fault with the IBC, saying that it was not their place to find the defendants guilty of crimes, as they were not impaneled to act as a criminal court.

Could it be that liberals are beginning to suspect that there is something terribly wrong with this selective persecution, and that other corrupt officials could do the same to them if they disturb the waters hiding their greed and graft?

Since the decision to yank all three lawyers’ licenses, effective May 10, the Sonoran News has received some new evidence of Judge Donahoe not being quite honest.  There is also disturbing news about county manager Smith and Supervisor Stapley.  Could it be that Thomas was right all along?

Aubuchon and Thomas are disbarred, and Alexander’s license is suspended for six months.  The last word was that all of them are going to appeal their disbarment.  Supposedly they will be allowed to practice law, per Rule 59, until their appeals are heard by the full AZ Supreme Court.  Aubuchon is already being set up for a fall by IBC persecutor John Gleason ranting that she’s “a danger to the public” on talk radio and to the press.

Justice has no friends, but injustice has many.  You can read 247 pages of the worst prose you've ever heard in your life here.

The situation is grim, but there is hope that justice may be done.  Destroying someone’s ability to support themselves is never right, and it is especially wrong when you and your political cronies have been caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

TAGS:  Lisa Aubuchon, Andrew Thomas, Rachael Alexander, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa corruption, Board of Supervisors, Tom Irvine, space planner, Judge Barbara Mundell, Judge John Leonardo, Judge Gary Donahoe, bribes, extortion, $347 million, court tower, no-bid contracts, Don Stapley, Mary Rose Wilcox, Arizona Bar, John Gleason
Layne Lawless,
Apr 22, 2012, 9:13 PM