AGAINST: Chief Justice Ruth McGregor
BY: “Citizens of Arizona” and “Friends of Arizona” listed on attached signator sheets.
CHARGE: Violation of AZ Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 2 “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.”
Canon 3 “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially
and diligently.”
Between September 12 and October 2, 2008, she engaged in an implicit and covert conspiracy with a racist organization to:
1) deprive US citizens of rights affirmed by the First Constitutional Amendment: free speech and freedom to petition for redress of grievances
and further to
2) deprive US citizens of rights affirmed by the Fifth Constitutional Amendment: “…nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” (By promoting court policy revisions without public review and discussion, American citizens not benefiting from the revision will be deprived of due process. ) and further to
3) enable preferential treatment by the judicial system to Hispanic illegal aliens for which Los Abogados is an advocate.
I. “ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT…”
A. The Request
B. The Requester
II. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
III. THE COURT REPLIES
IV. POOR JUDICIAL JUDGMENT
A. Los Abogados—Officers of the Court or Salesmen?
B. Disregarding Court Decisions & Federal Law
V. CONSEQUENCES—INTENDED & UNINTENDED
VI. SUGGESTED REMEDY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. “ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT…”
A. The Request
On or about September 12 2008, Justice McGregor received from Los Abogados (the Hispanic Bar Association of Arizona) a letter asking for special and preferential considerations in the Arizona courts. Specifically, they asked that Arizona judges be “strongly discouraged” from using terms that are clear and accurate to refer to illegal aliens who enter the judicial system. Instead they wanted the substitution of “politically correct” terms that dilute the apparent seriousness of illegal aliens' crimes and are more palatable to the Hispanic ethnic group for whom they’ve chosen to be advocates.
While the current and president-elect of Los Abogados who signed the letter claimed “we are not asking Arizona’s courts favor one side of the immigration debate over another,”
that’s precisely what they WERE asking. They wanted the court's blessing and partnership in practicing selective censorship by interfering with the constitutional rights of American citizens: free speech, freedom to petition for redress of grievances, and assurance of prior due process of law to individuals before they’re deprived of liberties.
They make clear their intention that the Chief Justice be their advocate with all Arizona courts and judges: “We hope to count on your support in communicating these points to all judges and court employees in Arizona...”.
Nor was Los Abogados ambiguous in their objective as stated in their close: “...none of these hurtful terms are used in Arizona court documents or proceedings again.” That they directed their request to specific judge(s) showed their clear intent to bypass public review and debate of their desired public policy revision for Arizona courts, as well as their confidence in advance that the judge(s) to whom they addressed the letter would cooperate.
B. The Requester
Reviewing Los Abogados' website http://www.losabogados.org/ leaves no doubt of both its racist mission and membership; the terms “Hispanic” and/or “Community” appear 6 times in their 105-word Mission Statement! (In the context below, “community” and “Hispanic” are synonymous.)
“The primary purposes of Los Abogados are: to enhance the quality of legal services provided to the Community; to educate the Hispanic community regarding its rights and remedies and the availability of legal services; to receive and administer funds for the promotion and advancement of the Hispanic legal profession within the State of Arizona; to aid in gathering, exchanging and disseminating facts and information relating to the business methods within the Hispanic legal profession, all with a view of promoting the business of the Hispanic legal profession within the State of Arizona. Los Abogados is an affiliated member of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA).”
II. CORRESPONDENCE IS PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.
When the September 12 and October 2 letters were aired on a Tuesday afternoon (October 28) KFYI talk show broadcast, host J.D. Hayworth reported that during the break a judge called the broadcast to report receiving a copy of the correspondence and that although Justice McGregor's letter was a “suggestion,” there was no doubt of her intent to implement new court policy. The judge called Justice McGregor's choice of strategy a “trial balloon” (i.e. the “suggestion” would become court policy if no judge demurred.), but it’s very unlikely that any judge would resist a “suggestion” from Arizona’s Chief Judicial Officer.).
III. THE COURT REPLIES
After the story broke on October 28, it was printed in several newspapers, with the alleged “ban”subsequently denied by the Court’s Communications Director.
The November 10 KFYI appearance of Court Communications director Cari Gershick was an obvious clumsy attempt at damage control with her claims that “no ban has been enacted and none is being considered.” Many in the audience “listened between the lines” and concluded that the ban was withdrawn (whether before or after implementation) only upon hearing citizens' outrage at the disclosed correspondence and the judge was seemingly caught “red-handed.”
Her claim that the Los Abogados letter was no different from dozens routinely circulated by Justice McGregor to all Arizona judges was ludicrous. That Ms. Gershick expected listeners to believe that Justice McGregor circulates every incoming letter on policy to every upper court judge as well as all superior court presiding judges in each of 15 Arizona counties was an insult to our intelligence.
Thankfully KFYI host J.D. Hayworth practiced “analytical listening” by replying that based on her claim, anyone (attorneys, groups or individual citizens) could write Chief Justice McGregor requesting preferential treatment whereupon she would redefine their request as a “concern” and give their letters “equal time” by circulating them to all the Arizona judges as she did with the Los Abogados letter. The specific groups Hayworth mentioned were FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) and Official English, both of which oppose the Los Abogados agenda.
Hayworth's tongue-in-cheek “conclusion” wasn't even remotely credible but Ms. Gershick was in no position to object. She'd painted herself into a corner by not preparing for a quick and incisive response to her lame attempt at “spin.” Like the undersigned “Citizens of Arizona,” J. D. knew he was being sold a bill of goods.) .
The most obvious evidence that Gershick’s claim is false is its failure to pass the Judge Judy Test: “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true.”
Were there such a policy, it must be disclosed openly to all citizens rather than such knowledge limited to court insiders or “cronies.” Yet the Arizona Judicial System's website http://www.supreme.state.az.us/ contains no mention to American citizen readers told that they can write directly to the Chief Justice to present their “concerns” rather than filing litigation to have those “concerns” heard in open court where proceedings are a matter of public record.
IV. POOR JUDICIAL JUDGMENT
Los Abogados had strong incentives for addressing their letter to by name to Justice Ruth McGregor and 4 other upper-court justices rather than “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Arizona Judiciary.” Can there be any doubt that Los Abogados' choice reflected their advance knowledge that those 5 names were sympathetic to their agenda and likely to rubber-stamp their request?
That the Los Abogados “request” was even committed to paper and sent to Justice McGregor is another likely example of misconduct. It's typical in the judicial system that a potential requester will “test the waters” before even committing the request to paper.
A common strategy is that a Los Abogados member would present a “hypothetical” question to a judge's law clerk such as: “Do you think the judge would be receptive to....?” and the clerk's response would determine whether Los Abogados would send the written request or shop for another judge more sympathetic to their cause. Other variations of the strategy might involve an encounter at the golf course or sporting event or civic or charitable function.
In this situation, we have no doubt that such advance work occurred before Justice McGregor received Los Abogados' written request. That consideration obviates that Justice McGregor (or a staffer who represented her) had the opportunity to “nip in the bud” this outrageous proposal and chose instead to be a receptive audience.
That Los Abogados engaged in inappropriate conduct should have been obvious to both Justice McGregor as well as the other 4 judges who also received the Los Abogados letter: Justice Rebecca White Berch, Judge Ann Scott Timmer, Judge Patrick Irvine and Roxanne Song Ong. Judge John Pelander made the 5th judge upon receiving the correspondence forwarded by Justice McGregor.
What the other 5 judges did is unknown, but Justice McGregor's conduct was an affront to the principles of open judicial proceedings and transparent public policy. Instead of replying to Lizzette Alameda Aubey and Salvador Ongaro instructing them that their conduct was improper, smacked of “cronyism” and public policy improperly enacted in the dark of night, her October 2 2008 reply actually thanked them for their improper conduct!
Rather than advise them that their “concerns” should have been directed to an open and public process, Justice McGregor further rewarded their improper behavior by circulating their letter to judges in both upper and lower Arizona courts—not with the censure it deserved, but with her implicit endorsement by redefining their “request” as a “concern.”
Los Abrogados’ rationale for avoiding the word “illegal” (that other offenders aren’t referred to as “illegal”) deserves a prize for “This Year’s Lamest Excuse,” yet Justice McGregor accepted it without question. The possibility that she would even entertain accepting such convoluted “logic” in court arguments is appalling.
Los Abogados’ rationale is just plain wrong. Even after release from prison, rapists are “convicted rapists” and murderers are “convicted murders.” Preceding such crimes with “illegal” is redundant; rape and murder are automatically illegal. To be an “alien” in the US doesn’t violate the law, thus the need for “illegal” to accurately describe those who enter the US without inspection by an immigration officer and proper visa.
“Illegal alien” is a continuing offense, not one-time. Like any other continuing offense, the offender will be described by their offense so long as they continue offending. Even more obvious is that the offender continues to offend—while within the Arizona court system they remain in the US and so continue their violation of US law.
Justice McGregor also let remain two other foolish premises by Los Abogados:
(1) Their attempted equivalency of illegal aliens’ continuing offense to “minor” violations (unlicensed driving, failure to pay taxes, etc.) in an attempt to reduce the severity of their offense, and
(2) Their attempt to “piggy-back” primarily politically-correct terms with one valid item (the 6th “no-no” under “Immigrants”)
Despite these patently obvious replies to Los Abogados being both accurate and appropriate, Justice McGregor didn’t offer them or any other rebuttal. Instead she allowed their inane “logic” as sufficient to justify her endorsement and support of their “request.”
On November 13, Court Communications Director Cari Gershick contacted Sonoran News reporter Linda Bentley with an offer by Justice McGregor to circulate among the judges opposing views of Los Abogados' “request.”
Justice McGregor certainly can’t claim being unaware that there would be opposing views when even Los Abogados acknowledged it in their letter speaking of their opposition! And even their list of “politically correct” terms includes “immigration debate”—for there to be debate automatically acknowledges opposing views.
Racist and demagogue agendas like those of Los Abogados ALWAYS have opposition despite consistent efforts by government agencies and media to the contrary. Yet her October 2 reply to Los Abogados had no hint of the need for public comment or the need to hear opposing views. Nor did Ms. Gershick mention the offer during her November 10 appearance on KFYI.
Indications are that Justice McGregor became willing to “listen to both sides” only after publishing of Bentley's article in the November 12 edition of the Sonoran News (“Chief Justice takes steps to heed Hispanic Bar's demands”); otherwise Los Abogados' “request” would have proceeded with no opportunity for hearing opposing views.
A. Los Abogados—Officers of the Court or Salesmen?
It should have been obvious to Justice McGregor that lawyers who support such a racist mission have abandoned their obligations and responsibilities as officers of the court and no longer merit the privileges or respect the title conveys. Justice McGregor should have regarded the letter as sales literature with a “caveat emptor” rather than a request by fellow officers of the court.
The request should have been returned to Los Abogados with censure rather than lend it credibility by validating its content and expanding its exposure. McGregor certainly wouldn't circulate investment or other product sales literature to other court judges to solicit feedback on “further distribution” to other judges!
Los Abogados’ letter is nothing but ethnic sales literature—propaganda attempting to give legitimacy to their ethnicism and racist agenda.
B. Disregarding Court Decisions
Los Abrogados’ desire to substitute “politically correct” terms for clear and legally-accurate terms to describe those who entered and remain in the US in violation of US law had already been soundly rejected in September 2008 by the California Appellate Courts, Third District.
Yet Justice McGregor decided for whatever reason(s), to ignore their findings and “suggest” that Arizona courts adopt terms not only ambiguous and confusing, but for which no legal definitions even exist!
In their verdict overturning the University of California Regents' policy of allowing illegal aliens in California to attend university at resident rates while charging American citizens from other states a higher non-resident charge, the Justices: Sims, Raye and Hull included a very clear and definitive rejection of the same premise as Los Abogados:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c054124.pdf
“Defendants prefer the term “undocumented immigrants.” However, defendants do not cite any authoritative definition of the term and do not support their assertion that the terms “undocumented immigrant” and “illegal alien” are interchangeable. We consider the term “illegal alien” less ambiguous.
Thus, under federal law, an “alien” is “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).) A “national of the United States” means a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).) Under federal law, “immigrant” means every alien except those classified by federal law as nonimmigrant aliens. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15).)
“Nonimmigrant aliens” are, in general, temporary visitors to the United States, such as diplomats and students who have no intention of abandoning their residence in a foreign country. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F), (G); Elkins v. Moreno (1978) 435 U.S. 647, 664-665 [55 L.Ed.2d 614, 627-628] [under pre-1996 law, held the question whether nonimmigrant aliens could become domiciliaries of Maryland for purposes of in-state college tuition was a matter of state law].)
The federal statutes at issue in this appeal refer to“alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present in the United States.” (8 U.S.C. §§ 1621(d), 1623.) In place of the cumbersome phrase“alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present,” we shall use the term ‘illegal aliens.’ “
The California Appellate Court rejected the use of “politically correct” terms because those terms are ambiguous and confusing; the judges wanted phrases that are clear and definitive.
C. Disregard for Federal Law
Even worse, by circulating the correspondence to other judges as a “suggestion,” she presented the concept of barring from court proceedings and records established terms that appear in federal law and have been integral concepts of immigration law for decades! Surely she didn't advocate “revisionist history” of past Arizona court records, but that's virtually what she and Los Abogados were advocating. Talk about unintended consequences!
If Justice McGregor wasn't aware that several terms on the “no-no” list were indeed part of federal law, that's the purpose of researching in advance (I.e. “doing your homework”).
Had Justice McGregor treated Los Abogados' request according to its merits, she would have either returned it with censure, or filed it in the “circular file.”
Instead, she circulated this “concern” to other judges and in the process not only wasted their time but additionally gave this nonsensical jargon her implicit validation and endorsement.
That Los Abogados urges the use of ambiguous and confusing terms is no surprise—this is S.O.P. for a racist advocacy group who wants to shield “their” lawbreakers from punishment by diluting and/or confusing the true offense. It's also further evidence that they pursue a racist agenda rather than exhibiting the integrity expected of “officers of the court.” But it shouldn't be S.O.P. for an upper-court justice to accommodate it.
That Justice McGregor supports their alternative advocacy casts doubt on her own judicial integrity and objectivity. Justice McGregor's letter saying she's “taking steps to notify our judges of your concerns” fools no one. Her “cover letter” to other Arizona judges carried the clear message that Los Abogados’ list of preferred terms was to be followed.
V. CONSEQUENCES—INTENDED & UNINTENDED
Gershick made one claim with which we CAN agree--that the integrity of courts and judges must have the trust of the public to be credible and respected.
Credibility and respect for the judicial system and its judges comes when policy changes are proposed in open proceedings with such meetings publicly posted to all American citizens, and attendance enabled to all American citizens with non-citizens excluded from participation.
This incident is just one of many in which American citizens have learned of judges summarily casting aside duly-enacted laws and substituting their own personal opinion and bias in place of the rule of law.
We recall early in 2007 when American citizens learned from the Arizona Republic that Maricopa County Presiding Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundrell quietly influenced court staff and judges to disregard Prop 100 (a 2006 ballot initiative passed by 76% of Arizona voters requiring that illegal aliens charged with serious felonies be held without bail). Yet not one judge was disciplined for their flagrant disrespect for the law!
Similar travesties of justice undoubtedly occur routinely in Arizona's Judicial System; these two cited examples are merely “the tip of the iceberg.” The result is that today’s judges no longer deserve or enjoy the respect afforded their early counterparts in Western Civilization—the clergy who were knowledgeable in the Biblical principles upon which Western laws were based.
Instead, law-abiding American citizens have come to regard judges and courts with the same contempt as so-called “judges” in the Third World: just another group of political hacks.
This will not change until courts and judges stop initiating the pandering and preferential treatment, requiring other areas of government to copy their judicial example.
Whether with such egregious handling of Los Abogados’ request, Justice McGregor intentionally pandered to their agenda or was just trying to be politically correct doesn’t matter because the end result is the same—she began the process of granting special considerations to one group and subsequently abridging the rights of everyone outside that group.
How her actions would have abridged free speech is obvious; she refused to reject others’ attempts to exclude recognized acceptable legal terms from court proceedings and records.
When citizens are prevented using legally-defined terms that are clear and accurate in a court of law, abridgment of their right to petition the court for redress of grievances invariably follows.
Abridgment of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process is then automatic.
Whether those consequences are intended or unintended, they’re real consequences nonetheless.
Justice McGregor seems to have been very willing, even eager to aid, abet and accommodate a racist organization's attempt to censor speech based on their own self-defined version of “hate” or “counterproductive” or “inflammatory.”***
And all to pacify vague and unsubstantiated allegations by a racist special interest group that these same terms are “inflammatory” and “counterproductive.”
*** These three terms (and others in Los Abogados' letter) have a single definition: any verbal or written communication with which Los Abogados disagrees qualifies for their censorship. Not only does Los Abogados specify the “no-no” words, but also the words to be substituted.
VI. SUGGESTED REMEDY
Considering the clear intent of Justice McGregor to subvert the rule of law and the resulting reduction in confidence of the judicial system for which she's responsible, we ask that the Commission on Judicial Conduct apply the maximum permitted disciplinary action to Justice McGregor. After observing the affinity of Los Abogados for depriving non-Hispanic citizens and non-illegal aliens of due process and evading transparency in public policy-making, it is also appropriate that they be directed to cease their letters of “concern” to individual justices in the Arizona judicial system. There are satisfactory alternatives available to Los Abagados —address the letter to “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Court” and avail themselves of the process intended for this kind of initiative.
In addition to whatever options the Commission considers, we propose:
(1) that Justice McGregor receive remedial education against being so eager to accommodate the “politically correct.” Since she committed the offense, she should bear the sole cost of the remedy: the cost of the “education” should be at her personal expense (not the Arizona taxpayers) and on her own personal leave time (not in lieu of being at work).
(2) appointment to the Commission on Judicial Conduct a member of Los Abogados’ opposition, a segment that “Citizens of Arizona” would describe as “just plain law-abiding Americans.” The clear intent of Los Abogados and similar illegal alien advocates to use courts and judges as tools to promote their agenda shows the need for representation of “the silent majority” on commissions reviewing judicial conduct.
Only by making a public example of the Chief Justice’s despicable pandering to a racist organization in this case and by applying the full punishment permitted by law will the credibility and integrity of the judicial system be restored and preserved and similar future behavior prevented.
