Irate JP Clancy Jayne displays appalling lack of judgment

August 28, 2016

Cathy Riggs a much more judicious choice for Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace

The Yellow Sheet recently reported that Gov Doug Ducey’s decision to endorse Cathy Riggs in the Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace race did not endear him to incumbent JP Clancy Jayne.  Ducey called Cathy Riggs, “Smart, trustworthy and principled.” Riggs is the wife of Frank Riggs, one of Ducey’s 2014 primary rivals.

Jayne, hardly the picture of either principles or refinement, is quoted as saying he’s “beyond pissed,” calling Ducey, who he says he’s known for 30 years, a “S.O.B.” 

The Yellow Sheet quoted the enraged Jayne describing Gov. Ducey as his gofer saying, “When he drove a beer truck for Hensley and Company, he was running around doing gofer work for me when I was president of Gilbert Days. He was having to go around and do gofer work for me because I got Jim Hensley to be our beer sponsor for the rodeo.”

The qualifications for being a Justice of the Peace don’t present insurmountable hurdles. English literacy, Arizona residency, having attained the age 18, being a registered voter and having a pulse are about it.  Those minimum requirements and a huge permanent campaign sign on a semi-trailer parked along I-17 heading north got Clancy Jayne elected. Cathy Riggs adds considerably to those minimals, with a law degree and experience as a police officer and detective.

Justices of the Peace in Maricopa County currently earn $101,500 — based on a percentage of a Superior Court Judge’s salary. They receive excellent benefits. The part the marginal Clancy Jayne likely revels in the most, is being able to wear black judicial robes. It’s time to put him back in the jeans and denim shirts he previously wore as a rodeo competitor.

On her campaign website, Riggs lists the FIVE times Clancy Jayne was reprimanded by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Sonoran News investigative reporter Linda Bentley has written about Clancy Jayne on numerous occasions. Here are a few revealing reports:

Aug, 2, 2016:   Arizona Chamber sends Clancy Jayne cease and desist letter

July 26, 2016: Clancy Jayne recycles decade-old endorsements in bid for reelection

July 13, 2016: ‘Let’s choose integrity’ for Desert Ridge JP

Aug. 23, 2012: Fourth sanction for Desert Ridge Justice of Peace Clancy Jayne


Politically motivated Judge refers Sheriff Arpaio, aides for prosecution?

August 21, 2016

Seemingly vendetta-based action timed to coincide with election

Unable to contain their elation, the crew at the Arizona Republic reported on Saturday with bared teeth and an all cap, declaration of war-sized headline, “CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.” The sense is the exact model of the coverage, including the 7 x 7 inch unflattering photo of Sheriff Joe Arpaio was on ice waiting for the judge’s order. They were showing irritation on May 31, when the newspaper’s testy report was titled, “No ruling yet on criminal charges for Arpaio.”

That moment came on Friday when U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow haughtily wrote:”Criminal contempt serves to vindicate the Court’s authority by punishing the intentional disregard for that authority.” 

 Judge Snow was appointed to the federal bench on the recommendation of Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, He was given the fast-track, green light by Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, who announced “all Senators should be aware that this vote will occur very quickly…” Snow was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by President George W. Bush, but without a recorded confirmation vote. This unanimous consent agreement sufficed. Federal judges do not stand for either election or retention. They hold their positions until they decide to retire or are unable to fulfill the duties.

The 32-page Criminal Contempt Order signed Aug. 18, 2016 by Judge G. Murray Snow can be read here. Being forwarded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for possible criminal contempt charges are Sheriff  Joe Arpaio, his Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, the MCSO’s former Professional Standards Bureau Captain Steve Bailey, and Arpaio’s former attorney Michele Iafrate.

In May 2015, Breitbart reported on incendiary comments alleged to have been made by Judge Snow’s wife to a friend and overheard in a Valley restaurant. The allegations which were never denied by either the judge or his wife, should have caused Judge Snow to recuse himself from this case. He did not. A motion for recusal was filed, Snow remained on the case.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been the focus of professional agitators and race-baiters who have spent years filing claims against him and loudly protesting outside his office, beating drums, screaming and holding derogatory signs — as they accuse him of racial profiling, a charge he has steadfastly denied. He has complied with previous judicial orders intended to rein in control of the office he  has repeatedly been elected to lead. This contempt charge appears suspiciously timed to coincide with the upcoming election.

Vote for Sheriff Arpaio, a dedicated, career lawman who has always done the job Maricopa County citizens have elected him to do.


John McCain’s deception exposed by Nat’l Pro-Life Alliance

August 16, 2016

Many conservatives found a letter from National Pro-Life Alliance in their mailboxes Monday. It specifically calls out AZ Sen. John McCain for repeatedly blocking pro-life initiatives. The letter, signed by Jenni Harris, the group’s executive director, cuts right to the chase. She explains that the Life at Conception Act which would legislatively bypass Roe v. Wade by using the Supreme Court’s own language against itself, now has a record 164 co-sponsors in both the U.S. House and Senate — including four of the five Republican Congressmen from Arizona. Harris says, “As I write this letter, John McCain is not among them, despite multiple meetings and calls to his staff.”

The letter further states, “In fact, Sen. McCain is the only candidate in the Senate Republican Primary who has not answered the Republican candidate survey.”

McCain’s deception on life issues is nothing new. May 15, 2016 Seeing Red AZ posted “Dr. Kelli Ward vs. McCain on life issues,” which includes a illuminating video displaying McCain’s bizarre view of the pro-life movement, in which he refers to the ending of a perfect and healthy pre-born human life as an “unpleasant….procedure,” though he made it clear he didn’t want to restrict them. 

Dr. Kelli Ward, a conservative former two-term state senator, military wife,  mother of three and a family practice physician — who is adamantly pro-life — is challenging the decades-long incumbent McCain — running for another 6-year term at age 80. Ward rightly questions the National Right to Life endorsement given to McCain despite his appalling record.

In July 2010 Seeing Red AZ posted, “McCain refuses to answer pro-life questionnaire.” In 2007, John McCain called for returning to the pre-Reagan Republican Party Platform which did not include the pro-life plank. 

Hillary Clinton, referred to by John McCain as a ‘rock star he could support,“ and portrayed in the liberal media as a doting grandmother, isn’t ashamed to say that she supports aborting a baby even on its due date. During an appearance on ‘The View,” Hillary did not flinch from her support of the U.S. Supreme Court’s imposed policy of abortion-on-demand for the full nine months of pregnancy enshrined in Roe v. Wade. She was asked: “At what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery, still has no constitutional rights?” Hillary’s swift reply? “Under our law that is the case. .I support Roe v. Wade.’ (Video)

By his words, actions and associations, John McCain continues to lie by declaring himself pro-life. The facts tell a different story.

Once again McCain expects to lure us all aboard his Forked Tongue Express. Vote for Dr. Kelli Ward and we can put this embarrassing chapter of Arizona history behind us.


SCOTUS blocks Obama’s amnesty proposals

June 24, 2016

In a split decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of United States. v. Texas, a challenge to Obama’s 2014 amnesty executive actions. The 4-4 decision sends the case back to Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen.. Meanwhile, DAPA and DACA, both Obama constructs, granting legal status to America’s illegal invaders, remain blocked

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released this statement Thursday, following the Supreme Court’s equally divided decision affirming the 26-state* lawsuit against Barack Obama’s amnesty decrees:

“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws,” said Governor Abbott. “As the President himself said, he is not a king who can unilaterally change and write immigration laws. Today’s ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans — including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law.”

Here’s Barack Obama repeatedly stating (video) that he was the President of the United States, not an emperor and was unable to bypass congress and unilaterally impose laws, specifically saying:

“Such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there would be no repercussions for such a decision, and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. It would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.” 

That was prior to him doing exactly the opposite.

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of Center for Immigration Studies, does a fine job of analyzing the action in his cogent commentary: “SCOTUS Doesn’t Abolish Separation of Powers – Yet.”

This 2016 Rasmussen Report survey shows over half of American voters believe providing a pathway to citizenship for those in this country illegally will just encourage more illegal immigration. Seventy percent of Republicans — and 51% of all voters — support GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S./Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Gallup polling indicates nearly one-quarter of American Hispanics do not favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

* The 25 other states joining Texas in the lawsuit with Obama over his executive amnesty are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

 


Americans becoming more wary

June 14, 2016

Confidence in many established institutions dropping like a rock

Trust in banks, organized religion, news media, and congress fell significantly during the past decade, according to this recent Gallup survey.

The report reveals Americans clearly lack confidence in the institutions that affect their daily lives: the schools responsible for educating the nation’s children; the houses of worship that are expected to provide spiritual guidance; the banks that are supposed to protect Americans’ earnings; the U.S. Congress elected to represent the nation’s interests; the news media that claims it exists to keep them informed and the judiciary which is supposed to render unbiased decisions. The U.S. military remains held in high regard as does law enforcement and big business.

 The nearly across-the-board decline in trustworthiness of these previously solidly respected institutions has given rise to an increasingly jaundiced view, culminating in higher levels of distrust.

Americans_lose_confidence_in_institutions

Seeing Red AZ is conducting our own poll, with this two-pronged question: Where has your level of confidence fallen most significantly, and why? We’re also interested in our reader’s solutions.


9th Circus rules 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to concealed carry

June 10, 2016

Court infringes on “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

In a 7 – 4 ruling issued Thursday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public. The court  said officials need only grant permits to those with “good cause,” such as facing a specific danger.

The decision of the San Francisco based court — the most reversed court in the nation — is viewed as a victory by gun control advocates and sets a legal precedent in western states — Arizona among them. This decision by the full 9th Circuit reversed a 2 – 1 decision in 2014 by a 3-judge  panel of the appellate court that found California residents have an inherent right to a concealed weapon for self defense.

It was called the Second Amendment.

But Judge William Fletcher thinks differently. “We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public,” Judge Fletcher wrote in the 52-page opinion. San Diego and Yolo counties’ interpretation of “good cause” is a focal point in this case. Both counties define “good cause” as requiring a particular need.

The en banc court (entire bench — signifying a particularly important issue) affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. Several residents who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the “good cause” requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Those seeking the permits contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

If you’re interested in time traveling to scrutinizing English law in 1299 when Edward I directed the  sheriffs of Safford and Shalop to prohibit anyone from “going armed within the realm without the king’s special licence,” this opinion is for you.

If you’d like to know why Juan Francisco Sanchez, an illegal alien deported five times, was able to secure a gun to murder Kate Steinle as she strolled on the San Francisco pier with her father, but her father couldn’t have defended himself and his daughter, ask the black robes in San Francisco — a sanctuary city.

The same sanctuary city is where illegal alien gang member Edwin Ramos shot and killed Tony Bologna 48, a father of four and two of his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16 in a case of mistaken identity  — as they were returning from a family barbecue. Ramos was identified as having murdered previously.

These two cases, among many, illustrate “good cause” for concealed carry. 

It’s called a fighting chance.


Legal lynching: The deliberate destruction of America’s Sheriff

June 5, 2016

Larry Klayman is a man not short on credentials. A former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, his legal expertise is impeccable.  For that reason, we are happy to bring you his WND commentary “ll Duce’ judge out to destroy Sheriff Joe,” as our Weekend Reading Guaranteed to Make You Smarter.

After reading this exposé, we ask that you send the link out to your email list.  It’s that important. 

If this can happen to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a career lawman who worked for the feds within the DEA — ultimately heading the agency in Arizona, none of us are safe.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 381 other followers