Andrew Thomas May End Up Disbarred, But He Really Belongs in a Prison Cell

CHICKENS COME HOME

New Times photo illustration

Target Thomas: If the feds pull the trigger, there's plenty of legal ammo to put Andy in the hoosegow.

Related Content

• Andrew Thomas Compares Himself to Gandhi and Martin Luther King in Press Conference
  April 11, 2012
• Federal Lawsuit Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Former County Attorney Andrew Thomas to Proceed; No Immunity, Judge Rules
  April 10, 2012
• Rachel Alexander Sues Maricopa County for $67,000 -- the Cost of Legal Fees for Her Appeal of Law-License Suspension; Wilcox Wins $975,000 Settlement
  May 11, 2012
• Andrew Thomas Could Be Hit With $296,000 Bill for Disciplinary Proceedings
  May 1, 2012
• Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Unholy Collaboration" Abused Justice - Yet Arpaio's Skating Toward Re-Election
  April 10, 2012

More About

• Ann Estrada Thomas
• Lisa Aubuchon
• John Gleason
• U.S. Courts
• Crime and Law

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Privacy Policy Cancel Continue

Embattled ex-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas' recent, crybaby press conference on the steps of the Arizona Supreme Court offered a truly maudlin display for a public that twice elected this man to a position of authority.

As part of it, Thomas dragged his wife, Ann Estrada Thomas, out of whatever closet he'd been keeping her in so she could play the sheep-eyed spouse by his side.

Can't help but wonder what she was doing as her husband and his fellow Sith Lord, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, instituted a pogrom against undocumented Latinos in this state, long before Senate Bill 1070 was pimped by state Senate President-elect Russell Pearce.

Thomas, the former far-right hopeful for the state Attorney General's Office, seemed on the verge of crocodile tears as he denounced the State Bar of Arizona and the just-released report by independent counsel John Gleason, which accuses Thomas and his henchwomen, ex-deputy county attorneys Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander, of 32 ethical violations.

Gleason's report advises that, if proved true, the allegations "warrant disbarment" for Thomas and Aubuchon. They warrant far more than that. But, for the moment, back to Thomas' self-pity-fest.

"For the last three years, the State Bar of Arizona has been on a political witch hunt against me," sniffed Thomas, falsely.

Granted, Thomas knows a thing or two about witch hunts, having been the author of many during his reign of ineptitude as County Attorney, a stint that plunged the county into a protracted, expensive, and wholly unnecessary civil war, with Thomas and Arpaio on one side and the county Board of Supervisors and the rest of humanity (nativists don't count) on the other.

But Gleason, an outsider who normally works for the Colorado Supreme Court on similar inquiries, was appointed by Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch to investigate the bar allegations against Thomas and his minions.

Gleason has no score to settle with Thomas and the others — despite Aubuchon's lawyers dumbly having Gleason tailed by a P.I. during his investigation, a blatant attempt at intimidation.

During a press conference earlier in the day, Gleason stated that he's never even met Thomas. Indeed, Thomas, Aubuchon, and Alexander all declined to be interviewed for Gleason's report.

Their reticence earned Thomas and Aubuchon an additional whack from former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones, who took Gleason's report and issued probable-cause orders directing Gleason to write up a formal complaint, one that, after all the legal wrangling involved, is expected to result in hearings sometime in July.

Jones hit Aubuchon and Thomas with a 33rd alleged violation: refusing to cooperate with Gleason's inquiry, as they are required to do by the bar's rules.

The judge also correctly categorized the Camelback Mountain-size pile of evidence against Thomas and Aubuchon as portraying "a reckless, four-year campaign of corruption and power abuse."

The jurist bemoaned the enormous and "mostly wasteful" cost to the taxpayers in untold millions and pegged the motivation for the alleged impropriety by all three lawyers as "retaliatory" and "intended to do personal harm to the reputations of judges, county supervisors, and other public officials."

Thomas and his henchwomen were "intent on intimidation, focused on political gain," noted Jones, and their actions revealed themselves as "fully disconnected from professional and prosecutorial standards long associated with the administration of justice, particularly criminal justice."

Gracias for the validation, judge. This is the sort of stuff this newspaper's been screaming about, practically since Thomas took office.

Over the years, my colleagues Ray Stern, Paul Rubin, and Sarah Fenske — now managing editor of New Times' St. Louis sister paper, Riverfront Times — have microscopic­ally scrutinized every inch of Thomas' malevolent machinations, as well as those of his underlings.

And lest some forget the retaliation New Times has endured, you'll recall that in 2007, Village Voice Media Executive Editor Michael Lacey and CEO Jim Larkin paid the price of false arrest and imprisonment at the hands of Sheriff's Office goon squads, acting on behalf of a bogus County Attorney's Office investigation led by Thomas' handpicked special prosecutor, Dennis Wilenchik.

Public outcry forced Thomas to drop the matter less than 24 hours later. For a primer, read Lacey and Larkin's double-bylined cover story, "Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution," (October 18, 2007), and my coverage of the aftermath, "Who's Sorry Now?" (October 25, 2007).

Of course, Gleason's 76-page report doesn't deal with that brouhaha. Instead, it focuses on Thomas' attacks on the Board of Supervisors — specifically on the voluminous and now-dismissed charges against supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley — and on the judiciary, most tellingly Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe.

Donahoe had ruled against the County Attorney's Office in several matters, and Thomas and Aubuchon wanted Donahoe to recuse himself in a pending hearing. So, as Gleason details at length, Thomas, Aubuchon, and Arpaio cooked up a bogus indictment of Donahoe, accusing him of bribery, among other things.

There was no investigation, no probable cause. The alleged "bribery" involved Donahoe's benefiting somehow from moving into the new county court tower under construction. This fantasy is belied by the fact that Donahoe was set to retire before the court tower's completion.