Rachel Alexander on Stand Trying Desperately to Keep Ticket To "Practice" Law Intact

The history of this RICOcase and other related cases begs a few questions in my mind.

1. How can an attorney whohas never sat as first or second chair In a criminal prosecution in Court, onewho has no experience in actually prosecuting criminal cases, one who has NOexperience in RICO cases or even seemed to have a basic understanding of thestatue based on her testimony, be assigned as the Lead Prosecutor to perhapsTHE most important, high profile case in the history of that office?

2. How does a prosecutorprepare a case for trail and seek charging documents for citizens withoutreviewing or even possessing ANY investigative reports; interview thedetectives who actually investigated the cases or interview other witnessesinvolved in the case?

3. Why did Ms. Alexanderaccept such a case assignment for which she was so ill prepared to handle. Upto this point Ms. Alexander seemed to be the social networking and PR personfor the office; she responded to requests for public records; she handled a fewinitial appearances in Court as well as other paper pushing tasks for theoffice based on her own testimony. That is not meant to be a slam against Ms.Alexander. However, the word judgment comes to mind!

4. Other much moreexperienced attorneys in her office refused this RICO case assignment. WHY Iwonder?

5. The Attorney's Officeseemed to have no RICO experts in house it appears. Mr. Spawn, who was Ms.Alexander's supervisor, testified that he was not a RICO expert, but he was Ms.Alexander's primary and perhaps only resource for help. What was Mr. Thomasthinking of when he assigned this high profile case to such a green,inexperienced attorney. Again, the word judgment comes to mind!

6. The poor Sherriff couldnot seem to remember most of what happened during the time all these cases wereoccurring based on his testimony. Just about any significant question asked ofthe Sherriff garnered responses such as, "I can't remember that"," the Chief Deputy ran all those investigations - He made all thosedecisions". I never had the impression that Sherriff Joe would ever failto be making all the important decisions in his department. How many times hashe said in the press or on the TV that I am the Sherriff and I run this Officeor words to that effect. Three of the Sherriff's top guys were terminated forimproper conduct. That seems odd to me!

7. Then comes poor Ms. Polkfrom Prescott.She seemed to have problems with these cases from the beginning. When shesensed a problem was afoot, she grabbed the files and ran to the FBI andattorney General's Office fearing there was a big problem. She has a meetingwith the Sherriff's Dept., Mr. Thomas and the gang on a Friday and tells themthe case is not ready for charging, that more investigation is required. On thefollowing Monday folks are arrested. At this point Ms. Polk was the Chief LawEnforcement Officer for these cases. She called the shots. Why were peoplearrested the very next work day, Monday. Who authorized the arrests and why? Ifyou listen to the testimony, the Sherriff is pointing the finger at the ChiefDeputy and vice versa.

At this point, it appearslikely that the citizens of Maricopa County are on the hookfor millions of dollars. How does something this vile happen? Can the egosinvolved be that large that they trump COMMON SENSE? I wonder what the lawyersfor all the parties are costing the taxpayers? When so many citizens are out ofwork struggling to get by - when businesses are closing due to the pooreconomy, and taxes are being raised on all of us, we seem to be flushing goodmoney after bad.

Does anyone else think thisis a sad state of affairs for Maricopa County regardless of whodid what?

1. How can an attorney whohas never sat as first or second chair In a criminal prosecution in Court, onewho has no experience in actually prosecuting criminal cases, one who has NOexperience in RICO cases or even seemed to have a basic understanding of thestatue based on her testimony, be assigned as the Lead Prosecutor to perhapsTHE most important, high profile case in the history of that office?

2. How does a prosecutorprepare a case for trail and seek charging documents for citizens withoutreviewing or even possessing ANY investigative reports; interview thedetectives who actually investigated the cases or interview other witnessesinvolved in the case?

3. Why did Ms. Alexanderaccept such a case assignment for which she was so ill prepared to handle. Upto this point Ms. Alexander seemed to be the social networking and PR personfor the office; she responded to requests for public records; she handled a fewinitial appearances in Court as well as other paper pushing tasks for theoffice based on her own testimony. That is not meant to be a slam against Ms.Alexander. However, the word judgment comes to mind!

4. Other much moreexperienced attorneys in her office refused this RICO case assignment. WHY Iwonder?

5. The Attorney's Officeseemed to have no RICO experts in house it appears. Mr. Spawn, who was Ms.Alexander's supervisor, testified that he was not a RICO expert, but he was Ms.Alexander's primary and perhaps only resource for help. What was Mr. Thomasthinking of when he assigned this high profile case to such a green,inexperienced attorney. Again, the word judgment comes to mind!

6. The poor Sherriff couldnot seem to remember most of what happened during the time all these cases wereoccurring based on his testimony. Just about any significant question asked ofthe Sherriff garnered responses such as, "I can't remember that"," the Chief Deputy ran all those investigations - He made all thosedecisions". I never had the impression that Sherriff Joe would ever failto be making all the important decisions in his department. How many times hashe said in the press or on the TV that I am the Sherriff and I run this Officeor words to that effect. Three of the Sherriff's top guys were terminated forimproper conduct. That seems odd to me!

7. Then comes poor Ms. Polkfrom Prescott.She seemed to have problems with these cases from the beginning. When shesensed a problem was afoot, she grabbed the files and ran to the FBI andattorney General's Office fearing there was a big problem. She has a meetingwith the Sherriff's Dept., Mr. Thomas and the gang on a Friday and tells themthe case is not ready for charging, that more investigation is required. On thefollowing Monday folks are arrested. At this point Ms. Polk was the Chief LawEnforcement Officer for these cases. She called the shots. Why were peoplearrested the very next work day, Monday. Who authorized the arrests and why? Ifyou listen to the testimony, the Sherriff is pointing the finger at the ChiefDeputy and vice versa.

At this point, it appearslikely that the citizens of Maricopa County are on the hookfor millions of dollars. How does something this vile happen? Can the egosinvolved be that large that they trump COMMON SENSE? I wonder what the lawyersfor all the parties are costing the taxpayers? When so many citizens are out ofwork struggling to get by - when businesses are closing due to the pooreconomy, and taxes are being raised on all of us, we seem to be flushing goodmoney after bad.

Does anyone else think thisis a sad state of affairs for Maricopa County regardless of whodid what?

Alexander should have stayed with representing clients with parking tickets, that's her skill level.

Rachel's lack of remorse and failure to acknowledge that she has done something wrong will likely result in harsher punishment from the panel.  She implies that she was led astray at every step because somebody else wrote this, somebody gave her a stack of documents, the truth was evident because of the office scuttlebutt, or that it just made sense that there was a conspiracy when you added all the gossip together.  Some simple notes:

- Rachel appears to have testified honestly and openly.

- Rachel acknowledges that the amended RICO complaint is her's and by her signature, she owns it.

- Rachel supports that this is a witch hunt and she is being attacked for conservative blogging.

- Rachel deflects blame to others in her support chain, but never really takes responsibility for the pleading that she owns.

- Rachel claims to have done massive research on RICO matters, the predicate acts, and even the court tower project.  Yet, she did not understand the funding approach to the court tower project.

- Not in her testimony, but Rachel seems to support the present ultra-conservative causes blindly and overlooking or rationalizing the failures of integrity, honesty, and ethics by odious cretins such as Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, and others.  When the conservative cause is so important that one overlooks serious failures of its leaders to follow the law and behave with integrity, then I would submit that the cause is becoming corrupt.

- Rachel seems to tow the line that Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon, and herself are being persecuted by the left and the left leaning AZ Bar, even writing or posting that AZ lawyers are sick of what the Bar is doing to her and her partners in crime.

- The Intellectual Conservative Oct 5 posting that was read in court was a damning piece of information against Rachel and probably damages her chances of leniency.  She claims she did not write it, but if you read it and read other items she wrote while in Tucson and more recently, you will realize that she may well have structured and organized the piece, possibly even written it and solicited a friend to 'author' it.  It is well known that Rachel will delete or not post items that she does not agree with relative to their inclusion on the Int Cons site.   

- After watching her on the stand, I can't believe that the term "intellectual" would be anywhere near her name.

- Gleason went through the amended RICO complaint pretty much paragraph by paragraph and asking Rachel to support each statement by providing or identifying EVIDENCE that led to the conclusion.  She was unable to support responses to such inquiries. 

- Thomas and Aubuchon will not have a smooth ride when Gleason gets to them.  He is VERY good at asking questions in a simple matter of fact way that is not aggressive or offensive.  But the questions are very sharp and designed to get to the point.  Also very important is the order in which he asked questions that developed the theory that Rachel almost certainly behaved badly as a lawyer, then led her to overwhelmingly prove it when asked for what evidence supported her pleading.

- Of course Andrew Thomas still contends that the hearing is illegitimate and should be tossed on appeal because Gleason is not admitted to practice law in the state of AZ.  This just means that Andrew Thomas will be appealing his disbarment.

- Gleason is the guy that Aubuchon's early lawyers hired a detective to tail around and report where he stayed, where he went, who he met, etc. when he was doing his investigation.  These dirt digging expeditions and unnecessary expenses before there was even a complaint sent to the probably cause panelist were a large part of why they were terminated I believe. 

Gee, wonder how much DUMBASS Alexander will be in "Demand" on Radio Stations spouting her political vomit now that she's made such a complete fool of herself for the State of Arizona to see?  Do you think anybody will value the opinion of such a ragged idiot and want her to take any air time?  I'll bet she won't be able to announce the Blue Light Specials at KMart after her humiliating performance today.

Alexander.....thanks for the laugh today!  I had no idea you were such a bumbling fool.

Lack of moral compass is more than fitting. 

Paul,  Great investigative reporting. You describe well what we heard today, after hearing RICO Expert/RICO Professor yesterday. I'm sure he left Arizona shaking his head on the gross incompetence and vindictive prosecution that has been revealed.

"Independent State Bar counsel John S. Gleason methodically is questioning Alexander, who is not helping her case with her stunning lack of legal acumen and basic common sense.What is clear is that Alexander should have stayed with the status-quo in her role as one of Thomas' "special assistants," that is, as an undercover blogger, a peruser of public-records requests, and other less-weighty pursuits"

http://tinyurl.com/4skyaqr

Gleason comes off as the smartest attorney involved in this whole hearing.  I don't know if he is or not.  He is good, even very good.  But it is hard to compare his capabilities and performance with other attorneys that are crippled with terrible cases to defend.

If, after the panel rules, you go into a Waffle House and notice your waitress is "Lisa" or "Rachel", ask for a different waitress.  If you also notice the cook is named "Andy", LEAVE!

It seems that Rachel is getting a lot of bashing here and much is deserved.  She is completely without foundation or escape from her misdeeds on the RICO suit.  It is patently clear that she has not been persecuted by the Bar, nor has she been railroaded for her blogging.  I do wonder if her blogging has eclipsed some of her due diligence on the RICO case and her preparation to answer questions in the present hearing. 

Second and third hand statements heard around the office are not evidence of predicate crimes in a RICO complaint. 

Now, let me say that I found Rachel to be credible as a witness.  She seemed honest even when her responses were disastrous for her cause.  She may not know as much as Arpaio, but she seemed to tell what she did know pretty honestly.  Arpaio just lied.  Rachel is a disaster and should never have been part of the County Attorney's office in the first place.  Giving these plum assignments at high pay to incompetent people because they help someone get elected is far more a crime that the Sups paying for the bug sweep.

Watching Gleason bore into her is different than he had done with any other witness.  It is a preview of how he will treat Aubuchon and Thomas when it is their turn.  They are charged with almost five times as many ethical violations as Rachel is.  This will be fun.  Maybe I will stream it to my big screen and sell tickets.

They're just a few of the thousands who are corrupt, greedy and stupid in ths country who have or had positions of power.    They were hired and put in those positions because they have no integrity or empathy for their fellow man and so could be easily controlled.   They would have done anything to keep their plush jobs and they also had to realize they weren't up to the task of working in those postions if they had been under the leadership of good, strong people.   There are many, many more of this kind of people who run things in the world.

Where can I get  a report of the hearings in text form ? my video buffers too long . plase send linkIf stupidity were a crime  she would do life

The fact that on 10/5/11 SHE posted a story on HER website attracting the whole State Bar hearing and investigation, where the link went out on HER Twitter account has got to one of the DOWN RIGHT STUPIDEST moves I've heard of in the hearings so far!

"So Miss Alexander, is this how you show us you have some remorse for your actions?"

Is any one else alarmed at the lack of intelligence, common sense, morality or integrity at the very core of the Maricopa County Attorneys office? One is left to wonder that if behaviour like this was so systemic and endemic has anything in that office changed.

RACHAEL ALEXANDER:  You are an ugly, tired old idiot.  Your complete lack of knowledge of the law was evident.  How is it that you couldn't remember whether you'd seen a police report or investigation before charging a dozen people with crimes like bribery and extortion?  You couldn't explain your case and you stumbled and mumbled though your testimony.Now you're a bankruptcy lawyer?  A blogging bankruptcy lawyer?  Your last blog was posted 45 minutes before the hearing started today.  I wouldn't be ordering any new business cards anytime soon...at least where you pretend to be a lawyer.

YOU ARE TRASH.  Your looks have gone to hell, and your a.  What a jokere a sad, pathetic example of corruption.  Can't wait to see if Thomas drops a load on you, too. 

The caption on the picture with this story "long ago pose"..  Add 40 lbs and greasy hair!

lol loved the part when she was asked about what evidence she had to pursue the case, and all she could come up with was "office gossip and newspaper articles"...