Mark Dixon Disses Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil, Who He Says was a "Close" Friend, in Affidavit Filed by Lisa Aubuchon

oneil william judge pinal 1.jpg
William O'Neil, state Supreme Court Disciplinary Judge

Mark Dixon of Casa Grande is ticked off at Arizona Supreme Court Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil, that much is clear.

O'Neil, former presiding judge for the Pinal County Superior Court, had the contractor come out to his property to do maintenance and they had a "very close friendship," according to an affidavit by Dixon. O'Neil visited Dixon's son in the hospital after a motorcycle accident and even performed a marriage for Dixon and his former wife in 2006.

The friendship is apparently history.

In the affidavit, which was filed with the state Supreme Court this month, Dixon accuses O'Neil of "clearly bias and anomosity" in the case of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon.

Aubuchon used Dixon's affidavit to prop up her arguments that an April
disbarment order against her should be stayed until her appeal is
exhausted. Today, the state Supreme Court shot down Aubuchon's effort,
ruling that her license will be canceled on July 2. But the affidavit
and the accusations in it live on, thanks to at least two conservative
blogs that touted the Dixon's criticisms.

An anonymous writer's take on the affidavit was published over the weekend in the Sonoran Alliance blog and Tea Party Tribune.

You can read Mark Dixon's affidavit here.

In it, Dixon writes that his opinion of O'Neil changed after the judge
stuck his nose into the messy business of who got custody of a dog after
Dixon's divorce.

Dixon implies that O'Neil did his ex-wife a favor in return for helping
him obtain a $300,000 loan from the credit union where she works. He
also accuses the judge of unethical behavior for helping him with some
legal work.

This wasn't just fodder for a potential country song. The gist of
Dixon's complaint, and the reason Aubuchon loved it enough to include in
her own filings, dealt with O'Neil's supposed bias in the Thomas and
Aubuchon case.

In the spring of 2009, Dixon says, he and "Bill" were putting up a fence
on the judge's property when O'Neil began talking about how the
Maricopa County Attorney's Office was "going after" now-retired Judge
Gary Donahoe

Donahoe, as you probably know, was charged with bribery and other
felonies by Thomas -- despite the lack of any evidence of a crime. The
charges were later dropped, Thomas and Aubuchon were disbarred, and
Donahoe is now suing Maricopa County for damage to his reputation.

O'Neil "made it clear that Judge Donahoe was a friend of his and that
the County Attorney's office had no right to challenge or judge"
Donahoe," Dixon says in the affidavit. "...He had a predetermined path
and agenda (and) he went into this position with the premeditated
purpose of convicting and disbarring the individuals involved."

"That's just wrong," Dixon tells us today. "He should have, at the very least, recused himself."

There are a couple of problems with Dixon's accounts, though.

The biggest, as we see it, is one of timing.

Thomas wasn't "going after" Judge Donahoe in the spring of 2009, as Dixon claims.

The charges against Donahoe didn't come until December of 2009. We
mentioned this to Dixon, but he wouldn't budge. The investigation that
preceded the charges against Donahoe was going on long before, he says.

But that's not correct, either. There was no investigation. That was one
of the messed-up things about the whole affair. Testimony during the
disciplinary hearings revealed that Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio cooked
up the charges a few days before they were announced.

Still, Dixon says he's quite sure of the spring 2009 conversation.

The other problem with Dixon's affidavit is the credibility of Dixon
himself. For many reasons, we try not to get in the middle of divorce
stories, and this situation only confirms our feeling about that.

We talked to Carol Johnson, Dixon's ex-wife. She swears the dog was
hers, that she never helped O'Neil obtain a loan and that, generally,
Dixon -- who was convicted in 1996 of embezzling and ordered to pay
$161,000 in restitution -- is a habitual liar.

Of course, none of that directly refutes what Dixon has to say about his old "friend," O'Neil.

The judge clearly would have had some feelings about Thomas and Aubuchon
before the disciplinary hearing. After all, he's the one who stayed the
prosecution against Donahoe a week after the charges were leveled.

But in the end, O'Neil was joined in his opinion about Thomas and
Aubuchon by two other panelists, and that was after weeks of testimony
that proved that the two former prosecutors had acted unethically.

Bias seems to have had nothing to do with that outcome.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
Kay Sieverding
Kay Sieverding

I've been following this story but I've never seen the criminal complaint that Thomas filed.  The claim is that he prosecuted various people without probable cause. But I'd like to independently verify that by seeing Thomas's criminal complaints. I was actually prosecuted without probable cause in Colorado. There wasn't a written statement of probable cause. The district attorney filed nothing and I wasn't indicted. I was prosecuted based on a police criminal summons that was signed only by the wife of the city council president of Steamboat Springs Colorado.  By statute the paper  was to be signed only by police officers who witness a crime and don't have time to get a warrant. Her police report said that I stood on the street adjoining my home and accused the two of them of violating the zoning and the constitution. The police report said I said a few sentences and then left. They were with two construction workers and were actually adding an additional building with plumbing and central heat to their property and really were violating the zoning. This was a one time occurrence and was in the afternoon. She testified under oath that I hadn't been following her around town, hadn't called her in years, and that there was "no offensive touching". The criminal prosecution cost me thousands of dollars in attorney bills. The D.A. gave a press conference and said that there was probable cause and a victim but that a trial would be too expensive. She violated the Rules of Criminal Procedure by starting a criminal prosecution without a criminal complaint and ending it without an oral hearing.  My neighbor's wife's lawyer got a permanent restraining order on me based on this only, with no statutory citation and no published procedure.  She used that and followed me around town asking to have me arrested. Seriously, she filed a police report that said she was in a store and saw me on the sidewalk so therefore I should be arrested. She filed a police report saying that she was following me trying to take my photo to prove that she was near me so therefore I should be arrested.  I complained to the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel, John Gleason, that I was prosecuted without probable cause and that the prosecutor did it to  advance her husband's real estate business and Gleason's assistant wrote back that they wouldn't even investigate it and wouldn't accept complaints from me.   I guess my complaints to Colorado OARC were not investigated because the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel couldn't figure out how to make money by investigating my reports, or maybe they were paid not to investigate. Really OARC started a series of events that ruined my life. I feel really uncomfortable with anything involving John Gleason.  I don't want to take his word for it that Thomas didn't have probable cause. I don't know any of the parties involved and have never been to Maricopa County, I just want to see the documents for myself because I'm interested in the procedure. 


Mark Dixon is only seaking attention here!  He has stole more money and time from people that had his best interest!  Hes draw attention to others due hes guilty of everything hes been convicted of,  to you Mark Dixon supporters wise up cause hes probably already stole your wallet!


Mark Dixon struggles with reality and is, as his ex-wife attests, a liar.  He is filing harassing complaints against numerous people who don't support his strange perception of life.  I would not be surprised in the least if he now files some type of complaint against Ray Stern and plasters it on the internet with OCD intensity.


Many of Us with Citizens 4 Clean Courts have read Mark Dixon's affidavit and believe that
William J. O'neal targeted Andrew Thomas and his staff once the Gary Donahoe affair reached
his desk in 2009.  Judge Donahoe was the Presiding Criminal Law Judge of MCSC that both
Thomas & Arpaio investigated.  It is a fact that Judge Donahoe had Joel Sannes arrested in
Probate Court after he himself (Donahoe) was arrested by Sheriff Arpaio's deputies in December 2009.  But O'neil dimissed the charges and allowed the system to continue with
Donahoe filing a wrongful arrest claim against the County Prosecutor's Office & other parties
associated with that case.  Now, Donahoe wants to cash in like Mary Rose Wilcox at the
tax payers expense.  Do these public servants have NO SHAME!  If the charges were false,
then they should decide to go away and not stick the taxpayers with penalties of being in
the public forum.  They already either get paid way above their pay rank or are living high on
the hog at taxpayer expense.  Most Arizonans would be happy to receive their pay & benefits
paid for courtesy of the County & State Taxpayers.  HAVE THEY NO SHAME?! 

LD19 Resident
LD19 Resident

Mark Dixon is also pissed because Judge O'Neil refused to allow him to keep his pet. According to the Arizona Republic, Dixon's ex-wife had won custody of the animal.

Further, according to the Republic, Dixon thinks the judge is biased because he applied for a $300,000 loan and was approved. By Dixon's ex-wife.

Sounds like Dixon's beef is with the ex-wife and not Judge O'Neil. I would be willing to bet that the Arizona Supreme Court refuses to hear Aubuchon's latest round of bullshit.


Mr. Dixon I think your telling the truth but struggle to get it all out clearly.  You might not be as articulate as you need to be right now but that doesn't make you a liar.  The bottom line is there are too many reasons for Oneil to recuse himself already. 

I also think your honest in your heart from your interview yesterday on the Jim Sharpe Show on KFYI.   Besides, I don't sense vengeance or sound like you just made this stuff up


Make it stop!

mark dixon
mark dixon


First let me
say that I do appreciate your opinion and the article you have written, a few
things do concern me though. First you called me at 4:42pm today and we spoke
about this for an hour and 9 minutes, most of which you were trying to convince
me that Andrew Thomas etc. were guilty of everything.

I have never
said they were innocent, rather I have said I have no real idea as to their
"guilt" or "innocence". My concern here is strictly the
fact that I firmly believe Andrew Thomas etc. did not receive their due process
which we are all entitled to, it is a basic right in this country and under the

Yes I have
been in a heated legal fight with Pinal County over my dog Shilo. This part I
will make plane and sweet. Shilo was purchased for me as a gift before my
marriage and has always been licensed to me as the sole owner. Please see the
enclosed documents in this link.

Second Shilo
was illegally taken from me by 4 Pinal County Sheriff Deputies, specifically 2
detectives, 1 corporal and a Sargent. 
This “theft” was done without a search warrant, arrest warrant or any
order by a judge.  To date not one
official from Pinal County has addressed the issue other than to say “we will
see you in court”.  Apparently our “Black
Letter Law” Sheriff Paul Babeu thinks it is ok for his deputies to do the work
of the judicial system, well better give them a bigger budget.   Again
please see the enclosed documents.

Third the
judge in this case sent me back to Pinal County for state remedy on the
problem. It is the attempt to get state remedy that is the problem. Please see
the enclosed documents relating to the Pinal County Superior Court. 

The above
events is what drove me to disclose the information in my affidavit.  Bill O’neil is a product of the Pinal County Superior
Court system and if you will just take the time to read the above documents and
come to your own conclusion, then you will be informed as to some of my

In so far as a
past conviction on my part all I will say is the Phoenix New Times has been
fully aware of my past as every document I have and my entire past was given to
the New Times over 2 months ago in an attempt to get someone to report and
write on these activities in Pinal County. 
I will also note that every friend of mine is aware of this situation
and that does include Bill O’neil and my ex-wife.  Funny it has not been a problem until

So far as my affidavit
is concerned there is nothing wrong with the timeline nor the statements. The
whole court tower issue was heating up way back in February 2009.  We are all guaranteed a fair hearing by an unbiased
judge and I fully believe that Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander
did not receive that fair and unbiased hearing, Judge William J. O’neil, by the
same rules he is entrusted to enforce, should have recused himself.  How much evidence was hindered, how many
sidebars will everyone never know about and how much ex parte communication occurred. 

I would be glad
to go over the information I gave to Phoenix New Times so you can become fully
informed as to the full situation which exists within Pinal County.

You may also
like to look at the following documents which will reiterate the problems we

Ray, do a little more research and stop jumping to the quick
headline.  I knew the pressure I would
endure by telling the truth and speaking out for right but the cost is worth

Mark Dixon


Except, of course, that his ex-wife had nothing to do with the loan.  Nada.

The interesting thing about the dog is that Dixon WANTED O'Neil to be a crooked judge when he called him and tried to use his friendship to get O'Neil to intercede and give him, Dixon, the dog.

Because O'Neil followed the law, Dixon now wants to label him a law breaker.

No good deed goes unpunished.


Actually, in reconsideration, yours is the only story that suggests a plausible reason Oneil should have recussed himself. It's your story versus his story.

Yours is wrong on the dates and wrong about the loans.  I'm sure you meant well and that in your heart you are telling what your mind is telling is true.

I wish you well, but must retract my support for you.

Ray Stern
Ray Stern

If it was true, which it isn't, that I spent "most" of our talk trying to convince you of Thomas' guilt, it would be more believable to me that your recollection of your conversation in the spring of 2009 with O'Neil was accurate.

True, I did try to convince you to explore the case yourself and watch the video testimony, and I told you what some of that testimony revealed, especially as it pertained to what you erroneously believe was an "investigation" that preceded the Donahoe charges. I also shared my opinion with you -- and later, our readers -- that the panel's conclusion seemed to be the correct one, based on the evidence. 

In any case, that was just a few minutes of our hour-long talk. I mean, come on -- we spent at least 20 minutes just discussing your dog problems! After talking to you and your ex-wife and seeing documents from the both of you, I feel the level of my research was sufficient for this article.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault