Friday, April 27, 2012

Kirk Adams Doesn't Know the Constitution

Schweikert votes against privacy invading CISPA, Quayle supports it

 I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Congressman Raul Grijalva on something over Ben Quayle, but I suppose there is a first time for everything. Here's the article I wrote for Townhall.

With CISPA, Congress Turns Internet Websites Into Police

On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 248-168 to pass CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. Civil liberties advocates loudly protested the bill, claiming it will give government too much access to individuals’ personal information. The Obama administration is threatening to veto it if it makes it through both chambers of Congress. Congressional sponsors scrambled to amend the bill this week in order to ensure its passage. CISPA is supported by Facebook, Microsoft and other online giants.
H.R. 3523 will allow websites to share users’ personal information with the federal government in the name of cyber security, with no judicial oversight. It would authorize internet providers, social networking sites, and other websites that store personal information to monitor users’ personal emails for the vague purpose of “protecting the rights and property” of the provider. Currently, the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibit companies from routinely monitoring your communications. CISPA would remove those protections, and create a broad immunity for companies against both civil and criminal liability, making it difficult to sue them. The American Library Association warns, "This bill would trump all current privacy laws including the forty-eight state library record confidentiality laws as well as the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Wiretap Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Privacy Act. “
CISPA is written by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD). 112 members of Congress co-sponsored the bill, including Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ), who is running against Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) in Arizona’s new CD6. Schweikert opposed the bill, saying, ”I have concerns that the private information gathered by the Department of Homeland Security would be passed on to other government entities that have little to no civilian oversight.” Schweikert dislikes that there is no mechanism for the public to request the information being transferred to the government; it is not discloseable in a public records request. Quayle also co-sponsored SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, CISPA’s predecessor which went down in flames after a public outcry over the vast amount of power it gave the Justice Department to shut down websites. Quayle backed off from supporting both bills, and added an amendment this week to CISPA limiting the government’s use of shared cyber threat information to “cybersecurity,” “national security,” and several other criteria.

These are still very broad, vague terms. The Center for Democracy and Technology, which reversed its opposition to CISPA as amendments narrowing its scope were added, still ended up opposing it. The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and many other organizations continued to oppose it, since the amendments did not go far enough. EFF organized a Stop Cyber Spying Week this past week to hype up opposition to the bill.

Facebook argues that CISPA will give it the ability to share information with other companies about cyber attacks. Yet Facebook already has the ability to report cyber attacks to the police, then work in conjunction with the police and other companies. Private businesses already share personal information about their customers with the FBI. Facebook oddly argues that it needs the legislation in order to receive information about cyber security threats from the government – but that does not require CISPA legislation.

Fighting cyber attacks sounds noble, but it should not be done by creating a police state. Internet providers and social media networks are not the police. We should not be creating an additional new level of police out of our internet services. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) characterizes it as turning  successful internet companies into spies.

Generally, a warrant is required to tap a telephone if you are not one of the parties participating and do not have their permission to tap it. Likewise, a warrant or probable cause should be required to spy on email and turn it over to the government. People are increasingly using the internet for all of their communications, as snail-mail becomes obsolete. There is no law permitting UPS to snoop through your snail-mail for vague reasons then turn it over to the government, so there should not be a new law permitting internet providers to do the same. Otherwise what is to prevent companies from going on fishing expeditions against people they don’t like? Everything in today’s era has moved to the internet; passing CISPA into law will have the effect of creating a massive surveillance state.

Thursday, April 26, 2012


CONTACT: Rachel Semmel | 202-225-1941


Washington, D.C. – Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ) made the following statement Thursday after voting against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA):

“I could not support this bill because of the lack of government accountability for individual protection.

“I have concerns that the private information gathered by the Department of Homeland Security would be passed on to other government entities that have little to no civilian oversight.

“Further, CISPA provides few limitations on the types and uses of this information that could be shared. Companies who hand data over to the government under CISPA are exempt from criminal and civil liabilities as long as those companies say they were acting ‘in good faith.’ While CISPA provides excellent protection for American companies, it provides little protection for American citizens.

“While we must secure America’s cybersecurity, I will not support a bill that 
encroaches on our civil liberties.”

Washington, DC Office
Longworth House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2190
Fax: (202) 225-0096
Scottsdale District Office
10603 North Hayden Rd, Ste 108 Scottsdale, AZ  85260
Phone: (480) 946-2411
Fax: (480) 946-2446
   facebook    twitter    youtube    flickr    rss

Supreme Court hearing SB 1070: Arizona stands in solidarity with rest of the nation

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

The two furries fighting to Fur Elise

Video of Buckley playing with an American flag!

National Review: Arizona's “commonsense” immigration law is constitutional

Today, eight justices of the Supreme Court (Associate Justice Elena Kagan, formerly President Obama’s solicitor general, has recused herself) will hear oral arguments in The United States v. Arizona, a case that will decide whether the Obama administration may impose its strategic neglect of federal immigration laws on the states, or whether instead the states may use their law-enforcement resources to “do the jobs Americans the Justice Department won’t do.”

In April 2010, Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act into law. The tough, commonsense immigration-enforcement package that would come to be known simply as S.B. 1070 had passed comfortably in both houses of Arizona’s legislature and enjoyed broad public support. But in July of 2010, the Obama Justice Department asked a federal court for, and was granted, an injunction against enforcement of major provisions of the law, including the requirement that police make an effort to ascertain the immigration status of lawfully detained individuals when there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally; the complementary requirement that immigrants carry federal immigration papers or be subject to misdemeanor charges; and the imposition of penalties on illegal immigrants who improperly seek work. In April of 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals added to the annals of its infamy by upholding this injunction, and in December the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal.

The conflict centers on whether the aforementioned provisions of S.B. 1070 preempt federal law on a matter of federal prerogative — in contravention of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI — or whether, as the state of Arizona has argued, they merely complement that law. But we can save the Court the trouble. There is simply no plain-language reading, either of the Arizona law or of federal immigration code, that renders the one incompatible with the other. The Justice Department’s case rests instead on a willful misreading of federal statute, and it reinterprets the requirement that states not preempt federal immigration laws as a requirement that states harmonize their own laws with federal immigration enforcement practices or in this case, with the lack thereof.

Federal courts have generally held that although setting immigration law is the exclusive domain of the federal government, the states can and indeed should play a role in enforcing that law. For example, in United States v. Vasquez Alvarez (1999), the Tenth Circuit saw “a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws” and a “preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of . . . immigration laws.” The Fifth Circuit similarly noted in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that “no statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws.” And in Plyler v. Doe (1982), Justice William Brennan, writing for the majority in an otherwise pro-open-borders opinion, held that “despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.”

This is all S.B. 1070 does. Let us take each of the enjoined provisions separately. Section 2(B), arguably the most controversial, requires that police officers who have lawfully arrested, detained, or otherwise stopped persons for a violation of any law or ordinance take reasonable measures to ascertain the immigration status of those persons should there be a reasonable suspicion they are here illegally. The Justice Department has argued, and the lower courts have agreed, that this unjustly singles out aliens as a group for discrimination and surveillance. But the provision is aimed specifically at aliens already suspected of breaking the law. U.S. code requires aliens to be properly registered with the federal government, and it already commands federal authorities to respond to any inquiries “by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.” So it stands to reason that local authorities with custody of a suspected illegal alien (who may have committed one of the deportable infractions codified in federal law, to boot) have the investigative and enforcement resources to confirm that alien’s status.

The same goes for section 3(C), which imposes penalties on aliens for not carrying registration papers. Federal law already requires that “every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.” And federal penalties for a willful failure to complete and carry proof of registration already exist. The Arizona law merely adds a layer of state penalties to existing federal ones.

Lastly, section 5(C) of S.B. 1070 makes it unlawful for illegal aliens to solicit work. Opponents have argued that this preempts the clear congressional preference to focus on employers of illegal workers and not the workers themselves. Federal law does prohibit states from imposing their own sanctions on employers — but it does not forbid states to impose sanctions on illegal workers, who are already required to swear, under penalty of perjury, that they are lawfully authorized to work in the United States. Under this section, S.B. 1070 thus avails itself of the means open to it in the pursuit of an avowed congressional end: to stem the employment of illegal workers.

While it is thus clear that nothing in the Arizona law runs afoul of federal immigration statutes, it is equally obvious that, facing an immigration crisis in its back yard, Arizona has decided to enforce those statutes more strenuously than the current administration in Washington. That it has been compelled to do so should not be cause for a censure of the former, but of the latter.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Phoenix Federalist Society Upcoming Event

· On Friday, May 11, Fed Soc will be hosting a lunch CLE on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) cases. With us will be special guest speaker Karen Harned, counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the lead plaintiffs challenging the Act.

If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to Daniela Lazar ( Additional information and additional reminders will follow as we get closer to the event.

Campaigning for Bill Ponath for Justice of the Peace we run into David Schweikert

Great evening at LD6 last night, as Joan Ponath and I ran into the Schweikert's as we were collecting petitions for Joan's husband Bill Ponath, running for Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace.

Jailed for $280: The Return of Debtors' Prisons

How did breast cancer survivor Lisa Lindsay end up behind bars? She didn't pay a medical bill -- one the Herrin, Ill., teaching assistant was told she didn't owe. "She got a $280 medical bill in error and was told she didn't have to pay it," The Associated Press reports. "But the bill was turned over to a collection agency, and eventually state troopers showed up at her home and took her to jail in handcuffs." Although the U.S. abolished debtors' prisons in the 1830s, more than a third of U.S. states allow the police to haul people in who don't pay all manner of debts, from bills for health care services to credit card and auto loans. In parts of Illinois, debt collectors commonly use publicly funded courts, sheriff's deputies, and country jails to pressure people who owe even small amounts to pay up, according to the AP. Under the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, but rather for failing to respond to court hearings, pay legal fines, or otherwise showing "contempt of court" in connection with a creditor lawsuit. That loophole has lawmakers in the Illinois House of Representatives concerned enough to pass a bill in March that would make it illegal to send residents of the state to jail if they can't pay a debt. The measure awaits action in the senate. "Creditors have been manipulating the court system to extract money from the unemployed, veterans, even seniors who rely solely on their benefits to get by each month," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said last month in a statement voicing support for the legislation. "Too many people have been thrown in jail simply because they're too poor to pay their debts. We cannot allow these illegal abuses to continue."

Read the rest of the article at Yahoo

The Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm provides low low cost Chapter 7 and 13 personal bankruptcies. $995 Chapter 7 or $2500 Chapter 13 bankruptcies plus court filing fee. Free consultation with a compassionate attorney who will handle your case personally. Call 24/7, available to meet with you around your schedule. 602-910-6812. Conveniently located in Central Phoenix along the Camelback corridor.


Attorney General Alerts
April 23, 2012
Press Release
For immediate Release
Contact: Amy Rezzonico (602) 542-8019 | Facebook | Twitter

PHOENIX (Monday, April 23, 2012) -- Attorney General Tom Horne today filed a lawsuit against Mortgage Relief Group, d.b.a. Mortgage Assistance Group, and its owner, Stan Allotey, alleging that the Defendants engaged in deceptive loan modification services. 

The lawsuit alleges that since at least February of 2008, the company deceived consumers into paying fees, ranging from $995 to $3,245, for loan modification services by misrepresenting their ability to help consumers obtain mortgage relief and save their homes, thereby violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. 

The Defendants are also accused of using deceptive means to lure financially distressed homeowners into paying up-front fees with promises that the company would prevent foreclosure and save the consumers’ homes by negotiating modifications of mortgage loans. Also, the company allegedly continued to charge or collect up-front fees even after the enactment of the Arizona Foreclosure Consultant Regulation Law’s ban on charging or collecting such fees. 

Once homeowners paid the upfront fees, the Defendants allegedly often failed to perform their part of the contract, keep homeowners informed of the status of their application for a modification, refund fees, or otherwise do anything to earn their fee. 

“Predatory loan modification scams are an unfortunate part of the housing crisis,” Horne said. “Cases such as this show that every consumer needs to thoroughly research the companies with which they do business. And it is a reminder that nobody should ever agree to paying up-front fees for services of this kind.” 

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, the Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act, and the Arizona Foreclosure Consultant Regulation Law, and asks the Court to bar Defendants from conducting any further foreclosure consulting business, impose civil penalties against the Defendants of up to $10,000 for each violation, pay the State of Arizona its costs of investigation and prosecution, and provide refunds to consumers. 

The case is being handled by Assistant Attorney General Alyse Meislik in the Consumer Protection and Advocacy Division. 

The Attorney General recommends that homeowners who are in or facing foreclosure contact their lender or servicer or a government-approved housing counselor. The Arizona Foreclosure Help-Line, 1-877-448-1211, refers consumers to HUD-approved housing counseling agencies who provide loan modifications and other services at no cost. 

If you feel you have been a victim of consumer fraud, please contact the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of Consumer Information & Complaints Unit at (602) 542-5763 / (520) 628-6504 / (800) 352-8431. You may also file a consumer complaint online at: 

Babeu, Gosar and Gould debate immigration

Lynne LaMaster from has put together video clips of the CD4 debate on illegal immigration and border security. Check it out here.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Progressives Using Jesse Jackson Shakedown Tactics to Outsmart ALEC

The left’s latest target du jour is ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization for state legislators. It promotes limited government, free markets and federalism. ALEC provides model legislation for legislators to copy for their states. More than 2000 Republican and Democrat legislators are members. Almost one thousand of ALEC’s bills are introduced every year and 20% become law. ALEC has been around for 40 years, but operated under the radar until conservatives started making record gains in state legislatures.
Funded by left wing billionaire George Soros, the left started an intimidation campaign against ALEC nine months ago, launching an “ALEC Exposed” website that lists 800 bills the organization has promoted. Obama’s former controversial green czar Van Jones, who co-founded the race-baiting organization Color of Change, is spearheading the shakedowns. Other progressive organizations involved include George Soros’s Common Cause, People for the American Way and Progress Now. The Occupy movement has made ALEC one of its top targets. Last fall, the left organized disruptive protests in Scottsdale, Arizona outside of ALEC’s annual meeting.
Color of Change recently began a shakedown campaign against corporations that are members of ALEC, meeting face to face with them to intimidate them. Color of Change used race-baiting to convince Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, PepsiCo, Mars, Intuit and Kraft to withdraw their membership over ALEC’s support for “stand your ground” gun legislation. Blue Cross Blue Shield will not be renewing its membership. The Gates Foundation said it will cease contributing to ALEC. Color of Change’s next targets are Walmart, State Farm, AT&T and Johnson & Johnson. The left is also targeting state legislators, inundating them with threatening emails demanding they resign their membership.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Arizona tops Nevada as nation's No. 1 state for foreclosures

Arizona has broken Nevada's 62-month streak as the foreclosure capital of the nation.

The state's foreclosure rate in March actually dropped, but Nevada's dropped more. California kept its third-place ranking.

Data released Thursday by foreclosure tracking firm RealtyTrac shows banks actually repossessed nearly 3,600 Arizona homes last month. More than 5,900 homeowners received a notice of default, the first step in the foreclosure process. In all, that's a 40 percent drop in foreclosure activity.

One in every 106 housing units in Arizona had a foreclosure filing in the first three months of 2010. That's actually down 4 percent from the previous quarter and 41 percent lower than a year earlier.

Nevada's foreclosure activity fell about 8 percent between February and March, and dropped nearly 70 percent year-over-year.

Read the rest of the article at The Republic

The Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm provides low low cost Chapter 7 and 13 personal bankruptcies. $995 Chapter 7 or $2500 Chapter 13 bankruptcies plus court filing fee. Free consultation with a compassionate attorney who will handle your case personally. Call 24/7, available to meet with you around your schedule. 602-910-6812. Conveniently located in Central Phoenix along the Camelback corridor.

Guess who we ran into collecting signatures for Bill Ponath for JP?

JD Hayworth! Almost didn't recognize him with a beard and baseball cap, and he's very trim these days. JD was happy to sign for Bill. He is doing well these days with his radio show out of Washington, DC. 

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace faces formidable challenger

Sonoran News
by Linda Bentley
“Even the parties who don’t gain victory perceive that they have had their fair day in court”
Bookmark and Share
russell pearce and bill ponathIn September, Attorney Bill Ponath (r), pictured with former Senate President Russell Pearce, will be challenging Judge Clancy Jayne, who received three separate reprimands during his first term as Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace.  

Photo by Linda Bentley

PHOENIX – In 2008, Clancy Jayne was elected the inaugural Desert Ridge Justice of the Peace, which serves the North and Northeast Phoenix areas as well as Cave Creek, Carefree, New River and Desert Hills.

He was elected after a field of three that included Paul Henderson and Bill Ponath, both attorneys, split the vote in the primary election to give Jayne the win.

Ponath, who has served as a judge pro tem for the Maricopa County Justice Courts, is taking up the challenge again.

Jayne is not an attorney and there is no requirement in Arizona for a justice of the peace to be an attorney or have any formal legal training, although the issue has been debated time and time again.

Citizens may recall Jayne was booted from the ballot after a court determined in a petition challenge filed by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Dist. 6, Jayne did not have the minimum number of qualified signatures to run for reelection to the House of Representatives in Legislative District 6.

While serving in the legislature, Jayne became known for his poor spelling and grammar, so Sonoran News decided to check in and see how he’s been fairing as a justice of the peace. 
And, as it turns out, he’s not doing very well.

Paul Anderson of Grand Blanc, Mich., who was a defendant in Jayne’s court, filed a complaint against Jayne with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct in February 2011, after the lower court of appeals noted Jayne had committed a variety of errors while presiding over Anderson’s case, which Anderson called “grievously serious miscarriages of due process and justice.”

Jayne’s May 24, 2011 response, which follows complete with spelling and grammatical errors, stated, “The points of this complaint are correct and accurate and while occurred early in my service there is not excuse for this.

“Before the complaint was filed I did vacate the judgment as that was the only action I could do to resolve the mistakes from that day. I have at my expense attended and called in trainers who have helped me see the errors of my ways.

“This included bring in a new Protem who is a Glendale City Attorney with years of knowledge in the court room.

“I have benefited form the training from Mr. Nick DePizza.”

Jayne goes on to say, “While I am embarrassed to the facts in this case all I could do is what I did to resolve the case which at the end of the day has stood the new trials and prevailed but with all the proper steps being taken.”

Welcoming any additional training or actions the commission felt was in order, Jayne concluded with, “I work hard to be sure each and every person served is respected and their rights or rights are not fully respected. While this person has a lot of history which I did get in this transfered case there is not excuse for mistakes made.”

In July 2011, the commission found Jayne violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Commission Chair Louis Dominguez, on behalf of the commission, issued an order stating the record demonstrated Jayne, who acknowledged the same in his response, had engaged in numerous ex parte communications with the parties on one side of the underlying case.
Although Jayne was new to the bench at the time of his numerous ex parte communications, he had completed all new judge training, including training on the code and specifically relating to ex parte communications.

Jayne was issued an informal reprimand.

In November 2011, the commission received information about Jayne’s activities and opened its own investigation, raising three areas of concern and which resulted in three distinct resolutions.

The first two areas of concern resulted in dismissals with private comments.

However, because those two areas of concern were so closely intertwined with the third area of concern, which resulted in a public sanction and dismissal, the commission found the disclosure of otherwise confidential information was necessary to protect the administration of justice.

First, Jayne’s “Breakfast with the Judge” series resulted in the commission issuing a private, strongly worded warning letter.

Second, Jayne’s personal website includes a list of “local resources” that reference only one political party, potentially suggesting Jayne may be subject to political influence. 

Further, the website included a reference to Jayne’s private financial consulting work, which the commission addressed through a private advisory comment and dismissal.

Third, Jayne’s personal website contained an advertisement for his wedding services, which is a clear and direct violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

Because Jayne had previously received an advisory letter when he included a wedding services advertisement on his website, the commission determined the violation warranted a public reprimand.

After reviewing the allegations made in a June 2011 complaint by an anonymous court employee, the commission found Jayne violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct, warranting an informal sanction.

The complaint alleged Jayne had engaged in improper ex parte communications with a defendant and improperly handled the matter.

In particular, the complainant believed the judge treated the defendant differently because of a personal or political relationship.

The commission determined Jayne engaged in several improper ex parte communications that clearly violated the limitations in the Rules of Judicial Conduct.

The complainant wrote: “On July 9, 2010, Judge Jayne granted an ex parte delay request for his friend, state Senator Scott Bungaard, on the day of his civil traffic hearing. The DPS officer had to come back a second time on Aug. 27, 2010. However, Sen. Bungaard failed to appear on that day as well and was fined $185. However, on Sept. 7, 2010, Judge Jayne waived the required $20 time payment fee and the required $30 default fee,” and included a copy of the iCIS (court administration program) printout.

Meanwhile, Ponath has been actively collecting signatures to run against Jayne in the September primary election and has been heartily endorsed by former State Senate President Russell Pearce, who believes Ponath “will serve with honor, integrity and knowledge of the law and Constitution.”

Pearce was also impressed with Ponath’s book, “Verdict for America,” and called it a “phenomenal contribution to the betterment of our nation.”

Lothar Goernitz, a panel trustee for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Arizona, said, I have had the privilege of reviewing Mr. Ponath’s pleadings before the court on a regular basis consisting of many hundreds of cases over a period of almost 15 years. I can affirmatively state that his work was some of the easiest for me to deal with because it was always professionally prepared and perfectly organized.”

Retired Arcadia/Biltmore Justice of the Peace Michael Orcutt said his court staff consistently praised Ponath for “his character, abilities and commitment to performing at the highest level.”

Orcutt went on to say Ponath made “everyone feel dignified and comfortable when they appeared before him,” adding, “Even the parties who don’t gain victory perceive that they have had their fair day in court.”

So, come September, voters can choose between Jayne, who continues to struggle with spelling and grammar, and Ponath, whose book, “Verdict for America” is incredibly well-written and researched, for their Desert Ridge Justice of Peace.

Filing bankruptcy? What you can and can't do with your tax refund

I am a bankruptcy attorney in Phoenix ($995/Chapter 7) and find that most people considering filing for bankruptcy have no idea that it is very serious how they treat their tax refund. In fact, it is so important that it can affect when someone files for bankruptcy. The reason is because the bankruptcy laws prohibit you from spending that money frivolously. If you receive a tax refund and spend it on frivolous items within 90 days of filing for bankruptcy, the court may demand that you pay it back into the bankruptcy for your creditors. It is best to spend it on necessities like rent, food, gas and utilities. Don't spend it on creditors you intend to discharge, like credit cards and medical bills, because the bankruptcy court may seize it back and redistribute it amongst all your creditors. And if you intend to file for bankruptcy, you're really just throwing that money away by paying creditors you intend to write off.

If you receive a tax refund during your bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court will seize it and distribute it amongst your creditors. So if you are expecting a tax refund, it's best to file bankruptcy after you have received it and spent it on regular expenses. 

The timeframe for scrutinizing your tax refunds lasts well after your bankruptcy is discharged, until you receive your next refund. The bankruptcy court will likely seize that refund too, so many of my clients choose to have the least amount possible withheld from their paychecks after filing bankruptcy to avoid that scenario.

The most important thing to be aware of about tax refunds in bankruptcy is that you could get into real trouble in this area if you are not careful. A couple of weeks ago when I was in a 341 Meeting of the Creditors with a client, we observed another bankruptcy proceeding go sour. The woman filing bankruptcy told the trustee that she had received a $5000 tax refund a few days earlier, which her daughter took out of her checking account. The trustee announced that she was going to hire an attorney and sue her daughter to get the money. The lesson is to always be upfront about your activity and consult an attorney about bankruptcy so you don't make mistakes like that.

The good news is you can safely spend your tax refund on a bankruptcy proceeding. More than 200,000 households around the country will do that this year.

The Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm provides low low cost Chapter 7 and 13 personal bankruptcies. $995 Chapter 7 or $2500 Chapter 13 bankruptcies plus court filing fee. Free consultation with a compassionate attorney who will handle your case personally. Call 24/7, available to meet with you around your schedule. 602-910-6812. Conveniently located in Central Phoenix along the Camelback corridor.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Five Mayors All Support Steve Chucri for County Supervisor

Steve Chucri for County Supervisor

Contact: Tyler Hudgins

Five Mayors All Support Steve Chucri for County Supervisor

Maricopa County - The Steve Chucri campaign is proud to announce the endorsements of five mayors: Mesa's Scott Smith, Gilbert's John Lewis, Chandler's Jay Tibshraeny, Paradise Valley's Scott LeMarr and Scottsdale's Jim Lane.

"I am confident that Steve will bring a fresh perspective to county government that is needed now more than ever before," stated Smith.

"I have had the opportunity to learn a lot about Steve: his values, perspectives and experiences that have made him who he is," said Lewis. "All of these insights helped me recognize that Steve represents all the statesman-like qualities voters want in their elected officials."

"Steve will bring transparency, openness and communication between the public and government," stated Tibshraeny. "Steve will be a very strong voice for economic development for the County." "We need more tireless advocates such as Steve getting involved in our local governments," said LeMarr. "Steve has been an effective community leader and will do a great job at taking his public service to a whole new level. I wholeheartedly endorse his candidacy."

These four mayors join Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane, who previously endorsed Chucri, saying, "Steve Chucri is the right choice to move Maricopa County forward with transparent, accountable and conservative leadership. He will end the senseless bickering and lawsuits and instead re-focus the board on creating a climate for winning new private sector jobs."

These mayors join a long list of endorsements for Chucri, including Congressman David Schweikert, Congressman Ben Quayle, Congressman Jeff Flake, Congressman Trent Franks, Congressman Paul Gosar, Senate President Steve Pierce and County Supervisor Andy Kunasek.

Chucri has served as the President & CEO of the Arizona Restaurant Association (ARA) since 2002. Under his leadership and tireless work ethic, the ARA and restaurant industry in Arizona has enjoyed a substantial growth in sales in what will amount to a nine billion dollar industry in Arizona this year alone.

As President and CEO of the ARA, Chucri represents business owners and sees firsthand how the actions of local, state and federal governments can positively or negatively impact restaurants and other small businesses in Arizona. Chucri's experiences as a businessman, husband and father have given him invaluable insight into the needs of his community and ensure that, as county supervisor, he will always put people before politics.


Paid for by Steve Chucri for County Supervisor

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Matt Salmon and Kirk Adams go at it in a NO-NOTES Debate this Monday, April 16th!

Arizona Red Mountain Tea Party
Thomas Jefferson Quote
(Prayer, Pledge, National Anthem, Honor Veterans and Constitutional Instruction and more) 
Join our E-mail list today!
If you didn't receive this e-mail directly from us, we would like to add you to our mailing list and keep you informed about the issues, rallies, meetings & speakers. 
You can receive these updates directly each week by writing to  us at: 
When you write to us be sure to leave the email address that you would like to receive updates at.  We will then place you on our regular weekly email update list.  Additional information such as your name and address is NOT necessary but would be helpful. As a matter of policy we do NOT share, sell, rent or loan any personal information.
Come join the Arizona Patriots each Monday night at 7pm!
East Valley High School, 7420 E. Main St., Mesa, Arizona 85207
Monday,  April    16:  Debate between Matt Salmon and Kirk Adams
                                                 (Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives)
Monday, April     23:  Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Candidate for Maricopa County Sheriff)
Monday, May        7:  Jon McNaughton (Popular National Political Artist)
Hatch Tire & Auto Repair
101 S. Power Rd., Mesa 85207  (1 Block South of Main St. on Power Rd.)
Call Kevin Hansen at 480-985-5528! 
$FREE Air Conditioning Check Up 
Negotiated for Tea Party Members Only
(Applies to most cars and trucks)  (Be sure to tell them you are a Tea Party Member)
Ronald Reagan was Passionate about saving this country!
The Question is; Are You?
Watch this short video of a younger Reagan:

It's A Simple Answer After All

Don't Miss our No-Notes
Candidate Debate!
The Debate will be this Monday
 April 16, beginning at 7:00pm! 
This Debate will feature candidates 
Matt Salmon and Kirk Adams
who are running for the
U.S. House of Representatives!
Thomas Jefferson QuoteThomas Jefferson Quote
(The Candidates will not be able to bring notes to the debate)
Arizona Red Mountain Tea Party.
East Valley High School
7420 E. Main St., Mesa 85207
7:00pm to 8:30pm
(Doors open at 6:00pm to the public and seating will be first come first serve!)

Business Sponsor:

Hatch Tire and Auto!

100 S. Power Rd., Mesa  85207  480-985-5528


(Before the HEAT really settles in for the summer, get your air conditioning check)

$FREE Air Conditioning Checkup

* Free Check Up ($19.95 Value)

* Check Belts

* Check Pressure

* Check Freon Levels

* Check Outlet Temperature

* Most Cars and Trucks


$16.95 for Oil & Filter Change:
Includes a 22 Point Car Inspection!
(For Most Cars and Trucks)
 Call Kevin Hansen for a quote Today: 480-985-5528
Hatch Tire and Auto Repair 

Meeting Schedule for April & May
 East Valley High School
from 7:00pm until 8:35pm
(Located at 7420 E. Main in Retail Plaza)
Guest Speakers usually begin speaking at about 7:35pm.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Debate for the US House of Representatives
Matt Salmon vs. Kirk Adams

Monday, April 23, 2012
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Candidate for Maricopa County Sheriff

Monday, May 7, 2012
Jon McNaughton
Popular Political Artist

Meeting Policies:
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in these matters.  Any person who does not comply with the following will be asked to leave the meeting!

We ask you to turn your cellphone and other computer devices off when entering the building.  No food or beverage is allowed in the building except for the water that we offer.  No smoking is allowed in the building or on the sidewalk in the front.  No advertising or other written materials are allowed inside except for that which has been authorized in advance of the meeting.  No video-recording is allowed except that which is done by the Arizona Patriots.  No Media unless they have been approved ahead of time.  No pets allowed inside the building.  We expect all guests and speakers to be treated with respect.  If an attendee is disruptive in any way, they will be asked to leave the building and the police may be called.  Speaking at the Arizona Patriots does NOT indicate any kind of endorsement of the opinions or positions.  The Chairman will have final decision on these matters and will ask individuals to leave who do not follow these guidelines..

Arizona Red Mountain Tea Party Website:

Arizona Red Mountain Tea Party E-mail: 

Arizona Red Mountain Tea Party Blogsite:

Join Our Mailing List

God Bless America!