Monday, January 25, 2016

Arizona High School Students’ Racist Photo: It’s Time to Retire the N-Word

People were horrified Friday when six white girls at Desert View High School in Phoenix decided to spell out a racial slur on their T-shirts, then post a photo of it to Snapchat where it went viral. My children attend that school, and know the girls involved. One of them has a black boyfriend, and at least a couple of the others have also dated black students. Outrage over the photo has gone national, and a petition asking to expel the students has acquired over 37,000 signatures. It is also asking to fire the principal, because there is a perception the school is only going to suspend the students for five days. The school has not formally announced the discipline, obviously under pressure to throw the book at the students. Rev. Jarrett Maupin, a young man who has fashioned himself into a sort of Al Sharpton of Arizona, is organizing a Black Lives Matter rally at the school Monday afternoon.

Here is the problem: Why do people still think it is acceptable to use such an offensive word and joke about it? I blame their parents. Society has become so politically correct that anyone with a pulse should know that using a word that actually is offensive is going to result in a backlash. These girls are 17 and 18 years old, old enough to know better. Unfortunately, parents don’t always monitor what their kids are watching on TV, listening to on their iPods and doing on the Internet. Watch a few too many movies with racial slurs in them, with no parental guidance explaining how inappropriate they are, and a teenager may treat them as a joke. 

These students were reportedly bullies who would take photos of other teens, post them on social media and make fun of them. No one ever did anything or stopped them — including their parents. So they began to feel they could get away with anything. The sad thing is, if someone had stepped in and stopped the bullying, they probably wouldn’t have ever gone this far.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Friday, January 22, 2016

REPRESENTATIVE KERN SPONSORS LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES LAWYERS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (Friday, January 15, 2016) – Representative Anthony Kern has co-sponsored House Bills 2219 and 2221 concerning the regulation of lawyers. The bills place all public protection mandates entirely under state supreme court control and active supervision and also minimize the regulatory independence of the State Bar of Arizona.


According to Rep. Kern, "The bills resolve the conflict of interest that exists when you have a state bar with both regulatory and trade association powers. It's just not smart to have one organization acting as both regulator of its members at the same time its beholden to their interests. Neither the public or lawyers are well served by such a conflict of interest."


HB 2219 and 2221 do not dismantle the state bar. Under both bills, the State Bar of Arizona would continue to perform its regular functions on behalf of Arizona lawyers but it would be limited to collecting only voluntary member dues for non-regulatory programs and services. Also under HB 2221, the bar would be required to file an annual, independent, and public audit.


HB 2221 further iterates if the state bar accepts any mandatory assessment monies collected by the supreme court, the bar would be subject to open records and public meeting laws. "These bills do not grow government or burden taxpayers," said Rep. Kern. "Like in every state in the U.S., lawyers would continue to pay the cost of their regulation and discipline."


Representative Kern continued, "These bills are intended to protect the rights of free speech and free association secured by the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions. Improving the practice of law and protecting the public through lawyer regulation are important functions but I don't see why doing so requires that lawyers give up their First Amendment freedoms from compelled speech and association."

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Two bills introduced in the Arizona state legislature to deal with corruption at the Arizona State Bar, including removing mandatory membership

An update from our friends at SBA Bar Monitor


GREAT NEWS!

Two House Bills dealing with attorney regulation in Arizona have been introduced by Arizona House Member Rep. Anthony Kern and co-sponsors.

The first is House Bill 2219, which is identical to last session's HB 2629. It states that the supreme court shall license and regulate attorneys for the practice of law in Arizona. And it further states that an attorney shall not be required to be a member of any organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in Arizona. Read the complete text of HB 2219 below.

The second is House Bill 2221, which was a collaborative effort undertaken to uphold lawyer First Amendment Freedoms; improve public transparency; assure no government growth at taxpayer expense; fight further bar bureaucratic bloat; affirm Arizona Supreme Court state constitutional authority over lawyer regulation; transfer all lawyer regulation authority from the bar to the Court to better protect the public. And while HB 2221 preserves the State Bar of Arizona -- it does so as a professional association empowered only to collect voluntary non-regulatory dues from lawyers.

Consequently, based on the experience in 18 voluntary bar states, lawyer fees should go down since Arizona attorneys will only be required to pay for lawyer regulation not for the bar's non-regulation programs and services. If the 18 voluntary states are any guide, in those jurisdictions the average cost of lawyer regulation fees paid to the respective state supreme courts is $210. Moreover, during the 2013-14 Arizona Bar dues increase debate, the state bar's own website divulged that the annual mandatory fee dues portion representing the cost of lawyer regulation was $350. Dues are currently $490 with an eventual increase to $520.

Read the complete text of HB 2221 below but to sum up key provisions:

 1. It reaffirms lawyer regulation under the state supreme court;
2. It places all lawyer regulation assessments under supreme court control;
3. It limits bureaucratic expansion since the state bar is authorized to only collect voluntary membership dues for non-regulatory programs and services and requires the bar to file annual independently audited public accountings;
4. It subjects the bar to open records and public meeting laws if the supreme court delegates any of its regulatory authority to it.

I again invite you to attend a meeting on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:00 PM in Scottsdale to discuss the above-mentioned voluntary bar legislation and to work for a better bar -- a voluntary bar.

The meeting location is: 7272 E. Indian School Rd, Ste. 108 (Main Conference Room), Scottsdale, Arizona 85251.
Free underground parking below office building.


REFERENCE TITLE: attorney regulation; assessments; membership dues
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Fifty-second Legislature
Second Regular Session 2016
HB 2221
Introduced by Representatives Kern: Finchem, Lawrence, Mitchell, Thorpe
AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 12-119.06; RELATING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
HB 2221
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 12, chapter 1, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes,
is amended by adding section 12-119.06, to read:
12-119.06. Regulation of attorneys; mandatory assessments;
voluntary membership dues; uses; public records
A. TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, ALL REGULATORY FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW, INCLUDING THE REGULATION OF ATTORNEYS IN THIS STATE, ARE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT.
B. AS A CONDITION OF PRACTICING LAW IN THIS STATE, THE SUPREME COURT
MAY COLLECT A MANDATORY ASSESSMENT FROM EACH ATTORNEY TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S REGULATORY FUNCTIONS. THE SUPREME COURT MAY USE MANDATORY ASSESSMENT MONIES ONLY FOR THE FOLLOWING REGULATORY FUNCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS WHO ARE UNDER THE ACTIVE SUPERVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
1. ADMITTING AN ATTORNEY TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
2. MAINTAINING ATTORNEY RECORDS.
3. ENFORCING THE ETHICAL RULES THAT GOVERN ATTORNEYS.
4. REGULATING ANY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION MANDATES FOR ATTORNEYS.
5. MAINTAINING ATTORNEY TRUST ACCOUNT RECORDS.
6. PREVENTING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
C. THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA MAY ESTABLISH, COLLECT AND USE VOLUNTARY
MEMBERSHIP DUES FROM AN ATTORNEY FOR ANY LAWFUL ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION.
D. THE COLLECTION OF MANDATORY ASSESSMENTS MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE COLLECTION OF ANY VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP DUES. THE SUPREME COURT SHALL INCORPORATE ANY MANDATORY ASSESSMENT MONIES COLLECTED INTO ITS BUDGET. ANY OTHER ENTITY IN THIS STATE MAY NOT COLLECT MANDATORY ASSESSMENT FROM AN ATTORNEY.
E. IF THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA ACCEPTS ANY MANDATORY ASSESSMENT MONIES COLLECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO CARRY OUT A REGULATORY FUNCTION LISTED IN SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION, THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA SHALL:
1. DISCLOSE AND MAKE AVAILABLE RECORDS AND OTHER MATTERS IN THE SAME MANNER AS IS REQUIRED OF A PUBLIC BODY PURSUANT TO TITLE 39, CHAPTER 1.
2. ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 31 OF EACH YEAR THAT MANDATORY ASSESSMENT MONIES ARE ACCEPTED, MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC A LIST OF ALL OF THE EXPENDITURES THAT WERE MADE WITH THE MANDATORY ASSESSMENT MONIES AND PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THE EXPENDITURES TO ENSURE THAT ALL EXPENDITURES WERE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE REGULATORY FUNCTIONS LISTED IN SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION.
_____________________________________________________________________
REFERENCE TITLE: supreme court; attorney licensing
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Fifty-second Legislature
Second Regular Session 2016
HB 2219
Introduced by Representatives Kern: Finchem, Leach, Mitchell, Olson, Petersen, Thorpe, Weninger
AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 12-119.06; RELATING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
HB 2219
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 12, chapter 1, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes,
is amended by adding section 12-119.06, to read:
12-119.06. Attorney licenses; rules
A. THE SUPREME COURT SHALL LICENSE ATTORNEYS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THIS STATE. THE SUPREME COURT SHALL ADOPT RULES TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION INCLUDING:
1. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE.
2. TESTING REQUIREMENTS.
3. REQUIRING A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION BEFORE OBTAINING A LICENSE.
4. DISCIPLINING ATTORNEYS.
5. DISBARRING ATTORNEYS.
B. AN ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A LICENSED ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Right to Try: The FDA Has the Blood of Millions of Americans on its Hands

Darcy Olsen, CEO and President of the Goldwater Institute, has written a must-read book for anyone facing a serious ailment, The Right to Try: How the Federal Government Prevents Americans from Getting the Life-Saving Treatments They Need . It is common knowledge there is a problem with the FDA delaying the approval of drugs. But until now, most Americans did not realize just how bad the situation is  — hundreds of thousands of people, including children, needlessly lose their lives every year because new, breakthrough drugs that have worked in clinical trials and are legal in other countries are not approved here. In fact, the number of people dying is increasing, because the FDA keeps increasing the delays — despite its false claims that it approves drugs faster than it really does. The FDA continues to demand more data and statistical certainty from clinical trials, making them “larger, longer and more complex.”

The agency insists that unless a treatment has a high success rate, it should not be approved. But everyone is different; some people respond differently than others to medications. Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute explains, “There is no such thing as breast cancer,” because scientists “have discovered at least ten distinct variations.” Therefore, indiscriminately testing one drug on all breast cancer patients is going to have skewed success results.

The FDA isn’t even delaying approval in order to establish the safety of a drug, merely to measure its effectiveness. This is cruelly unfair. As Darcy puts it, people with terminal illnesses like Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) or cancer would rather have a 50 percent chance of being cured than a 100 percent chance of dying from it. One doctor sarcastically stated, “These people would be happy to go to their own funeral five years from now rather than a year from now.”

Darcy relays the stories of several people with different terminal illnesses who went to great lengths despite the FDA to obtain these new groundbreaking treatments. Some moved overseas, while others persisted until they were allowed to participate in the clinical trials. Most of them were not rich so it was a difficult, uphill task, but the treatments ultimately worked.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Clint Bolick joins the Arizona Supreme Court!

I have some great news to share you with today. The Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick will soon join the Arizona Supreme Court as its newest justice. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced earlier today that he selected Clint for the state’s highest court.

Unlike the U.S Supreme Court, state supreme courts rarely have constitutional scholars. Clint is well-positioned to advance the development of state constitutional law and enforce the freedom-oriented provisions of the Arizona state constitution. In turn, these precedents can be exported to other states.
As a litigator, Clint has vindicated the fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans, including winning landmark cases that protected the right to earn an honest living and expanded educational options for children nationwide. Americans can count on Clint to be on the side of all Americans in defending our constitutional freedoms.

And this brings me to some additional news I am excited to share.

Constitutional scholar and litigator Timothy Sandefur will succeed Clint as Vice President for Litigation, leading the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. Tim currently serves as a principal attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. He is the lead attorney for that organization’s Economic Liberty Project and works daily to protect businesses against abusive government regulations. He has won important victories for free enterprise in California, Kentucky, Missouri, Oregon, and other states. His published books include Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (updated for 2016), The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law (2010), and The Conscience of The Constitution (2013).

To reach Clint in the future, please email clintbolick@yahoo.com. To welcome Tim, please email him at tsandefur@goldwaterinstitute.org.

Darcy Olsen
President
Goldwater Institute | www.GoldwaterInstitute.org

Read more about Clint here 

Monday, January 4, 2016

Judge Unbelievably Refuses to Grant a Retrial for Former Rep. Rick Renzi Despite Finding Rampant Prosecutorial Wrongdoing

Tucson Federal District Court Judge David Bury issued a decision on December 30 denying a retrial for imprisoned former Congressman Rick Renzi of Arizona, developments which I’ve been tracking over the last six months. Bizarrely, at the same time, Bury admitted in his nine-page opinion that virtually everything factual Renzi had asserted in his motion for a retrial regarding the prosecution’s misconduct was true. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from Renzi’s defense — which likely would have changed the jury’s mind — not just once, but multiple times. Some of it was not discovered until after the trial was over, so the jury never got to see the other side of the story. That constituted a Brady violation, which the U.S. Supreme Court has held is a violation of due process. As a former prosecutor, I find this extremely disturbing.
Information is now coming out revealing striking similarities to the prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, which also involved corruption by FBI agents in order to obtain a conviction of a member of Congress. But when the judge in the Stevens’ case discovered after the trial that the prosecutors had withheld crucial evidence, the entire indictment was thrown out.
The prosecution of Renzi  was based on the premise he had proposed a federal land exchange that supposedly would have benefited him financially. But it came out after the trial that the prosecution’s key witness/victim, Philip Aries, changed his story to say it was Renzi’s idea to propose the land exchange instead of others, because Aries was told by the prosecution that he would receive money for his testimony. During the hearing to reconsider a new trial last October, Aries testified that he discussed compensation with an FBI agent for this: “$10,000 would be a home run,” he said he told the agent. “$25,000 would be winning the lottery.”

Judge Bury
 admitted in his December opinion rejecting a retrial that the proposal to include the Sandlin land, which supposedly would have benefited Renzi, really came from Aries, not Renzi. FBI Agent Dan Odom agreed on the stand during the October hearing that leaving out this exculpatory information was a “material omission.” Nevertheless, though chief DOJ prosecutor Gary Restaino knowingly put on Aries’ false testimony, he was never punished.