Wednesday, October 2, 2024

"NOT ONE SCINTILLA" OF SUPPORT: Rudy Giuliani Demands Data To Show Arizona Grand Jury That Indicted Him Was Stacked; Judge Not Impressed

Rudy Giuliani and his Arizona attorney want to try to show that the Arizona Grand Jury that indicted him and 17 others in the so-called fake electors case earlier this year was politically stacked against the Republican group. Today, the judge largely shut down his efforts.

Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts described the effort well this afternoon.

Here is the Motion from Giuliani and his attorney (Mark Williams), the State's Response and Judge Bruce Cohen's decision.

The trial for the remaining 16 defendants - which includes 10 of the 11 Arizona Republicans who signed the false document and several Trump attorneys and advisors - is scheduled for January 2026.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Tuesday, September 17, 2024

BREAKING: Maricopa County Recorder Files Action In AZ Supreme Court, Could Force 97,000 Long-Time Voters To Present Proof of Citizenship Or Lose Ballot Access

UPDATE, 9/20, 6:15pm: BREAKING, VICTORY: AZ Supreme Court REFUSES to Order Recorders To Move 98,000 Long-time Arizonans To Fed-Only  List Weeks Before Ballots Hit the Mail

Commends @stephen_richer@Adrian_Fontes for bringing it to them quickly


Update, 4:50pm: The Arizona Supreme Court is moving fast. The Secretary of State's Response is due by 4:00pm tomorrow. (Fontes already had declared that he is ready to file it by then.) Any amicus (aka friend of the court) briefs are also due by then, and the Justices will quickly decide whether to accept this emergency Special Action.

************

Original article, 9/17: "BREAKING: Maricopa County Recorder Files Action In AZ Supreme Court, Could Force 97,000 Long-Time Voters To Present Proof of Citizenship Or Lose Ballot Access"

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer has filed an emergency action with the Arizona Supreme Court today, seeking guidance on what to do about 97,000 voters (statewide) who are impacted by a just-discovered glitch in the Motor Vehicle Department's system. 

The voters may have long been assumed to have presented documented proof of citizenship to MVD because they received a duplicate license, and the "issuance date" was updated. Therefore, County Recorders believed that MVD had verified citizenship status when it may not have.

Richer asks the Justices for guidance on whether or not he should switch those people - more than 50,000 in Maricopa County - from the full-ballot status they have had to only being able to vote a "federal-only" ballot (President, Senate, House of Representatives)... unless they immediately provide proof of citizenship.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes notes that federal law prohibits counties from conducting voter list maintenance within 90 days of an election. This would definitely apply. He also notes today that most of those impacted are 45-60years old, and more are Republican than Democrat.

In 2004, Arizonans passed a proposition that required the proof of citizenship - instead of simply swearing under penalty of law that you are a citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court then ruled that such a requirement violated federal laws, and Arizona came up with a unique system that gave full ballot status to those who provided the proof, and "fed-only" status to those who used the federal voter registration form AND did not provide proof.

Because Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division has required proof of citizenship for most drivers - non-citizens have a separate class of driver's license which will (also) not permit voter registration - Arizonans filling out the federal form but writing their AZ DL number down are checked and given full ballot status.

The reset of the issuance date of the driver's license when someone gets a replacement license meant that County Recorders confirmed full-ballot statuts for 97,000 people who had not provided MVD with proof.

Soooo, this may apply to Arizonans who had their AZDL (or, ID) before 2004, BUT they registered to vote - or, re-registered after moving (from county to county - post-2004. AND, their DL had been updated and showed a post-1996 issuance date.

Richer is represented by Snell & Wilmer.

The Emergency Action attaches communications between the parties from yesterday and today. We also obtained those documents from the Secretary of State pursuant to a public records request. (Published below.)

This is only one of the moving pieces surrounding Arizona's unique bifurcated ballot statuses. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that Recorders REJECT new voter registration applications submitted on the state's application that do not include a (qualifying) AZDL or attached proof of citizenship, but to ACCEPT the same potential voter (with fed-only status) if they use the federal application.

Meanwhile, groups are hurriedly trying to assist "fed-only" voters to "cure" their status so that they can vote a full ballot. (I assisted several voters with that yesterday, in fact.)

Here is an explanatory news conference from Secretary of State Fontes:  

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Monday, September 16, 2024

BREAKING: Mark Meadows' Criminal Charges In Arizona REMAIN in State Court, Federal Judge Rules (READ Order)

Mark Meadows, President Donald Trump's Chiefs of Staff in the White House in late 2020, will continue to face criminal charges in Arizona state court. U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi today declined to accept Meadows' effort to remove the case to federal court.

In a 15-page Order, Tuchi finds that Meadows filed his Notice of Removal more than two weeks past the deadline, and did not present good cause for that tardiness. Meadows had claimed that he was waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Trump immunity case. However, Tuchi decided that that was not a reason for not filing the Notice on time.

The judge went on to consider the substantive issue behind Meadows' request, anyway. Tuchi noted that Arizona's indictment of Meadows was because of his alleged activities in furthering the plan to have Arizona Republicans come up with a false declaration of their electors being Arizona's official electors. Therefore, Meadows' description of his Chief of Staff duties of simply being a liaison to the President did not hold water. "Mr. Meadows has not so much removed the State’s indictment as rewritten it," he wrote.

"Although the Court credits Mr. Meadows’s theory that the Chief of Staff is responsible for acting as the President’s gatekeeper, that conclusion does not create a causal nexus between Mr. Meadows’s official authority and the charged conduct.7 Therefore, because the Court concludes that the conduct charged in the State’s prosecution does not relate to Mr. Meadows’s color of former office, the Court must remand this case to state court for want of subject-matter jurisdiction."

Trial in the state court for Meadows and the Arizona's alleged "fake electors" is set for January, 2026. 

 This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thursday, September 12, 2024

BREAKING: AZ Supreme Court THROWS OUT AZ Republican Party Action Challenging Hobbs' Executive Orders Encouraging Polling Places & Drop Boxes

The Arizona Supreme Court DISMISSED in quick order a Special Action Petition filed by the Arizona Republican Party challenging two election-related Executive Orders issued last year by Governor Katie Hobbs. The Executive Orders encouraged Arizona counties to make use of state facilities for polling places and drop boxes.

Chief Justice Ann Timmer's Order scolded the party for not justifying filing the action directly with the Supreme Court, and for why it waited so long after the Executive Orders were issued. The attorney for the AZGOP was Andrew Gould, one of Timmer's former colleagues on the Supreme Court bench.

The Court concludes that Petitioners have not presented adequate justification for the action to commence in this Court rather than the superior court. The issues raised in the special action petition will not be mooted by the November 2024 election. We further note that Petitioners have not addressed why neither EO was challenged until this point in time. An earlier challenge would have permitted the Petitioners to secure a final ruling well before the upcoming election.

The Supreme Court declined to award attorneys' fees to the Governor, who hired Arizona election law attorney Andy Gaona to defeat the petition.

The Republican Party can choose to refile the action in a lower court.

 This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


Tuesday, September 10, 2024

BREAKING: Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould Strikes Out On Hand Count Case Against AG Mayes (READ Minute Entry)

Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould cannot get legal immunity in advance for voting to hand count all upcoming election ballots. His lawsuit against Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes was dismissed today by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky.

Gould filed the declaratory judgment action early this year, after Mayes had advised the Mohave County Board that conducting a full hand count would be against Arizona laws (that Gould had helped shape as a former lawmaker).

The case was dismissed before trial because Gould's rights as one Supervisor were not yet impacted (because his fellow Supervisors voted against a full hand count). "Supervisor Gould cannot seek relief that can only be sought through collective action of the Board, if it can be sought at all," wrote Astrowsky.

The judge did not assess attorneys' fees sanctions against Gould because the statute the AG's attorneys used to ask for the fees only applies when one government (official) sues another. Astrowsky noted that the AG had earlier argued that Gould was only suing as a (non-official) individual.

 This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Friday, August 30, 2024

SITTING ON TWO BENCHES: Arizona's 2nd Supreme Court Is Based In... Honduras? Arizona Semi-Retired Justice, Judges Are Only Senior Arbiters In "Precarious" Semi-Autonomous City

A semi-retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice and two other retired Arizona judges comprise the highest level of arbitrators in a privately-owned, semi-autonomous, Ayn Rand-inspired city on a Honduran island. The New York Times Magazine reports this week that "Próspera" also is in a battle for survival with the current Honduran government.


Retired Justice John Pelander is one of the three "Senior Arbiters" for the Próspera Arbitration Center and heads the "Appellate Division". PAC is essentially the judicial branch for the ZEDE ("Zone for Employment and Economic Development") "backed by the Silicon Valley billionaires Peter Thiel, Sam Altman and Marc Andreessen". Earlier this month, Arizona's Law reported that Pelander had been given a one-year contract by the Arizona Supreme Court to handle cases on a part-time, as needed basis. 

The Administrative Order (below) details that he receive a fixed part-time salary of approximately $24,000. He participated, for example, in the two expedited appeals involving Arizona's abortion rights ballot measure. (He was in the majorities keeping the measure on the ballot, and permitting the Legislature to include the term "unborn human being" to describe a fetus in the "impartial analysis".)

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer tells Arizona's Law that Pelander's Honduran quasi-judgeship does not give her "cause for concern." Arizona's Code of Judicial Conduct would not permit a full-time judge or justice to moonlight like that, but it specifically exempts either a "retired judge available for assignment" or a part-time judge from those restrictions.

The long-form NY Times Magazine (worth the read) contained this attention-grabbing nugget: "An arbitration center staffed by three retired Arizona judges handles dispute resolution. (In order to enter the jurisdiction, I was told I needed to sign an “agreement of coexistence” binding myself to 4,202 pages of rules, violations of which would be subject to the jurisdictional authority of the arbitration center.)"

A quick search revealed that the other two Arizonans making up Próspera's "Supreme Court" are retired Court of Appeals Judge John Gemmill and retired Superior Court Judge Kenneth Mangum. (Mangum is also a Board Member.) The Arbitration Center lists several other attorneys as "Arbiters" and "Arbitral Officers", with only the Arizonans at the highest of the three levels. 

The article and website also set out other Arizona ties to Próspera - the Founder/CEO is listed as "Arizona entrepreneur Erick Brimen", and the Co-Chair of the Arbitration Center is former Goldwater Institute General Counsel Nick Dranias.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Wednesday, August 28, 2024

BREAKING: AZ Supreme Court Blesses Leg Council's Analysis Of Open Primaries' Initiative Focusing On RCV Provision, REVERSES Trial Court (READ Decision)

The Arizona Supreme Court has now blessed the Republican Legislative Council's "impartial analysis" of both citizens' initiatives appearing on November's ballot. After previously allowing "unborn human being" instead of "fetus", the Justices today reversed the Superior Court judge's decision that the analysis "misleadingly" elevates and characterizes the ranked choice voting provisions of the Open Primaries (aka Make Elections Fair Arizona) initiative.

(This is a developing story. Please check back later for more details.)

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


Friday, August 16, 2024

BREAKING: Robert F. Kennedy FILES Arizona Paperwork, Lists Same New York Residence Found To Be "Sham" Address; Says He Turned In 110,000 Signatures

The plot thickened this afternoon, as Independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. turned in a purported 110,000 signatures to get on the Arizona General Election ballot, but listed a home address in New York that a judge in that state found to be a "sham" address.

While Arizona does not require a Presidential candidate to live in New York, Kennedy did sign the nomination paper attesting that the Katonah address is his "actual residence address".

The nomination paper will likely be one of the bases for filing a legal challenge to keep him off the Arizona ballot. Arizona - unlike New York - is a swing state and even though Kennedy only polls at 5% in Arizona, both major parties are wary of Kennedy tipping the balance to the other party.

Validity of the signatures will be another. Out of the "purported" 110,000 signatures turned in, 42,303 need to be considered valid.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.

NEW UPDATE: Arizona Battle Over Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote JOINED At the U.S. Supreme Court

Several Responses were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon opposing Republican legislative leaders' attempt to force Arizona counties to REJECT any state voter registration applications filed between now and October if they do not provide documentary proof of citizenship (instead of just swearing to be a citizen).

(Assigned) Justice Elena Kagan is expected to decide next week whether or not to order compliance with the 2022 bills that added the requirement. She could also ask the entire bench to decide the on-again, off-again stay of an injunction against the provisions.

The request to permit the prohibition was filed last week by House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, along with the Republican National Committee. (below)

Today's Responses were filed by the Arizona Attorney General's Office (and the Governor), the Secretary of State's Office, the U.S. Department of Justice and the national and Arizona Democratic organizations.

Both sides are trying to turn the Supreme Court's "Purcell Principle" to their advantage. (It is named after former Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, and stands for the principle that courts should be reluctant to change elections laws and procedures too close to the election.) 

The 2022 provision has not been in effect during the past two years of litigation, and the District Court Judge issued an injunction against it several months ago. In June, Republicans tried to get a stay of the injunction pending appeal. One 9th Circuit panel granted it, only to be reversed by the panel actually hearing the appeal.

Toma/Petersen/RNC addressed the Purcell Principle head on, claiming it should work in favor of enforcing the law as passed. Today's Responses note that it has not been in effect and should not cause confusion and difficulty during the next seven weeks of voter registration efforts.

The Arizona Attorney General's Response also argues that Toma and Petersen do not have an interest that would be harmed by the court's refusal because they make laws and are not in charge of enforcing them.

Several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court told Arizona that they could not reject federal voter registration applications if they do not provide documentary proof of citizenship. Those voters can be restricted from voting in state (and local) contests, however. This case deals with rejecting registrations that come in on Arizona's own paper forms if the prospective voter does not yet have an Arizona ID and does not attach proof of citizenship.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich. 

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

(PLEASE CLICK BELOW TO REVIEW THE STAY REQUEST AND RESPONSES)

Wednesday, August 14, 2024

OFF THE BENCH, ON THE BENCH: AZ Supreme Court Recusal Merry-Go-Round Picks Up Speed and Chief Justice Timmer Explains How It Works, and How One Retired Justice Got Both Abortion Cases

If you're an Arizona's Law reader and/or paying attention elsewhere, you are aware of the wave of Arizona Supreme Court Justice recusals that has been building. Today, it crashed to the shore with a decision in one of the abortion rights measure cases and with recusals in two more cases (below).

In two of the four election-related cases with recusals, retired Justices were called in to come off the bench... and get on the bench.

The Court wants Arizonans to have confidence in the judicial system, including this recusal/replacement system. Arizona's Law had questions for new Chief Justice Ann Timmer, and is here to explain how this process works.

A recap: Today, the Court split 5-2 on finding that Republican lawmakers can tell voters that the citizens' abortion rights ballot initiative involves an "unborn human being" (instead of a "fetus"). Justice Clint Bolick did not take part in the case because his wife (Shawnna Bolick) was one of the Republican lawmakers on the Legislative Council that chose that "impartial" language. Retired Justice John Pelander took his place and was part of the majority.

Also today, Justice Clint Bolick recused himself in two more cases. One is the other appeal regarding the abortion rights ballot measure, and the other involves citizens' open primaries initiative. (Shawnna Bolick was involved in the latter, but Clint Bolick's reason for recusing in the Arizona Right to Life appeal is less clear.)

Pelander was tapped to replace Bolick in the 2nd abortion case, and retired Justice Rebecca Berch in the new open primaries case.

We asked Chief Justice Ann Timmer to explain the process she used, and how Justice Pelander wound up on both abortion cases. Here is the (email) conversation (lightly edited for clarity):

*****

Arizona's Law: Who decides which retired Justice (or lower court judge) will sit on which case?

Chief Justice Timmer: I do.

Arizona's Law: What are the bases for those decisions?

Chief Justice Timmer: As with the United States Supreme Court, the Arizona Supreme Court is not required by statute or the constitution to replace justices who have recused from cases.  Regardless, and unlike SCOTUS ("Supreme Court of the United States"), the Court follows a practice of generally appointing judges to fill in for justices who recuse from a case.  If two justices recuse, I do not fill the positions, leaving five justices (an odd number) to decide the case.  If only one justice recuses, or more than two recuse, leaving an even number, I will appoint replacements.

Arizona's Law: How do you choose among the retired Justices or Judges from the Court of Appeals?

Chief Justice Timmer: I follow a practice that avoids matching up a replacement justice with a case. Specifically, I call on either retired Justices Pelander or Berch—alternating between both in a sequential manner. (Capitalizing on these Justices’ great experience, the Court has retained them to serve as fill-in justices or to head court projects, as needed.)  That appointment is based on which of the two are up next to serve as a replacement—no case-matching is involved. 

On occasion, one or both may decline to serve as a replacement due to a conflict of interest or not being available for a conference or oral argument. If one is not available, the other will be asked.  If both are unavailable, I will ask the Chief Judge of one of the divisions of the court of appeals to designate a judge to serve.  If the appeal came from a division one case, I ask the division two Chief Justice and vice versa.  If the appeal bypassed the Court of Appeals, I ask the Chief Judge of whichever division has waited the longest to fill in. Each Chief Judge uses a practice to select a judge that avoids merely picking a particular judge.

Arizona's Law: Well, the two recusals today are a little confusing, then. If you alternate, why did Justice Pelander appear to get two cases in a row - both related to the abortion rights ballot measure? (The Right to Life case was filed six days before the open primaries appeal.)

Did Justice Bolick recuse from the newer case before the older abortion case, did retired Justice Berch pass on the abortion case, or something else?

Chief Justice Timmer: Your second possible explanation was correct. I make the assignments in the order I receive the notification of a recusal. That would most often track case number sequence, but not always. It did here, but Justice Berch passed on the abortion case.

*****

Anticipating at least some of the recusals, on July 17, Timmer issued Administrative Orders calling retired Justices Pelander and Berch back into as-needed service for the coming year. Per the Orders and an Arizona Constitution provision, both are entitled to be paid for their work on the cases.

By the way, in keeping with the process that Chief Justice Timmer explained, Justices Bolick and Kathryn King both recused themselves from the appeal about the Legislature's judicial retention ballot measure. Neither of them were replaced, and the five remaining Justices - who are not on the ballot this year - will decide it.

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


"NOT ONE SCINTILLA" OF SUPPORT: Rudy Giuliani Demands Data To Show Arizona Grand Jury That Indicted Him Was Stacked; Judge Not Impressed

Rudy Giuliani and his Arizona attorney want to try to show that the Arizona Grand Jury that indicted him and 17 others in the so-called fake...