Because I’m an old boomer, I always assume everyone remembers all the major historic events the same way I do. Mt. St. Helens? Space Shuttle disaster? John Lennon? Reagan shot?
Everyone knows this stuff, right?
That’s a mistake. A certain younger woman recently told me she JUST learned about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. This surprised me, because it was SUCH a huge story at the time, but it makes sense given she was just a kid when the blue dress stuff went down.
That concept, and the events of this week, reminded me some folks aren’t aware of historic events because they are just too young to know about them.
What’s my point? My point is during the last week or so, I’ve had some very odd conversations with Judge Mata’s lawyer, Pamela, and with Mata’s dad, and even the PDJ. As everyone knows, Mata and her dad (and Pamela) are fighting EXTREMELY hard to not let me see whatever it is they are hiding.
So far, at least temporarily, the PDJ has sided with Mata….but based on history, I think that’s about to change. Here’s why —
We older folks remember something called Watergate. I wasn’t alive when it happened (it began in June 1972, and I was born later that September), but I was around when the shit hit the fan afterwards. Since I became a lawyer, the legal fallout and lessons from Watergate always fascinated me.
Little did I realize, history sometimes repeats itself. Let me show you what I mean.
If you skipped this in school, here’s the Wiki short version of The Watergate scandal:
The Watergate scandal, or simply Watergate, was a political scandal in the United States involving the administration of President Richard Nixon. On June 17, 1972, operatives associated with Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign were caught burglarizing and planting listening devices in the Democratic National Committee headquarters at Washington, D.C.’s Watergate complex. Nixon’s efforts to conceal his administration’s involvement led to an impeachment process and his resignation in August 1974.
OKAY, so what the fluff does Watergate have to do with Judge Julie Mata and Mr. James D. Lee?
Simple — some of the people involved in the initial Watergate break-in were caught and charged with various crimes. The prosecutor investigating the case eventually issued a subpoena to Nixon, demanding that he produce “certain tapes and documents relating to precisely identified conversations and meetings between the President and others.”
Keep in mind — when this happened, Nixon was the sitting President of the United States.
After receiving the subpoena, did Nixon open his files and show he had nothing to hide? Oh hell no — he objected to the subpoena, claiming it asked for “confidential” information (sound familiar?). He also claimed some sort of “executive privilege” excused him from complying.
The case initially went to a federal district court judge who rejected Nixon’s “confidentiality” arguments. Not surprisingly, Nixon appealed, and rather than stopping at the intermediate-level appellate court, the case was fast-tracked straight to the United States Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court held even a sitting President cannot withhold relevant information in response to a subpoena. The case is filled with quotes every law student knows (or should know).
Probably my favorite is this:
The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense ….
‘[T]he public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence,’ except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common law, or statutory privilege ….
Nixon, 418 U.S. at 709 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 339 U. S. 331 (1950)); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 284 U. S. 438 (1932)).
YES, I understand — Nixon was a criminal case, and the bar thing is not. That makes no difference. Legally, bar proceedings are considered “quasi-criminal” (they are criminal in the sense the government is trying to punish me, but quasi- in the sense jail isn’t an option).
Here’s why matters — the exact same rules of evidence and procedure apply in bar proceedings as in any civil or criminal case. And under those rules, both sides are entitled to obtain ALL relevant evidence, unless the evidence is protected by privilege. That’s true if the evidence is being held by a judge, or the President of the United States.
The public has a right to EVERY man’s (and woman’s) evidence.
Keep in mind – the Supreme Court said Nixon (the sitting President) could not withhold relevant evidence just because he considered it confidential. As it turns out, the evidence Nixon was trying to hide showed he was directly involved in a criminal conspiracy to cover up the Watergate break-in. Once the Supreme Court ruled Nixon had to comply with the subpoena, he knew the game was over. That led to Nixon resigning as President — the first time ever in U.S. History.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should.
I have accused Judge Julie A. Mata of misconduct. I believe my allegations are 100% true. And I have also said — if anything I said was incorrect, I will gladly apologize and accept whatever punishment is appropriate.
What’s Judge Mata’s response to all this? Not just silence — she has actively fought to conceal relevant evidence, exactly like Nixon did.
Friends, I’m sorry — innocent people do not act this way. Nixon was guilty as hell, and the Supreme Court rightly refused to let him hide the truth from the American public. That was the right outcome, and the same outcome WILL happen here. I promise.
In my case, here’s what I think is really going on — Judge Mata was appointed by a Republican governor (Doug Ducey). I assume that means Mata is a Republican, and perhaps even a MAGA Republican.
Mata is on the ballot this year which means Maricopa County voters will decide whether she gets to keep her job. If I succeed in discovering whatever evidence Mata is trying to hide, and if that evidence shows what I suspect it will, I think there’s a good chance she will either resign from the bench (a la Nixon), or she will be removed by voters. This happened to the President of the United States. A single county judge isn’t more important than that.
Either way, that creates a big political problem — because Arizona currently has a Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs. If Mata loses her job, Hobbs will appoint someone to fill that seat — and trust me, that person will NOT be MAGA.
So that is what I think it really going on here. The bar is fighting to help save a Republican seat on the bench from being taken by a Democrat.
Or maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, Jim Lee DOES have evidence that I brought a bomb-sniffing dog to court. Maybe Jim Lee has evidence to show I lied about everything.
He hasn’t shown that evidence yet, and I don’t think he ever will.
But hey, tomorrow at 9:30 am I have a settlement conference w/ the bar. And guess what? I am going to make them a sweetheart offer….call it an offer they probably can’t and shouldn’t refuse.
I won’t share the details (yet), but if Jim Lee stops and really thinks about the terms I’m going to offer, the odds of this ending tomorrow are pretty freaking high.
I’ll keep you posted….and P.S. I am not a crook!✌️