Sinema Refuses to Acknowledge Record Defending Murderers

| October 20 2012

From the AZ GOP:

Smoke and Mirrors: Extreme Kyrsten Sinema’s Record as Criminal Defender Disappears from Campaign Bio  

PHOENIX – Extreme far-left congressional candidate Kyrsten Sinema is putting on a disappearing act worthy of Las Vegas as she continues to give 9th Congressional District voters the silent treatment about her record as a criminal defense attorney.

Sinema in 2006 boasted at a liberal gathering that she is a “criminal defense attorney who represents murderers,” and her official legislative biographies proudly touted her career as a criminal defender.  (
Shawn Macomber, “The Marginalized Mainstream,” The American Spectator, June 14, 2006)

  • January 2012, just before retiring to focus on her election: “She … practices law when not in session.”

Abracadabra, now Sinema’s legal career has vanished from her campaign for Congress. Her campaign biography makes no mention of her legal career, or her push for an end to the death penalty – even for terrorists! – or her disdain for victims’ rights.  A big part of her life as a lawyer and a liberal activist has simply disappeared.

“Kyrsten Sinema is putting on a magic act that would make David Copperfield jealous,” Tom Morrissey, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party said. “Sinema can’t run from her record on crime forever.  First, she stonewalls on calls to release her criminal client list, and now she’s scrubbed away any evidence of her soft-on-crime past from her campaign.  Her act has gotten old, and Arizona voters won’t fall for her tricks.”

BACKGROUND…

7 comments
phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

So she is a criminal defense attorney and opposes the death penalty.  So what??

Mitchell Wachtel
Mitchell Wachtel

 @phoenixlaw I cannot believe her to be an actual criminal defense attorney. You know, it's a blast arguing about the middle east, but this is all about the US, which really is 99% of what we should concern ourselves with.  When I heard she was a defense attorney, I was all for her. Then I read that she said she defended murderers in 2006!  That's absurd. She was admitted to the bar in 2006 &, at least for capital cases, you want a minimum of five years experience even for indigent patients. I could not find ONE document at the Maricopa Superior Court website related to her.  That's almost impossible if you practice criminal law. 

 

Consider things from what my perhaps wrong understanding of Islam.as respects two rules. Rule #1. Obey the government unless it really is unjust. This means do not disobey small laws. Rule #2. Avoid prolonged needless legal confrontations over small matters.

 

I could have misread the Qu'ran & Hadiths on those two, but I really, really do not think so. A corollary of rule #1 is that when someone has a lot of offenses against the law, they are not good because they show a lack of respect for the rightful exercise of government power. A corollary of rule #2 is that you want to take care of any traffic tickets or other similar matters rapidly, without generating things like subpoenas to make you take care of small matters, given that the government has very pressing concerns. Again, this shows a gross lack of respect for rightful exercise of government power.

 

Now put your lawyerly hat on. Your livelihood depends upon beneficence of the Court towards your clients. The reason you are a lawyer & I am not is not so much my lack of knowledge of what the law says, but how to apply it to particular cases. No matter how clear the law is written, there are always border zones that you will want to move towards your case.  In order to do this, which requires you to persuade the judge you & not the opposition are correct, you need to have a sympathetic ear, not to mention a judge who thinks you know the law.

 

What judge would be sympathetic to a lawyer who has almost numberless negative interactions with the law herself? What judge could possibly fail to be prejudiced AGAINST an attorney who had engaged in needless legal exercises with the court over small matters?

 

Believe it or not, Ms. Sinema is exactly such a person. To see this, go here: http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

Then look up Kyrsten Sinema. See the number of cases, the number of guilty verdicts, & the nature of the cases. Then take a look at case number four. Here's what she put the court through for a speeding ticket:

 

Case Information Case Number:J-1103-SD-2009002031

Title:ST OF AZ VS SINEMA KYRSTEN

Category:Traffic

Court:Eloy Justice

Filing Date:7/2/2009

Judge:None

Disposition Date:4/22/2010 KYRSTEN SINEMA    DEFENDANT

MORE THAN 65 IN 55 URBAN AREA 4/22/2010

STATE PHO ENF JDGM SENT IM

Case Activity Date

Description Party

7/22/2011 FARE: COLLECTIONS LTR TYPE 31 D 1

4/22/2010 FUND: FARE DELINQUENCY FEE D 1

4/22/2010 FUND: PHOTO ENF BASE FINE STAT D 1

4/22/2010 FUND: STATE PH ENF CE SURCH D 1

4/22/2010 FUND: JP RECOVERY FEE PE 84% D 1

4/22/2010 INFO: ASSIGNED TO FARE D 1

4/22/2010 FUND: PROCESS SERVER COST D 1

4/22/2010 FUND: FARE FEE SPEC COLL D 1

4/22/2010 FUND: TIME PYMT $20 JCEF D 1

8/30/2009 AFFDVT FILED - SUCCESSFUL SERV D 1

7/31/2009 CAL: ARRAIGNMENT

7/2/2009 COMPLAINT FILED-UNIFORM CITATN D 1

 

In sum, she messed with the system for almost nine months. After she exhausted her ability to mess the system up, she refused to pay the find for at least 15 months.

 

Do you really think a defense attorney would do that?  Does that not make you say "I do not want someone like that representing legal interests of mine at the legislative level."?

phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

 @Mitchell Wachtel All i am saying is that Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) prevents her from revealing any information about her clients, past or present, including their name. So this continual harping about not revealing her clients names is an exercise in futility.  She couldn't release them even if she wanted to.  Other than that,  I have no knowledge of any of her legal dealings or problems.

Mitchell Wachtel
Mitchell Wachtel

 @phoenixlaw The other point is that evidence of her legal problems has just been presented to you; when a person like you cannot refute a conclusion like that, it stands. The main conclusion is that Ms. Sinema lacks the integrity required for  great responsibility.  For anyone, Democratic or Republican, that integrity is a non-negotiable requirement. The real problem appears to be that she is an alcoholic or a drug abuser.  That's why she makes these outrageous statements & is able to honestly believe what everyone else sees as obvious lies.  If she cleans up & quits the bottle or whatever drugs she is on, she will very likely be a valuable Arizona citizen with much to contribute.

Mitchell Wachtel
Mitchell Wachtel

 @phoenixlaw  @Mitchell Wachtel But you can check these things. You appear to not have an answer to this huge moral problem, a lack of respect for the law in general. You can check the website for as many AZ representatives & senators as you wish. No one comes close for me, with over twenty evaluated!  Also, this thesis is very scary  eo ipso.  Why would a defense attorney explore causus belli? That's very, very specialized, assuredly beyond either your or my expertise. She has used this jerrybuilt thesis to justify invading the Sudan! If this thesis led her to favor earlier intervention in WWII, she grossly misunderstands basic history. The mass murder of the Jews & the Roma resulted from endless territorial aggression. The reason to have squashed Imperial Japan after Manchuria (the recommendation of Secretary Stimson being ignored by President Hoover) & Nazi Germany after Rhineland militarization (Britain & France avoided their responsibilities in that one) was not to frustrate genocide, but to prevent cataclysm.  She did not say we should have squashed Japan. How on earth did Ms. Sinema draw outrageously aggressive military  conclusions from a blinkered analysis of Rwanda, a unique tragedy?  

Mitchell Wachtel
Mitchell Wachtel

 @phoenixlaw Also, I finally found her danged dissertation. It was not the Hutu's who were at fault, you see. According to Ms. Sinema: The state of exception in Rwanda did not spontaneously occur in Rwanda, it was initially developed by German and Belgian colonizers, adopted by two successive Hutu regimes, and nurtured and fed for 35 years of Rwandan independence until its final realization in the 1994 genocide. Political theory regarding the development of the "space devoid of law" and necropolitics provide a framework with which to analyze the long pattern of state action that created a milieu in which genocide was an acceptable choice of action for a sovereign at risk of losing power. The study of little-known political theories such as Agamben's and Mbembe's is useful because it provides a lens through which we can analyze current state action throughout the world. As is true in many genocidal regimes, the Rwandan genocide did not just occur as a "descent into hell." Rather, state action over the course of decades in which the subjects of the state (People) were systematically converted into mere flesh beings (people), devoid of political or social value, creates the setting in which it is feasible to seek to eliminate those beings. A question to be posed to political actors and observers around the world today is at what point in the process of one nation's creation of the state of exception and adoption of necropolitics does the world have a right, and a duty, to intervene? Thus far, it has always occurred too late for the "people" in that sovereign to realize their political and social potential to be "People."___________

 

That's extremely odd thinking.  The reason this is so is that the murderous genocide did not occur until over three decades after independence. Somehow, all the violence between Tutsi's & Hutu's is completely ignored here. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

 

Belgium continued to rule Rwanda as a UN Trust Territory after World War II, with a mandate to oversee independence.[31][32] Tension escalated between the Tutsi, who favoured early independence, and the Hutu emancipation movement, culminating in the 1959 Rwandan Revolution: Hutu activists began killing Tutsi, forcing more than 100,000 to seek refuge in neighbouring countries.[33][34] In 1962, the now pro-Hutu Belgians held a referendum and elections in which the country voted to abolish the monarchy. Rwanda was separated from Burundi and gained independence in 1962.[35] Cycles of violence followed, with exiled Tutsi attacking from neighbouring countries and the Hutu retaliating with large-scale slaughter and repression of the Tutsi.[36] In 1973, Juvénal Habyarimana took power in a a military coup. Pro-Hutu discrimination continued, but there was greater economic prosperity and a reduced amount of violence against Tutsi.[37] The Twa remained marginalised, and by 1990 were almost entirely forced out of the forests by the government; many became beggars.[38] Rwanda's population had increased from 1.6 million people in 1934 to 7.1 million in 1989, leading to competition for land.[39]

 

_______

 

Basically, her thesis appears to ignore what actually happened.