In the meantime, additional briefs have been filed:
Mathis' reply to responses filed by Brewer and the state senate, in which former Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket opens his argument thus:
As demonstrated in previous pleadings, this is a remarkable case involving the shocking abuse of raw political power to frustrate the will of Arizona's voters, while recklessly smearing the good name and reputation of honest, hard working citizen volunteers holding unpaid Constitutional offices.Without copying for you substantial amounts of the text Mathis reply, I cannot do justice to describing the significance of this particular document. If you are concerned about the shocking abuse of raw political power by the ruling Junta in Arizona, you must read this.
McNulty and Herrera reply in support of motion to intervene rebutting Brewer and the senate's claims they have no standing to intervene in the special action on Mathis' removal.
Intervenor's exhibit 1, which is a letter dated October 20, 2011 from AIRC counsel Joe Kanefield to Peter Gentala, counsel to the Arizona Senate apparently in response to questions Gentala had asked about time frames for legislative recommendations to the AIRC.
Finally, the AIRC response in support of the motion to stay Mathis' removal.
One person at yesterday's emergency meeting of the Appellate Courts Commission on Appointments forwarded his notes to me with names of speakers and observations about the proceeding. Familiar names testifying yesterday, who had previously at IRC meetings identified themselves as tea partiers, included Lynne St. Angelo, Lyn Breyer, Ann Heins, Maureen Bayardi, Kelly Townsend (the crazy lady who, in July, testified immediately before me at the South Mountain Comm College hearing, who spoke to McNulty as if she was Mathis) and Christine Bauserman. Every single one of them (and more whose names are not as familiar) sounded as if they read from the same script, with few/minor changes.
Bauserman is the one who accused, in testimony before the Joint Committee, Commissioner Herrera of being racist and spoke about the lack of credibility of the commission just a few short hours before appearing at an AIRC hearing in Tucson to make nice and ask for specific changes to draft maps under consideration.
Breyer seconded Kavanagh's testimony (who had called for digging deep into applicant's backgrounds) and mentioned that there should be penalties for false or incomplete information on applications.
Again, the tone of the testimony from these people reeked of McCarthyism.
Further, Proud Terri has again doubled down on her false claims about the money appropriated to the AIRC.
In my testimony in May and on October 25th to the Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting, I said that the IRC is costing our citizens almost $10 million when we can least afford it. In the USATODAY article CLICK HERE to read regarding the comment the commentor states, "Proud's claim that the commission is costing nearly $10million is incorrect based on money appropriated to date, and it is hard to speculate on future spending." I disagree. The legislature has actually already EARMARKED nearly $10 million for them. And the FACT is that there's no guarantee that they'll even stop THERE. The legislature is technically on the hook for WHATEVER they spend.Again, Proud Terri and her followers adamantly stick to the false claim of $10 million. She again demonstrates her profound lack of understanding of civics and government financial management.
Having an amount EARMARKED is NOT a legal authorization. It IS a tentative budgeting tool perhaps being used by JLBC (Joint Legislative Budget Committee) for development of FUTURE budgets. However, JLBC is STAFF, not elected lawmakers. Yes, elected lawmakers serve on the official committee, but the document to which Proud Terri refers is NOT law. And it is NOT anything other than a guess and a planning tool.
If she wanted to tell her minions to claim that legislative staff thinks PERHAPS, based on expected litigation costs, that over a ten year period the AIRC MIGHT have to spend $10 million, that MIGHT be reasonable. But neither Proud Terri nor her faithful followers (who mindlessly repeat words they do not understand) have made any such distinction in their claims.
IF Proud Terri wants a discussion on potential future costs for the AIRC, then that discussion requires consideration of who is causing the dramatic rise in those costs and WHY. But that is likely beyond her capacity to even comprehend, let alone discuss intelligently.
Within the next two hours, the Arizona Supreme Court expects to rule on the AIRC motion to stay Mathis' removal. I will post again this evening.