“Citizen’s Demand” Criminal Indictment of William J. O’Neil for (Impersonating) being a State Supreme Court of Arizona, Judge.

This is not a story about a dog or a divorce, but that’s where it begins.

After Mark Dixon and his ex-wife, Carol Johnson, terminated their marriage in late 2009, they got into a custody dispute over Shiloh, an Australian shepherd.

On Dec. 2 of that year, Dixon was pulled over by three plainclothes Pinal County sheriff’s deputies with semiautomatic weapons, according to the incident report and court records.

Dixon alleges he was ordered to surrender the dog or face immediate arrest, so he acquiesced. A civil complaint he filed in federal court against a group of Pinal County deputies and Dixon’s ex-wife says he argued that the disagreement with his wife was a civil matter and that deputies “did knowingly and willingly criminally extort property” by threatening arrest if he did not give up the dog. His lawsuit accused Pinal County officials of conspiracy.

In a court motion, Dixon asserted that his ex-wife, who then worked for a credit union, had assisted Pinal County Superior Court Judge William J. “Bill” O’Neil in obtaining a $300,000 loan prior to the canine-custody dispute.

Dixon, who represented himself during most of the case, speculated that O’Neil, who was not named as a defendant, returned the favor by influencing deputies to seize the dog.

Deputies denied any conspiracy, court records show, and O’Neil also denied any impropriety in an interview with The Arizona Republic. Defense attorneys successfully argued that the lawsuit, which sought $5 million in damages, was legally flawed and failed to show proof.

Thus began a four-year saga of intrigue involving O’Neil, who presides over discipline in the Arizona court system, and Dixon, a 49-year-old construction contractor who acknowledges a 1997 federal fraud conviction.

Dixon and at least two lawyers subjected to discipline by the State Bar of Arizona question the integrity of O’Neil, a key figure responsible for maintaining ethical standards within Arizona’s justice system.

In a court motion filed last month, suspended Phoenix attorney Jane O. Ross asked that O’Neil be removed from Bar disciplinary proceedings against her because of “a pattern of corruption, failure to uphold the due-process rights of disciplinary respondents, failure to acknowledge conflicts of interest, abuses of discretion and power, dereliction of judicial duties and knowingly making false statements.”

The motion to remove O’Neil contains allegations of criminal and unethical behavior. It relies heavily on information gathered by Dixon and includes an affidavit from him sworn under penalty of perjury.

A motion is made

“O’Neil is accused of illegal conduct in his personal affairs and ethical misconduct from the bench,” Ross wrote. “It is patently unfair for a judge, so accused, to continue to sit in judgment of others similarly accused until such accusations are either confirmed or dispelled.”

‘Neil did not respond to a Republic request for comment on Ross’ motion, though he previously spoke to the newspaper and rejected challenges to his integrity. He has not withdrawn from the case, but he did assign another judge to conduct an April 17 hearing on Ross’ motion.

Heather Murphy, director of communications for the Arizona Supreme Court, said she does not know what actions or investigations into the allegations the Supreme Court might launch, if any.

Dixon and O’Neil, both Casa Grande residents, have known one another since Dixon’s daughter began boarding and riding her horse at O’Neil’s stables years ago. In a sworn affidavit and formal complaints, Dixon said a friendship evolved. O’Neil characterizes Dixon as an acquaintance.

Either way, the two men agree that Dixon worked on O’Neil’s property occasionally and that they talked often. The judge presided over Dixon’s wedding. Dixon says they often discussed legal matters; O’Neil says that Dixon sometimes asked for legal advice but that he tried to brush off the queries.

After the dog incident, however, Dixon filed complaints or claims against O’Neil with the Arizona Supreme Court, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Attorney General’s Office and the State Bar of Arizona. FULL STORY

Admitted to Practice Law: 1978
Admitted to State Bar of Arizona: October 7, 1978

NEWS STORIES REGARDING WILLIAM J. O’NEIL

Pinal County Judge William O’Neil Becomes Arizona’s First Presiding Disciplinary Judg
Judge O’Neil’s unreasonable excess in imposing discipline, consider a news report that an attorney was suspended for five years without being offered a hearing on the suspension:

It is interesting that, although it was happy to set up committees to give a show of doing something, the Supreme Court of Arizona has never implemented obviously needed changes to punish the truly guilty. The court commissioner responsible for the case reported on by the Arizona Republic was never disciplined, and the state never shut down Sun Valley Group (it has gone out of business only because it lost its insurer). With neither the complicit courts nor the culpable corporation held to account–neither has ever taken responsibility for the fiasco reported on by the Arizona Republic–the ex-millionaire ward has become the burden of all of us; she became a public charge! See http://www.estateofdenial.com/2010/09/27/marie-long-update-finds-az-womans-estate-and-guardians-gone/ and http://www.locallawfirms.com/news/probate/marie-long-probate.php. Yet Mr. G., having taken on the like of that shady operator, remains disqualified from practicing law because of Judge O’Neil’s order. This case is another example of the excesses in lawyer discipline mediated by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. See below for another instance of a lawyer fraudulently disciplined as an outcome of endeavoring to protect a vulnerable adult in a probate matter.)

O’Neil has been publicly accused of corruption by several attorney-victims of SBA and also by non-lawyers; see http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/16/divorce-case-stirs-ethics-allegations-judge/7765749/. That piece notes that the allegations against O’Neil are of sufficient weight that he has had to retain legal counsel. (His counsel is Tucson attorney Stanley Feldman, former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice and a man with a notorious history of complicity with the SBA’s development of its dirty tricks in lawyer discipline, and dishonesty in dealings with the public.)

For more information about Presiding Disciplinary Judge O’Neil’s corrupt acts in connection with lawyer discipline see this website, page header SBA “Member Assistance Program,” [5] [a].

As another example of excessive and vindictive discipline in which Judge O’Neil took part, consider a matter in which two months after being suspended, the attorney-victim (Respondent) was charged with neglecting to take down her solo law practice’s website. SBA had no evidence whatever that the attorney had continued practicing law during those two months. The failure to take down the website was undoubtedly an oversight occasioned by the attorney’s scrambling to meet other obligations occasioned by the suspension, such as arranging for clients to have other representation. Nevertheless, Staff Bar Counsel demanded that, for engaging in deceptive advertising, the attorney consent to disbarment–and without questioning the proportionality of this, Judge O’Neil signed the disbarment Order.

Upon issuance of the suspension order, neither SBA nor the PDJ admonished the victim to discontinue anything that could be construed as advertising, such as any law practice website. Instead, SBA disciplinary counsel lay in wait, as it were, for the victim to make a mistake–then pounced, by initiating an investigation, followed almost immediately by recommending disbarment–as if saying, “Aha! Now we gotcha, you cow’s twat!”

William J. O’Neil, since approximately year 2011 has purported being an Arizona State Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge, however, he is nothing more than a “Fake Judge.”

Why is O’Neil a “Fake Judge:” Because O’Neil does not even have a valid “Oath,” that bears O’Neil’s affixed genuine handwritten signature on his purported “Oath.”

See O’Neil’s “Fake” Oath attached – http://starmoffatt.blogspot.com/2017/02/fake-oath-of-william-j-oneil.html

Why is the Arizona Constitution being Waived: Did you know that the Arizona Constitution applicable to the number of judges that can be seated on the State Supreme Court Bench is five?

Did you know that William J. O’Neil, State Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge, makes him the sixth (6th) judge?

Arizona Constitution Title 6 Section 2, says that only five (5) justices can sit on the bench of the Arizona State Supreme Court at any given time. Contrary O’Neil now makes a sixth (6th) judge. O’Neil and others are violating the Arizona Constitution for one man “O’Neil.”

Maybe Honorable President Trump should consider Suspending Arizona Federal funds until their is compliance to remove O’Neil, from the State Supreme Court Bench, because he is breaking the law of the Arizona State Constitution, being seated as the 6th Judge and wearing of a Judges Robe, since year 2011.

True Americans – “Citizen’s Demand” the Criminal Indictment of O’Neil and O’Neil be immediately removed from the Arizona Supreme Court Bench, because “True Americans” don’t stand for lawlessness or corruptness!

From year 2011 to present date there has not been a Constitutional Amendment, to the Arizona Constitution, to seat William J. O’Neil on the Arizona State Supreme Court Bench.

Arizona Constitution Title 6 Section 2 reads as follows:

“Section 2. The supreme court shall consist of not less than five justices. The number of justices may be increased or decreased by law, but the court shall at all times be constituted of at least five justices.” Public Sources: http://law.justia.com/constitution/arizona/6/2.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/viewDocument/?docName=http://www.azleg.gov/const/6/2.htm

---

IMPEACH JUDGE WILLIAM J. O’NEIL WHO DOES NOT HAVE A VALID “OATH OF OFFICE”

Judge – Impeach William J. O’Neil, Arizona State Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ).

Sign this Petition to Impeach William J. O’Neil (PDJ) by restoring public safety to the State of Arizona, Licensed Arizona Attorneys and their families!

Why Impeach O’Neil: O’Neil (PDJ) is prosecuting (disciplining) Arizona Attorneys without a valid “Oath of Office.

O’Neil (PDJ) shows Favoritism towards some attorneys, Disparate Treatment towards other attorneys and will prosecute cases not within his jurisdictional statutory authority.

EXAMPLES (HOW) JUDGE O’NEIL HAS SHOWED “FAVORITISM”

O’Neil’s FAVORITISM TOWARDS AN ATTORNEY who killed a Woman while Driving Drunk – allowed to Practice Law from Prison

According to Sonoran News, “Christopher Perry – he’s no longer a lawyer but just plays one in the judicial system. Perry, an attorney that assisted in #Judge O’Neil’s mother in law’s short sale that resulted on #O’Neil getting the property, was allowed to practice law while in prison for killing a person while Perry was drunk.

After the retroactive disbarment order, Perry is practicing law at Shapiro, Van Ess, Sherman & Marth, LLP, as O’Neil and the Arizona State Bar turn a blind eye. He continues to be listed as an active attorney. The website contains up to date information about their activities.” See Source and scroll down to Christopher Perry at – http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2014/140827/news-clear-bench.html

O’NEIL STAYED CRIMINAL CHARGES OF JUDGE GARY DONAHOE ($350 MILLION CRIMINAL COURT TOWER)

Former Judge Gary Donahoe was everywhere he isn’t supposed to be!
Gary Donahoe, who had criminal charges against him stayed by Judge O’Neil, then trial judge on his case, magically appeared on a probate case, finding the attorney for one of the parties in contempt of court. That attorney represented a party, Bill Lund, who used to be business partners with Conley Wolfswinkel but had a falling out. Donahoe was the same judge that picked up cases not assigned to him and ruled in Wolfswinkel’s favor as well as stopped the investigation into Novak and others involved in the $350 million criminal court tower.

See Source: http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2014/140827/news-clear-bench.html

O’NEIL’S SEXUAL EXPLOITATION FAVORS

O’Neil’s Sexual Exploitation Favoritism, towards Attorneys that he did “NOT” disbar.

O’Neil’s favored Attorneys, even admitted within Court Records: channeling the dead to communicate in exchange for Sex, admission of Sex with Clients, Oral Sex with Clients, among other actual Sex Exploitation towards vulnerable legal clients and court clerks….

CHARNA JOHNSON
Charna Johnson is an attorney who was found to have had sex with a client, as well as channeling the dead to communicate to clients. The bar also reported, “Johnson represented her client in a divorce proceeding and drafted a will, leaving all the assets for herself.” Despite the fact that “Five aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, submission of false evidence, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct and substantial experience in the practice of law,” Johnson was merely suspended for one year. See Source:http://www.azbar.org/newsevents/newsreleases/2010/10/suspensionrecommendedforattorneywhowasallegedtohavechanneledthedead

JUDGE TED ABRAMS FELLOW JUDGE TO O’NEIL
O’Neil treated his fellow judge Ted Abrams. O’Neil merely suspended him for two years and barred him from being a judge. Here is Abrams’ extensive history of sexual harassment, as reported by The Arizona Republic:

During a 14-month period, the judge sent the unidentified public defender at least 28 voicemails and 85 text messages, many of which were sexually suggestive (at least one was, he admitted, “obscene,” and described a sex act he wanted to perform on her), repeatedly pressured her for sex, made slurping noises and at one point fondled her buttock. In response, the public defender said she wasn’t interested, repeatedly told him that it would be inappropriate for them to have a relationship because he was a judge, she worked in his courtroom and he was married. She called him “crazy and disgusting.”

Abrams, 47, also had a sexual relationship with another attorney, a private defense lawyer who appeared in his court, and he sent sexually explicit e-mails to a third attorney, an assistant city prosecutor who appeared in his court.

The state bar brief said the judge “victimized a young lawyer for his own personal gratification and when she did not enjoy, welcome or otherwise relent to his constant requests for sexual contact, he berated and humiliated her from the bench during a jury trial.” The victim also said Abrams told her that it would not be good for her career if she rejected his advances. After the short suspension, it appears that he is about to be reinstated to the Arizona bar.

See Source: http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/20110604arizona-supreme-court-suspends-ted-abrams.html

MATTHEW SCHULTZ
Attorney Matthew Schultz admitted he had a sexual relationship with a client, and was just suspended for one year.

See Source: http://www.azbar.org/newsevents/newsreleases/2014/08/matthewsschultzsuspension/

ROBERT STANDAGE
Government attorney Robert Standage… actually did send sexual images and videos to an existing client. He was already on probation for a previous incident, but Judge O’Neil merely suspended him for two years. His attorney — no surprise — was Scott Rhodes. See Court Case NO.: PDJ 2015-9007 – SBA File #14-0367 Filed 06-29-2015.

Read Court Document http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/101/Standage%20Web.pdf

Credit Above Sources Rachel Alexander http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2016/07/05/how-state-bars-are-taking-down-conservative-attorneys-n2187819

FRED ACKEL JUDGE PUNISHED BY ARIZONA SUPREME CT

Fred Ackel, another judge, was punished by the Arizona Supreme Court for his sexual misbehavior with a mere censure. Not even suspension, probation, etc.

A litigant who appeared in front of Ackel to stop a man from harassing her, was — ironically — so disturbed by the judge’s constant sexual remarks and attempt to have a romantic relationship with her, that she started tape recording him. His comments about sex were extraordinarily vulgar. Perhaps most disturbing, he told her in regards to the man harassing her, “If I have to raise some more hell, I’ll have him arrested.”

The court said in its opinion, “We agree with the Commission that Ackel’s conduct toward Randall constituted willful misconduct.” The court also noted that he’d had six prior complaints — and one they considered an aggravating factor, where he had called a female attorney during a pretrial conference “darling,” and commented on her legs. In fact, the court found a second aggravating factor, “Ackel’s regular use of endearing terms toward and physical contact with women.” See Source http://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1987/87-0001-2.html

FORBES

Sunday, October 30, 2016

“The article the Arizona Bar doesn’t want you to see – they got it removed from Forbes after two hours!
…It’s gotten so bad that one of the former members of the Bar’s Board of Governors wrote an op-ed for Forbes recently exposing it. Well, within a couple hours after the article was posted here on the Forbes site, it was removed… We’ve learned that the Arizona Bar disciplinary judge William O’Neil “is a member of the Barnett family, which is basically a one family crime syndicate that everyone in Pinal County knows.” …Click on Link Below to read, [T]he Article Arizona Bar doesn’t want you to see…

Source: http://www.icarizona.com/2016/10/the-article-arizona-bar-doesnt-want-you.html

DISPARATE TREATMENT AGAINST COMMUNITY RESIDENT (MARK DIXON)

According Arizona Central to Divorce case stirs ethics allegations about judge.
This is not a story about a dog or a divorce, but that’s where it begins.

After Mark Dixon and his ex-wife, Carol Johnson, terminated their marriage in late 2009, they got into a custody dispute over Shiloh, an Australian shepherd.

On Dec. 2 of that year, Dixon was pulled over by three plainclothes Pinal County sheriff’s deputies with semiautomatic weapons, according to the incident report and court records.

Dixon alleges he was ordered to surrender the dog or face immediate arrest, so he acquiesced. A civil complaint he filed in federal court against a group of Pinal County deputies and Dixon’s ex-wife says he argued that the disagreement with his wife was a civil matter and that deputies “did knowingly and willingly criminally extort property” by threatening arrest if he did not give up the dog. His lawsuit accused Pinal County officials of conspiracy.

In a court motion, Dixon asserted that his ex-wife, who then worked for a credit union, had assisted Pinal County Superior Court Judge William J. “Bill” O’Neil in obtaining a $300,000 loan prior to the canine-custody dispute…

In a court motion filed last month, suspended Phoenix attorney Jane O. Ross asked that O’Neil be removed from Bar disciplinary proceedings against her because of “a pattern of corruption, failure to uphold the due-process rights of disciplinary respondents, failure to acknowledge conflicts of interest, abuses of discretion and power, dereliction of judicial duties and knowingly making false statements.”…

The motion to remove O’Neil contains allegations of criminal and unethical behavior. It relies heavily on information gathered by Dixon and includes an affidavit from him sworn under penalty of perjury.

See Source: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/16/divorce-case-stirs-ethics-allegations-judge/7765749

Furthermore, O’Neil (PDJ’s) Oath of Office fails to meet the requirements pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-231(E);

O’Neil, (PDJ) has not been sworn the same Oath as required by the Arizona State Constitution, in order to be a lawful officer of the Arizona State Supreme Court, position of Presiding Disciplinary Judge

Any officer or employee who fails to take and subscribe to the oath or affirmation provided by this section within the time limits prescribed by this section is not entitled to any compensation until the officer or employee does so take and subscribe to the form of oath or affirmation prescribed by this section,” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-231(B); …and

Consequently, O’Neil (PDJ) is a public safety threat to the State and any State Licensed Arizona Attorneys who are faced with being disciplined by O’Neil (PDJ).

Sign the Petition to have William J. O’Neil (PDJ) Impeached.

Sign the Petition, to also Demand that Honorable Justices within the Arizona State Supreme Court review all cases prosecuted by O’Neil (PDJ), in order to uphold their fiduciary duty to protect even Arizona Attorneys, who are inclusive of said public.

Sign the Petition, to Demand that all Honorable Justices within the Arizona State Supreme Court review all O’Neil (PDJ), cases for consideration to rescind – Rulings, Orders and Decisions, issued by O’Neil PDJ, because they are possibly “Null and Void,” due to O’Neil (PDJ) not having a valid “Oath of Office,” among other issues. Except, Arizona Attorneys convicted of criminal cases not necessary for review by Honorable Justices of the Arizona State Supreme Court.

More importantly, sign the Petition to Demand after the Honorable Justices within the Arizona State Supreme Court have done their careful review of the facts and decipher there is substantial evidence, they send the issue of O’Neil (PDJ) on to the Arizona House of Representatives for a formal Impeachment Trial against O’Neil (PDJ).

If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” US Supreme Court Case
https://supreme.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/449/200/case. html

In another, not unrelated context, Chief Justice Marshall’s exposition in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821), could well have been the explanation of the Rule of Necessity; he wrote that a court:

“must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us.

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” SOURCE: https://supreme.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/449/200/case. html

Conclusion: We thank you in advance for signing this Petition, to stop the “High Jacking of Justice” by William J. O’Neil, Arizona State Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge, a Judge Gone Wild!

Please also visit the following sites: http://judgegonewild.net/invalid-oaths/oneils-democrat-judge-oath-of-office-is-invalid/

http://www.azbarwatch.com/pain—suffering.html

Reasons for signing

See why other supporters are signing, why this petition is important to them, and share your reason for signing (this will mean a lot to the starter of the petition).

 

Judicial Positions:

• Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme Court, 2011-Present
• Hearing Officer, Supreme Court Certification and Licensing Division 2011-Present
• Judge, Arizona Superior Court in Pinal County, 1991-2010
• Presiding Civil Judge Arizona Superior Court in Pinal County, 2007-2010
• Presiding Judge, Arizona Superior Court in Pinal County, 2001- 2005
• Presiding Juvenile Court Judge in Pinal County, 1992-2003
• First Family Law Commissioner for Superior Court in Pinal County, 1988-1989

Law Practice

• Cole & O’Neil, Casa Grande, Arizona, July 1980-November 1990
• Harper & O’Neil, Casa Grande, Arizona December 1978-July 1980
• Harper Law Offices, Casa Grande, Arizona, August 1977-December 1978

Presiding Disciplinary Judge William J. O’Neil, an appointee of the Arizona Supreme Court, is charged with adjudicating attorney discipline, attorney disability, and attorney reinstatement cases. A three-member hearing panel, presided over by the PDJ, issues decisions on disciplinary and reinstatement cases after a formal hearing. Formal proceedings before the PDJ are governed by the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court and primarily Rules 40-74. The PDJ functions as an independent and impartial tribunal for attorney regulation proceedings, with the twin goals of protecting the public and affording due process of law to respondents.

1501 West Washington, Suite 102
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3231
Telephone: (602) 452-3436
Facsimile: (602) 452-3498
officepdj@courts.az.gov

BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

In the Matter Of:
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
No. 2020-05
FILED MAY 12, 2020

By Administrative Order No. 2020-01 as modified by Administrative Order 2020-03, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge authorized the filing of emailed documents. This Order revises and adds those Administrative Orders.

IT IS ORDERED, nunc pro tunc until further order of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge that all filings with the disciplinary clerk shall be done by attachments to emails or unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Disciplinary Clerk. The filings may be done in PDF or Word format. The employment of a typed signature by a party shall be considered an original signature. Bishop v. Norell, 88 Ariz. 148 (1960). Such documents shall be deemed “filed” on the day and time the email is delivered to officepdj@courts.az.gov, provided it is delivered prior to 5:00 p.m. Documents delivered after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed filed the following day. Documents sent to any other email address shall not be deemed filed.

It is requested that Nancy A. Greenlee as a member of the Respondent’s informal association forward a copy of this order to that group and that the Bar Counsel for the State Bar of Arizona also assist in the dissemination of this order to all parties.

DATED this 12th day of May 2020.

Signed William J. O’Neil
William J. O’Neil, Presiding Disciplinary Judge

COPY of the foregoing e-mailed/mailed
on this 12th day of May 2020, to:

Maret Vessella
Chief Bar Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N 24th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-6266
Email: LRO@staff.azbar.org

Nancy A. Greenlee
For Respondent’s counsel
821 E. Fern Drive North
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Email: nancy@nancygreenlee.com

---

BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

In the Matter Of:AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL THROUGH APRIL 17, 2020

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
No. 2020-03

FILED MARCH 27, 2020

By Administrative Order No. 2020-47 as later amended or revised, the Supreme Court of Arizona authorized any judge to use available technologies to eliminate or limit in-person contact in the conduct of court business through April 17, 2020. The Court also directed that all in-person proceedings are to be avoided to the “greatest extent possible.” This judge issued Administrative Order No. 2020-01 authorizing the filing of emailed documents. This Order revises and adds to that Administrative Order.

IT IS ORDERED that all filings with the disciplinary clerk shall be done by attachments to emails unless otherwise authorized by the Disciplinary Clerk. The filings may be done in PDF or Word format. The employment of a typed signature by a party shall be considered an original signature. Bishop v. Norell, 88 Ariz. 148 (1960). Such documents shall be deemed “filed” on the day and time the email is delivered to: officepdj@courts.az.gov provided it is delivered prior to 5:00 p.m.

through April 17, 2020. Documents delivered after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed filed the following day. Documents sent to any other email address shall not be deemed filed.

It is requested that Nancy Greenlee as a member of the Respondent’s informal association forward a copy of this order to that group and that the Bar Counsel for the State Bar of Arizona also assist in the dissemination of this order to all parties.

DATED this 27th day of March 2020.

Signed William J. O’Neil
William J. O’Neil, Presiding Disciplinary Judge

COPY of the foregoing e-mailed/mailed
on this 30th day of March 2020, to:

Maret Vessella
Chief Bar Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N 24th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-6266
Email: LRO@staff.azbar.org

Nancy Greenlee
For Respondents’ Counsel
821 E. Fern Drive North
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Email: nancy@nancygreenlee.com

---

Presiding Disciplanry Judge William J Oneil ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AO 2020-03 (003) Presiding Disciplanry Judge William J Oneil ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERAO 2020-05

---

• Arizona Senate Bill 1445
• Corrupt Attorney General Mark Brnovich
• Corrupt Supreme Court William J. O’Neil