FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2021, Thursday
By Moffatt Media Staff
Maricopa City, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona and it’s (2020) Election Audit, is almost at completion.
However, did you know the State of Arizona, has a pattern and practice with deterring a certain group of people from Voting during Elections?
The specific group of people targeted and deterred from Voting during Arizona elections consist of the following: Disabled or persons suffering with illness, according to reliable research data by MIT.EdU
According to MIT.EDU Research Election Data -
(2018) 7.86%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona;
(2016) 8.29%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona;
(2014) 7.7%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona;
(2012) 12.53%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona; and
(2010) 8.73%, Disabled or Ill persons were deterred from voting during elections by Arizona.
MIT Election Research Data speaks for itself and beyond, that the State of Arizona, has a pattern and practice for inducing discrimination against "Disabled or Ill Persons," during Elections, which now places Arizona in the "States Hall of Shame!"
Hence, should the Federal Government consider disbarring or sanctioning the State of Arizona, from continuing to receive "Federal Financial Assistance," since Arizona has breached its certification not to have a pattern and practice with inducing discrimination against "Disabled or Ill Persons," during ANY Voting Elections?
CA Atty “Philip Ganong” alleged $22 Mil extorted from insurance Companies makes Avenatti look like a Saint
Did you know attorneys are deemed court officers because they are admitted to practice law before various California Courts?
Now ask yourself, how is one able to keep their court job when alleged to have extorted $22 Million from Healthcare Insurance Companies, Money Laundering? …
“2 left-wing lawyers walk into a state bar …
Rachel Alexander explains widespread bias against conservative attorneys in matters of discipline
November 16, 2020 at 7:20pm
…A typical example of state bar bias regarding lawyers involves a trial attorney in California, Philip Ganong, who has been indicted on 94 counts of medical fraud involving $22 million.
This is clearly not a small accusation. The Ganong family operated multiple businesses, including a medical testing lab and a staffing agency that were used as a “front to overbill insurance companies,” Orange County prosecutors said.
It probably falls under “body-brokering,” a practice plaguing Southern California “where addiction centers lure substance abusers into treatment and max out their insurance benefits. …” The State Bar of California has taken no action against Ganong even though one defendant has already served time in prison, and it’s been three and a half years since the felony complaint warrant was filed against Ganong. In fact, he bragged about his good standing with the bar as a defense to the media.”… Source: https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/2-left-wing-lawyers-walk-state-bar/
Thus, how refreshing to see a journalist like Rachel Alexander, bring forth this real life public awareness issue, because many legal consumers are often mentally and financially vulnerable, when needing legal help from California attorneys.
Additionally, the article written by Alexander, is a document that is beyond shocking to one’s conscious mind.
Yet, only within the California court systems does it allow one of their own “good ole boys:” Philip Ganong, to keep his job as a court officer, even when alleged with 94 Criminal Counts, Extortion “over billing” $22 Million against insurance companies, Money Laundering…
How many say, innocent until proven guilty, although the reality is that several persons are already seen as guilty, before proven innocent and their equal protections “High Jacked!”
Keeping in mind, let it be a black male, black female (African American), poor person or other minority caught stealing a candy bar he or she will lose their job, housing, separated from family, do not receive get out of jail free cards and may often times gets 25 to Life, with added sentence time defined as “enhancements.”
The enhancements supposedly imposed to deter one from committing future crimes.
Nevertheless, has anyone raised the arguments if “enhancements,” are unconstitutional? Because California still holds its position on the Three Strikes Law.
Even though in November 2012, Proposition 36 was passed by California voters to revise the California Three Strikes Law, under California Penal Code 667, to impose life sentences only on those individuals convicted of a new serious or violent felony.
Hence, with the voters passing Prop 36, it is apparent there exists a three tier criminal justice system for the poor, middle class and elite, while the third tier elitist, buy their justice.
Not to mention, certain persons were focused on “defunding police” and maybe their efforts would have been better spent on reforming the three tier criminal court systems.
To this end, should Courts post “Public Warning Disclaimer Hot Sheets – Consumer Alerts,” on their court websites in order to prevent the appearance of conflict, regarding any California Attorney-Court Officer, alleged with committing criminal acts against the public?