by B. Hamilton | Jul 9, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
PHOENIX — On Friday, Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation sponsored by Rep. Jake Hoffman, HB2906, which prohibits the state and any local governments from requiring their employees to engage in orientation, training or therapy that suggest an employee is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
“Critical Race Theory and it’s divisive, bigoted ideas have become a growing problem within Arizona governments,” said Rep Hoffman. “Often times disguised by innocuous sounding terms like “equity,” this Marxism-based movement has crept up in cities and school districts throughout our state including the cities of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff, among many others. Arizonans rightfully refuse to support racism and this legislation ensures that remains the commitment of our state.”
“I applaud Jake Hoffman and our legislature for taking strong action to stop the insidious, racist ideology packaged under CRT from infecting our government any more than it already has,” said Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio.
“Phoenix currently has multiple CRT-based programs employees are being subjected to – they won’t call them CRT, they’re smart enough to use generic “equity” language – but that’s exactly what they are,” explained DiCiccio. “Worse, it’s not just employees being indoctrinated with this garbage, multiple programs like our recently passed Climate Action Plan and the Office of Arts and Culture’s Racial Equity Learning Cohort are actively pushing CRT on the public.”
“As educators and citizens concerned with the future of our state, our goal should be to achieve unity and diversity,” said Kathleen Winn Maricopa Community College Governing Board member. “Unity as people with shared dignity, but diversity of thought and beliefs. When you create conflict and try to transform society through bias and hatred you only perpetuate hatred. I am grateful for this legislation crafted and passed in response to the public outcry to end Critical Race Theory.”
Governor Ducey’s signing of HB 2906 follows the signing of HB 2898 last week. That law ensures that students cannot be taught that one race, ethnic group or sex is in any way superior to another, or that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of these characteristics. The law allows a fine of up to $5,000 for schools that violate the law.
“As a school board member,” said EVIT School Board Member Shelli Boggs. “I have seen firsthand taxpayer funds being spent to train hundreds of board members and staff from across the state on the disgusting racist ideology called Critical Race Theory. I’m glad the legislature put an end to this pervasive abuse of taxpayer money.”
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 9, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Articles published by some media outlets this week that top Arizona officials knew of a cyberattack of Maricopa County’s voter registration files last fall but have kept it hidden are incorrect, as shown by the level of news coverage the hack received in December and January.
Part of the problem, however, is Maricopa County officials did not respond to the cyberattack in a proactive manner when it was discovered during the 2020 General Election. There was no press conference nor even a press release advising the community that voter registration data had been hacked.
The dearth of updates has not helped instill voter confidence in the months since then if social media comments are representative of community mood. And a letter Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer has sent to some voters is not helping, as it contains an inaccurate claim about how county officials responded to the cyberattack.
News of the cyberattack was first announced in early December in a Forbes article which revealed FBI agents armed with a federal search warrant raided a Fountain Hills condominium on Nov. 5, 2020, two days after the General Election. The agents went to the residence of Ellen and Elliot Kerwin looking for evidence of the cyberattack, according to court records.
The search resulted in the seizure of several computers from the Kerwin home, along with eight hard drives, and a bunch of electronic accessories.
Megan Gilbertson, a Maricopa County spokeswoman, confirmed the cyberattack to Forbes for its Dec. 4 article and she has insisted that the only voter data the hacker or hackers accessed from Oct. 21 to Nov. 4 was information about voters which is already public by law.
“Analysis by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office IT Security indicates an unauthorized individual gathered publicly accessible voter information from our website,” Gilbertson said. “Additional security controls were put in place to mitigate against this activity occurring in the future.”
But what Gilbertson failed to say is how someone was able to access the county’s voter registration files and whether the hacker tried to get into other county databases. Other Maricopa County officials have appeared to try to divert attention away from the cyber incursion or to minimize the impact, often stating there were “no problems” with the election.
Steve Chucri of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors announced just hours before the Forbes article was published that he was considering asking for a third-party audit of the county’s Dominion Voting System machines, even as the canvas was still pending in the nation’s fourth populous county.
Then after Stephen Richer was sworn in as the county’s new recorder in January he sent a notice to some voters addressing the hack. The notice tells “Dear Voter” that the county’s IT Security Department “immediately identified the attack and successfully took steps to stop the activity.”
However, it is apparent from FBI documents that the IT department did not “immediately” stop the breach, as the attack occurred over 15 days.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice told AZ Free News in May the agency cannot comment about the cyberattack as it is part of an ongoing investigation. But voters seem to be growing impatient with the lack of accurate and timely information more than eight months after the hack.
Among the questions left unanswered is whether the cyberattack was undertaken simply to see if it could be done, or was it intended to cast doubt about the election? Also, was the hack possible due to lax county protocols or possibly even by the unintentional actions of a county employee?
More importantly, is Maricopa County’s reticence connected in any way to the board of supervisors’ refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena for access to the election department’s internet routers?
The most critical question, however, is when will county officials come clean with a complete explanation of how someone hacked the voter records of a major government body.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Who Hacked Into Maricopa County’s Voter Files And What Data Did They Get?
Chucri Offers Support For 3rd Party Audit Of Dominion Machines Day Before Voter Info Theft News Broke
by AZ Free News | Jul 9, 2021 | News
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has filed the final brief in Arizona’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Treasury and federal officials challenging the Tax Mandate of the American Rescue Plan Act (Act) because it threatens to penalize states by withholding federal COVID-19 relief funding if they lower taxes in any fashion.
Arizona is asking that the Court declare the condition unenforceable and enjoin enforcement of the Tax Mandate. It does not seek to prevent Arizona from receiving the COVID-19 funds.
The Attorney General’s brief argues that the Tax Mandate is unconstitutionally ambiguous in that Congress failed to give Arizona and other states fair notice of the conditions upon which federal funds were being offered. Binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent has held that such ambiguity is fatal. In addition, Arizona’s brief argues that prohibiting any and all tax cuts is not properly related to federal spending.
After hearing oral argument on June 22, U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa agreed to consolidate trial on the merits and issue a final judgment in this case. She also permitted both sides to file a final brief, which Arizona filed late Wednesday night.
The Court is expected to rule on the case and issue a final judgment in due course.
by B. Hamilton | Jul 8, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
On Friday, Kathryn Hackett King, a member of the Arizona Board of Regents and University of Arizona College of Law graduate, was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Kin’s appointment by Governor Doug Ducey fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Andrew Gould.
Gould is currently running in the Arizona Attorney General’s race.
King’s appointment to the court now leaves a vacancy on the Arizona Board of Regents
King is the fifth woman in Arizona history to serve on the Supreme Court.
King is currently a partner at Burns Barton PLC. The focus of her practice is the representation of private and public employers in employment litigation and related civil matters. King is a member of the Arizona Women Lawyers Association and a mentor for the Latina Mentoring Project.
King began her private practice career at Snell & Wilmer LLP, where she practiced in the areas of employment law and commercial and business litigation.
From 2015 to 2017, King served as Deputy General Counsel to Ducey, according to the Governor’s Office. King clerked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Michael D. Ryan from 2007 to 2008.
King graduated from Duke University with a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Political Science and minoring in History. She obtained her law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.
“Kate’s strong belief in the separation of powers and experience serving in all three branches of government will serve the people of Arizona well,” Ducey said in a released statement. “I have witnessed her intelligence and wisdom firsthand, and I know she is well-respected in the legal field.”
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 8, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A jury can decide whether a Tucson business is vicariously liable for the 2018 death of a woman killed by one of the company’s employees, according to a recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals.
In May, the court unanimously overturned a 2020 decision by a Pima County judge who had ruled Casas Custom Floor Care was not responsible for the actions of its employee, Martin Montano, who caused the death of Samantha Jo Cravens after running a red light on his way to the company’s office.
According to court records, Montano left a job site at the end of his shift and headed to the Casas Custom office to fill out and correct his timesheet. During the drive Montano collided with a car driven by Cravens, 29, who suffered fatal injuries.
Michael Corey Cravens, Samantha’s husband, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Montano and his employer in April 2019. Court records show Montano settled with Cravens in late 2019 but Casas Custom contended the company was not liable for its employee’s conduct.
In January 2020, the Humphrey & Petersen Law Firm filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Casas Custom to have the employer dismissed from Cravens’ lawsuit. The company argued Montano “was not acting within the course and scope of employment” and that there was an absence of an employer’s “right of control” over the employee.
The motion for summary judgment was granted in May 2020 by Judge Brenden Griffin of the Pima County Superior Court and Casas Custom was dismissed from the lawsuit.
Cravens, who is represented by the law office of Mesch, Clark, and Rothschild, appealed the grant of summary judgment. On May 25, Vice Chief Judge Christopher Staring of the Arizona Court of Appeals authored a unanimous decision reversing Griffin’s dismissal order.
Staring wrote that an employer can be found vicariously liable for an employee’s work-related conduct if the employee was “acting within the scope of their employment.” Scope of employment is defined by the court as an employee performing work “assigned by the employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer’s control.”
The Court of Appeals found there is a material factual dispute in Cravens’ lawsuit about whether Montano’s conduct was outside the scope of his employment. That makes Casas Custom’s liability a question for a jury, not a judge, Staring wrote.
Casas Custom Floor Care did not petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review of the appellate decision. The Pima County Superior Court will be mandated in a few weeks to conduct further proceedings in accordance to the decision.
Public records show Cravens’ case has been now reassigned to Judge D. Douglas Metcalf. In April, Metcalf was asked by Cincinnati Indemnity Company to grant a motion of summary judgment for dismissal of another part of Cravens’ lawsuit. One of the issues is whether a “Morris Agreement” entered into by Montano to settle the portion of the case against him is enforceable.
According to the Arizona Supreme Court, an insurer like Cincinnati Indemnity can accept defense of a claim while still reserving its right to contest coverage. The insured also has the option to independently enter into a settlement, provided the insured continues to cooperate with the insurer during the litigation.
The settlement, known as a Morris Agreement, “must be made fairly, with notice to the insurer, and without fraud or collusion on the insurer” in order to be valid. An insurer is not bound to a Morris Agreement unless it is reasonable and prudent, something Metcalf is expected to rule on this summer.
In the meantime, the judge will hear arguments on July 23 concerning other pending motions involving Cincinnati Indemnity and Cravens.
Montano, 32, was criminally charged in November 2018 with failure to stop for a red light and causing an accident which resulted in death or serious injury. The case was prosecuted as a misdemeanor and ended in a plea by Montano in 2019 of guilty or responsible.
Details as to what sentence was imposed on Montano were not available from the Pima Justice Court as of press time but the longest jail sentence allowed for a misdemeanor is one year.
by B. Hamilton | Jul 8, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
Arizona, as part of a coalition of states is suing Google in an antitrust case challenging the company’s control over its Android app store.
Google is facing a series of major antitrust cases, including a suit that the Justice Department and 14 states filed in October, focused on Google’s efforts to dominate the mobile search market; one from 38 states and territories filed in December, also focused on search; and a third suit by 15 states and territories related to Google’s power over the advertising technology.
As Big Tech continues to flex its monopolistic powers regulators have attempted to rein in the search giant in Arizona. State Rep. Regina Cobb had hoped to help consumers save money and innovators compete in the tech market this past legislative session. Rep. Biasiucci had thrown his support behind Cobb’s bill, which would have allowed app developers to avoid what the two lawmakers call “devastating” fees imposed by big tech monopolies.
That bill died an untimely death.
The heart of the lawsuit centers on Google’s exclusionary conduct which substantially shuts out competing app distribution channels. Google requires that app developers, that offer their apps through the Google Play Store, use Google Billing as a middleman. This arrangement forces app consumers to pay Google’s commission— up to 30 percent— on in-app purchases of digital content. This commission is much higher than what consumers would pay if they could choose from one of Google‘s competitors instead. The lawsuit alleges that Google works to discourage or prevent competition, violating federal and state antitrust laws.
When Google launched its Android OS, it originally promised to keep it an “open source” platform. The lawsuit alleges Google did not keep that promise. By promising to keep Android open, Google successfully enticed manufacturers (such as Samsung) and operators (such as Verizon) to adopt Android, and more importantly, to forgo competing with Google’s Play Store at that time. Google then shut down the Android ecosystem and relevant Android App Distribution Market as soon as it was feasible to do so, effectively trapping consumers and app developers in that ecosystem and removing any effective competition by (among other things) requiring manufacturers and operators to enter into various contractual and other restraints.
Arizona also alleges that Google engaged in conduct in violation of consumer protection laws by falsely representing that it would keep Android “open” and by issuing misleading warnings to consumers– that directly downloading an app would lead to disastrous consequences for the user and their device which also enhanced and protected Google’s monopoly position.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
