Letter from Sen. Scott Bundgaard to Russell Pearce

8/4/2019 Letter from Sen. Scott Bundgaard to Russell Pearce

1/7

Two Renaissance Square

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2250, Phoenix, AZ 85004

Telephone: (302) 319-2634 Facsimile: (602) 258-5070

____________________________________________________

Goldman&Woods

James Austin Woods [email protected]

Monday, September 19, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce

President, Arizona State Senate

1700 West Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Please be advised that this law firm represents Senator Scott Bundgaard.

Dear Senate President Pearce,

I write to you on behalf of my client to bring to your attention a threshold matter

that must be resolved before the Senate Ethics Committee can begin their investigation

regarding our client, Senator Scott Bundgaard.

The party filing the affidavit has cause to believe and does believe that on account

of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial.

ARS 12-409.B.5

Senator Bundgaard hereby brings forward complaints against Senators Ron

Gould, Leah Landrum-Taylor and David Schapira for failing to follow their duty to uphold

the rules and laws governing this body. Each continues to sit in on an investigation of

which they have publically voiced their bias and have made clear to all that they have

already made up their minds prior to the investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee

even beginning. A Statement of Facts provides evidence of bias and prejudice using

the public statements of these three members of the Senate Ethics Committee.

The Rules of Procedure for the Senate Ethics Committee state that the President

of the Senate shall replace any member of the Ethics Committee who is the subject of a

complaint. Senator Bundgaard welcomes this investigation, but it must be fair and it

must be impartial; neither is possible when these three Senators have made a pre-


2/7

Senator Russell Pearce

September 16th, 2011Page 2

____________________________________________________

Woods&Goldman

determination of guilt given their own prior, public statements.

Wests Encyclopedia of American Lawstates that bias is A predisposition or a

preconceived opinion that prevents a person from impartially evaluating facts that have

been presented for determination; a prejudice. A judge who demonstrates bias in a

hearing over which he or she presides has a mental attitude toward a party to the

litigation that hinders the judge from supervising fairly the course of the trial, thereby

depriving the party of the right to a fair trial. A judge may recuse himself or herself to

avoid the appearance of bias.

Senators Ron Gould, Leah Landrum-Taylor and David Schapira have a duty to

follow the law and to uphold the Constitution of Arizona. Senator Bundgaard makes this

complaint in order to remove Senators Gould, Landrum-Taylor and Schapira from

hearing the Bundgaard matter before the Senate Ethics Committee.

If a member of the Committee is under investigation or the subject of a complaint,

the member shall be temporarily replaced on the Committee by the appointment of

another member made by the President of the Senate. Senate Ethics Committee,

Rules of Procedure, Rule 17

Within the Rules of Procedure for the Senate Ethics Committee, the President of

the Senate is mandated to replace a member if that Ethics Committee member is the

subject of a complaint.

Senator Bundgaard hereby alleges that State Senator Ron Gould, Chairman of the

Senate Ethics Committee and State Senators Leah Landrum-Taylor and David

Schapira, all members of the Senate Ethics Committee, have expressed bias and

prejudice in this matter to such an extent that it would be impossible for Senator

Bundgaard to obtain a fair and impartial investigation. Three members of this five-

member committee have made comments clearly demonstrating bias and prejudice in

this matter.

Statement of Facts

The public record supports the fact that on March 07, 2011, Senator Gould made a

public pronouncement specific to Senator Bundgaard, based on a set of facts


3/7



____________________________________________________

Woods&Goldman

predetermined by Gould and referencing conduct unbecoming a Senator.

Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, said based on his review of the police

report, Bundgaard has to go. When you elect Senators, they expect them to act

like ladies and gentlemen, Gould said. When you get into a fistfight on the side of

the freeway, which is witnessed by an off-duty police officer, thats conduct

unbecoming a Senator, Gould said.

SeeAssociated Press. (2011, March 8). Bundgaard refuses to step down.

yourwestvalley.com.

Retrieved September 14, 2011, from:

http://www.yourwestvalley.com/peoria/article_f6c3f2ae-48f1-11e0-a0b6-

001cc4c002e0.html

The public record supports the fact that on March 07, 2011, Senator Gould made

threatening comments toward Senator Bundgaard, making a pre-determination as to the

facts in the case before hearing testimony from Senator Bundgaard and witnesses.

Gould was clearly perturbed by the police report of the incident. You know

what? If that was my daughter and we still operated under the old school rules,

something wouldve already happened [to Senator Bundgaard], Gould said. You

used to have the dad and brother program that used to address these situations.

SeePuerto, Luige del. (2011, March 7). Pressure mounts from both sides for

Bundgaard to step down. azcapitoltimes.com.


http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/03/07/bundgaard-rejects-senators-call-

forhim-to-resign/

The public record supports the fact that on March 07, 2011, Senator Landrum-Taylor

held a press conference and called for Senator Bundgaard to resign from the Arizona


4/7



____________________________________________________

Woods&Goldman

State Senate based on her pre-determination of the facts in the matter. Senator

Landrum-Taylor then filed an ethics complaint against Senator Bundgaard.

SeeDavenport, Paul (2011, March 7). Arizona Senate Dems call for Bundgaard to

resign. azcapitoltimes.com.


http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/03/07/arizona-senate-dems-call-

forbundgaard-to-resign/

The public record supports the fact that on March 14, 2011, the ethics complaint filed by

Senator Landrum-Taylor, based upon her pre-determined set of facts, was dismissed by

a vote of the Senate Ethics Committee with a statement issued by committee chairman,

Senator Gould.

Todays motion to dismiss Sen. Landrum-Taylors complaint against Sen.

Bundgaard was due solely to the fact that Senator Landrums complaint did not

comply with Senate rules regarding ethics complaints," Gould wrote. Specifically,

according to Senate Ethics Rule 5(A)1(a), a complaint must contain statements of

fact within the personal knowledge of the complainant.

SeeHolland, Catherine (2011, March 14). Senate Ethics Committee dismissed

complaint against Bundgaard. News Channel 3, azfamily.com.


http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Senate-Ethics-Committee-to-hearBundgaard-

case--118166194.html

The public record supports the fact that on August 17, 2011, Senator Gould began

soliciting Senate members to file an ethics complaint against Senator Bundgaard, stated

that if no member did file a complaint, It may have to be me, and stated further, If I

was Senator BundgaardI would go ahead and resign.

SeeAssociated Press (August 17, 2011). Ethics head says Bundgaard may still

face probe. KTAR radio, KTAR.com.


5/7



____________________________________________________

Woods&Goldman


http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20110816/Ariz.-lawmaker-pleads-

nocontest-to-endangerment/

The public record supports the fact that on September 13, 2011, Senator Schapira

publicly demonstrated his bias and prejudice by publishing on his public Twitter page

and on his public Facebook page that he is proud that my colleagues on the Ethics

Committee have voted to pursue an investigation into Bundgaard s conduct unbecoming

a Senator. Twitter.com, Facebook.com


http://twitter.com/#!/dschapira


http://www.facebook.com/davidforaz

Senator Steve Yarbrough, a member of the Senate Ethics Committee, made a

request during the Senate Ethics Committee hearing on September 13, 2011, asking

Senators Gould and Landrum-Taylor to recuse themselves due to public comments

made previously by them that demonstrated bias and prejudice in this matter. (Schapira

was absent from the meeting.) As a result of the publicly stated refusal by Gould and

Landrum-Taylor to disqualify themselves from this investigation and because Schapira

also made public comments expressing bias and prejudice these three members are

deliberately obstructing the course of justice and thus violating their Oath of Office,

Arizona state law and the Constitution of Arizona by not impartially discharging the

duties of their respective offices. (ARS 38-231; ARS 12-409.B.5; Art.6, Sec. 26 AZ

Const.)

On March 14, 2011by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 naysthe Senate Ethics

Committee dismissed a complaint filed by Senator Landrum-Taylor. Chairman Gould

stated publicly, Todays motion to dismiss Sen. Landrum-Taylors complaint against

Sen. Bundgaard was due solely to the fact that Senator Landrums complaint did not


6/7



____________________________________________________

Woods&Goldman

comply with Senate rules regarding ethics complaints,Gould wrote. Specifically,

according to Senate Ethics Rule 5(A)1(a), a complaint must contain statements of fact

within the personal knowledge of the complainant.

On September 13, 2011, when a fellow member of the Senate Ethics Committee,

Senator Andy Biggs, raised this same rule, Chairman Gould did not equally apply the

rule. Senator Biggs noted that the Complainant, Senator Steve Gallardo, lacked

personal knowledge. When Senator Gallardo was asked directly if he had any

personal knowledge of this matter, he conceded that all he had done was merely read

the police reportjust as Senator Landrum-Taylor had done in her complaint half a year

earlier.

Senator Gould continues to demonstrate his prejudice and bias by overlooking and

loosely applying the law, the Constitution of Arizona and the rules of the Senate Ethics

Committee in order to support his pre-determined opinion and in order to force a specific

outcome that he clearly personally desires.

In conclusion, the public comments over the last seven months from Senators

Gould, Landrum-Taylor and Schapira prove that all three are not operating within the

boundary of the rules with which this body is governed. It is clear beyond all doubt that

they are biased and cannot even maintain impartiality in publictheir comments cited

above demonstrate this muchlet alone as members of an ethics committee sitting in

on an investigation into this matter. When it was not their business to comment, or to

pass judgment, they did soall without having access to the full facts of the case, which

at the time of many of these comments were not even known. Now it is their business to

hold a fair, impartial and transparent investigation into the matter at hand, and given

their clear biases and prejudices this is a task they are not able to undertake.

The Senate Rules are crystal clear: If a member of the Committee is under

investigation or the subject of a complaint, the member shall be replaced on the

Committee by the appointment of another member made by the President of the

Senate. Senate Ethics Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rule 17. This complaint stands

against these three Senators, and thus, they must be removed and replaced by you.


7/7



____________________________________________________

Woods&Goldman

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Senator Bundgaard requests that Senators

Gould, Landrum-Taylor and Schapira be disqualified from the Senate Ethics Committee

and that you, Mr. President, select their replacements.

Sincerely,

James Austin Woods, Esq.

Partner, Goldman & Woods

Documents

Letter from Sen. Scott Bundgaard to Russell Pearce