There were 1,424 press releases posted in the last 24 hours and 313,159 in the last 365 days.

Mark Brnovich and FBI Contacted about Maricopa County Judicial Fraud

Six Judges worked together at the Northwest Regional Court Center in Surprise, Arizona. Conflict of Interest (ARS 38-510), Perjury (ARS 13-2702), and Fraud by Omission (ARS 13-2310) are all felony offenses and each judge is criminally liable (ARS 13-201).

Judge VandenBerg, Judge Kiefer, Commissioner Newcomb, and Commissioner McGuire served at the behest of Presiding Judge Bustamante. As State representatives all Arizona Judges must disclose or disqualify themselves for knowing of Judge Bustamante’s conflicting interests.

Justices Trump-Up Maricopa County Judge's Choice to use her Family Law-Firm Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C. as a Material Witness at Trial.

Poisonous Tree Doctrine is legal theory designed to provide a remedy in criminal matters to defendants for which due process has been violated to discourage the State from acting in a similar manner”
— Superior Court Judge Lisa Ann VandenBerg

PHOENIX, ARIZONA, UNITED STATES, June 8, 2022 / -- A complaint was filed with Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the FBI on June 3rd against Family Court Judge Lori Horn Bustamante, Judge Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Judge Joseph Kiefer, Commissioner Casey J. Newcomb, Commissioner J. Justin McGuire, Family Court Presiding Judge Bruce R. Cohen, Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Retired Judge Maurice Portley for failing to disqualify themselves or disclose their personal knowledge of the fact that Judge Lori Horn Bustamante has multiple substantial non-speculative pecuniary (financial), proprietary (business), and personal (spouse and kids) relationships with material witness and Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C. in the Family Court’s case of LEMAY v. LEMAY. Judicial criminal charges include: constitutional civil rights due process violations, conflicts of interest, perjury to commit fraud, and fraud by omission.

Judge Bustamante admits to being married to Manny Bustamante who is the president, attorney, and owner of Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C.. The State of Arizona is a material witness to Judge Bustamante and Manny Bustamante’s marriage (license #272360), issued their licenses to practice law, employs them both, as well as received and accepted Judge Bustamante’s 2016 through 2022 financial disclosure statements under penalty of perjury. If Manny and Judge Bustamante divorce, she is entitled to an ownership stake of Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C..

Attorney Manny Bustamante (016138) and Attorney Alan Kuffner (015860) are Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C.; a private law firm which represents government services in Avondale, Buckeye, Tolleson, Carefree, Cave Creek, El Mirage, Casa Grande, Peoria, Gilbert, Maricopa County Attorney, U.S. District Court, Arizona Corporation Commission, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office – Organized Crime and Fraud Section.

Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C. is the Attorney for the State of Arizona and Avondale City Prosecutor. In 2019, Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C. motioned to dismiss STATE v. LEMAY, which was dismissed in Avondale Municipal Court December 17, 2019.

In 2020, STATE v. LEMAY was brought before Judge Bustamante in LEMAY v. LEMAY by Petitioner. The case was accepted into evidence by the Maricopa County Superior Court and Judge Bustamante ruled against Andrew LeMay using her family law firm Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C. as a material witness to fact, violating Respondent’s constitutional civil rights to due process. Judge Bustamante issued her Divorce Decree in June. In July, Mr. LeMay discovered Judge Bustamante’s marital ties with Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C. and promptly filed a motion to vacate due to conflict of interest.

Pursuant Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11, a judge shall disqualify herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Mr. LeMay argues that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction over criminal matters, LEMAY v. LEMAY is void, and all future evidence is inadmissible due to the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.

February 19, 2021, Superior Court Judge Lisa Ann VandenBerg states “the Poisonous Tree Doctrine is legal theory designed to provide a remedy in criminal matters to defendants for which due process has been violated to discourage the State from acting in a similar manner”. In Arizona, A.R.S. § 38-510(A)(1) is a criminal conflict of interest statute and states: “[a] person who intentionally or knowingly violates any provision of section 38-503 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 6 felony”.

Despite Judge Campbell, Judge Thumma, and Judge Portley’s own duty to recuse themselves from case "1 CA-CV 20-0425 FC" for knowing of Family Court Judge Bustamante’s admitted conflicts of interest, they claim ignorance to the State’s own evidential facts and accuse Mr. LeMay for not advising Judge Bustamante of her conflicts of interest with Bustamante & Kuffner, P.C.. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found it necessary to resurrect Judge Portley from retirement to deliver the Court of Appeals decision.

As child support and spousal maintenance are current issues and based upon the Family Court’s 2020 Divorce Decree, Judge Bustamante’s ruling is as relevant today as the day she illegally delivered it.

Andrew LeMay is currently interviewing attorney’s to represent him in a civil lawsuit and is running a GoFundMe campaign to pursue legal action against the State of Arizona.

For more detailed information, marriage license, and links, go to the GoFundMe campaign below.

Andrew LeMay
Offices of Andrew LeMay
+1 623-703-5795

Do you feel civil court judges should be able to request a jury trial when they have a conflict of interest, or should the case be dismissed?