Investigative report regarding Representative Daniel Patterson: prepared for the Arizona House of Representatives Ethics Committee

              INVESTIGATIVE REPORT REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL PATTERSON
PREPARED FOR
THE ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ETHICS COMMITTEE
SUBMITTED MARCH 30, 2012
MICHAEL C. MANNING
CRAIG A. MORGAN
SHARON W. NG
DANELLE G. KELLING
STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Preliminary Statement
Michael C. Manning, Craig A. Morgan, Sharon W. Ng, and Danelle G. Kelling of
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP have been retained to serve as Special Counsel for the House
of Representatives Ethics Committee to conduct an independent investigation regarding
Representative (“Rep.”) Daniel Patterson (“Patterson”). The scope of this investigation is
not limited to the domestic violence allegations made in the February 27, 2012, Ethics
Complaint (the “Ethics Complaint”) filed against Rep. Patterson.1 See Exhibit 1 (Ethics
Complaint). The scope of this investigation, as defined by the House Ethics Committee, is
much broader. Specifically, we have been asked to (i) investigate and report whether Rep.
Patterson has engaged in a pattern of inappropriate, indecorous, illegal, or unethical conduct
in violation of law or the House Rules, and (ii) recommend a course of disciplinary action.2
Our investigation was limited to a compressed time frame – approximately two
weeks – and consisted of (i) reviewing the Ethics Complaint and Rep. Patterson’s multiple
responses; (ii) reviewing public records; (iii) interviews with a number of legislators, staff
members, lobbyists, and members of the public who have personally interacted with
Rep. Patterson or witnessed his behavior;3 and (iv) a one and a quarter hour interview with
Rep. Patterson.4 We devoted significant Firm resources to this investigation, including
1 But even if the scope of this investigation were limited to the four corners of the Ethics Complaint, that scope is
quite broad. Specifically, the Ethics Complaint accuses Rep. Patterson of “conduct impugning the integrity of the House of
Representatives” of which the Ethics Complaint’s allegations of a “pattern of domestic violence,” “physical injury,”
“mental anguish,” generally “inappropriate conduct,” and “conduct violating the public trust or adversely reflecting upon
the House, and unethical or unprofessional conduct” are but examples. See Exhibit 1 (Ethics Complaint). This
investigation has never been just about domestic violence.
2 See http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=10590 which is a link to a House Ethics
Committee hearing held on March 13, 2012 (50th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session) wherein the scope of this
investigation was defined.
3 During our investigation, many witnesses were afraid to freely speak with us due to concerns over possible
physical, verbal, or other retaliation by Rep. Patterson. A number of Members, lobbyists, and legislative staff in particular
expressed such concern. Even some of those who were brave enough to sign Declarations in connection with this
investigation expressed concerns about later assault by Rep. Patterson for their cooperation. Accordingly, and only when
necessary, we acceded to anonymity.
4 Rep. Patterson has found plenty of time to speak to the press about this investigation and to insist to his fellow
House Members that the Ethics Complaint and this investigation should be abandoned. But, he has not made any real effort
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
assigning a dedicated team of lawyers and other professionals, in an effort to conduct the
most comprehensive investigation possible under such a short timeframe.
The gravity of this assignment, and its potential historical impact, were immediately
evident to us. Some level of passion, indecorum, aggressiveness, persuasion, and occasional
loss of professionalism and truthfulness is a predictable facet of the rough and tumble of
politics and public service in the constant spotlight. We assumed this assignment aware that
life in a legislative session is not always – perhaps not even frequently – polite, professional,
dispassionate, or free of adversarial sleight of hand. We also assumed this assignment with a
keen deference to constituents’ right to make an ill-advised, or even deplorable, choice of the
men and women those constituents want to represent them in legislative or executive offices.
Those constituent choices should not be disrupted except in the most egregious of
circumstances. Thus, our investigation was governed by a rebuttable presumption that the
people’s choice, even a very bad one, is nearly inviolable.
The witnesses we interviewed agreed with that rebuttable presumption. Over 80% of
the Members, legislative staff, lobbyists, and others we interviewed believe that Rep.
Patterson is a serious discredit and threat to the House, its Members, the legislative process,
to discuss the investigation with this Firm at a mutually convenient time. In fact, Rep. Patterson has not been eager to
cooperate with this investigation on anyone’s terms other than his own. Whether through desperate denial or a disturbing
refusal to acknowledge reality, Rep. Patterson insists on ignoring the scope of this investigation and the House’s lawful
ability to discipline him, instead attempting to unilaterally narrow the scope of this investigation. See Exhibit 2 (E-mail
correspondence between Rep. Patterson and Michael C. Manning). His March 28, 2012, Supplemental Response to the
Ethics Committee engages the same delusion. See Exhibit 3 (Rep. Patterson’s Supplemental Response dated March 28,
2012).
Of course, we repeatedly explained to Rep. Patterson the scope of this investigation. See Exhibit 2. Yet, even as
recently as March 27, 2012, Rep. Patterson was quoted in the press as claiming no understanding of the scope of this
investigation and refusing to acknowledge the House’s constitutional authority to discipline its Members – including him.
See Exhibit 4 (The Republic on-line editorial dated March 27, 2012) (quoting Rep. Patterson as stating: “‘I am duly elected
and lawfully seated so, Laurie, it’s not up to you to decide whether it’s appropriate for me to sit in the Legislature or not,’
he said. ‘No disrespect, it’s not up to you, it’s not up to Katie Hobbs, it’s not up to anybody in the Legislature. It’s up to my
voters.’”); Exhibit 5 (Yuma Sun on-line article dated March 26, 2010) (quoting Rep. Patterson as stating: “‘It’s extremely
frustrating to get the Ethics Committee to define what they’re doing,’ he said. ‘Our feeling is it’s more like a fishing
expedition.’”); see also Exhibit 6 (Rep. Patterson’s Tweet dated March 22, 2012 (“Seems Vogt & his investigator Manning
on ‘fishing expedition’ w little respect for constitution, due process, rules, scope, etc.”).
Unfortunately, we could neither force Rep. Patterson to understand the gravity of this investigation nor persuade
him to meaningfully cooperate with our efforts to find and present the facts.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
his party, and his constituents. All but a few of the 20% balance otherwise feel that Rep.
Patterson is unfit for office. But many in that minority of witnesses believe that however
unfit, unstable, or dangerous he may be, Rep. Patterson was elected to his position and that
constituent decision is perfectly sacrosanct unless Rep. Patterson is actually convicted of
criminal misbehavior. That well-intentioned minority was not asked to balance the ethereal
protection of Rep. Patterson’s District’s decision with the very real burden Rep. Patterson
places on the legislative interests of every other legislative district. Nevertheless, our
Constitution and your House Rules are far less tolerant of egregious misconduct that is not
necessarily criminal than that minority view and those principles guided our investigation.
Summary Of Conclusions And Recommendations
Based on our investigation, as more fully detailed below, we have reached the
following conclusions:
· The deep distrust, concern for, and fear of Rep. Patterson is bipartisan,
bicameral, otherwise broad, and is borne of widely experienced incidents
of disruption, deceptions, indecorum, and threats that are too frequent and
too egregious.
· Rep. Patterson has a legacy of violating and ignoring both the Rules of the
House of Representatives, 50th Legislature, 2011-2012 (the “House
Rules”) and generally accepted concepts of civility and professionalism.5
· Rep. Patterson routinely verbally abuses, assaults, and harasses his
colleagues, legislative staff, and lobbyists – especially if one dares to
disagree with him.
· Rep. Patterson routinely challenges but then ignores admonishment for his
behavior and unprofessional outbursts, often retaliating through verbal
abuse and, on occasion, has either feigned or actually threatened to
physically assault those that did not agree with him.
· Rep. Patterson has allegedly violated, and may even continue to violate,
court orders.
5 We have not investigated whether Rep. Patterson has violated any criminal laws. Our findings and conclusions would be
the same whether Rep. Patterson has violated any criminal laws.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
· Rep. Patterson has admitted to staff that he frequently uses marijuana.
Tellingly, during our truncated interview with him, he refused to answer
questions about his “frequent use of marijuana” while steadfastly denying
having ever used cocaine, methamphetamine, or any other illegal drug. In
fact, when asked why he refused to answer questions about “frequent use
of marijuana” his answer was very peculiar; he said: “I am refusing to
answer that question based upon my privacy rights under the U.S.
Constitution and all other rights under our Constitution.” When asked
whether that included or meant the 5th Amendment, he said “No, I am not
invoking the 5th Amendment.”
· Rep. Patterson appears to have tampered with the complainant in the
pending criminal case against him, presumably in violation of a court
order. In fact, Ms. Georgette Escobar’s peculiar Facebook recantation of
her abuse allegations against Rep. Patterson was one subject of our
truncated interview of Rep. Patterson on March 27, 2012. Rep. Patterson
repeatedly refused to answer our questions about whether he wrote that
recantation for Ms. Escobar without her permission or through his
intimidation of Ms. Escobar. His basis for refusing to answer was
peculiar and strained.
· Rep. Patterson has sought personal favors in exchange for his votes on
legislation.
· Substantial evidence exists that Rep. Patterson has engaged in a pattern of
disorderly behavior and other misconduct in violation of the House Rules
(particularly House Rules 1, 14, 18 and 19).
· Discipline of Rep. Patterson is warranted.
· Over the last several years, Rep. Patterson has been counseled on
numerous occasions by House leadership concerning his disruptive,
offensive, and deceptive conduct. That conduct is then repeated in spite
of that counsel and related discipline. Thus, a minor disciplinary sanction,
such as censure or reprimand, will not deter Rep. Patterson from future
misconduct.
Accordingly, based on our investigation, the results of which are more fully described
below, we reluctantly recommend that, in light of his extraordinary and very predictable
pattern of disorderly, indecorous, and deceptive behavior, coupled with the ineffectiveness of
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
earlier counseling, reprimand, and discipline, Rep. Patterson should be expelled from the
House.
Investigative Analysis
I. THE HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE ITS MEMBERS
The House has the power to discipline its Members for both (i) disorderly behavior
and (ii) violating the House Rules.
A. Arizona’s Constitution Permits The House To Discipline Its Members.
Arizona’s Constitution states that:
Each house may punish its Members for disorderly behavior and may, with
the concurrence of two-thirds of its Members, expel any Member.
Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 11. Arizona’s Constitution does not define the phrases “punish”
and “disorderly behavior.”6 No Arizona case or other legal authority appears to significantly
narrow the scope of this constitutional provision and there is no reason to interpret this
provision other than in its broadest sense. See State ex rel. La Prade v. Cox, 43 Ariz. 147,
178, 30 P.2d 825, 827 (1934) (“It is the general rule that, because constitutions are for the
purpose of laying down broad general principles, and not the expression of minute details of
law, their terms are to be construed liberally, for the purpose of giving effect to the general
6 Disorderly conduct is, however, defined elsewhere in Arizona law. See A.R.S. § 13-2904 (entitled “Disorderly
Conduct; Classification). The terms “conduct” and “behavior” are synonyms. See Roget’s International Thesaurus 761 (3d
ed. 1970). Thus, Section 13-2904 is useful for purposes of determining whether Rep. Patterson has engaged in disorderly
behavior warranting discipline. Section 13-2904 provides that:
A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or
person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person: . . . Engages in . . . violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or .
. . Makes unreasonable noise; or . . . Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a
manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or . . . Makes any protracted commotion,
utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting [or] gathering.
A.R.S. § 13-2904 (emphasis added). Of course, the examples of disorderly conduct listed in this statute are not exhaustive.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
meaning and spirit of the instrument, rather than as limited by technical rules of grammar.”)
(emphasis added).7
Thus, the House has broad constitutional authority to punish its Members for
disorderly behavior as the House determines and defines that behavior.
B. The House Rules Permit The House To Discipline Its Members.
The House Rules state that “[a] violation of any of the House Rules shall be deemed
disorderly behavior” warranting discipline, including expulsion. House Rules at 1(A)
(emphasis added), citing Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 11. A House Member who “transgresses
the Rules of the House” always runs the risk of some potential discipline, “and if the case
requires it, he shall be liable to censure or such punishment as the House may deem proper.”
House Rules at 19(C) (emphasis added).
Thus, like Arizona’s Constitution, the House’s Rules permit the House to discipline its
Members for violating those Rules in any manner the House sees fit, including expulsion.
C. The “Due Process” Required In These Proceedings.
The Arizona Constitution does not instruct or even attempt to describe what process
must be used for the House to discipline its Members; the Arizona Constitution merely states
that it may be done. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 11. In fact, the Arizona Constitution
specifically permits the House to determine its own procedural rules and the qualification of
its own Members. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 8 (“Each house, when assembled, shall
7 In fact, the United States Constitution contains almost identical language with respect to punishment and
expulsion. See U.S. Const., art. I, § 5, cl. 2 (“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”). At least one case considering that
provision recognized its broad meaning as being in left to the legislature’s tempered interpretation, noting that:
The right to expel extends to all cases where the offense is such as in the judgment of the senate is inconsistent
with the trust and duty of a Member.
In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 668-70 (1897) (noting that a Member’s conduct could be found disorderly, and warrant
expulsion, even though “[i]t was not a statutable offense, nor . . . committed in his official character, nor . . . committed
during the session of congress, nor at the seat of government”) (emphasis added).
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
choose its own officers, judge of the election and qualification of its own Members, and
determine its own rules of procedure.”).
Here, the Rules of Procedure for the Ethics Committee of the Arizona House of
Representatives, 50th Legislature (the “Ethics Rules”) govern this investigative process. The
Ethics Rules incorporate the House Rules. See Ethics Rule 12 (incorporating the House
Rules). In connection with ethics complaints generally:
The Chairman shall receive any sworn complaint alleging unethical conduct.
Complaints shall be in writing, signed by the person or persons filing the
complaint, and notarized. The sworn complaint shall contain: (a) a statement of
fact within the personal knowledge of the complainant describing the alleged
unethical conduct; (b) the law or House Rule that is alleged to have been
violated, and; (c) all documents alleged to support the complaint.
Ethics Rule 13. Then, after receipt of a properly filed ethics complaint:
The Chairman shall review and distribute a copy of each complaint and
supporting documentation to all Members of the Committee and to the Member
who is the subject of the complaint. The Member who is the subject of the
complaint shall have the opportunity to respond to the complaint in writing.
Ethics Rule 14. No hearing regarding an ethics complaint, related investigation, or response to
an ethics complaint is required. But, if the Ethics Committee decides to conduct a hearing –
and, again, there is no requirement one occur – then:
In any hearing before the Ethics Committee, the Member who is the subject of
the complaint shall have the right to present evidence and to examine all of the
evidence against the Member, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right
to be represented by counsel of the Member’s choice and at the Member’s
expense.
Ethics Rule 15. Thus, based on the foregoing, Rep. Patterson has been given the process due
him as a matter of law.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
II. REP. PATTERSON’S MISCONDUCT VIOLATES THE ARIZONA
CONSTITUTION AND VARIOUS HOUSE RULES
House Rule 14, entitled “Voting,” mandates that, except under very narrow
circumstances, “[w]hen a roll call vote is ordered, no Member shall leave his seat until the
vote is declared.” House Rule 14(E). House Rule 18, entitled “Decorum and Debate,”
provides, in part, that:
(A) When a Member desires to speak in debate or deliver any matter to the
House, or make a motion, he shall rise and address himself to the Chair, and on
being recognized may address the House. He shall confine himself to the
question and avoid personalities. No Member shall impeach or impugn motives
of any other Member’s argument or vote.
. . .
(D) No Member shall interrupt another while speaking except to call to order, to
correct a mistake or to move the previous question.
House Rules at 18(A) and (D) (emphasis added). And, House Rule 19, entitled
“Impermissible Debate,” states that:
No Member shall be permitted to indulge in personalities, use language
personally offensive, arraign motives of Members, charge deliberate
misrepresentation or use language tending to hold a Member of the House or
Senate up to contempt.”
House Rules at 19(A) (emphasis added). “A violation of any of [the aforementioned] House
Rules shall be deemed disorderly behavior” warranting discipline, including expulsion.
House Rules at 1(A); see also Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 11.
Rep. Patterson has made false statements as a means to obtain his personal objectives
and engaged in a significant pattern of disorderly, indecorous, and disrespectful behavior
toward his colleagues, staff members, constituents, and lobbyists – all without remorse or
consideration of how his actions may reflect on himself, the House, or others. Accordingly,
for the reasons discussed below, significant evidence exists that Rep. Patterson has committed
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
acts in violation of Article 4, Part 2, Section 11 of the Arizona Constitution and House Rules
1(A), 14, 18 and 19.8
During the course of our investigation we discovered substantial and significant
evidence of Rep. Patterson’s dishonest, inappropriate, unprofessional, indecorous, and
disorderly conduct toward other Legislators, legislative staff, lobbyists, and even constituents.
For example, the evidence revealed that:
· In 2009, Rep. Patterson engaged in harassing and inappropriate actions
towards lobbyists, which was reported to Democratic leadership.
· In 2010, Rep. Patterson:
o Had an aggressive, inappropriate, and unprofessional exchange
with Rep. David Gowan.
o Impugned a former Senator during a Military Affairs and Public
Safety (“MAPS”) Committee hearing regarding SB 1027.
8 Between February 16 and 24, 2012, Rep. Patterson and his then live-in girlfriend, Georgette Escobar, engaged in a
series of events that resulted in the intervention of the City of Tucson Police Department. See Exhibit 7 (Police Report). A
third-party witness told police that he saw Rep. Patterson “backhand” Ms. Escobar hard enough to “knock the female to the
ground.” Id. Both Rep. Patterson and Ms. Escobar have alleged claims of violence against one another that occurred at this
time. On February 24, 2012 Ms Escobar filed an Order of Protection against Rep. Patterson in case number M-1041-DV-
12005176 in the Tucson City Court, which was granted. See Exhibit 8 (Order of Protection). Ms. Escobar, in media
reports, alleged that Rep. Patterson “threw her out of a car” resulting in bruises. See
http://www.azcentral.com/video/1531323103001 (last accessed March 27, 2012) (news reports showing portions of
interviews with Ms. Escobar); see also Exhibit 7. On February 29, 2012, Rep. Patterson moved to vacate the Order of
Protection. On March 2, 2012, Rep. Patterson filed a petition seeking to overturn that same Order of Protection. Rep.
Patterson denies the allegations Ms. Escobar has made against him.
On March 1, 2012, Rep. Patterson’s ex-wife, Ms. Jeneiene Schaffer obtained an Order of Protection against him.
See Exhibit 9 (March 1, 2012, Order of Protection). Rep. Patterson has invoked the legislative immunity in defense to
these charges.
Then, on March 8, 2012, charges of assault intent/reckless/injury (A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1), disorderly conduct
(A.R.S. § 13-2904), and unlawful imprisonment (A.R.S. § 13-1303) were filed against Rep. Patterson based on events that
occurred on February 24, 2012 between Ms. Escobar and him. See Exhibit 10 (charges filed in Case # M-1041-CR-
12019622). That same day, charges of harassment (A.R.S. § 13-2921A) were also filed against Rep. Patterson based on
events that occurred on March 2, 2012 between Ms. Escobar and him. See Exhibit 11 (charges filed in Case # M-1041-
CR-12019621).
Whether or not there was criminal misconduct by Rep. Patterson in these altercations does not change the
outcome of our investigation. While these are serious allegations of criminal misconduct, Rep. Patterson has, in addition
and otherwise, displayed a pattern of serious and unusual disorderly, indecorous, and unprofessional behavior outside his
personal life warranting discipline.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
o Was removed from the MAPS Committee due to his disorderly
conduct, which, among other things, prevented the MAPS
Committee from adequately conducting its business.
· In 2011, Rep. Patterson:
o Had aggressive, inappropriate, and unprofessional exchanges with:
  Lobbyists and other Representatives during, and after, an
Energy and Natural Resources (“ENR”) Committee Hearing
regarding HB2122.
  Reps. Steve Farley and Margaret “Lynne” Pancrazi during a
closed Democratic Caucus.
  Rep. Eddie Farnsworth on the House floor.
  Senator Frank Antenori at the back of House floor.
o Made untruthful representations to Rep. Bruce Wheeler regarding
HB 2785 in order to receive Rep. Wheeler’s support for the bill.
· In 2012, Rep. Patterson:
o Had aggressive, inappropriate, and unprofessional exchanges with:
  Rep. Amanda Reeve in an ENR Committee hearing
regarding HB 2746, which was followed by another
aggressive exchange on the House floor the following week.
  Rep. Jerry Weiers, after one of which Rep. Patterson later
acknowledged, in writing, was inappropriate.
o Impugned Rep. Frank Pratt, Chairman of the ENR Committee,
regarding HB2775.
o Was untruthful with Rep. Wheeler regarding domestic violence
charges and what police reports of the alleged incidents would
show.
o Was charged with multiple misdemeanors in Tucson Municipal
Court, Case Nos. M-1041-CR-12019622 and M-1041-CR-
12019621.
o Was removed from all Committee assignments.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The facts and circumstances surrounding the aforementioned, and other misconduct by
Rep. Patterson toward others, and in connection with this investigation, follow.
A. Rep. Patterson’s Pattern of Behavior Toward Other Legislators.
Our investigation has confirmed that Rep. Patterson has a long history of being
excessively rude, disrespectful, unprofessional, and at times physically confrontational,
toward his colleagues both within and outside the House chambers. Examples of such
disorderly behavior abound.9
In March 2010, Rep. Patterson was a member of the MAPS Committee, of which Rep.
Weiers was Chairman. See Exhibit 12 (Weiers Dec at ¶ 6). On several occasions, while a
member of the MAPS Committee, Rep. Patterson acted in a disorderly, mean-spirited,
aggressive, unprofessional, counterproductive, intimidating, and disrespectful manner toward
Members and constituents alike. See id. (Weiers Dec at ¶¶ 6, 7). Rep. Patterson
routinely talked down to and demeaned constituents with whom he disagreed. See id.
(Weiers Dec at ¶ 6). An example of such misconduct can be viewed at
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=17&clip_id=7104, which is a link to the
MAPS hearing held on March 17, 2010 (49th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session) on SB 1027.
The Speaker of the House eventually removed Rep. Patterson from the MAPS Committee
because, due to his disorderly and indecorous behavior, the MAPS Committee was becoming
unable to get any work done. See Exhibit 12 (Weiers Dec at ¶ 9); Exhibit 13 (Reeve Dec at
¶ 6); Exhibit 14 (Gowan Dec. at ¶ 4); Exhibit 15 (House “Standing Committees” list noting
Rep. Patterson’s removal from the MAPS Committee on March 23, 2010).
In February, 2011, Rep. Patterson acted unprofessionally during an ENR Committee
hearing regarding HB2122, a bill Rep. Patterson sponsored (and which was heard merely for
9 For a recent example of Rep. Patterson’s penchant for rude, disorderly, and indecorous misconduct on the Hosue
floor see, e.g., http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=10404&meta_id=191020 (50th
Legislature, Second Regular Session) last accessed March 29, 2012).
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
discussion purposes). See http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?
view_id=19&clip_id=8358&meta_id=146110 (50th Legislature, Second Regular Session)
(last accessed March 29, 2012) (video clip exhibiting Rep. Patterson’s misconduct). Related
to that same ENR Committee hearing, Rep. Patterson had failed to obtain a fiscal note in
anticipation of the bill’s costs. See Exhibit 18 (Wheeler Dec at ¶ 6). Rep. Wheeler asked
Rep. Patterson whether he had obtained the required fiscal note, to which he responded in the
negative. See id. But, rather than move on and allow the ENR Committee to finish its
business, Rep. Patterson proceeded to glare at Rep. Wheeler during the remainder of the
hearing in an apparent effort at intimidation. See id. Then, after the hearing, Rep. Patterson
followed Rep. Wheeler to his office and instigated a heated discussion wherein Rep.
Patterson’s face became flushed and contorted and he raised his voice in an effort to
intimidate Rep. Wheeler. See id; see also Exhibit 19 (Saldate Dec at ¶ 6); Exhibit 20
(Gonzales Dec at ¶ 6).
In 2012, Rep. Patterson sponsored HB2724 which was, for all intents and purposes,
the same bill as HB2122 – a bill he had proposed in the prior session. See
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=9971&meta_id=177503
(50th Legislature, Second Regular Session) (last accessed March 29, 2012) (video clip
exhibiting Rep. Patterson’s misconduct). On February 6, 2012, HB2724 was heard in an
ENR Committee hearing. During the hearing, Rep. Patterson stated that the bill in the prior
session failed to advance because the sponsor failed to work out issues concerning the
proposed bill. See id. Rep. Patterson failed to disclose during this discussion that he was the
sponsor in the prior session who failed to move the bill along or work out issues with its
content. See id. During the discussion, Rep. Reeve confronted Rep. Patterson with that fact.
See id. These questions provoked, agitated, and angered Rep. Patterson, and following
adjournment of the hearing, as Rep. Reeve gathered her materials, Rep. Patterson
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
purposefully invaded her personal space suggesting some physical retaliation for her
comments. He also blocked her from exiting the room. See Exhibit 13 (Reeve Dec at ¶ 8).
Then, determined to have HB2724 heard, Rep. Patterson continued to harass Rep. Reeve. See
id. (Reeve Dec at ¶ 9). Eventually, after realizing his bill would not be heard, on the House
floor, Rep. Patterson again invaded Rep. Reeve’s personal space, leaned into her in an
intimidating manner, told her she had no integrity, and stalked away. See id. (Reeve Dec at
¶ 10); Exhibit 16 (Gallego Dec at ¶ 6); Exhibit 17 (Tovar Dec at ¶ 9). Having observed this
grossly unprofessional and disorderly behavior, several Democratic House Members
immediately approached Rep. Reeve – including the Minority Whip – and apologized for
Rep. Patterson’s misconduct. See Exhibit 16 (Gallego Dec at ¶ 6); Exhibit 17 (Tovar Dec at
¶ 9).
During a February 13, 2012 ENR Committee hearing, Rep. Patterson inappropriately
intimated that his colleague (and Chairman of the ENR Committee at the time) Rep. Pratt had
a conflict of interest in connection with HB2775, a bill about swimming pool pumps that Rep.
Pratt sponsored. See Exhibit 18 (Wheeler Dec at ¶ 7). This was a clear attempt to impugn
Rep. Pratt in violation of House Rules 18 and 19. Rep. Patterson’s lack of professionalism in
this regard can be viewed at
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=10072 which is a link to
the ENR hearing held on February 13, 2012 (50th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session).
In 2010, domestic violence allegations against Rep. Patterson by his now ex-wife, Ms.
Jeneiene Schaffer, began to surface. Concerned that a House Member was accused of such a
serious matter, Rep. Pancrazi raised her concerns in a closed House Democratic Caucus
meeting. See Exhibit 21 (Pancrazi Dec at ¶ 7). During this discussion, Rep. Patterson
became extremely defensive, angry, belligerent, and screamed denunciations at Rep.
Pancrazi. See id. Rep. Farley attempted to interject and diffuse Rep. Patterson’s anger, but
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rep. Patterson pushed Rep. Farley away and continued his unhinged tirade against Rep.
Pancrazi. See Exhibit 22 (Hobbs Dec at ¶ 6).10
On another occasion in April or early March, 2012, Rep. Weiers was discussing a bill
related to internet hunting – a bill Rep. Patterson had sponsored – with an individual in the
first floor hallway of the House building. See Exhibit 12 (Weiers Dec at ¶ 11). Rep.
Patterson, apparently having overheard the conversation, rudely interrupted and immediately
began acting in an aggressive, confrontational, and disrespectful manner. See id. Rep.
Patterson insisted that the internet hunting bill had to be heard, called Rep. Weiers an
“asshole,” and began to puff his chest out and exclaim, loudly so others in the hallway could
hear, “you gonna hit me, you gonna hit me.” See id. (Weiers Dec at ¶ 12). Eventually, Rep.
Patterson very publicly called Rep. Weiers a “prick” and stormed away. See id. After this
incident, Rep. Patterson had someone deliver to Rep. Weiers a note in which Rep. Patterson
acknowledged and apologized for his behavior. See id. (Weiers Dec at ¶ 13, Exhibit A
(Apology Note)).
Rep. Patterson’s indecorous, inappropriate, deceptive, and threatening misconduct,
coupled with his reputation as physically abusive and combative, is far beyond what might be
expected in the adversarial atmosphere of a legislature. Indeed, some of his colleagues so
fear for their personal safety, they have taken actions such as securing a weapon and
requesting additional security measures at the Capitol. See Exhibit 21 (Pancrazi Dec at
¶ 16); Exhibit 16 (Gallego Dec at ¶ 10); Exhibit 22 (Hobbs Dec at ¶ 8); Exhibit 23 (Alston
Dec at ¶ 5).
10 As a result of what she calls Rep. Patterson’s aggressive “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” behavior, Rep. Pancrazi goes
out of her way to avoid interactions with Rep. Patterson – an approach contrary to how Rep. Pancrazi deals with other
House Members. See Exhibit 21 (Pancrazi Dec at ¶ 9). In fact, Rep. Pancrazi fears for her safety since the Ethics
Complaint was filed and has “made a habit of keeping a weapon near [her] when [she] sleeps” and has requested security
escort her to her vehicle after hours. See id. (Pancrazi Dec at ¶ 15).
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
B. Rep. Patterson’s Pattern Of Dishonesty.
Rep. Patterson has engaged in a pattern of dishonesty and untruthfulness beyond
tolerable political puffery and more personally sinister than typical political discourse among
devoted and head-strong politicians advocating for their positions and for their constituents.
Indeed, Rep. Patterson’s misrepresentations have crossed into an area of unabashed
dishonesty.
For example, in his e-mail signature block Rep. Patterson purports to represent
constituents whom he does not represent, stating he is “Representative Daniel Patterson
(Tucson LD29/LD3).” While Rep. Patterson was elected by voters from Legislative District
29, he does not represent Legislative District 3 – this is a new Legislative District created as a
result of legislative redistricting. See Exhibit 2 (E-mail correspondence between Rep.
Patterson and Michael C. Manning). This misrepresentation, while not a momentous
impairment to his constituents’ interest in the House, helps illustrate Rep. Patterson’s pattern
of dishonesty and proclivity toward misleading others.
In addition, in connection with attempting to garner Member support for a bill, on at
least two occasions Rep. Patterson misrepresented that certain groups supported a bill when,
in truth, they did not. On one occasion, Rep. Patterson told Rep. Chabin that the Presidents of
the three main Arizona universities supported a bill that would allow the sale of alcohol on
campus. See Exhibit 24 (Chabin Dec at ¶ 12). Rep. Chabin believed Rep. Patterson and
agreed to co-sponsor the bill with him. See id. But only after Rep. Chabin learned that the
Presidents did not support the bill, he approached Rep. Patterson and then he admitted that he
misled Rep. Chabin because it was only university faculty who supported the proposed bill.
See id. Rep. Chabin would not have co-sponsored the bill except for Rep. Patterson’s blatant
misrepresentation. See id.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
On another occasion, another Member who has asked to remain unnamed, was
similarly misled. Rep. Patterson told this Member that certain groups supported a bill. The
Member agreed to vote in a certain way based on Rep. Patterson’s representation regarding
support. Yet, after reviewing the bill fact sheets more closely, the Member learned that those
groups Rep. Patterson claims supported the bill actually did not support the bill. Again, it
appears that Rep. Patterson engaged in an intentional and material deception.
Of greater concern is that Rep. Patterson has been deceitful on the record in order to
keep a bill in which he is interested moving forward. Specifically, as recent as February
2012, Rep. Patterson, in response to a direct question from another Member during a
discussion on a bill he sponsored, failed to acknowledge that he sponsored similar
legislation in the prior session which did not advance. Instead he made general statements
that the “sponsor” (i.e., a third party not himself) failed to work the bill and that was why
it did not advance. See generally http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view
id=13&clip_id=9971&meta_id=177503 (50th Legislature, Second Regular Session) (last
accessed March 29, 2012) (evidencing same).
C. Rep. Patterson’s Conduct Toward Democratic Leadership.
The House Democratic leadership has had to separately meet with Rep. Patterson on
several occasions as a result of his disorderly and unprofessional behavior toward other
Members. See Exhibit 17 (Tovar Dec ¶ 12); Exhibit 25 (Campbell Dec ¶ 4).11
Specifically, Rep. Campbell has had to reprimand Rep. Patterson for his failure to
follow House Rules and Democratic leadership’s request that he not communicate with staff.
See Exhibit 25 (Campbell Dec at ¶ 5). In fact, Rep. Campbell has been unable to keep track
of all of Rep. Patterson’s vitriolic and aggressive attacks against others because “they occur
11 Our interviews with prior Democratic leadership, who preferred not to provide a declaration, confirmed that they,
too, had to meet with Rep. Patterson due to his disorderly and unprofessional behavior.
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
on such a frequent basis.” Id. (Campbell Dec at ¶ 6). And then, on one occasion, leadership
spoke to Rep. Patterson, asking him to refrain from intimidating and threatening lobbyists.12
See id. (Campbell Dec at ¶ 4). On another occasion, leadership had to ask Rep. Patterson to
apologize for his outburst during a MAPS Committee hearing, which, again, led to his
removal from that Committee. See id. (Campbell Dec at ¶ 4); Exhibit 15 (House “Standing
Committees” list noting Rep. Patterson’s removal from the MAPS Committee on March 23,
2010). Generally, whenever leadership confronted Rep. Patterson, he would initially deny
that he had a disruptive behavioral problem, but would eventually state that he would work on
being less disruptive and aggressive. Occasionally he would apologize for his misconduct,
then repeat that misconduct. See Exhibit 12 (Weiers Dec at Exhibit A (Apology Note)).
Rep. Tovar, the Minority Whip, has gone so far as to take notes memorializing Rep.
Patterson’s aggressiveness and disorderly behavior that she witnessed. See Exhibit 17
(Tovar Dec at ¶ 7). For example, on March 29, 2011, after a closed caucus meeting
adjourned, Rep. Tovar witnessed Rep. Patterson in a heated discussion with Rep. Farley. See
id. Rep. Tovar saw Rep. Wheeler try to pull Rep. Patterson away from Rep. Farley. See id.
Eventually, Rep. Wheeler walked away, but Rep. Patterson continued to exchange words with
Rep. Farley. See id. Rep. Tovar heard Rep. Patterson demand Rep. Farley stop “spreading
lies” about Rep. Patterson, and that if Rep. Farley did not stop doing so, he would “regret” his
actions. See id. Rep. Patterson’s tone, conduct, and demeanor shocked Rep. Tovar to the
point that she immediately memorialized her observations after witnessing this incident. See
id.
Rep. Tovar has even had to personally apologize to other Members after being the
target of Rep. Patterson’s outbursts and disorderly behavior and has had to take Rep.
12 One prior House Member of Democratic leadership, who preferred not to provide a declaration, confirmed having
to discuss these issues with Rep. Patterson.
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Patterson aside due to his misconduct on the House floor. See id. (Tovar Dec at ¶ 9); see also
Exhibit 22 (Hobbs Decl. at ¶ 7). In one instance, in approximately March/April, 2011,
during budget negotiations, there was a very heated discussion between Reps. Patterson and
Farnsworth. See Exhibit 17 (Tovar Dec at ¶ 8). Rep. Tovar observed the two of them go
toward the back of the House chambers to have this heated discussion. See id. Rep.
Patterson’s behavior during this discussion quickly deteriorated. See id. Rep. Patterson has
also acted combatively and unprofessionally toward Rep. Pancrazi by raising his voice and
pointing his finger at her. See id. Speaker Tobin informed Rep. Tovar that Rep. Patterson
had become so out of control that the Speaker was considering removing Rep. Patterson from
the House floor. See id. So, as the only member of Democratic leadership on the floor at the
time, Rep. Tovar had to address Rep. Patterson’s disorderly behavior. And, because the
custom with regard to Rep. Patterson is to always speak with him with at least one witness
present,13 Rep. Tovar had the Chief of Staff locate Rep. Patterson so the two could address
Rep. Patterson’s misconduct. See id. Typical of Rep. Patterson when confronted with his
behavioral outbursts, he denied doing anything and appeared not to understand why his
misconduct was inappropriate or questionable. See id. Rep. Tovar eventually, however,
convinced Rep. Patterson to leave the floor instead of being thrown out. See id. Then, as
recently as late February 2012, Rep. Tovar had to apologize to Rep. Reeve for Rep.
Patterson’s verbally attacking Rep. Reeve on the House floor. See id. (Tovar Dec at ¶ 9)
(noting that Rep. Patterson’s conduct was “disorderly, unprofessional, and nothing short of a
verbal assault on Rep. Reeve”).
In sum, rather than legislate for the collective constituents of our State and attend to
the Members’ daily lives at the Capitol, bipartisan House leadership has, unsuccessfully,
13 It was instructive to us that Rep. Patterson’s bicameral, bipartisan, and otherwise broad reputation for
untruthfulness and intimidation gave birth to an unwritten rule that personnel were never to speak with Rep. Patterson
without a witness present. This was both impactful and astonishing to us.
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
attempted to manage the untruthful, aggressive, disorderly, and unprofessional behavior of
Rep. Patterson since his first day in the Legislature. See Exhibit 25 (Campbell Dec at ¶ 12).
D. Rep. Patterson’s Conduct Toward Legislative Staff.
The legislative staff members with whom we spoke describe Rep. Patterson as a
person who “does not care about anyone around him,” is “a double personality type person,”
“in his own world,” “creepy,” “out of control,” unable to control his temper, and who is
making his fellow Democratic House Members “look like they are crazy.”14 In fact, we were
told that another special House policy necessitated by Rep. Patterson’s conduct is that no
legislative staff members are allowed to meet with Rep. Patterson alone.15 A House “on
notice” of his potential to injure others, particularly staff, puts the House and the State in the
crosshairs of civil liability for a subsequent injury. Ultimately, legislative staff members’
observations of Rep. Patterson confirm a pattern of inordinately disorderly, unprofessional,
and, at times, abusive behavior.
For example, a legislative staff member recalled having seen Rep. Patterson “freaking
out” during a committee discussion to the point that he eventually ran to his office, slammed
the door, and began “ranting and raving.” This legislative staff member noted this was
simply a “pattern” of behavior on Rep. Patterson’s part that “all of us have witnessed.”16
One legislative staff member recounted Rep. Patterson yelling at other legislators,
including Reps. Weiers and Gowan, and described Rep. Patterson as “bi-polar,” “crazy,”
“very on and off,” and “one minute really nice and the next minute very ugly” with “no in-
14 The legislative staff members with whom we spoke only agreed to do so under the condition that they would
remain anonymous due to fears of physical or professional repercussions for cooperating with this investigation. In a
criminal court context, that anonymity could not be preserved or honored. Under our circumstances, we believe that
protecting their anonymity is prudent.
15 It is impossible to know whether every legislative staff member follows this directive and it is possible that some
legislative staff members do not abide this rule. The relevant point, however, is that Rep. Patterson’s conduct has become
so alarming and perceived to be so threatening that such a directive has been put in place.
16 It is noteworthy that, according to a legislative staff member, after the Ethics Complaint was filed, Rep. Patterson
suddenly became conspicuously and uncomfortably “overly nice” to others.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
between.” This legislative staff member recalled Rep. Patterson having “random outbursts”
and a generally “aggressive attitude.”
One legislative staff member also recalled Rep. Patterson having confronted Rep.
Weiers in the hallway and accusing him of not hearing Rep. Patterson’s bills and challenging
the way that Rep. Weiers ran a committee. According to this legislative staff member, Rep.
Patterson called Rep. Weiers “unethical” during this confrontation, taking a tone described as
“heated,” “angry” and “pissed off.” Another legislative staff member recalled Rep. Patterson
stating at some point that he would “kick [Rep.] Weiers’ ass.”17 Rep. Patterson’s vitriolic
outbursts were not reserved just for Rep. Weiers or just for Republicans. A legislative staff
member described Rep. Patterson as having called other Members “fucking idiots,”
“backstabbers,” “idiot,” a “fucking baby” and “fucked up.” A legislative staff member even
recalled Rep. Patterson calling Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu – a homosexual – that “fag.”
These outbursts were done in a tone and volume obviously designed to be heard by all within
earshot.
In addition, it seems that even when Rep. Patterson interacts with legislative staff
members in a relatively civil tone, he acts unprofessionally, displays little discretion, and
demonstrates very poor judgment. For example, a legislative staff member recalls
Rep. Patterson discussing his vasectomy and explaining his sexual performance,
notwithstanding the procedure, as being “just fine.” A legislative staff member also claims
that Rep. Patterson admitted to using marijuana but disliking “tweakers” and described
having to explain to Rep. Patterson that his discussions about personal matters made the
legislative staff member “uncomfortable” and needed to cease.
Finally, a legislative staff member described Rep. Patterson having sent
correspondence to the head coach of the Michigan State University men’s basketball team.
17 It is unclear whether this statement was made during or after the aforementioned confrontation.
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This correspondence – on official House letterhead with reference to Rep. Patterson’s official
elected position and the House committees on which he served – sought free sports
memorabilia. See Exhibit 26 (Correspondence from Rep. Patterson to Mr. Tom Izzo).18
While this conduct may not constitute a violation of any ethical rules, Rep. Patterson’s use of
official House letterhead and prominent display of his position was clearly an attempt to use
his elected position in an effort to obtain something of value (autographed sports
memorabilia) without payment. While we expect this particular form of misconduct is not
unique to Rep. Patterson, it is yet another example of Rep. Patterson’s impulsive, reckless,
and self-centered behavior and general failure to consider how his actions may (i) be
perceived by others, particularly the public; or (ii) reflect on himself, the House, his fellow
legislators, and the State.
E. Rep. Patterson’s Conduct Toward Lobbyists.
Lobbyists generally avoid Rep. Patterson because of his reputation for being difficult,
unpredictable, combative, and untruthful.19
Lobbyists noted that Rep. Patterson’s non-cooperative conduct – especially when
things do not go his way – hinders his ability to do his job and garner support for his cause
(and thus effectively represent his constituents’ interests). For example, rather than
acknowledging that others may oppose his proposed legislation or have differing points of
view and working to address those concerns in advance of proposing his legislation, Rep.
18 That correspondence did not indicate that Rep. Patterson would be willing to pay for any memorabilia received. It
appears, however, that Rep. Patterson’s plea was successful, having received a Michigan State University basketball
personally autographed by Mr. Izzo that, at one time during this investigation, was viewed on Rep. Patterson’s desk in the
House chamber. According to one website, such memorabilia is valued over $300.00. See Exhibit 27 (printout from
http://auctions.cbssports.com/auctiondisplay.cfm?auctionnbr=25765 (last accessed Mar. 26, 2012)).
19 Like legislative staff members, the lobbyists with whom we spoke only agreed to do so under the condition that
they would remain anonymous due to their fear of repercussions and reprisals for cooperating with this investigation. In a
criminal court context, that anonymity could not be preserved or honored. Under our circumstances, we believe that
protecting their anonymity is prudent.
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Patterson presses his various positions regardless of whether there may be an opportunity for
compromise and without compunction lashes out at those who oppose him.
Worse yet, lobbyists who dare oppose Rep. Patterson are often harassed to the point of
taking great care to avoid him. For example, in 2009, when a lobbyist spoke in opposition to
legislation Rep. Patterson proposed, he obsessively contacted that lobbyist to request
meetings and inquire into the status of the lobbyist’s opposition to the legislation. When it
became apparent that the lobbyist unequivocally would not support Rep. Patterson’s proposed
legislation, he ignored this obvious reality and continued to request meetings after the
legislative session had ended. In fact, Rep. Patterson bombarded this lobbyist with so many
e-mails, telephone calls, and meeting requests that the lobbyist took extreme measures to
avoid Rep. Patterson whenever possible, including refusing to walk in the hallway past his
office. And on at least one occasion, Rep. Patterson’s inappropriate behavior toward a
lobbyist had arisen to such a level of harassment that the lobbyist brought the situation to the
Democratic leadership’s attention in order to end the harassment.
And finally, we were told that a lobbyist stated that Rep. Patterson indicated that he
would trade his vote on a bill for sex.
F. Prior Draft Ethics Complaints Against Rep. Patterson.
The Ethics Complaint, while it is the only one filed against Rep. Patterson, it is not the
only such complaint that has been drafted for filing. In fact, in 2011, at least two House
Members, based on separate and distinct facts, independently drafted ethics complaints
against Rep. Patterson based on his pattern of disorderly conduct, inordinately aggressive
behavior, potential criminal acts, and inordinately offensive exchanges with other Members.
Specifically, in April, 2011, Rep. Proud, based on Rep. Patterson’s acts of domestic
violence, criminal record, and disorderly conduct against another legislator, drafted an ethics
complaint. See Exhibit 28 (Proud Dec. at ¶ 8; Exhibit A (Proud Ethics Complaint)).
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Separately, in May 2011, Rep. Chabin prepared a complaint asking the House Ethics
Committee to investigate Rep. Patterson’s violation of the House Rules, specifically Rule 1,
due to his disorderly behavior and based on Rep. Chabin’s knowledge of Rep. Patterson’s
pattern of inappropriate behavior – from his criminal history to specific inappropriate
encounters with other Members, including Reps. Farley and Farnsworth. See Exhibit 24
(Chabin Dec. at ¶ 6; Exhibit A (Chabin Ethics Complaint)).
But, because of the political concerns of those involved in the altercations with Rep.
Patterson, Reps. Chabin and Proud ultimately chose not to file their separate ethics
Complaints. See Exhibit 28 (Proud Dec. at ¶ 9); Exhibit 24 (Chabin Dec. at ¶ 8).
G. Rep. Patterson’s Apparent Willful Violation Of Court Order And Successful
Post-Ethics Complaint Manipulation Of Ms. Georgette Escobar In An
Apparent Effort To End This Investigation.
Rep. Patterson has displayed a clear willingness to shun authority, from ignoring the
House Rules to, it appears, ignoring court orders. For example, in connection with certain
criminal charges, a city court issued an order requiring, among other things, that Rep.
Patterson have “no contact of any kind” with the alleged victim (Ms. Escobar) or leave
Arizona without court permission. See Exhibit 29 (Court Order and Conditions of Release).
It seems that, according to prosecutors, Mr. Patterson has willfully violated that court order
by contacting Ms. Escobar. See Exhibit 30 (City’s Petition to Revoke Release). Moreover,
Rep. Patterson may also have left Arizona without court permission, also violating a court
order. We understand that on March 29, 2012, Mr. Patterson had the Department of Public
Safety drive him to the airport. According to Rep. Patterson, he has gone on vacation. See
Exhibit 31 (Tweet from Rep. Patterson dated March 29, 2012). If that vacation is outside
Arizona, and if the court did not grant him permission to leave, then he may have violated a
court order.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In addition, throughout this investigation, Rep. Patterson showed a fundamental
misunderstanding of the Ethics Complaint and the gravity of his general pattern of
inappropriate behavior. Incorrectly focusing only on the allegations of Ms. Escobar as the
sole and only justification for the Ethics Complaint, Rep. Patterson likely engaged in an effort
to manipulate Ms. Escobar in what he thought would thwart or otherwise impede our
investigation. Our review of emails and our interview of Rep. Patterson revealed evidence
that he likely managed to successfully manipulate, force, forge, or otherwise improperly
influence Ms. Escobar, to recant her allegations of domestic violence by facilitating (if not
himself crafting) a public statement posted on Ms. Escobar’s Facebook page. The import of
this disturbing behavior is that it corroborates Rep. Patterson’s pattern of deception, poor
decision-making, and willingness to stop at nothing – even if it means possibly violating a court
order or tampering with a witness – to get what he wants.
It is undeniable that some type of a dispute occurred between Rep. Patterson and Ms.
Escobar. See Exhibit 32 (Various media reports); Exhibit 8 (Order of Protection); Exhibits
10-11 (City of Tucson Court dockets); Exhibit 7 (Police Report). In fact, correspondence
from Rep. Patterson to Ms. Escobar appears to support the conclusion that a dispute occurred
between them. See Exhibit 33 (text message from Rep. Patterson to Georgette Escobar dated
March 13, 2012, stating “Pls call me. I’m not against you. Love Daniel.”); Exhibit 34 (e-mail
from Rep. Patterson to Georgette Escobar dated February 16, 2012 and stating, in part,
“Please call or come home. I love you and we can work it out”). In fact, until March 25,
2012, Ms. Escobar told the media, investigators, and the world that Rep. Patterson had
physically and mentally abused her through an avalanche of e-mails, telephone calls,
voicemails, and media statements in which she repeatedly announced her severe emotional
and physical distress due to Rep. Patterson. See Exhibit 35 (E-mail from Georgette Escobar
to Rep. Patterson dated February 17, 2012 and forwarded to Chairman Vogt on March 13,
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2012); Exhibit 36 (E-mail from Georgette Escobar to Ted Vogt dated March 18, 2012);
Exhibit 32 (The Main Stream, Patterson denies allegations on camera, February 28, 2012);
Exhibit 37 (voice mail message from Ms. Escobar); see also
http://www.azfamily.com/video/yahoo-video/Democrats-call-for-Ariz-lawmaker-to-resign-
140615493.html (last accessed March 28, 2012) (Ms. Escobar describing Rep. Patterson’s
alleged physical abuse). Also, on March 24, Ms. Escobar sent the following to the Tucson
City Prosecutor handling the criminal action based on Ms. Escobar’s allegations of abuse:
I wanted to alert you that I am overwhelmed by the illegal tactics and threats of
the defendant who is scaring people from offering me any meaningful assistantce
[sic]. I am being taken to the hospital to be admitted as impatient for
undetermined amount of time for the ptsd and anxiety disorder already suffering
from and made much worse under the circumstances. I hope to be able to
participate in your next court proceedings either telephonically or via skype or
other modes that dont [sic] require my personal presence within 1000 miles of
Daniel Patterson and his cronies.
See Exhibit 38 (E-mail from Georgette Escobar to MJ Raciti dated March 24, 2012).
Yet, despite Ms. Escobar’s unequivocal statements to multiple sources about Rep.
Patterson’s abuse, she allegedly suddenly recanted her position in a too succinctly crafted
Facebook post:
March 25, 2012
Statement of Georgette Escobar about Daniel Patterson
I had a breakdown recently. I’m now stabilized and working on getting better.
Daniel Patterson never hit or committed domestic violence against me. I never
needed an order of protection against him. I’m sorry.
I disagree with the ethics complaint, investigation and charges against him. He
should be found innocent.
Georgette Escobar
See Exhibit 39 (print out from http://www.facebook.com/#!/georgette.escobar (last accessed
March 27, 2012)). This sudden change in position is most puzzling given Ms. Escobar’s
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
apparent need to tell her story and, according to her, get as far away from Rep. Patterson as
possible. Most notably, on the day before Ms. Escobar recanted her allegations of violence
against Rep. Patterson, Ms. Escobar exchanged e-mail correspondence with Channel 12 news
anchor Brahm Resnik –– wherein she stated:
I am suffering from extreme trauma from Daniel’s violence, threats, and stalking
behavior.
See Exhibit 40 (Blog report incorporating email from Ms. Escobar to Brahm Resnik); see
also http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/Brahm1700/158346 (last accessed March 28,
2012). She expressed the same sentiments to us in a brief discussions that occurred on
Friday, March 23, 2012. This, combined with her written correspondence in which she
desperately sought to speak with us regarding our investigation, makes Ms. Escobar’s recant
all the more suspicious. See Exhibit 37 (transcription of voicemail messages to Ms. Danelle
G. Kelling and Ms. Sharon W. Ng); Exhibit 41 (E-mail from Georgette Escobar to Ted Vogt
dated March 24, 2012) (“please alert them” – meaning this Firm – “that due to the extreme
and outrageous continuing course of conduct, I am being hospitalized for the horrific anxiety,
trauma, and ptsd issues I already had but got very aggravated by the continued abuse”). It is
noteworthy that, to our knowledge, Ms. Escobar has not spoken with or otherwise engaged in
any communication with anyone who can validate her recantation since it was posted on
Facebook on March 25, 2012.
During our interview with Rep. Patterson, we asked him whether he authored Ms.
Escobar’s Facebook recantation. After a lengthy, awkward silence, Rep. Patterson first
answered that this issue had no bearing on the Ethics Complaint because Ms. Escobar’s
recantation occurred after the Ethics Complaint was filed. We insisted that he answer. Then,
upon advice of his counsel in the criminal action related to Ms. Escobar’s allegations, Rep.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Patterson declined to answer the question because of a “pending motion” related to his
alleged violation of a court order prohibiting him from contacting Ms. Escobar.
The calm and clarity of the alleged recantation, its peculiar timing, coupled with Rep.
Patterson’s evasiveness, refusal to answer the question, and the very odd basis of his refusal
to answer our question strongly indicates inculpatory misconduct in connection with the
alleged recantation. It seems obvious that he somehow forged, forced, or cajoled Ms.
Escobar to recant her abuse allegations in an effort to end this investigation. This only further
highlights Rep. Patterson’s failure to understand that his relationship with Ms. Escobar is not
the outer limit of this investigation and his apparent success in forcing her to recant her
allegations fails to remedy the myriad of other professional misbehavior that has plagued Mr.
Patterson and the since his arrival.
H. Rep. Patterson’s Limited Cooperation With This Investigation.
We interviewed Rep. Patterson telephonically on March 28, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. This
was the only time he would make himself available at a mutually convenient time and place
before our report was due for submission to the House Ethics Committee. We offered to
meet with Rep. Patterson again before the report’s deadline and gave him the option to submit
written statements to us. He refused because he was going to be busy with legislative affairs
and would be traveling. He did not reveal to us, however, that he was about to leave on a
“vacation.” It is beyond peculiar that Rep. Patterson would not have devoted some of his
“vacation” time to an investigation so momentous to his public service.
Initially, Rep. Patterson would only allow us 30 minutes to speak with him, provided
his legal counsel in his two domestic violence actions could be present.20 That said, Rep.
20 Rep. Patterson requested that his two attorneys, David Lipartito and Joe St. Louis, be a part of the interview
insofar as we had questions with respect to the pending litigation involving Ms. Schaffer and Ms. Escobar. Mr. Lipartito
represents Rep. Patterson in connection with litigation pertaining to Ms. Schaffer. Mr. St. Louis represents Rep. Patterson
in connection with litigation pertaining to Ms. Escobar. Neither represent him in connection with this investigation.
According to Rep. Patterson, he has no legal counsel in connection with this investigation.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Patterson allowed us to speak with him for approximately one and one quarter of an hour. Of
course, that was nowhere near enough time to discuss the myriad of allegations made against
him concerning his pattern of untruthfulness and disorderly, inappropriate, and threatening
behavior. But, eager to hear Rep. Patterson’s version of events and seek his defenses, we did
our absolute best with the very limited time given us.21
Prior to his interview, Rep. Patterson and we exchanged several e-mails wherein Rep.
Patterson (i) claimed not to understand the scope of our investigation, and (ii) attempted to
unilaterally narrow the scope of our investigation. See Exhibit 2 (E-mail exchanges between
Rep. Patterson and Michael C. Manning). Of course, we carefully and completely explained
the scope of our investigative charge to Rep. Patterson. See id. This behavior continued into
our questioning of Rep. Patterson, with him often complaining that our questions were
outside the scope of the Ethics Complaint and that he still had no understanding of the scope
of our investigation.
When asked to articulate what “due process” rights he felt were being, or had been,
violated by this investigation, Rep. Patterson stated that he was concerned about the “rushed
nature” of the investigation and that in the process, he was not afforded his “due process”
rights. When we asked him specifically to define what he meant by “due process” rights,
Rep. Patterson was unable to coherently respond. And, his legal counsel remained silent.
Rep. Patterson merely stated that it was inappropriate to conduct this investigation while the
Tucson criminal action is ongoing because the criminal action somehow interfered with his
ability to speak freely with us. In the end, Rep. Patterson could not articulate any specific due
process associated with this investigation, the House Rules governing this process, or any
other law or authority he is due but being denied.
21 We offered to meet with Rep. Patterson again before the report’s deadline and gave him the option to submit a
written statement to us. He refused.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
We also queried Rep. Patterson in connection with (i) Ms. Schaffer’s and Ms.
Escobar’s allegations of domestic abuse, (ii) Rep. Patterson’s alleged drug use,
(iii) allegations pertaining to Rep. Patterson’s aggressive and hostile conduct at the
Legislature, and (iv) several potentially mitigating and “exculpatory” factors that might
explain his pattern of disorderly, dishonest, and threatening misconduct. Our discussion,
though short, was telling. For example:
· Rep. Patterson refused to fully discuss his alleged abuse of Ms. Schaffer
and Ms. Escobar.
· Rep. Patterson made it appear that he either authored Ms. Escobar’s
Facebook recantation or intimidated her into making the post – actions
that, arguably, may have violated a court order and/or involved witness
tampering.
· Rep. Patterson denied using cocaine and methamphetamines, yet when
asked whether he was a frequent user of marijuana, stated that the
question fell outside the scope of the investigation, violated his
constitutional right to privacy, and refused to answer.
· Rep. Patterson denied telling a lobbyist that he would give his vote in
exchange for sexual favors from that lobbyist.
· With respect to other “quid pro quo” allegations concerning trading votes
with other Legislators, Rep. Patterson stated that there is nothing unethical
about “exchanging support.”
· Rep. Patterson stated that he did not recollect Democratic leadership, or
anyone, ever counseling him on misbehavior or asking him to apologize
for his indecorous conduct toward others.
· Rep. Patterson stated that he had never left the House floor during “Third
Read” votes.
· Rep. Patterson stated that he had never had to be pulled off the House
Floor by his colleagues.
· Rep. Patterson stated that he was never asked to leave the Floor, caucus,
or committee hearings. Instead, he stated that he had a right to debate and
that his style of debate differed from other Members.
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
· Rep. Patterson stated he is completely deaf in his right ear, which might
cause him to lean in close to hear others and that disability might cause
other Members to believe Rep. Patterson was invading their space for a
hostile purpose.
· Rep. Patterson refused to provide information as to whether he was taking
any medication for anxiety, anger, or mental health-management
purposes, stating that the question was personal and not relevant to the
investigation. We only explored this uncomfortable issue because we
believed that a medically unmanaged mental health issue might be
exculpatory of his misconduct.
· Rep. Patterson generally denied he ever acted in the manner that multiple
of his peers – on both sides of the aisle – witnessed.
· Rep. Patterson stated, on multiple occasions, that he never violated any
House Rules or Ethics Rules.
Moreover, Rep. Patterson indicated that certain Legislators “had it out for him,”
including Reps. Farley, Hobbs, and Campbell. Rep. Patterson stated that Rep. Farley had
been running around the Legislature stating that he was going to “throw Rep. Patterson out.”
Accordingly, Rep. Patterson claims, Rep. Farley should not sit on the Ethics Committee.
Rep. Patterson stated that Rep. Hobbs was politically motivated in pushing the Ethics
Complaint forward because she is a crusader against what she “perceives” as domestic
violence and that she needed the additional political capital because she is running for a
Senate position against a popular incumbent. Rep. Patterson also complained that Rep.
Hobbs failed to approach him to substantiate the claims of domestic violence against him.
And, perhaps most telling, Rep. Patterson outlined what he perceives as a conspiracy against
him, complaining that Rep. Campbell and the “Phoenix Democrats” were trying to replace
Rep. Patterson because he was of “independent” mind and did not bow to the Democratic
Party’s instructions. Thus, he opined, the group clearly wants to replace him with someone
who will do whatever he or she is told without question.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In the end, our too-brief discussion with Rep. Patterson’s revealed that he is unwilling
or unable to grasp the gravity of his behavior. To blame the Ethics Complaint, political
pressures, or claim his Caucus seeks a less “independent” colleague, is without support based
upon our investigation. Rep. Patterson’s excessive and chronic misbehavior clearly spreads
House-wide and continues to negatively impact Republican and Democratic Members and his
constituents. His reputation for untruthfulness, intimidation, explosiveness, and unreliability
effectively leaves his District without representation in the House. He otherwise impairs the
legislative process effecting all other Districts, and thus, Arizona as a whole. His evasiveness
and refusal to completely cooperate with this investigation truly corroborates his reputation as
non-cooperative and belligerent toward those he perceives as not completely aligned with his
position. His refusal to acknowledge whether he frequently uses marijuana while readily
denying the use of other illegal substances raises a strong inference that he, in fact, frequently
uses marijuana – another in a long line of poor decisions that surely affect his ability to be an
effective legislator. His insistence that not one time has he ever been questioned or cautioned
about his outbursts or behavior fully collapses beneath the weight of the sworn statements
supplied with this report. And, the fact that Rep. Patterson so readily denied having access to
Ms. Escobar’s Facebook account but flatly refused to answer whether he authored her
purported recantation of her domestic abuse claims which were posted on her Facebook page
is highly suspect and, at a minimum, makes both his complicity in securing that recantation
and its lack of authenticity far too probable.
Rep. Patterson simply lacks any credibility with regard to the allegations of
misconduct outlined in this report and has failed to provide us with any reason to believe that
the sworn allegations made against him in the various Declarations presented with this report
and our other witness statements are inaccurate or over-stated.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of March, 2012.
Mi~' ..
cra~ATorgan
~--4.-""'~~~-
Sharon W.r::;
33