Scott Bundgaard

March 19, 2014

Dear Editor:

Imagine a woman beaten up while driving in a car. Police respond and see the blood, scrapes, bruises and ripped clothing and document her as the victim after an investigation at the scene.

Within weeks, stories change, police documents are ‘lost’, police reports are altered or hidden, police exclude key witnesses and the woman loses her victim status. The man who beat her is released and never prosecuted.

Would you be outraged? Would this turn of events be scrutinized by the media? Would this injustice earn demands for investigations of key city officials? How would you feel about the plight of this woman?

Now imagine that the 'woman’ is a white, conservative man who is the Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate.
Any outrage?
Any media scrutiny of the abuser or her false accusations?
Any scrutiny of key city leaders?
How do you feel about the plight of this man?

Based on the recent media coverage of the lawsuit against Aubry Ballard and the City of Phoenix that has been settled by me, the bias of your newspaper is glaring while your reporters and columnists are lazy partisans.

In the end, I’ve been vindicated due to a confidential financial settlement agreement with Aubry Ballard.

March 15, 2014

Following is a statement from former State Senator Scott Bundgaard:

“After two years of litigation, I’ve achieved vindication. I never wavered from my claims of innocence against the false allegations from Aubry Ballard and corrupt city officials. As a result, I recently reached a confidential settlement agreement with Ms. Ballard. 

Therefore, I have decided to drop my claims against the City of Phoenix. The attorneys for the City made it clear that they would continue to use taxpayer dollars to outspend me in legal fees until I was forced to give up my claims. I could not afford to continue battling for justice while the city avoided accountability and funded their defense with unlimited taxpayer dollars.

We achieved what we set out to prove as we got access to documents that show the collusion and cover up was worse than we suspected. The city mayor and his paid publicist used these distortions to destroy my reputation purely for political purposes. These actions were enabled by the false accusations of one woman.

My wife and I are satisfied with the vindication, relieved that this matter is now behind us, and excited about the many happy years ahead of us.”

Please see www.scottbundgaard.com for more information.

###

Rancho El Refugio and i6eight: Helped build a school and homes in Ensenada, Ojos Negros, Puerto Peñasco, MX, 2007-2012

Tu Nidito Children & Family Services: Ride for a Child event fundraiser, “Highest Money-Raiser” Conquistador Trophy, 2011 and 2012

National Kidney Foundation of Arizona: Dancing with the Stars event fundraiser, 2011

StreetLightPHX: Advisory board member, 2010-2011

The Commission on Presidential Scholars: Member, Appointed by President of the United States, 2001-2010

The Presidential Scholars Foundation: Member, Appointed by President of the United States, 2004-2010

Arizona Opera League: Opera Ball fundraising chair, 2003

Arizona Project Challenge (Boot camp for at-risk youth run by National Guard): Mentor, 2003-2005

The Phoenix Business Journal: “40 Under 40” Award, 2001

International Reading Association: “Celebrate Literacy Award” for promotion of literacy and education, 2001

MatchPoint/MentorKidsUSA: Board member/Mentor, faith-based mentoring org for at-risk kids, 1998-2002

Arizona Telecom Association: “Wireless Man of the Year”Award, 2001

Arizona Technology Council: “Arizona Tech 10” Award,2000

Arizona Leukemia/Lymphoma Society: “Man of the Year” Award, 2000

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation: “Arizona’s Finest Fundraiser” Award, 1999

American Legion: “Distinguished Legislator” Award, 1999

Arizona Film Commission: Board member, 1997-2002

Pioneer Arizona Living History Museum: Board member, 1995-2001

Heartland Institute: Board member, legislative public policy think tank, Washington, D.C., 1995-2002

Parks & Recreation: Youth Basketball & Soccer Coach/Soccer Referee, “Coach of the Year, 1994”,1991-1994

Rotaract (Collegiate level of Rotary Club International): Founding Director - Grand Canyon University, 1989

(Source: scottbundgaard.com)

On the night I was assaulted by Aubry Ballard, with almost one dozen Phoenix police officers dispatched to the scene, I was named the victim of Domestic Violence Assault, having been visibly assaulted based on the bloody fat lip, fresh black eye, and wet cuts and scratches.  Clearly, I did not inflict this damage to myself.  

This Victim Rights pamphlet was given to me by PPD Officer Randall Patterson.  I was then released, because, after a police investigation, I was named the “victim” as stated in police reports.  The woman was charged with Assault and taken to jail.  Some have wrongly stated that I used legislative immunity to escape being charged.  However, since I was named the “victim” of assault, from what charge was I seeking immunity?

Within days, I received the following letter from the City of Phoenix Office of the City Prosecutor, Victim Services, which states that I had been assigned a Victim Rights Advocate and that a criminal charge of Domestic Violence Assault had been filed against the woman who assaulted me.

To reiterate:

1. I was named the victim by Phoenix police that night.
2. The woman who assaulted me was arrested, charged and taken to jail.
3. A Victim’s Rights pamphlet was given to me by Phoenix police that night.
4. The City of Phoenix Prosecutor mailed a letter to me that assigned a Victim Rights Advocate to me.

So what changed?  Politics.  

No investigation was conducted at the scene, because it was clear I had been physically assaulted by an intoxicated woman.  

Once Democrat Mayor Phil Gordon got involved, his PR guy who was paid using City of Phoenix taxpayer funds pursued me - the Majority Leader of the State Senate - aggressively.  Police reports were altered, new reports were created over the next three weeks and a few key reports and witnesses that were helpful to me were hidden or “lost”.

Political adversaries worked hard to destroy me publicly, both personally and professionally.  It should be noted that I was working with Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio to increase transparency in city government contracting state-wide, in light of a recent scandal where Mayor Phil Gordon gave his then-girlfriend a multi-million dollar transportation contract.

As a result of dirty politics, intense media pressure and my inability to afford an expensive, public court battle, I eventually agreed to plead “no contest” to a charge of pulling over on the wrong side of the road that night, after I had been struck repeatedly by a violent, drunk woman.  Within a few days, assault charges against this woman were dropped and she agreed to cooperate fully with Mayor Gordon’s PR guy - David Leibowitz - in lying to the public. Thankfully, her public statements and interviews with Phoenix Police have been compared to show how frequently she changed her story. And, a former boyfriend of hers came forward with a similar story about her unstable condition and enlightened us about her history of drug and alcohol abuse and a work history that would make most blush. 

A lawsuit was filed against the City of Phoenix and other defendants (read the Notice of Claim), because it is never right to use the force and power of government to destroy someone intentionally and maliciously for political gain.  Hopefully, one has the money to fight the government, because the government has deep pockets of taxpayer funds to fight anything for any amount of time.

I asked the Arizona Republic, the Arizona Capitol Times and other newspapers to print my side of the story at the point I was no longer under the ‘gag’ order that was ordered by the court.  The media had taken every opportunity to distort the facts without any significant response from me.  I had hoped they would act reasonably and allow a thoughtful response from me.  But the truth is not news.  Following is the letter the newspapers would not publish.

Posted: Friday, April 8, 2011 8:20 am

By Jeanette Dubreil

When it comes to State Senator Scott Bundgaard, the media has certainly exercised a key right: free speech.

But it is grossly violating another: the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

I know Scott to be a good person, overwhelmingly elected by voters, now caught up in a highly unfortunate series of events. Scott will be proven innocent and should not resign. Voters and juries ought to decide Scott’s fate, not journalists.

Scott has a life-long history of working with young people in our community - as a basketball coach, as a Bible school teacher, as a mentor to at-risk kids. His good character is well-known in our community.

Scott has NEVER hit or pushed any woman. Would a person who has done that to any woman say that publicly at the risk of a ‘real’ victim coming forward? Does anyone really believe that the then-State Senate Majority Leader started beating on his date while driving 60 miles per hour on a freeway, then stopping on that freeway to resume “beating the crap out of her” for all to see? And knowing that his parents were driving behind him? And his sister and friend driving behind his parents?

I read the police reports. They are built upon guesses and suppositions. The police reports conflict, officer testimonies are inconsistent and key facts have been intentionally omitted or embellished. The public is making judgments based on these guesses, omissions and inconsistencies.

Consider this:

• Phoenix police named Scott as the “victim” in the police reports, because there was visible proof that she had physically assaulted him. The city prosecutor’s office assigned to Scott a “victim advocate.” His date was booked into jail!
• Police failed to report the involvement of a gun, then publicly denied it, but now acknowledge it.
• Why did police intentionally decline to interview witnesses who would testify as to his date’s level of intoxication and her ‘jealous’ mindset at the charity event? I listened to the 911 recording and heard the off-duty officer state “could be she was drunk.” Why did police decline to interview witnesses who would testify that Scott had not been drinking?
• The media interviewed a woman who had a recent 2.5-year relationship with Scott. They remain friends. She - and her parents - spoke to his good character, loving heart and his faith. Why didn’t these members of the media report this?
• The media has over scrutinized Scott and probed his life. But why haven’t they probed the police “investigation” of this incident? And if Scott had done something wrong, as they now allege, why didn’t they book him under the exceptions to legislative immunity that exist in Arizona’s Constitution? And if he had committed assault, why did they return his gun to him in their evidence bag?
• Scott has been asked why he didn’t bring up the involvement of a gun earlier. He did. And the police returned it to him that night, which was proper procedure for the person who is named the VICTIM in a domestic violence assault, according to state law (ARS 13-3601).

Remember it was Scott who was physically assaulted while driving on the freeway; it was Scott who prevented the jealous, intoxicated woman from jumping out of a moving vehicle; it was Scott who prevented the desperate, intoxicated woman from driving off, which saved the lives of others, and it was Scott who called for help before police arrived.

In light of these issues, it is unconscionable that the media continues to deprive Scott of the due process he deserves under our justice system. This is more about the politics of personal destruction than it is about telling the truth about a good man who has been a solid leader in our community. 

Jeanette Dubreil Chairman, Legislative District 4, Arizona Republican Party

What story would be complete without some intrigue and conspiracy theories?

Take a step back for a moment. Remember, I was being accused of “domestic violence” by Ms. Harwell, because I “took some things” off of her computer. I wish it was that simple.

Here are those “things” I found on her computer. It shocked me to my core.

1. First instant messages:

Ex-boyfriend John suggesting that he and Ms. Harwell quietly stay in touch “post marriage”.

The over-use of adorable pet names for each other: Annikins and Johnikins.

The exchange of thoughtful lamentations about what could have been…

2. Second instant messages: 

The over-use of childish pet names for each other: Annikins and Johnikins.

Annikins believes that her newish husband (me) is gay.

She believes that he - being me - was involved with Congressman Mark Foley, a gay Republican (whom I’ve never met).

She believes that President George W. Bush is gay.

She believes that Karl Rove, his presidential advisor, is gay.

She said I was invited to AZ Congressman Jim Kolbe’s ranch for a “get together” with then-SC Rep. Lindsay Graham. Rep. Kolbe is also gay, but I had never been to his ranch. Apparently I was going to start a lobbying business with Rep. Kolbe. (I can’t even explain this nonsense, but let’s continue.)

Johnnikins - the ex-boyfriend - is hoping that they can “lobby the homos into a trap to kill them all” and “rounded up and slaughtered”.

Annikins is now worried that she knows this stuff and believes that I would use my friends in “high places” to kill her and her family. Can’t make this stuff up.

NOTE: Admittedly, I’ve been accused of being gay in political campaigns only, because I worked at the Gap in college and was “thin, neat and single” for a long period of time, but I digress. #Seinfeld

…and now they both want to beat me up. “I’d like to see you pummel his sorry ass.”

And THAT is but a taste of the kind of nut job to whom I was briefly married. Eight months into our marriage, I found this second group of messages during a point we were together attempting to reconcile the marriage. Understandably, I agreed to end the marriage soon thereafter.

The media used this unstable woman as a source to support their political agenda against me.

There’s always more to the story…and if the media has an agenda, that part of the story never gets reported.

Many people understand that stuff happens in marriage, especially when two individuals are suddenly thrust together and told to become one, unselfish couple in a brand new marriage! 

A few weeks after Ms. Harwell filed a court action to dissolve our marriage, for reasons unknown to me, I worked to stay in touch with her and her family in an attempt to understand her heart, to fix our new marriage and to reconcile whatever issues existed. She eventually responded to me with this email. 

She admits that there was misunderstanding, that there was no intention by anyone to be hurtful, that she had some attitudes and actions she needed to deal with. I offer this, because the media intentionally painted a false portrait of me to the public, in an attempt to manipulate public sentiment against me for political reasons.

Maybe this email will help balance the false allegations and the purposeful lies told about me for the mere prospect of political gain.

Once I learned that she had been conspiring with an ex-boyfriend, Ms. Harwell ditched this attitude…so read the next post for a more complete picture. 

The Arizona Republic falsely alleged that I had a “history” of domestic violence.

Check out the transcript from a deposition where my then-wife made comments as to what she considered to be domestic violence. To reiterate, I don’t have a history of violence, let alone domestic violence. Heck, I’ve never even been in a fist fight. 

In March 2006, I married Ms. Anne Harwell under Arizona Covenant Marriage law. After 2.5 weeks of marriage, Ms. Harwell secretly and abruptly abandoned me in Hawaii while on our honeymoon. However, she left a hand-written note stating that she was remaining on the island “for counseling.” Where was I? I was at the grocery store getting items for our picnic to the beach that day. Evil, right? Meanwhile, she was on a flight headed to Atlanta to return to live with her parents. I called the police to report her missing, because her behavior was shocking and unexpected. And it was our honeymoon! Within days and without explanation, she filed an action to overturn our covenant marriage.

To end a covenant marriage, one must prove to the court only ONE of eight causes for dissolution:

• adultery
  
• felony
  
• abandonment for one year
  
• abuse/domestic violence
  
• separation for two years
  
• legal separation
  
• regular alcohol/drug abuse
  
• mutual divorce agreement
  

NONE of those conditions existed, so Ms. Harwell - after almost one year of marriage - made something up: domestic violence. Why? Because she suddenly determined that domestic violence exists when one takes a document from a spouse’s computer. Read for yourself how Ms. Harwell constitutes domestic violence. Her definition makes a mockery of all the individuals who experience actual sexual violence or domestic violence. #MeToo

Do you know what document I had found while sitting next to her and using her computer? It’s in the next post. It’s a sickening dialogue between her and her ex-boyfriend - the guy who suggested two weeks before our wedding that she leave me so that they could resume being together. Does this feel like the movie, Gone Girl?