10 Nov 7th-Nov 13th, 2024 phoenixnewtimes.com PHOENIX NEW TIMES | NEWS | FEATURE | FOOD & DRINK | ARTS & CULTURE | MUSIC | CONCERTS | CANNABIS | how can she run MCAO?” Gagic told New Times that he didn’t know the Texas Stout was a different person, but he was trying to find out if it was. “I didn’t say it was Rachel Mitchell’s fiance. I just said, ‘Is this the guy?’” he explained, adding, “If I knew he was Paul H. Stout, I wouldn’t have done it.” Albrecht ruled against Gagic’s argument that “adding a question mark to some of the accusations” absolved them of being accu- sations, finding that Gagic’s posts on the subject were not “entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.” Stout filed the petition for an injunction in August, saying that he feared for his safety and reputation and became with- drawn. Though the two men had never met in person before the hearings on the injunction, Stout nonetheless checked a box on the injunction form that instructed Gagic to stay away from Stout’s residence and to not possess any firearms while the injunction is in effect. Stout said he checked the box because he knew Gagic was a former Marine and assumed he might have firearms. Stout also testified that Mitchell helped him draft the complaint against Gagic. A pre-hearing filing made by Stout’s counsel listed Mitchell as a possible witness for Stout, but the county attorney was a no-show. Through county attorney spokesperson Jeanine L’Ecuyer, Mitchell declined to speak to New Times. However, L’Ecuyer said, “No County dollars have been expended on this matter.” Injunction granted The injunction was granted on Aug. 22 and ordered Gagic to have no contact with Stout “in person, electronic, digital or … through third parties.” The injunction also instructed Gagic to “cease posting or remove” all social media posts consisting of “lewd, obscene or profane remarks” or personal attacks that “do not convey a message that is of public interest.” Gagic still “may comment on ideas posted by Mr. Stout.” Gagic challenged the injunction and represented himself at the hearing. Stout was represented by Christopher Rapp, Lesli Sorenson and Andrew Pacheco of the Phoenix firm Ryan Rapp Pacheco and Sorenson. Notably, Pacheco is a former bureau chief with the county attorney’s office and was once the chief of the crim- inal division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. The law firm is also listed as an approved vendor with Maricopa County, with a contract allowing the firm to charge anywhere from $150 to $340 per hour for legal fees. Rapp and Pacheco have donated to Mitchell’s re-election campaign, each giving $500 a piece. Both men gave more to Mitchell during the 2022 cycle, when she was running in a special election to replace former county attorney Allister Adel. Pacheco donated $1,500 to Mitchell that year, while Rapp donated $1,000. The firm declined a request for comment. Albrecht ultimately ruled against Gagic’s effort to quash the injunction, claiming that it was content-neutral and did not implicate his First Amendment rights. Albrecht’s ruling makes no mention of Stout’s claim to be Mitchell’s fiance. Gagic is appealing the decision. Meanwhile, he has seen some vindication in the case that caused the State Bar to penalize him and for which Stout attacked him online. Though a judge in February sentenced former Gagic client Jamaal Pennington to 30 years for sexual conduct with a minor, the Arizona Republic previ- ously reported that the now-adult female victim in the case says Pennington never touched her. Pennington’s conviction is now before the Arizona Court of Appeals. In its response to Pennington’s appeal, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office conceded in a brief to the court that “pros- ecutorial error” occurred when the county attorney “presented arguments that were factually incorrect.” As a result, the Mayes’ office concluded that “Pennington should receive a new trial for his sexual-conduct-with-a-minor-charge.” The appeals court has yet to rule, but Gagic is unconvinced that it will do the right thing in Pennington’s case. Before that case, Gagic had been an attorney for 20 years with no prior history of discipline from the bar. He now believes the bar did Mitchell’s bidding in sanctioning him and that the injunction from Stout is another effort to shut him up. Gagic’s suspension has ended, though he has not applied for reinstatement. He’s fighting Stout’s injunction for the same reason he popped off about the judges in Pennington’s case — he wanted a fair day in court. “I’m not saying he’s innocent,” Gagic said of Pennington. “I’m just saying give him a chance to prove he’s not guilty. Know what I mean?” Suspended attorney Vladimir Gagic feuded with Paul Stout online but didn’t meet him in person until Gagic questioned Stout in court at an injunction hearing in September. (Vladimir Gagic X Account) Keyboard Warrior from p 8
