UPDATE!! A major TV station in Phoenix, KPHO TV did a story on Judge Hinson! It aired Thursday, February 26, on the 10 pm news. (Cut and paste this link into your browser. http://www.uploadho.com/files/1235628097.mp4 ) You can see a flash of anger in Judge Hinson's eyes as he steps toward the reporter. It looks like Judge Hinson is going to punch the guy! Have any of you attorneys seen this before?
You can read the print version of that report on the KPHO website. Here's the link to their video.
Staffers of Arizona Representatives and Senators: You can click here to skip directly to the preamble and complaint.
Update: Mixing metaphors, there has been quite a firestorm of press coverage since KPHO TV burst the dam with their promo and news report. Here is the story from The Daily Courier. And one from Prescottenews. I see Judge Hinson issued a press release Friday and is pulling a "Blago." And his friends with him. Anyone know Bill O'Reilly at FoxNews?
This got me wondering... if there were no Quarterly audits, would Judge Hinson ever have closed out those long overdue matters? What would have been his motivation to do so?
Journalists, if there are any questions as to the veracity of the facts, may I suggest you check the "alleged" facts for yourselves? I didn't make them up. The records are available for public viewing in Jeanne Hicks' office at the Yavapai County Courthouse. Do the cross check for yourselves. On the days Judge Hinson swore there were no cases overdue (nor would there be any pending), Jeanne Hicks found there were. Either she's lying or Judge Hinson is lying. (Or is that too strong in a P.C. world? "Falsifing." Sounds better.) He had motive to lie. She did not. I've done the hard work for you. Take in my Exhibit 1 and pull his Certs marked with X's on the chart and compare them to her audit. You'll see my copies are true and accurate.
[Not to get distracted, but Journalists: my motives, honorable or dishonorable, are not the story here. Judge Hinson's numerous egregious violations of our Constitution and the rights of his litigants, his defacto violations of law and perjuries are the story here. I am not an elected official. The voters need to know about him. Not about me.]
I have received a few more tips about Judge Hinson in preparation for a second complaint of judicial misconduct. Thank you all.
In particular, I have two reports about failing to recuse. This is a legitimate matter for the Commission, as it involves partiality when the Code of Conduct requires impartiality. So callers, if you're reading this, if you can prove to me (and the Commission) that Judge Hinson knew the individual, you've got a valid complaint. [An affidavit is proof. If you, or someone else, can attest that Judge Hinson knew the party at trial, you've got a case. If counsel moved for recusal so that it is in the record, it's double worse if he was asked to recuse but didn't.] Please send me the details with documentation and I'll take it from there. See my instructions in the post below for how to upload documents to me. Motions for recusal are public record... no one has to know you sent them to me. I could have found them myself.
I also have a report that Judge Hinson admitted in court to not reading a motion but denying it anyway! THAT is exactly what's needed for a good Complaint. Caller, if you'll send me the pages of the transcript, I'll do the rest.
As far as other comments I've received, about how Judge Hinson is unfair, biased about divorce, etc., I believe you. But please understand that the Commission on Judicial Conduct has a very narrow scope and is also somewhat blind. As to their scope, they cannot change a judge's ruling, no matter how baseless his ruling may be. Except for the very unusual instance where a complaint causes or forces a judge to resign, you won't get any legal satisfaction via a complaint. (But if the judge resigns or is forced out, you will get a different judge and that may give you some relief. THAT is the whole point behind this complaint. To get some justice. I hope you'll contribute to the cause.) More usually, a legal remedy for your unfair situation is, unfortunately, something for more lawyers and courts to press in an appeals process and not the complaint process.
The Commission is somewhat blind in that they don't look into complaints further than they have to. (They argue lack of resources. Hence some light needed from us.) But they also tend to favor judges. In the past, they've first warned their brethren about violating your Constitutional rights instead of disciplining their brethren. (Really, to be truly independent, the Commission should be under the auspices of the Legislature, in its Check & Balance capacity.) Proving a judge is "unfair" is very subjective. You have to have scads and scads of baseless rulings against you to prove bias and prejudice. It can be done, but you have to have a LOT of SOLID documentation to prove your point. Suppose, for example, one of the parties at trial helped a judge get reelected, but the judge didn't recuse himself. THAT would be de facto bias. Hopefully, in a situation like that, your lawyer would definitely move for recusal to document the conflict.
But if you have that much evidence, if it were that brazen a relationship, you would be best off appealing in court where you can actually change the outcome of events. Even a valid complaint here, if sustained, would not force the judge to recuse. (I'm not an attorney, but maybe go for a writ of mandamus.) If you prevailed in appeals court, then filing a complaint afterward for bias would be easier, since the COA would have already proved your point. Unfortunately, that's like closing the barn door after the horse has left. The problem is that, typically, a complaint will only result in a sanction - which could be as minor as a private slap on the wrist. You won't get much legal satisfaction that way. And worse, you are stuck with the same judge who is probably even now more biased against you.
Even if you have all the evidence on your side, it's best if a third party (like me) who's never been a litigant, make a complaint of bias for you so that no one can claim "sour grapes."
Again, the goal here is to remove a bad judge. The purpose of a Round 2 complaint is to get enough small, but easily provable complaints, enough to paint a big picture of judicial misconduct by Judge Hinson. So big that the Commission cannot ignore the collage.
Any blow ups in the court room, fits of rage, etc. are also fair game. Clerks... are you reading this? You are eye witnesses. You are obligated by the Supreme Court's code of ethics to report this behavior. Now is the time to clear your conscience and report what you witnessed.
Okay, please keep the tips coming. Remember, I need documentation. Read the post below to see how to get documentation to me. The evidence below shows Judge Hinson is a bad judge. He needs to be removed. Impeachment ain't gonna happen. Elections are another four years away. Until then, this is the only avenue we have available.
No comments:
Post a Comment