Funny Business

You know you're getting to them when funny things keep happening to you. Or your blog. I mean, if no one cared what you were saying, they'd be indifferent, right? And you would wonder if anyone cared.

Interestingly, God, in the Bible, describes hell as a place where you'll not only be tortured for all eternity for your sins, but also He will be indifferent to you too. Indeed, prisoners today say the worse punishment of all is solitary confinement. Indifference isn't good. I guess that's why some kids are smart-alecs in school. They want attention, even if it's "negative" attention. But, as usual, I digress.

So I was reviewing this blog when I noticed that my famous (or, per C.G., infamous, depending on your perspective) "Exhibit 1" was missing. Specifically, I was at the post "Can you say 'Structured?'" which I've passed along to law enforcement agencies as I try, seemingly in vain, to get equal justice for all. (i.e. for former judge hinson.) The image there had been removed from my imagehost, claiming a "violation of the TOS."

Yeah, right.

Anyway, as you can see, I fixed that problem. But then I noticed that most of my PDF uploads to that same image site are no longer available.

It'll have to find time to get those back up on another host. But it will be later rather than sooner. My apologies for now. In the meantime, if you come across a broken link, please let me know.

I realize that some of the current event news links will go stale over time, but I'm talking about links to my documentation.

Thanks in advance.

Can I have two scoops please?

I thought I'd make these predictions before anyone else. (No links for now. I'll try to revisit this post to fact check it and put links in soon. For now, take it as a "rough draft" and with a grain of salt.)

I predict Sheila Polk, long time Yavapai County Prosecutor, will run for Arizona Attorney General this year. She seems to be making a lot of noise and posturing for something. Now that Maricopa County Prosecutor Andrew Thomas was recently rebuked by Judge Campbell for trying to hold long time Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox accountable, the judge's "ruling" may quench Mr. Thomas' ambitions to run for AG also. (I just heard on the radio the other day that he is rumored to run for AG.)

Polk's recent statements in the Phoenix newspaper (as linked in a previous post) will make her look good to some after Judge Campbell's political "ruling." (I haven't read the ruling yet, but I heard excerpts on the news. Sounds political to me.) Remember that Mr. Thomas has also gone after Judge Donahoe... a member of the Judiciary in Maricopa County. So Judge Campbell has motive to be political.

Aside: One wonders why Judge Campbell didn't follow his own ruling and didn't forward this matter to another jurisdiction outside Phoenix?

And speaking of Judge Campbell's political decision, that coupled with what I've witnessed over the past few years, I predict the breakdown of American society very soon.

I'm no expert on societal breakdown (I still hope to read the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" someday), but from what I've observed, when a society breaks down internally (as opposed to externally - being conquered by war), one of the last triggers is a breakdown of law. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the military coup in Chile was due to "an open and willful contempt of judicial decisions [then by the Executive]" which threatened an "imminent breakdown of legality." The Chilean equivalent of our House of Representatives declared a "grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order" and placed the responsibility for restoring "legal paths" with the military.

I don't see our Judiciary or our Legislative making these calls. The people will. (And the lousy economy will only accelerate the breakdown.)

I don't think our military will take over the United States. We're too large, they're too small and spread out too thin, and we're too armed. (At least in some States.) But given what I perceive as "an open and willful contempt of judicial decisions" by the Judiciary itself, I believe we're headed for anarchy.

Since anarchy essentially means "no law," maybe we're closer than we know? I mean, if you can't bring a judge to justice ...

Just a rough draft of some thoughts for now. Let's see if I'm right about Polk and her ambitions. If so, hold your breath and hope I'm wrong about my second prediction.

Soliciting a civil rights attorney

If you are an attorney interested in taking on a Title 42 Section 1983 / 1988 civil right matter in federal court (in Phoenix) against a police department, please leave a comment with your firm's name and telephone contact info so I can send you preliminary information.

It would have to be pro bono work. I think I can pay administrative fees and I am willing to do most of the grunt work. (Can have a friend serve summons, etc.) I think I have a relatively easy case - clear violation of law, caught on tape, have a witness, etc. Would help place limits on what constitutes an unlawful "Terry Stop." You'd be doing good.

You can have the money. I just want Justice.

Thanks in advance.

January 10 deadline to comment to Supreme Court

If you're reading this blog, perhaps you have some ideas to make the Code of Judicial Conduct better? Or any other Rules of Court for that matter. Well, this is your chance.

You have until January 10 (that's this Sunday - less than a week) to petition the Supreme Court with your ideas.

If you go to the Supreme Court's public forum, you can troll around to see how it's done. But don't be intimidated. I'm told by a high ranking Supreme Court AOC staffer that you don't have to submit your idea as a fancy pleading, like the professionals are doing. You can simply offer it in free form format, as this regular citizen did. (I believe, but don't know for sure, that the AOC will format your input into the proper pleading format eventually. I've got in inquiry in.)

Another staffer tells me "The court wants its Court Rules Forum to be available to everyone, lawyers or not." So go for it.

Just follow their simple rules for getting an account and for posting.

Even if you don't have any new ideas to offer, you can read and comment on petitions for the Rules of the Supreme Court until May20.

We get the government we deserve. I don't know that they're always listening to us, but at least here, they say they are. The sad thing is, few citizens are involved. This is your chance to be salt of the earth.

Should I wish you a "Merry CHRISTmas?"

Since it's Christmas time and since I'm a Christian Evangelist, please humor me while I "preach" a little. (I'll be surprised if anyone is reading this during the holidays. But if you're the one, maybe God brought you here for a reason?)

Seemingly off topic, although on a long tangent, not really. For it's the true Christian who is commanded to seek justice. And that's what these blogs are ultimately about as we focus on the judiciary. Judiciary > Judges> Justice. Get it?

Not often. A wry comment on American inJustice.

And there's the fact that the dishonorable judge hinson is biased against true Christians, as I plan to show later.

So, overlooking the trivial things, that Jesus wasn't born on December 25, let alone in December (too cold), and ignoring that Christ-mass has its origins in pagan rituals and that there's no mention in the Bible of the early church celebrating the Christ's birth (rather, He commanded we should celebrate His death until He comes), should I wish you a Merry Christmas?

Look, even atheists believe there was an historical man named Jesus. We all like to celebrate the birth of babies. But that's not the issue here. It's what you believe about Jesus, who He was, what He came to do, why He died (and where) and if He came back from the dead that's important. Let's take the easiest case first.

If you're Jewish or an atheist (according to God, you're the same in the end), then you don't believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). You don't believe He is the Savior, the [Passover] "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." You don't believe He rose from the dead, although your own leaders knew He said He would. So you can't be saved from His wrath (hell) if you don't believe [in] Him. You don't even sacrifice a Passover lamb on Passover today! What sacrifice for sins is left?

While you (the Jews. Not atheists.) are the chosen people and yours are the temple worships and receiving of the Law, as much as I am indebted to you (because your God gave your blessing to this Gentile dog since you rejected Him), I cannot wish you a Merry Christmas if you don't believe in the Christ. You probably don't want me to anyway. We know the ACLU doesn't.

If you're Muslim or Buddhist, you probably believe, inconsistently, that Jesus was a "good man," maybe a prophet from God. But you don't believe He was God. If you're Muslim, you don't believe He rose from the dead, proving He was who He said He was. You do the Jews one better and don't even believe He died on the cross!

Even the Jews acknowledge that no one has found His 'dead' body, which gives some credence to His resurrection from the dead.

You're inconsistent because Jesus Himself claimed to be God in the flesh (Immanuel) who tabernacle'd among us. But if he was mere man, then he couldn't have been a "good man" because he blasphemed, claiming to be God! Even the Jews of His day understood that. They wanted to stone Him for that! To their credit, Muslims in Saudi Arabia today will kill anyone who claims Jesus is God for, to them, as once with the Jews, that appears to be blasphemy.

So really, you Muslims and Buddhists can't believe Jesus was a good man. And you certainly don't believe He died on the cross to take away your sins. If you claim to be enlightened, your sin remains. And sadly, the wages of sin is death.

Not that I'm any better than you. I, at one time, was destined for hell too. But I found the proper remedy for my sin. Someone who would die for me in my place. Not only that, but I decided to obey Him as Lord.

If you're Catholic or Mormon, your problem is more subtle. You believe all the "right" things about Jesus, that he rose from the dead, but you believe in a different jesus than the Jesus of the Bible.

For the Catholic, your jesus is still on the cross! (Look at any Catholic crucifix.) In fact, to your shame, you crucify him over and over again at every mass.

While you say you believe he died for your sins, you don't believe you're going to heaven when you die but rather, you have to work off your sins in Purgatory. (Question: How do you know when you've done enough?) And so you deny they work Jesus did on the cross. Your veneration of Mary, your praying to the dead saints, your priesthood, etc. are all manifestations of having a different jesus, different spirit, different gospel. In fact, your salvation is in "the one true church," not in Christ.

If you're ignorant of all this but seeking Him, God will have mercy on you. Perhaps that's why you're reading this?

If you're Mormon, you also believe in an entirely different jesus than the one in the Bible. Your jesus is only one of many gods, the spirit brother of Lucifer, a polygamist, sealed in the temple who shed his blood in the garden of Gethsemane. For you, as the Apostle Paul said, the message of the cross if foolishness.

Actually, that's a recurring theme here. Neither the Jews, Muslims, Catholics or Mormons understand the message of the cross and some outright deny the cross.

Like the Catholic, your salvation is in your church and your own works. (Again I ask, When do you know you've done enough baptisms for the dead, endowments, answering 'callings,' etc.?) The ultimate blasphemy in Mormonism is that you believe you can become a god someday. Should be interesting when the Muslims take over Salt Lake.

If you're Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc., well, you said it, I didn't. We are to be followers of Christ, i.e. Christians. Not followers of the church, or Churchians. (A.k.a. "Churchianity.) You may be busy in your church, and you may love to sing songs on Sunday, but "to obey is better than sacrifice." If you're really a Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. as opposed to a Christian, I fear, as Jesus said, your words will condemn you.

And even if you call yourself a Christian, we know that "not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven." (See Matthew 7:21-23 for the true test and sad end.)

Know that, in the last days "people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power." (2 Timothy 3:2-5)

So, in the end, as much as I'd like, I can't, in good faith, sincerely wish most of you a Merry Christmas.

Sadly, Jesus said that the road to hell was wide, and many are on it. I was too. You can get off it. I'm probably not as strong in warning you as some of my evangelical brothers, but in my own way, I'm warning to you (in love) to turn off that road. We call it "repenting" - a 180 degree turn from the path of death to the path of life.

I hope you turn. Then next year, if the Lord tarries and we're still here, we will truly be able to wish each other a Merry CHRISTmas.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Connecting the Polk-a-dots! (Hinson)

Story of hypocrisy coming soon! For now, a placeholder post to link from a sister blog.

The short version (unusual for me)without links is that Sheila Polk says, "We [prosecutors] swear, under God, to support and defend our Constitution and our laws against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We also swear to 'impartially discharge the duties of the office.'"

Hah! So why no prosecution of the dishonorable judge hinson?

"Our power, granted to us by the people, is not a personal tool to target political enemies or avenge perceived wrongs."

That would be malfeasance. But when a "wannabe judicial candidate" doesn't prosecute a former judge when there's probable cause, that is misfeasance and is just as bad.

"In maintaining public safety, each of us is tasked, by our oath, with protecting the rights and privileges of the least among us. Everyday, in every single thing we do to keep our communities safe, we must respect the rule of law and the protections set forth in our Constitution." So, like she's protected the rights of all the litigants the dishonorable judge hinson abused?

"Abdication of these responsibilities causes erosion of confidence in law enforcement... " Ya got that right. Reaping what you've sown.

"Law enforcement and prosecutors throughout the state have been my second family for the past 26 years and I am proud of our profession. We are a brotherhood (and sisterhood) and we must hold each other to the highest of standards." I'm trying, but judging by the political payback, you guys hate being held accountable.

"Our vocation is to seek justice. When one of us forsakes our role as protectors of the Constitution, it is up to the others to call him out."

Mrs./Miss Polk, what was it Jesus said about removing that HUGE log in your own eye before you try to help Mr. Thomas? Prosecute former judge hinson (and that other judge I told you about) and maybe we can talk.

As an aside, it sounds like Sheila Polk is reading from a letter I wrote to one of her Deputies, where I reminded them of their oath before God as I asked for Justice.

I'm still waiting.

To file a "justified" complaint against a judge, first, go fish.

Now, let's consider what it takes to make a successful complaint against a judge. (The Commission calls them "justified complaints." I call them "sustained.") In another post, we'll eventually analyze an insane ruling by the dishonorable judge hinson to see if there is anything in it that one can "legitimately" complain about or something the Commission is likely to sustain. (Not necessarily the same thing, although they should be. Can you say "politics?") But before we do, let's take a giant step backward to try to find what kind of complaints the Commission on Judicial Conduct sustains because, as you can see, the Commission dismisses a vast majority of complaints.

Technically, the Commission says it "acts" on all complaints. But it's more proper to say that the Commission "considers" all complaints. I bet most don't make it past the first hurdle of making it past the Staff. (Commission staff (B or C) feel free to leave a comment of correction if I'm wrong here.)

So why are so many complaints dismissed? I suggest you "go fish" and simply sample a few of the dismissed complaints on the Commission's website. You'll find that most people didn't bother reading (or don't take to heart) the Commission's Overview page. The Commission's statement is straightforward. Here it is:

SCOPE OF AUTHORITY

The commission has authority to investigate complaints involving the following:

• Willful misconduct in office.
• Habitual intemperance (e.g., alcohol or drug abuse).
• Permanent disabilities that interfere with judicial duties.
• A violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Conduct that brings the judiciary into disrepute.

The commission's primary concern is judicial behavior, not judicial decision-making. Only a higher court can overturn a judge's decision or ruling. The commission is not a court and cannot change a judge's decision (including child custody orders), intervene in a pending case, remove a judge from a case, or award damages or other monetary relief to litigants.

---

I'll get into it later, but there's also a fine line distinction the Commission makes about "willful misconduct" as opposed to "unwillful." Unfortunately for you and me, if we're driving over the speed limit, we get punished whether we were willingly speeding or speeding in ignorance. We're told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But for judges, ignorance is an excuse. In fact, the dishonorable judge hinson argued he wasn't guilty of violating the Constitution because it was his staff who screwed up.

Hey, Division IV staff, how do you feel about that?

Now, I know what happens. Many of you are beat up by The System, either don't have any money (or, after losing with an attorney, don't have any now), didn't bother reading the Commission's instructions and/or are holding out for Justice through the free complaint process. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, it ain't gonna happen.

The best that a complaint can do, as we saw with the dishonorable judge hinson, is to force a judge out sometime later. Unless there's a Judge McDougall type immediate resignation, it could take a year before your judge is out if you're suffering under a bad judge.

While I was channel surfing a few weeks ago, I came across one of the million Law & Order reruns on TV. In that episode (number unknown), Jack's staff was going to file a complaint of judicial misconduct to get a judge off their case. I don't know how it works in New York State, but as our Commission stated above, it doesn't work that way here. (You may want to try suing the judge though.)

Now, from the Commission's Administrative Policies, here's what the Commission says will automatically dismiss your complaint:

(a) Rule 16(a) allows the commission to dismiss a complaint that fails to allege an act of judicial misconduct, lacks sufficient evidence to support an investigation, is solely appel­late in nature, or is otherwise frivolous, unfounded or outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

A dismissal shall be in the form of a notice or order indicating the reason for the commis­sion’s action.

Anyone who's an attorney can testify that the qualifier "frivolous" can be, uhhh, problematic. It's very subjective.

Now, after you've sampled some of the many dismissed complaints on the Commission's website, you should study a few of the sustained ones. Look to learn what worked. Also look to see what discipline the Commission meted out.

Unfortunately, the Commission has a lot of latitude in what they can do with a judge who's found "guilty." (Did I mention "politics?") We saw this when the Commission simply warned the dishonorable judge hinson three times in three separate complaints (for the same type violation). Again, from the Commission's Administrative Policies:

Rule 16(a) also allows the commission to dismiss a complaint with comments reminding a judge of ethical obligations or recommending changes in the judge’s behavior or procedures. A dismissal with comments shall be in the form of a notice or order indicating the reason for the commission’s action, supplemented with a confidential letter to the judge in one of the following forms:

1. A friendly advisory letter explaining that even though the judge’s conduct did not technically violate the code, it suggested an appearance of impropriety that could be avoided in the future if the judge is willing to modify his or her behavior or court procedures as recommended by the commission;
2. A stern warning letter [ooohhhh] that draws the judge’s attention to the potential consequences of persistent behavior that does not rise to the level of judicial misconduct but nonetheless creates an appearance of impropriety; or
3. Any other appropriate written communication that conveys the commission’s
   concerns about the conduct of the judge.

Rule 16(b) allows the commission to recommend additional forms of discipline in conjunction with informal and formal sanctions including, but not limited to, professional counseling, judicial education, mentoring, or other similar activities such as addiction recovery or rehabilitation programs. [It's like when cops violation your Constitutional rights and the Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board simply sends the officer back to school for a day. Bet you feel better.]

Wow. Don't you wish you could get that kind of treatment by the courts? I'll take the "friendly letter" any day. (I've said it before. The Legislature needs to take over discipline of judges, in true Check & Balance fashion. Unfortunately, that would take amending the Arizona Constitution. I'm not optimistic.)

So your homework assignment before filing a complaint of judicial misconduct is to study some complaints that were dismissed and the few that were sustained, especially those where there was real discipline. And then try to emulate the complaints the Commission "justified." Then we'll see if any hay can be made from the dishonorable judge hinson's insane ruling.

Sheriff Joe files four complaints of judicial misconduct

Sheriff Joe (Arpaio) filed four complaints against four judges in Maricopa county last week. I offer these without much comment (for now). I offer them as examples of how to write (or not write?) complaints. If any of them are successful, then borrow heavily from them.

I skimmed the complaint against Judge Barbara Mundell. It looks okay to me. Has the style of someone in law enforcement. But it's not apparent if the Sheriff's office provided any exhibits to back its many claims. I don't know if the Commission on Judicial Conduct will request documentation as it proceeds. I expect not.

My experience is that the Commission sends you a letter acknowledging receipt of your complaint and sends you a letter at the end of their process, either telling you your complaint was dismissed or not. And that's their only contact with you.

In all the complaints I've filed (about five over the many years, a few Federal), I've never been asked for more information to sustain a complaint, although at the Federal level, they have the right to ask if there's probable cause. (They may be able to ask at the State level too. I simply don't know.) As we saw with the dishonorable judge hinson paperwork, posted below in this blog, since a Conduct Investigation is a quasi-legal process (involving lawyers) I expect you have to provide the Commission with hard documentation for your allegations.

For example, in a Federal complaint, where Congressman Sensenbrenner, then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee filed a complaint against Judge Cudahy, he included exhibits in his complaint. If the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee included exhibits, you should too. It not only backs your claim and makes the work of the Commission a little easier (which they'll probably appreciate), it's harder for a judge to lie to the Commission if you have documented facts.

We'll see how the Sheriff's complaints go. In any event, I'm glad he made his complaints public. That's more light shining on the Judicial Branch, which is always a good thing.

I have a story coming where a retired judge complains he doesn't like the light. Hmmm... what did Jesus say about men who hate the light?

Here are the Sheriff's complaints as PDF's. Unfortunately they are scanned images (as opposed to embedded text) which means you can't search the text.

Judicial Complaint Against Superior Court Judge Fields
Judicial Complaint Against Superior Court Judge Baca
Judicial Complaint Against Superior Court Judge Mundell
Judicial Complaint Against Superior Court Judge Donahoe

Judge Hinson's Insane Ruling

I can make two posts from one crazy Ruling by the dishonorable judge hinson. In this first, I'll focus on how a judge who engages in judicial misconduct naturally renders bad life changing decisions for others. In a future post, I'll focus on why the Commission on Judicial Conduct doesn't care (or, to be kind, claims to be powerless) to hear about bad decisions like this in a complaint and what you have to cite to make a valid complaint against a judge. Now, focusing on my first point...

There's a Biblical principle that "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much." There's also the inverse that "whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." (Luke 16:10) Even if you don't believe the Bible, I trust you believe Jesus' words here. If you had a cashier in your business who you thought was skimming, you wouldn't put them in charge of your accounting books, right? That would be foolish.

And so it was with the dishonorable judge hinson. (Hereinafter, dishonorable j.h.) If he wouldn't keep the "small" things, like obeying the State Constitution and being truthful to the Supreme Court (those are small things?), what makes you think he would keep the large things, like ruling rightly in your case and your life? In this example, dishonorable j.h.'s ruling is truly crazy, although there's an ironic twist to it in the end.

This is going to be a long story, with lots of cites from a real world case where dishonorable j.h. has no law on his side and infringes on a husband's religious beliefs as he makes his insane ruling. (But again, these aren't things the Commission cares about.) So if you want, you can skip to the end.

The case is the marriage (actually, the divorce) of Melody Anne Bodine v. Gregory Bodine, DO 2006-0917. (How is it that church marries people but the State divorces them?) This example centers on a trial of September 20, 2007. Among a host of issues that day was the issue of extending an expired Order of Protection (OOP) which Mrs. Bodine had previously obtained, rightly or wrongly, against her husband more than a year before. Men, if you've ever suffered through an OOP, they have got to be one of the most unconstitutional, one sided laws on the books.

Your wife can come to a judge crying and lying, making all sorts of bogus claims against you (think Duke Lacrosse Rape allegation), and suddenly you can be kicked out of your own house by the cops without any due process! There are no consequence for your wife if she lies to the cops or a judge, so what has she got to lose? She could even be mentally deranged and still get an OOP against you, as we'll see. Once she gets a taste of power, she'll use the cops and the OOP to bully you around, threatening to call 911 to yank your chain. She'll disobey the Order, calling you on the phone or pushing your buttons, but woe to you if you call her! The cops will do everything for the damsel in distress, but they'll put you off if you complain.

Whether OOP's are constitutional or not, there are certain laws that are supposed to be followed to grant or extend one. For example, there has to be a real threat of physical harm as demonstrated by specific and articuable facts. In the case of extending an OOP, the petitioner has to show acts have continued during the year the OOP was in place or that the OOP had been violated. The law not withstanding, judges hand these things out to women like candy. (Not so to men.) In fact, the OOP in the Bodine matter had expired, being more than a year old. And yet, the dishonorable j.h. entertained an extension of an expired Order, never mind that the proper procedure is for Mrs. Bodine to re-petition. You can see already that a judge who doesn't keep the law himself won't keep it for others.

Even "Judge" Rhonda Repp (a Family Law Commissioner) may be guilty of violating the law. I don't have time to follow up, but would someone please request a copy of the audio from an OOP extension granted by "Judge" Repp on October 1, 2009, around 1 p.m. to 1:30 and report on it? From what I heard from the petitioner while she was waiting outside, her husband had complied with the OOP, contacting her only "through attorneys" as allowed by law. But "Judge" Repp granted her extension anyway. This sexagenarian was so giddy when she got her extension, she acted like a little girl who, instead of being genuinely fearful, had just gotten away with torquing her brother under mom's eyes. As I said before, OOP's are used by women to bully men.

I'll focus on just a few of the facts presented at trial to show how insane dishonorable j.h's ruling was. FYI, I am not a party to this trial. It serves as a typical real world example.

First, to set the stage, you should know that a year before, shortly after Mrs. Bodine obtained her original OOP, evidence had been entered into the record from a Ph. D. Sociologist, who, from first hand observation, advised Mrs. Bodine to "seek more intensive psychiatric counseling and perhaps medication at this time." Even Mrs. Bodine's own lawyer told the dishonorable j.h. that "... my client is in absolute serious need of counseling. She likewise basically is someone I would characterize as suffering from post traumatic stress." This all happened in the dishonorable j.h.'s court and he had the data. (Trial of October 12, 2006.)

Can you see where this is going already? You can be crazy and still get an OOP against someone. There's no check for being of "sound mind." You could have delusions that your husband was out to get you and still get an OOP, even though you have no facts to justify it. (How many of you have armed guards at your daughter's wedding as Mrs. Bodine did?)

In fact, it was accidentally discovered at trial that Mrs. Bodine had vacated her court appointed residence without telling anyone! (It also came out that she took all the door knobs!) All the time she had her husband drop the children off to an empty house and all the time he's struggling to pay the mortgage (while he's also paying a rental for him) while she's telling others that he's starving her to death. To his credit, the dishonorable j.h. tried to find the reason for Mrs. Bodine's clandestine move (although he lead the witness, trying to get her to use the word "fear,") but all he got was lots of gibberish involving hearsay about someone calling a church about homeschooling. I'd quote the dialog here but it would make your head spin. [1]

With this background established, let's now consider the salient testimony from September 20, 2007 as it pertains to an OOP. [This all is in the public record. You can examine it yourself for free at any Superior Court clerk's office in Arizona.] I've made some editorial comments in [brackets.]

From page 42:

Q. ... do you today have fear for your physical well-being?

A. Yes, sir. I do. [Not ground in reality, as she'll confirm later.]

From page 48:

Q: During the last year, have you filed with any court any application to claim that there's been a violation of the order of protection.

A: No, I did not.

Page 49:

Q: During the past year has your husband struck you at all?

A: Physically? [Ummm... do you know any other way to strike someone?]


A: Hit me? No, sir.

Q: Has your husband in any way damaged any of your property or community property in your presence?

A: No, sir, not in my presence.

Q: Has he threatened bodily harm to you, a direct threat to bodily harm to you?

A: No, sir.

Q: Has there ever been a situation under which he's caused something to happen, thrown something at you or done something indirect that would endanger you that you've seen in the last year?

A: No, sir.

So you see, Mrs. Bodine has nothing to substantiate her fear. One wonders if that's a rational fear then.

I note that at an earlier trial, October 12, 2006, Mrs. Bodine's own attorney said,

"There are no allegations of physical abuse of any kind by either parent in these affidavits or that sort of thing."

THEN WHY WAS AN ORDER OF PROTECTION GRANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE??? (Ask Judge Markham. He issued it.) But wait, it gets crazier.

In some sort of attempt to find out what's going on inside the mind of Mrs. Bodine, the dishonorable j.h. questioned her. Here he starts to stray into 1st Amendment issues of freedom of religion of her husband.

From Page 61:

Q: How long were you married to this man?

A: Twenty-five years.

Q: In the 25 years that you were married to Mr. Bodine, can you tell me of a time when he was confronted with something that he felt was contrary to his beliefs about God's law? [WHAT? Would any judge ask a Muslim that?]

A. When he was confronted?

Q: Yes. He comes home and he says: Melody, you've been my wife for all these years; something happened today; it was wrong; this person did something that was wrong; it was contrary to God's law. Has he ever come home and told you about something like that? [Boy, talk about leading the witness.]

A: Something outside our family?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Do you remember what it was that the person did?

A: Yes, I can think of one example.

Q: Would you tell me?

A: John F. Kennedy, Jr., apparently led an immoral life and when he died in his plane crash my husband was quite happy about that, that he felt that God had overruled or something, that that was a good thing that happened. [Ummm... so like it will be wrong for Americans to be happy if Osama Bin Ladin is found dead?]

Q: Now, before Mr. Kennedy Jr's plane went down in the gulf before he died, had your husband complained about the way he conducted himself?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And felt it was contrary to God's law? [Wow. Can the State really ask these religious questions and use it against you?]

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what did he do about the way John Kennedy, Jr. was living his life?

A: Just talked. [Gasp!]

Q: Okay. Anything else? Any other example of your husband being confronted with someone living or making personal choices with which he disagreed? [Oh, didn't get the answer you wanted? More leading the witness, dishonorable judge hinson? She already testified there was only one example.]

A: Yes. He would go and confront them, yes. He would sit them down and explain to them.

Q: Talk to them?

A: Yes, reason. [double gasp!]

Q: Express verbally his disagreement?

A: Yeah, and give reasons and compel.

Q: Was he ever violent with anyone?

A: Of those people?

Q: Anyone.

A: Who discussed ...

Q: Who had done something he disagreed with felt was contrary in God's law?

A: Only myself, not in a physical way but a threatening way, only myself. [How can it be "threatening" if it's never been physical? Isn't that subjective? Does it mean her husband got angry and raised his voice ocassionally? Ooohhhh. Bad bad husband. The State will punish you for that.]

But wait, there's more.

Page 64:

Question from the dishonorable judge hinson: One of the things that I'm charge with considering in matters dealing with orders of protection is whether there will be domestic violence if I don't issue an order of protection. [Well, at least he admitted he's supposed to go by the law.]

A: Right

Q: What violence do you believe will take place? [Wow. Talk about leading the witness. And remember, this is after all the stuff where she admits there hasn't been any violence! I'm no attorney, but doesn't this call for speculation? You mean we can kick a husband out of his house because of what a wife "believes" will take place? That's not what the law says.]

A: My main concern stems from the fact that on several...

Q: I'm not talking about your concern. I want you to tell me what's going to happen if I don't extend this order. [For the first time, the dishonorable j.h. starts to get annoyed with the dithering witness.]

A: He can feel free to do what he started to do before, which is EXPRESS it in a public fashion, coming after me, getting this close to me and not stopping when I say stop. That is what I am afraid of. I am afraid that he will have this anger and hostility that he denies that he possesses but all the marital counselors way is there and will -- and [guilt complex?] the fact that I am evil and malignant that that will come out, because it has proceeded to come out and he feels comfortable doing it....

[In other words, husbands, never get angry when your wives leave you or they will claim Domestic Violence. Of course, it's okay for them to get angry at you.

I'm not an attorney, but isn't testifying what she says marital counselors have said, isn't that called "hearsay?' How do we know she's telling the truth about what was said? I thought judges were supposed to know these things.]

So what have we seen so far? Evidence was presented to question Mrs. Bodine's mental well being. Even by her own attorney. She moved out of her house for no good reason (taking the door knobs with her), forcing the children to play a charade on their father.

Both she and her own attorney admitted there has been no violence by her husband. She said the worse thing he does when he disagrees with someone is to sit down and reason with them.

The dishonorable judge hinson repeatedly tried to lead her to say the magic word, but she never did. He even admitted that he needed something concrete to establish there would be violence if he didn't extend her (now expired) OOP.

How did he rule? Well, remember what Jesus said. If he can't be trusted with the small things... Since the dishonorable judge hinson wouldn't obey our State Constitution and since he lied to the Supreme Court on his monthly salary Certifications, why would you think he would obey any law? Here's what he said (page 94. All emphasis mine):

Mrs. Bodine has shown, as Mr. Moore points out, that if I don't continue this Order of Protection SHE'S liable to decide that she has to take the children and go off someplace where no once find her because of her DESIRE to INDULGE her FEAR in order to REINFORCE her decision to continue on this course of separation from Mr. Bodine. ...

The Order of Protection will be extended.

Wow. Indulging fear? That's the very definition of paranoia!

But instead of saying there was no evidence at all of violence, and in fact, evidence to the contrary, instead of quashing the OOP and giving custody of the children to the sane parent, the dishonorable judge hinson essentially says that because Mrs. Bodine is crazy and may indulge her fear, she may, in her paranoia go off someplace where no one can find her. (Despite court ordered father's visitation, which would be a violation of law.) And why? Because she wants to reinforce her (evil and malignant ) decision to separate from her husband.

That's like saying, "Despite the facts and law, I'm giving her an OOP because she'll commit suicide if I don't."

Now that's insane.

---

Not to give the Kiss of Death again to Judge Mackey by mentioning him in this blog, but he did the right thing in a similar case. I've noticed these divorce trials seem all the same... the woman goes nuts and wants to leave her husband and makes up all sorts of stories to justify her decision. In an almost Twilight Zone parallel universe reenactment of a trial similar to the Bodine's, Judge Mackey correctly ordered psychological counseling for the wife. (Who tried to slink out of it, going only one time with an innocent "I didn't know I was supposed to keep going" type excuse later.) Again, what are the courts doing divorcing people?

---

[1] For anyone interested, here's what she first said about why she moved out: Her attorney is querying her.

Q: Where do you sleep at night?

A. Currently, our children and myself are in a home of safety, a shelter home.

Q. Why?

A. A couple of reasons. My husband's communications to me specifically in December told me an announcement from him that among other things I have an evil, malignant heart, that I have sinister and ghoulish speculations, that my thoughts are like black India ink on a white table cloth, that I have surrounded myself with people who have caused my warped thinking, that my thoughts addiction has set in, that I am sick and that I have gone against God's law, and that I have even invoked the law of the land in our situation and have come out from underneath his authority. [In other words, she's in sin.]

Q. Whose authority?

A. My husband's supposedly biblical authority over me. [According to God, it's not "supposed." Also see 1 John 2:4 and substitute the word "woman" for "man."] That is a cause for concern.

More so than that is that when we met in counsel, our former attorneys regarding that particular e-mail and some others, when his counsel was trying to explain to him that that is inappropriate, his response, and this was in April I believe--

MR. KAZRAGIS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this being irrelevant to the order of protection issue and all the issues of the Court today. [He was right. One's religious beliefs are protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The State is not supposed to be able to punish you because you live your life according to God's words in the Bible.]

THE COURT: Overruled. [Figures.]

His response to that e-mail was this, and I believe that I quote: But what if it is true?

Q: How does that --

THE COURT: I'm sorry, the response?

A: But what if these things, that's not a direct quote -- but what if it's true, that these things are the case that I have an evil and malignant heart. It's not appropriate for him to communicate those things to me, was his attorney's point. But his response, instead of agreeing was, well, but what if it is true.

So the bottom line is that she moved out of the family house because she didn't like being told she was in sin. Later in this trial, when the dishonorable j.h. questioned her, she added gibberish involving hearsay about someone calling a church about homeschooling as a reason for leaving.

At a later hearing, she changed her story entirely, claiming instead (as led by her attorney) that she "feared" she was going to be literally booted out on the street because her husband wasn't able to make the last two mortgage payments. So she moved into a rental. But if she could pay rent, why didn't she help pay the mortgage? (See transcript May 1, 2008)

Crazy.

Another Complaint

This has nothing to do with former (or not?) judge hinson, but if you've enjoyed this blog, you may enjoy a new sister blog, Judge Mary Hamm loves to ex Parte which follows a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Mary E. Hamm, also in Yavapai County. (What is it with Yavapai County?)

If you're old enough to remember the soap opera parody "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman", the title for the blog is equally easy to remember. Tell your friends to check out "mary hamm mary hamm at blogspot dot com."

It would be just as funny as the soap if it weren't real life.

He's baaaaack!

I hate to condone Halloween and/or a Freddie Krueger slasher movie. But since this is so horrible, I'm trying for some comic relief. But I shouldn't. This is pure evil. Like a bad nightmare, judge hinson is back.

I tripped across this the other day doing a google search. No sooner had he resigned then the Maricopa County Superior Court reappointed him! The very next day, beginning October 1! Here's the text:

Article 6, §20 of the Arizona Constitution and Administrative Order No. 2001-62 issued on June 20, 2001, authorizing presiding judges to temporarily call back to active duty retired judges, listed as qualified by the Administrative Director of the Arizona Supreme Court, to serve as a judge of the Superior Court.

IT IS ORDERED that, effective October 1, 2009, Judge Howard D. Hinson, Jr. is
called back to active duty to serve as judge of this court for all further proceedings in CV2006-017513.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Howard D. Hinson, Jr. shall receive compensation and expenses as provided in Article 6, §20 of the Arizona Constitution from the funding source identified by this court.

DATED this 14th day of September, 2009.
Signed, Barbara Rodriguez Mundell,
Presiding Judge.

Apparently, he's been reinstated to finish off a case he never finished? CV CV2006-017513. I did a case lookup, but can't figure out what case this is. The three hits I get all originated in the Glendale Municipal court. (Which is not in Yavapai county.)

---

UPDATE: Just found this from AZ Judges Review (Wow, isn't the Internet a great tool? It allows concerned citizens from all over to have a voice. Watch for the government to silence it soon.)

They report here is a disturbing trend in Maricopa County Superior Court by Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell to pick and choose judges at will in order to ensure that the most liberal judges handle important political cases. She is essentially picking how justice will turn out. Her latest trend is to pluck judges out of retirement and put them on key cases to ensure politically liberal outcomes.

So it appears that this is a fresh case for Judge Hinson and it appears it did come out of Glendale, in Maricopa County. And since he was appointed by Judge Mundell, this confirms what I told you before. judge hinson is not really a Republican. Somehow the Liberals can spot the RINO's a mile away.

---

This reappointment was in the works ever before he officially resigned. No wonder he didn't hang his head in same on his last day.

I can't find this case in the list of judge hinson's numerous violations. But that's not to say it's not there. Wouldn't that be ironic if he'd been reappointed to finish a job he fudged on? (UPDATE: It appears not. See above insert.)

And what's to make him obey the 60 day Rule now? He can let this case linger without any fear of repercussion. It's gravy for him.

Now we wonder if he's double dipping? Getting a pension while being paid to be a judge?

And isn't this a slap in the face to the Commission on Judicial Conduct? They worked so hard, found a few more violations than I did, and caused judge hinson to resign. But now, according to the Administrator of the Supreme Court, judge hinson is still "qualified" to be a judge. After lying to the Supreme Court about his salary certifications, taking money not due him, defrauding the State and all? Too bad the Supreme Court 'Justices' weren't upset. Now we're reaping what they've sown.

Wow.

If Presiding Judge Mundell (and our Supreme Court) holds the judiciary in such low esteem, why should I bother to hold it any higher?

And why should you?

Did I meet Diogenes?

Actually, I've got my title wrong. I should have said, "Did I meet an honest man?" (You know the story about Diogenes, right?)

I suppose "honest and bold" would be even better, but I don't know about the bold part yet. I've got a call in to this individual to see if I can mention them by name here. As they work with judges, THAT would be very bold. It might cost them their job. On the other hand, this kind of boldness could propel them into the public spotlight, and get them a job. Namely their boss's elected office. (Cryptic, I know, but necessary for now.)

An interesting story from September 2008, when I was beginning to think about filing a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Hinson but did yet have the hard data to do it.

I was sitting in the gallery watching Judge Bluff's first ever jury trial. Apparently that made a lot of people nervous. (Not his first ever trial. My sitting in the gallery.)

It's a sad comment that simply sitting in the gallery watching a trial when you're not a party is so unusual that people get antsy. If more citizens did it, we'd have better accountability. Hey, you retired people, how about being our eyes and ears, reporting what happens in courtrooms around the State? You can do it for free, the seats are reasonably comfortable and the room is air conditioned. Sometimes better than a TV soap opera!

Someone from a nearby office came in and sat next to me. What are the odds of that in a large gallery with only one person in it!

They started up a conversation with me and introduced themselves. As their job interfaces with judges, I asked what they would do if they knew a judge was consistently violating the Constitution? I was surprised when they thought about it and said, "Well, I suppose I would have to file a complaint of judicial misconduct."

I was also surprised when this person said they had read the Breyer Report. I was so shocked anyone would know about that, I couldn't think of any questions to verify we were talking about the same thing. But if they know about complaints of judicial misconduct, I suppose they would also know about the Breyer Report.

Of course, it's one thing to say you would file a complaint of judicial misconduct. It's quite another thing to do it, especially if you have to work with judges as part of your job.

Nevertheless, it's the right thing to do. We call it "walking the talk." Some calling Choosing The Right. If more people did it, maybe we'd have better accountability in the judiciary? Especially if people who were in positions of authority did it. That would truly make them outstanding.

The day after...

Well, folks, I'm sad to report that, except for one lone person, no one showed up on Judge Hinson's last day to shout with joy that he was leaving or to shout in anger over the lack of oversight in the Judiciary. No one showed up to demonstrate to the Legislature that it must take a more aggressive role in Check & Balance of what the Founders thought was the "weakest" branch of government. (Looks like the Founders let their guard down on that one.)

I thought for sure Judge Hinson's victims would be there to express their outrage. Or to get together for a class action suit. I still think, non-lawyer that I am, that you all have a great Federal Civil Rights case. Both against Judge Hinson for violating your Constitutional right to a speedy trial and against the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Arizona Supreme Court for dereliction of duty. Both had a duty to remove this outrageously bad judge. Especially when the Clerk of Court and the Supreme Court (Finance Office) had the violations in plain sight! You should sue the State. (If I have it correct, you have one year to file Federal from the day he admitted his guilt.)

But maybe you victims have been terrorized by The System and are afraid to speak out.

I understand. That one bad judge in that robe can be very frightening when there's no accountability, when we let them violate the law and you are their target.

Unfortunately, this problem has been around since Jesus' day. He told us, The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. Unfortunately, then, we have to bear the injustice.

Fortunately, this isn't the only life to come. In the next life, the eternal one, the situation will be reversed. And that is where I put my hope. But for now, we are commanded, "Thy will be done, on EARTH, as it is in heaven." So we try to bring some Justice down here.

Well, I had hope of achieving more closure, seeing this matter through by seeing the former judge hinson impeached. But that hope is gone. The reality is that impeachment starts in the House of Representatives. If no one cared to demonstrate, then there's nothing for our Representatives to represent. Nor will law enforcement be very motivated to prosecute a former judge without public pressure.

I can almost see it now. If Judge Brutinel stays on as Presiding Judge in Yavapai county, he'll probably assign howard hinson as a judge pro tem someday. (That assumes the State Bar doesn't pull howard hinson's license.) And nothing will have changed.

Sadly, we get the government we deserve. No one cried out. And at the end of the day, howard hinson did not hang his head in shame. (I mean that literally. Eye witnesses testimony.)

Well, my work here is just about done. I'll plan to update the Collateral Damage blog with some tidbits and perhaps tie up a few loose ends here. (I haven't forgotten about your overdue CV 2006 case, reader. I just haven't had time to research it.)

Thanks to all those who offered kind words of support. To all those who reported their suffering under the former judge hinson, I empathize with you more than you know.

To those on the Left who didn't offer words of support, but other words instead, I can't say it any better than my Lord.

JUDGE HINSON'S LAST DAY

Proverbs 11:10 says,

When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices;
when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.

Figuratively speaking, Judge Hinson perishes today as he resigns from office for his numerous offenses. While we shouldn't gloat, it is appropriate to be happy he's leaving.

I encourage his victims and anyone else interested in Justice to come to the Prescott Courthouse today (east side) during lunchtime and, in Tea Party fashion, let your voice be heard.

The Judiciary isn't used to that. It'll be good for them. And you.

1 Day to go. More "Tea," anyone?

I read in a local Prescott paper how, despite the bad weather, about 2000 of you concerned citizens came out to the Courthouse on April 15 to protest. Good for you! Wanna do it again?

I was particularly pleased to read the reason for the protest. Among other things, The rally is meant to display opposition to ... loss of ... accountability. (Quoting Jennifer Campbell, a local attorney who helped organize the tea party.) Wow, if ever there was a time to demand accountability.

When you consider the three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial, which do you think is the least accountable?

It stands to reason that the branch that's the least accountable is the branch that has the least amount of light shining on it, the branch that keeps you in the dark the most. At the risk of further alienating judges in Yavapai county (wait for my Book!), that would be the Judicial branch.

For example, it wasn't until 2006 that the Commission would tell us the identity of the judges it disciplined. How could we vote intelligently to retain or elect judges without that data?

I recommend the eBay feedback model. We're smart enough to weed out the vindictive feedback.

But if no discipline is taken, the Commission still keeps the identity of judges hidden. In contrast, if you're falsely arrested or accused, YOUR name, picture, etc. all become part of the public record. (All animals being equal...) Our other politicians aren't immune from public criticism and scrutiny. Judges shouldn't be either. (Don't kid yourself. There's a LOT of politics in the Judiciary.)

Even with the new partial disclosure rule, all work by the Commission is confidential. It's confidential even to the extent that the Commission won't notify law enforcement if they find evidence a judge committed a crime!

Isn't there a duty, especially as officers of the court, to notify law enforcement when you have knowledge of a crime?

And I haven't mentioned that the Commission is mostly comprised of judges and those in the system! That's pretty independent, don't you think?

Hello, Legislature? This is your job in true Check & Balance fashion. There ought to be a Misconduct Commission in the Legislature.

You can file a State Open Records Law request with your local police agency and get all sorts of disciplinary records on a cop, whether there was discipline or not. Try filing an Open Records Request on another type of law enforcement officer, a judge. You won't get a thing. That's not right. They're both public servants.

This is exactly why you should show up tomorrow, Wednesday, September 30, in front of the Yavapai County Courthouse (East side) around lunchtime. In addition to telling your story if you were a victim of Judge Hinson, if you're a concerned citizen, you need to display your opposition to loss of accountability... in the Judiciary.

2 Days to go. Tell your friends, "No viruses!"

UPDATE: All links to the "attack" site have been removed.

No, I'm not talking about swine flu. I was informed recently that some browsers, the newer ones, that ostensibly check for "attack sites," are falsely reporting that this blog has viruses.

No, it doesn't. How can a blog run by Google have viruses?

Part of the problem is that some people have uploaded malicious files on the free upload host I've been using, uploadho.com But just because some people have uploaded a bad file somewhere doesn't mean the whole site is bad. That's like saying that a virus on the iTunes site means all their downloads are infected. They aren't.

But apparently, Google has labeled that site an "attack site," and, lumping the baby with the bath water, has thrown everything out that points to that site too. But if you download my ZIP or PDF files from this site, you'll be fine.

In any event, I'm in the process of re-uploading all the files to another upload host so this won't be a concern. (Tell me this isn't a labor of love.) That should clear up the false warnings. UPDATE: ALL links have been redirected to a new upload host.

In the meantime, if your friends report a problem, please tell them it's okay to view this site. They don't have to download any of the files if they don't want to. Please tell them to take a look, as there's only two days to go until Judge Hinson's last day. Two days to tell your story in front of the Prescott courthouse.

4 Days and Counting. A Funny Comment.

To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's famous quote, "I know paranoia when I see it."

So a little comic relief from an anonymous commenter. I've seen this guy before in cyberspace. He's been leaving similar comments in the Reader's Comments section of the on-line news reports covering Judge Hinson.

As he always does, he writes:

Could it be you are p****** off at Judge Hinson because he keeps ruling against you in your frivilous [sic] attempt to extort money from innocent people? You did it in PV and California and God only knows where else. Why don't you put your name on your post, D___? You and N___ are nothing but a couple of gypsy scam artists. You will never win. I know you won't post this for the public to see, but that is okay with me.

He could have saved himself a lot of time if he had read my complaint in full, with footnotes in the PDF version. There, on page 5, footnote 5, I plainly say I've never been a litigant in Judge Hinson's court. This is an attested fact, since the form to file a complaint of judicial misconduct requires you to state whether you've had a case before the judge.

Then there's the "logic" of the paranoid mind. If you're going to conclude that the 'reason' (no pun intended) someone would file a complaint of judicial misconduct against a judge is because they must be peeved at the judge, then you must similarly conclude that the reason the Commission upheld a complaint is because members of the Commission are similarly peeved at the judge.

It must be a conspiracy. Yeah, that's the ticket. The members of the Commission and I conspired to get Judge Hinson. Do you like the way he admitted to our charges against him in the end? That's our secret mind control ray gun in action.

You don't suppose the fact could simply be that Judge Hinson broke the law, was caught, and is now paying (part of) the price?

Nawww... facts only matter to the rational. The paranoid delusional live in their own dark little world.

I titled this "A Funny Comment." But truly, I feel bad for these people.

Day 5 - Invite your Congressman / Senator!

Five more days to go until Judge Hinson's last day, Wednesday, September 30. I'm encouraging any victims of Judge Hinson, or anyone who cares about Justice, to come to the Yavapai County Courthouse in Prescott that day around lunch time to tell your story, to let your voice be heard. To exchange notes and perhaps come together in a class action Federal lawsuit.

Then it suddenly occurred to me that we ought to invite our elected representatives too.

You see, impeachment starts in the House. If there's going to be any move to impeach Judge Hinson, it has to start there. Probably in the House Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately for us, there aren't any District 1 members in that Committee. Still, we should invite Reps Mason and Tobin. If they see enough interest, they can pass it on to their colleagues in the House Judiciary Committee to start the process. But ultimately, a majority of the House members would have to vote for impeachment, so the more Representatives who show up and see your angst, the better.

From the House, articles of impeachment go to the Senate. As with the House, I presume the Senate Judiciary Committee would get first crack at it. And again, there is no District 1 member in the Senate's Committee. But still, you should invite Senator Pierce as well as other State Senators, since, ultimately, a majority of the Senate would have to vote to impeach.

Now, I'm only one person and time is short. And District 1 is VERY large, so you will have to squeak loudly to get some grease. Please contact your Representative or Senator (or forward the link to this post) asking them to hear you out on Judge Hinson's last day. Tell them there may be some press coverage too. There certainly will be if they show up. (Please leave me a comment if you get a firm confirmation from a representative. Or if you're a Representative or Senator, I can virtually guarantee you Press coverage!)

Day 6. A FAQ from a Liberal

Six more days until Judge Hinson's last day. While we count down the days, let's answer some "Frequently Asked Questions."

It's been interesting hearing from readers. Sorry that I can't get back to most of you. (Like C. who left a 928 phone number.) Remember, I'm not an attorney. And while I can sympathize with you all in your plight (more than you know), I probably can't do much for you. But please keep those tips coming. I'm doing what I can with them.

Now, I got a comment that's been typical of some I've received. I think this particular one came from a Supreme Court staffer, based on the timing. They ask:

Do you have nothing better to do with your time? Who appointed you to investigate? Why don't you mind your own business and let the proper authorities do their jobs.

I'm trying hard not to roll my eyes and I know that name calling—like calling this person a Liberal—while true, isn't an answer.

So let me answer this compound question in reverse order, as it might render the first parts moot.

Q: Why don't you let the proper authorities do their jobs?

A1: If, by "proper authorities," you mean the Commission on Judicial Conduct, how much longer should I have waited for them to do their job?

It's been eight long years since Judge Hinson's first Constitutional violation. They warned him. They warned him two more times after that. Then there was a flurry of violations—25 in three years—that went unchecked by the Commission. (See Count 1 for documentation.)

They didn't act decisively until a concerned citizen made a stink. And then, and only then, they finally did their job.

So how much longer should I have waited for the authorities to do their job? One more month? One more year? How many more victims until they finally acted?

A2: Who are the "proper authorities?"

While the Commission on Judicial Conduct, is the final judicial authority (as opposed to criminal authority), aren't there others who are in authority who can do something?

What about Judge Hinson's clerks? They must have known about his violations. I understand the political pressure they're under—it's very difficult to report your boss' wrongdoing, even though it's the right thing to do.

Funny (sad) story: I was in the Yavapai County Courthouse when I overheard a new clerk talking to a seasoned one as they waited for the elevator. The new clerk told the older that she had been scolded for "asking too many questions!"

But that's the type of clerk we want!

What about the Clerk of the Superior Court? She signed all the Quarterly Audits documenting Judge Hinson's violations.

In her defense, someone pointed out to me today that the Clerk may not have known that Judge Hinson was falsifying his Affidavits, since those forms don't pass by her.

Maybe so. But doesn't she have an obligation to investigate and report? To file a complaint herself? She's an elected official in authority.

What about the Presiding Judge? What's his responsibility? He presides over the other judges. Doesn't that mean he's supposed to ensure they're obeying the law?

What about all the attorneys in Judge Hinson's court who watched the 60-day Rule violations go by but didn't file any paperwork about it? While I have reports from some of you that you filed pleadings when a ruling was overdue—and thank you for that—that's distinct from filing a Complaint. There's a dirty little secret about that. From caught.net,

I can state with certainty that if you go against the status quo in Rhode Island and point out wrongdoing of the judiciary they will ruin your legal practice and make it impossible for you to win a case.

Sad. But that's the reality. So unless an attorney is about to retire or quit the profession, it's not likely that they will be a whistle blower.

So that leaves We, the People, who are not members of the Bar. Per the law, "anyone can file a complaint of judicial misconduct." So you see, we are part of the "authorities."

To answer your question, then, the proper authorities did act. It was MY business. And it should be YOUR business. Especially if you're a staffer in the Supreme Court.

Q: Who appointed you to investigate?

A: As attorneys say, "Asked, and answered." See above.

None of the usual investigators investigated. Often this kind of thing falls to the Press, although "The Press" is not distinct from We, the People.

But except for KPHO-TV reporter Peter Busch, the Press didn't investigate. In fact, it didn't want to.

All the documentation was public record. That means you, and I, CAN inspect it. And have a duty to do so. It's called "Eternal Vigilance." A requirement for our form of government.

Q: Do you have nothing better to do with your time?

A: Considering that the Commission sustained my Complaint, I'd say I did pretty well with my time. (Although, frankly, I don't enjoy any of this. There are lots of self-indulgent things I'd rather be doing. But I'm called to sacrifice, and that includes sacrificing my time for a common good.)

I could ask you your same question: What are you doing with your time?

Do you have nothing better to do with your time than discouraging good citizens who are seeking Justice? Instead of hurting, why don't you help?

We'd have better judges if everyone were involved, watching and acting.

ONE WEEK to exercise your 1st Amendment Right

Seven days from now is Judge Hinson's last day. He resigns next Wednesday, September 30. Almost a year since a prima facie Complaint of Judicial Misconduct was filed against him.

If you've been victimized by Judge Hinson, or just care about "small" things like the Constitution and Justice, why not exercise your 1st Amendment Right to free speech and redress of government? Why not come to the Yavapai County Courthouse, east side entrance, and speak out? Maybe bring a sign? Lunch time would be a good time to show up... 11:30 to about 1 pm. If enough of you spontaneously show up, there might be some Press coverage.

It might be a good time to meet other victims too. Maybe you all can come together and start a class action Federal lawsuit for violation of civil rights? It's one way to change The System, which, as I've show, doesn't work very well.

Day 8. "The system works."???

I was talking to a government staffer a few days ago, telling him about how Judge Hinson was resigning shortly (not "taking early retirement") due to this Complaint of Judicial Misconduct. His comment startled me. "The system works!"

Does 'The System' work?

I suppose it does, in a way. I mean, if we lived in Cuba, there's no way you would be able to remove a judge for violating the law. Rather, they would remove you. And I'm thankful for that. (That's not to say there haven't been repercussions for filing this Complaint. Can you say, "Joe the plumber?" Wait for my book, "Prescott. Small Town politics.")

But 'The System' doesn't work very well. Remember, the Commission on Judicial Conduct knew about Judge Hinson's Constitutional violations since 2001. The warned him two more times after that before this complaint was filed. He was not disciplined until some concerned citizen made a big stink.

But the Supreme Court (Finance Department thereof) had ALL the records of Judge Hinson's violations. Jeanne Hicks, clerk of the Superior Court in Yavapai County had all the data. [A retiring clerk told me they called the Quarterly Audits "Tattle Tale reports." Admittedly, an uncomfortable position to be in, having to "tattle" on a judge. But that's what the Code of Ethics require.] The System had all the information it needed. But no one did anything with it.

So to say "The system works" without some qualification is like saying a car with three flat tires, a bad engine, and no starter "works."

Ya gotta push it to get it going. If you get it going, it's liable to stop—or backfire!—at any time. And even if you get it started and running, it's really slow going.

[And I haven't mentioned the lack of any criminal prosecution or move to impeach Judge Hinson. As of this writing, the System isn't working there at all.]

One thing is for sure. If YOU don't get involved, if YOU don't get in the driver's seat and push, nothing will happen.

You victims, please help me push for criminal prosecution and impeachment of Judge Hinson. Hopefully, you'll make a stink on the 30th, in front of the Courthouse on Judge Hinson's last day.

Day 9. Sheriff Joe. Sheriff Steve.

I'm not a fan of Sheriff Joe ( Joe Arpaio) in Maricopa County anymore. But as I've said before, I give credit where credit it due, even if I'm not a fan of someone.

He started out okay, has done and does a lot of good things. But he's also become a megalomaniac and has clearly misused his authority over the years against his political enemies.

Today, the Republican Sheriff Joe arrested and jailed fellow Republican Don Stapley. On the assumption this isn't political (100 charges this time, but a judge threw out 52 of a previous 118—so maybe it is?), I find it refreshing that a Sheriff would arrest a high ranking official, despite that high ranking official being in the same political party.

Now, Don Stapley is only a Councilman. Not a judge. But it would be interesting to know what Sheriff Joe would do if Judge Hinson had broken the law in Maricopa County.

But one thing we know so far, Republican Sheriff Steve (Steve Waugh, Yavapai Sheriff) hasn't arrested and jailed Republican Judge Hinson. Surely Sheriff Steve reads the newspaper (and maybe this blog?) and knows the charges? I've certainly made the case.

Have any of you victims of Judge Hinson filed a criminal complaint? Perhaps that's what the Sheriff is waiting for to do his duty?

Day 11. "Mitigating Circumstances."

Favoritism. God hates it. Sadly, it's always been part of man's history, although the ancient Medes and Persians did a good job of mitigating it by keeping the law, even when "inconvenient." Unfortunately, modern Western man has not done as well, as George Orwell wryly satirized in his famous Animal Farm.

It's not supposed to happen in our country. The wonderful idealistic inscription on the United States Supreme Court building proclaims "Equal justice under law!" But, as Orwell noted, the sad reality is, All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

If you're a judge, you're likely to get a different kind of "justice" than if you're not. (Hey, you won't even get a speeding ticket from photo radar!) Especially when it comes to "Mitigating circumstances."

For example, I read a headline on the Drudge Report today, titled Elderly Bank Bandit: I Robbed to Pay Off my Mortgage...

According to the story, an 69 year old desperate man robbed a bank.

'I was hoping to get $50,000 to pay off my mortgage,' he said.

Wilson said he lives with his 73-year old wife who he described as a 'gentle soul.' He said he feared for her future living on the streets if he couldn't make their house payment.

That sounds like a pretty good mitigating circumstance. Loving husband needs to pay off mortgage. Not for himself, but for the sake of his aging wife.

Still, the man was caught and is being charged with robbery. And rightly so. Too bad for him he wasn't a judge.

You see, when Judge Hinson falsified his time card, perjuring himself before the Supreme Court—claiming he deserved his pay when he did not and steal... errr, "appropriating it"—he had a mitigating circumstance too. And, like the story above, it also involved family.

In his case,

Beginning around spring of 2006, personal and professional challenges arose that contributed to [Judge Hinson] failing to rule on matters within [ahem] the required sixty days. By that time, the health of [Judge Hinson's] father had been deteriorating for some time due to Alzheimer s disease. [His] stepmother, elderly herself, suffered a fall during the 2005 holidays and could no longer provide her husband with the care he required. By the spring of 2006, the progression of his father's disease and the state of his stepmother's health left [Judge Hinson] and his siblings no choice but to place his father in an assisted living facility. The difficulty of this decision for [Judge Hinson] was heightened because his father had been a successful businessman and his deteriorated condition marked a substantial and disheartening decline from his earlier abilities and activities. Unfortunately, although the disease caused his father to be disoriented and forgetful much of the time, he was sufficiently aware of his new situation to be displeased and depressed. [Judge Hinson's} father died just a few months later in July 2006, and [Judge Hinson] was then required to assume and discharge significant responsibility for his administering his father's complicated estate.

So you see, like the bank robber above, Judge Hinson had a good excuse for breaking the law and, in essence, robbing the State. He was simply caring for his family. (And probably needed the money too.)

Unlike the bank robber above, Judge Hinson has not been charged.

So much for Equal justice under law. Oink,oink and wink, wink.

Day 12. Resigning, Retiring, RINO!

I'm absolutely horrified to read Republican sites that try to minimize Judge Hinson's crimes. Here's how the Republican Women of Prescott put it:

Two Exceptional RWOP Members Step Up to the Challenge

With Superior Court Judge Howard Hinson taking an early retirement, it is now up to Governor Brewer to appoint his replacement until the election in 2010.

Except he's NOT "taking an early retirement!" He's RESIGNING.

Do I have to remind you what the Commission on Judicial Conduct said?

The agreement provides for Judge Hinson’s resignation IN LIEU of suspension and recommends the public sanction for censure for his misconduct in office.

If Judge Hinson ever goes to jail for fraud, I expect the Republican Women of Prescott will report that he took an "early vacation."

Gimme a break.

Hey, do you know the difference between a Republican and a Conservative? It's like the difference between a Baptist and a Christian. One has core values. The other does not and is just there for the party.

This is the SAME group that endorsed Howard Hinson in 2008! What a track record!

You gotta wonder about their exceptional candidates for Hinson's vacancy, whom they claim are conservatives and strict constitutionalists/constructionists regarding the laws of Arizona. I wonder if they said the same thing about Howard Hinson? But somehow, Janet Napolitano, the Democrat Governor who appointed Judge Hinson, knew he wasn't.

It seems to me that at least one of them is not walking the talk. Let's hope you warn Governor Brewer before it's too late! You only have until Sunday to email her your input. You can bet the RWOP has already sent its comments to the Governor.

Off topic, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that God said it was "the woman who was deceived." Not the man.

Ewwww... here's a politically incorrect thought God had about all this. The same God who said you sow what you reap.

Looks like we're getting our just deserts. And that's not sour grapes, even though it tastes like it.