Conspiracy Theory

Here it is, the one year anniversary of my patently unlawful trial, where Judge Mary Hamm engaged in ex parte communication with the Plaintiff (and I allege suborned the ex parte communication), called witnesses for the Plaintiff, suspended the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure to railroad me. (Ask Harold Fish about being railroaded in Yavapai County.) Motive would be 1) retribution for complaining about former judge hinson, and 2) religious discrimination, since Mormons call me an "Anti-Mormon" and Judge Mary Hamm is Mormon. See our sister blog www.maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com for the details of the trial where you can read the transcript for yourself.

Now, who do you suppose set me up with Judge Hamm knowing she is Mormon? Hmmmm??? Who would have Means, Motive and Opportunity?

See, I had specifically filed a pretrial Motion that a Mormon judge recuse from my trial. I did this because the Plaintiff had supplied ex parte evidence before trial that I was a Christian Evangelist to Mormons. I know Mormons call me an "Anti-Mormon" and the Mormon church used to indoctrinate its members in its temple ceremony that I am a hireling of Lucifer.

Sadly, despite the protections in the Constitution that ostensibly secure your due process rights to confront your accuser, ex parte evidence is allowed PRE-trial (but not AT trial) at an initial ex parte hearing petitioning for an Injunction Against Harassment. (Or an Order of Protection.) Your accuser can-and will-bring all sorts of garbage before the judge, which may or may not be true as she "cries and lies" to the judge.

But that cuts both ways! After I finished with my appeal, I found the Supreme Court's Rules of Protective Order Procedure. (Too bad about the timing, that I didn't find it soon. Although since the trial was fixed, it wouldn't have made a difference) If I'm understanding it right, buried in there it says that a party can present "evidence" pre-trial without the need for full disclosure. (See Rule 5(A) and (B), the latter which suspends Rule 26.1 of the Civil Rules of Procedure for disclosure.) Usually, the courts do this for the Petitioner. But I see no reason why it doesn't apply to the Defendant too. So my non-lawyer advice to you - file as many pre-trial motions as you can and include as much evidence as you want that goes your way if you fight an Injunction against Harassment or an OOP. In theory, the court is supposed to consider your evidence as much as it considered your accusers, so you should be able to use it in court in the same way that your lovely accuser is going to use it against you.

In theory.

Now, who would know that a Mormon judge would be viscerally biased against me? Well, Judge Markham would know, since he was served with a copy of my Rule 42(f) Motion for Recusal. But do you remember what I told you about Rule 42(f) Motions for recusal? You have to serve a copy to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court too. That would be Judge Brutinel.

UPDATE May 25, 2010: I move to strike. Disregard speculation to follow. See correction below.

Now, maybe this is purely coincidence but when I searched the physical court file, I saw a note from Judge John Kennedy saying he couldn't sit on my case because he knew the Bodines. (I guess he forgot he knew me too.) But I specially wrote in my Motion for Recusal that I knew John and so he could not be my judge. So why was he asked to be my judge? And who asked him? UPDATE: Must have been a screw up or someone not reading my pleading.

Well, a few years ago, at one of their Great Book studies, the Plaintiff, Melody Bodine (who considered me a friend then and who I believed then was trustworthy) told me that she heard John had converted to Mormonism! If true, is it now a coincidence that he was assigned to me?

UPDATE May 25, 2010: I just got off the phone with someone who knows John quite well. He reports John did not convert to Mormonism. I stand corrected.

Maybe. Maybe not. There was some mumbo-jumbo in the official record about how John was the Presiding judge of the JP court at the time. Maybe protocol dictates these matters go to him automatically. Despite my clear statement in my Motion that I knew John?

Now, you can see from this particular blog that I have been critical of Judge Brutinel because he didn't report former judge hinson to the Commission on Judicial Conduct in the three years that the former judge hinson repeatedly violated the 60-day Rule.

Judge Brutinel could always repent of his sin. But he seems to have dug his heels into the ground.

So in addition to my being used by God to remove his colleague, this blog also would give Judge Brutinel ample motive to try to screw me. (I think that's a legal term.)

Judge Brutinel, who appoints judge pro tems, would know Mary Hamm's resume, where she reports she was a graduate of Brigham Young University. (Do I have to tell you that BYU is Mormon church owned university?)

Okay, this is all still speculation. To make a good conspiracy theory, you have to show a quid pro quo. So what if I found a pay off?

Sure enough, it turns out that Judge Brutinel rewarded Judge Hamm (in my opinion) by giving her a $100,000/year job! This happened in late October, when my appeal was winding down and I was summarily rejected at every turn, despite reporting that I found ex parte material in the court file. (Which is a felony - tampering with public records.)

Hence, I think Judge Michael Bluff is in on this too. See my blog "Blind Man Bluff" coming soon.

Prior to this, Judge Hamm was earning a measly $100/hr for her "services." (If you look at Judge Brutinel's reward, Hamm also now qualifies for a publicly funded pension. Sweet!)

Another thing you need for a good conspiracy is plausible deniability. These guys may be evil, but they're not stupid. (As even Jesus observed.) So Judge Brutinel would have pre-arranged with someone else to make it seem like he was just doing his duty when he paid Judge Hamm off. So is it a coincidence that Judge Blaylock, who was retiring, recommended Judge Hamm?

What would really clinch this is if Judge Blaylock is Mormon! Anyone know? (Bueller?)

One more coincidence. This $100,000/year job was for working two days a week. Kind of lame and I suspect Judge Hamm was bored. So in February, Judge Brutinel assigned her some extra duties.

What's so conspiratorial about that? Well, by late February, Judge Brutinel would have known that the Commission on Judicial Conduct was not going to act on my very embarrassing complaint against Judge Hamm. That would have given him another big black eye if he had given Judge Hamm another assignment only to find she had been forced to resign for her felonious actions in my trial. Timing is part of a good conspiracy.

So that's it. Unless you have some info to offer. I haven't reached critical mass yet like badphoenixcops.com where insiders secretly send in tips. Of course, if something untoward should happen to me . . .

Will we ever know the truth? Yes, someday. That some conspired against me in my trial is not in question. The question is, how far up the ladder (or Latter) does it go?

But like any conspiracy / cover up, it requires that those involved remain quite. Forever. It only takes one person to break the chain. That could be a clerk. Or Judge Markham. Or Judge Bluff. Or Judge Blaylock. Or maybe Judge Hamm herself will repent and come clean before she meets her Maker? (She's kinda old.)

I suspect Sheila Polk is somehow involved in this too. I've been critical of her too in these pages.

Or maybe someone else in the system vying to be Presiding Judge will look into this? Or perhaps if the FBI or DOJ Civil Rights division looks into my trial, maybe then we'll know who the players are.

Interestingly, according to Mormon Gospel Principles, part of repentance for her would be coming to me personally and confessing. Naturally, if she does that, I'll forgive her. But I'll also report the fact to you.