Curiously, Judge Arthur Markham, who had recused himself from this case earlier, un-recused himself for this. Despite the statement in my Motion that he was disqualified from ruling on the matter, he ruled anyway. (Denied.) Surprise, surprise! More funny business in small town Prescott.
For you attorneys, I want to point out a subtly in this new age of Electronic filing / Electronic documents. If you were to call up my case on the Yavapai Superior Court public access computer, you would not see the four ex parte documents I found in the physical court record. (Which is further proof that the documents were never properly entered into the record. And proof that a clerk knew it!) You would not know they were there, as there's no indication they are there. (No page count cross check for example.) The ONLY way you can check for corruption in a court file is to actually check the physical file yourself. Considering what we're finding here, you may want to keep an eye on things if ever you suspect foul play in the system.
Plaintiff (Melody Thomas-Morgan, f.k.a. Melody Anne Bodine) filed a Response and says some interesting things. Notably, she claims "No ex parte communication has taken place between me (Plaintiff) and Judge Hamm." At the same time she says, "I was asked by the Court to respond to Mr. Palmer's many attempts to appeal the Order... " And here's the kicker:
In my response I included the following:
- A letter Mr. Palmer wrote to my pastor (and my boss).
- A letter Mr. Palmer wrote to my (future) son-in-law and my (future) son-in-law’s father.
- An e-mail Mr. Palmer sent to my son.
Attorneys, how many times have you seen a court solicit information from a party to make a case?
As in my complaint, I point out that NONE of these four letters were part of Plaintiff's Responses / Filings. (Does that make her guilty of perjury, since she says they were?) I was never served copies of these documents, per Rule 5(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Attorneys, isn't this the very definition of "prejudicial?"
Indeed, I never would have known the court had considered these documents had not Judge Hamm and Plaintiff mentioned them at trial. And even then, Judge Hamm did not mention one of the documents above. My attorney adviser makes understatements the matter, saying this is "highly inappropriate."
I call it fraud.
It was never my intent to make the aforementioned letters public. But since the "Pastor" of the First Baptist Church in Prescott decided to divulge a private correspondence, since Judge Hamm claims to be a mind reader and ruled in court on what-according to her- I "knew" would happen with my letter to a potential son-in-law, and in light of certain current events in our country, since the Plaintiff put these documents into the record, I'll put them in the "record" too. I'll report. You decide.
Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment