Petition to Rescind unlawful Brady Disqualification

Note to visitors from the Supreme Court's public forum: Greetings! Today is May 19. As you probably know, the Court's site was down for a few days but they didn't extend the deadline for comments. So I'm frantically struggling to get a few comments in before tomorrow. I'll try to clean up the blog later to make navigating around easier. For now, here is the example cited in footnote 1.

Note the peculiar Certificate of Mailing at the end of the pleading. Judge Markham prohibited me from complying with Rule 5(a) of Civil Procedure, saying it would be a violation of the Injunction to send copies of pleadings to the Plaintiff as required by law. Such is the judiciary in small town prescott.

Uncharacteristically, Judge Hamm reversed herself and rescinded the Brady Disqualification she slapped on me. (Order will be posted later.)

I have filed a civil rights complaint in federal court along with a timely Notice of Claim. You can view them here. (Also see the complaint of judicial misconduct, which would be the basis of my case.) As will be obvious from my complaint, I'm just a dumb pro se and can't do this by myself. HELP! If you'd like to offer your services to champion my complaint, you can have the money. I just want Justice.

---

This petition is not an appeal of a ruling. Rather, this petition is to rescind an unlawful notice sent by the court. This petition will also serve as notice of violation of Defendant's civil rights. The court's error, in the worst case, could cause irreparable harm to the Defendant and needs to be corrected immediately.

SYNOPSIS

Judge Hamm erred when she informed the Sheriff, and subsequently, the NCIC, that Defendant's second amendment civil right to purchase or possess a firearm is suspended. (Exhibit 1) But as stated on the court's form, page 2, the so-called "Brady Disqualification" cited applies only to "intimate" partners and Orders of Protection. Defendant has never been intimate with Plaintiff. The court's own form (ibid at 1) states this is an Injunction Against Harassment, not an OOP. Yet the court erred when it notified the sheriff of an "Order of Protection in the above-referenced case."

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff incorrectly sought an Order of Protection against Defendant. However, Plaintiff correctly reported on her petition that she and Defendant are not "spouse, ex-spouse," have not "lived together," have no "child in common," etc. (Exhibit 2) When questioned under oath (partial transcript from court audio of December 17, 2008 hearing, Exhibit 3), Judge Markham confirmed that Plaintiff and Defendant have never lived together. Realizing Plaintiff's petition did not qualify for an OOP, Judge Markham then converted Plaintiff's request from an OOP to an Injunction Against Harassment.

Plaintiff confirmed at trial on April 9, 2009 that she and Defendant have never lived together. At trial, Defendant noted that, due to the lack of a domestic relationship, an OOP was not allowed by law.

Rather, this matter is governed by A.R.S. 12-1809, Injunction Against Harassment, which makes no provision for firearm restrictions. Likewise, 18 U.S.C. Section 922, cited as the basis for "Brady Notification" the court transmitted, applies only to "intimate partners." It does not apply here. Per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(32), "the term 'intimate partner' means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person." Again, there is no such relationship here.

REQUESTED RELIEF

Wherefore, Defendant requests that the court immediately remedy the incorrect Notice to Sheriff of Brady Disqualification by immediately notifying the Sheriff's office that the "Brady Notification" against Defendant is rescinded. Further, Defendant requests the Sheriff be instructed to correct the NCIS (and any other) record(s) and provide certification to Defendant that the record has been rescinded.

So that no background search will further damage the reputation of Defendant for this unlawful action, or inhibit potential gainful employment, Defendant requests an Order from this court instructing the Sheriff, the NCIS and another other record keepers to expunge the record against Defendant as it applies to this errant Brady Notice. Defendant requests certification that the records have been expunged.

Finally, bureaucracies being what they are, in case these agencies are not diligent and the record is not corrected in a timely fashion, Defendant requests a letter from this court in the form of a Court Order, explaining to any law enforcement agency or court that the Prescott Justice court made an error and no firearm restrictions have accrued against Defendant from this matter.

Defendant requests copies of all correspondence from the court to said agencies.

Submitted May 18, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Despite Rule 5(a) of Civil Procedure, which requires "every written motion… and every written notice… and similar paper shall be served upon each of the parties," and even though the law on Injunctions (A.R.S. 12-1809(R)) allows mailings for "legitimate purpose," as does the Injunction paperwork itself, the Prescott Justice court tells Defendant he cannot send a copy of this petition to Plaintiff, as required by law. Therefore, Defendant request the court mail a copy of this original to:

Melody Thomas-Morgan
(formerly Melody Bodine)
c/o Christian Academy of Prescott
148 South Marina St.
Prescott, AZ 86303