Witness Tampering?

As I continue to think about the travesties in my case, I thought of one more piece of evidence suggesting Judge Hamm probably conspired with her witnesses before trial. (Yes, she called witnesses... for the Plaintiff!)

I already suggested this in my complaint of judicial misconduct, where, on the morning of trial, an independent witness saw, and attested to, the Plaintiff and her party enter the courtroom through the clerk's controlled access door. Curiously, the judge's chambers are accessible through that door.

But there's another door in the Prescott Consolidated Court, a side entrance to the courtroom accessible directly from the main stairway that the Plaintiff and her party could have used but didn't! That door is used all the time. For example, the Prosecutor brings people in and out that door for pre-trial conferences. If they had used that door, they could have bypassed me altogether, if courtroom "security" was really their concern. (Since I was sitting in the hall by the clerk's window.)

Furthermore, there were no subpoenas for witnesses in the court file. So how did Judge Hamm know to call the two witnesses she called for the Plaintiff? How could she know they'd be there?

More damning, when the Plaintiff initially petitioned the court, she supplied a letter I had written to a future son-in-law, Ryan Shoemaker, stated simply as an "example" of my style of writing. (I tried to warn him it wasn't prudent to marry the daughter during the turbulent time of divorce.) It was not cited to show harassment, since, obviously, it's not harassment when you write a private letter to someone that mentions someone else in a letter. Harassment is defined as an act "directed at a person," not "writing a private letter to someone where you mention someone else." Then we'd ALL be guilty of harassment. (Especially journalists/reporters.)

Judge Hamm enlarged the definition of harassment at trial. Warning to you all: If you write anything to anybody and mention someone else, if that someone else hears of it and doesn't like what you said about them, YOU could be cited for harassment. Such is the law in small town Prescott.

But in court, Judge Hamm tried to make my letter to young Ryan Shoemaker an element of harassment. It's like he had been briefed before hand that this was going to happen.

Hey, Ryan, that would be illegal. And sin. If it happened, are you gonna confess? I suggest contacting me and then the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI Civil Right Division.

I had also sent a private letter to a Mr. Chris Inman, the so-called "pastor" of the First Baptist Church of Prescott. (The title "Pastor" is no where found in the Bible. It's something men made up.) In that private letter I had also mentioned the Plaintiff.

Ignoring for now the ethics of a pastor of a church sharing a private letter (hey, members of First Baptist... if he did it to me, he may do it you), Judge Hamm mentioned my letter to him at the trial even though it was never part of the original Petition nor entered into evidence. (This is the ex parte evidence I complained about at trial and found had been slipped in to the court file later.) Interestingly, Mr. Inman was there at the trial.

Hey Chris, were you briefed beforehand? Wouldn't that be illegal? I've heard you're an attorney, an officer of teh court. So you should know. If it happened, are YOU going to confess?

It seems like this would be witness tampering. But the only law I can find is A.R.S. Section 13-2804, which doesn't seem to be on point. Surely there has to be a law about a judge conspiring with witnesses. Can someone send me a cite? Just leave a comment. You can remain anonymous.