To be fair, Terry Goddard, the Arizona Attorney General (who is now running for governor - but, ahhh, isn't Mr. Goddard, our highest law enforcement official, violating Arizona's "resign to run" law?), Mr. Goddard didn't write this response. A high ranking staffer, Mr. Andrew Rubalcava (Chief Special Agent) did.
It's hard to know whether his subordinate is reflecting Mr. Goddard's false religion when it comes to judges or simply doesn't get it. Mr. Rublacava seems to think a judge can do anything he or she wants in a courtroom - even commit, or cause others to commit felonies! So judges, go ahead! Ex parte all you want. Might as well start making it pay by taking bribes. Your own county attorney won't go after you, claiming they can't because you're their client. Not even the highest attorney in the state, the Attorney General will charge you with a crime! So you're free to do whatever you want!
Mr. Rublacava's letter speaks for itself, although I can't help but speak for it in [brackets]. Here, in backward order, is Mr. Rubalcava's response, followed by the good citizen's complaint of felony in the court.
One wonders if Mr. Rubalcava even bothered to read the citizen's complaint, as the citizen anticipated Mr. Rubalcava's dodges.
From the Office of the Attorney General
May 14, 2010
Re: Your letter dated April 24, 2010
Dear Mr. Bxxxx:
In your letter addressed to me you allege that you have personally seen evidence of "Tampering with a Public Record" and "Interfering with Judicial Proceedings" crimes which you allege occurred during a family friend’s civil proceeding in 2009. As best can be determined from your complaint it is unknown if these allegations were considered or addressed by the court of record during trial, on appeal, or if this matter was ever brought to the attention of the Clerk of the Superior Court. [IT DOESN"T MATTER. These are felonies we're talking about! A judge cannot waive the law!]
The Yavapai County Clerk of the Court (928) 777-3055 may be able to further address your concerns. [Ahem. It's a clerk who committed the crime! And the best the local administrator can do is to go to the Presiding judge. But what if it was the Presiding judge who suborned the crime? But here's an idea, Mr. Rubalcava. Why don't YOU call the clerk and ask about the record tampering and inspect the record for yourself?] While I am aware of your insistence that this is a criminal matter, the State Commission of Judicial Conduct (602) 452-3200 may also address your concerns regarding the actions of court officials. [No. As the citizen pointed out in his letter, the Commission is not a law-enforcement agency nor does it have jurisdiction over clerks.] To the extent you are seeking the initiation of a criminal investigation; we are unable to take any action in this matter. The Criminal Division of this office is only allowed to initiate a criminal investigation if it believes there is substantive evidence of criminal wrongdoing. [And yo don't believe an Affidavit attesting to tampering with a public document is substantive? The citizen told you how you can easily confirm the fraud yourself!] We are not allowed by law to open a criminal investigation based on supposition or a complainant’s belief that wrongful action occurred. [Ibid.] Our office cannot prosecute a case unless there is a reasonable likelihood of a criminal conviction. [This may be the heart of the matter. Mr. Goddard will not prosecute a judge.] A criminal conviction requires the State to prove each and every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, which is a very high burden. [Is he being patronizing here?]
This office is prohibited by law from giving legal advice to private parties, and we cannot pursue any private rights or remedies that you may have. [Somewhat boiler plate, but doesn't the State have a duty to forward criminal complaints if its not going to act? As you'll see, the citizen who wrote the complaint is a WITNESS. His rights were not violated and he was not asking for remedy. Again, more patronizing?]
Sincerely,
Andrew Rubalcava
Chief Special Agent
Special Investigations Section
And here's the good citizen's complaint. He attached an Affidavit, which is last.
April 24, 2010
Andrew Rubalcava
Chief Agent, Special Investigation Section
Office of the Attorney General
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926
Re: Tampering with a Public Record and Interfering with Judicial Proceedings
Dear Mr. Rubalcava:
I have personally seen evidence of four counts of "Tampering with a Public Record" (a class 6 felony, per A.R.S. §13-2407) and coincidentally, four counts of "Interfering with Judicial Proceedings," A.R.S. §13-2810 (A) (2), a class 1 misdemeanor. These crimes occurred in Yavapai County. The Yavapai County prosecutor was informed, but, claiming a "conflict of interest," has declined to investigate these serious matters. Nor did she refer them to another prosecutor. Therefore, I am obligated to inform your office, especially since a clerk of the court must be involved in criminal activity.
Before going further, because a judge (or judges) might be involved in these crimes, I wish to point out that the Commission on Judicial Conduct is not the proper venue for a criminal investigation. The Commission does not investigate criminal activity, per se. Furthermore, at best, the Commission is ambivalent as to whether it will forward any findings of criminal conduct involving judges to law enforcement. (When asked if the Commission would forward information about bribery, a staffer said, "it depends.") Nor does the Commission investigate clerks of the court, as it has no jurisdiction to do so. I want to be clear: this is a criminal matter requiring investigation by a law enforcement agency. The Commission is not the proper venue here.
Now, per the Affidavit enclosed, I have closely observed a family friend's Injunction Against Harassment proceedings from beginning to end. I was present when he was served papers by a process server and I made copies for myself of all the paperwork he received at the time he was served. I was at his trial when new "evidence" was cited at trial, evidence which, at trial, my friend said was not served on him as required by Rule 5(a) of the Civil Rules of Procedure.** Footnote: By way of background, the Justice Court is bound by the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, per A.R.S. § 22-211. "The law governing procedure and practice in the superior court ... shall govern procedure and practice in justice of the peace courts. "
Rule 5(a) of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. Rules of Civil Procedure, states in part:
Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the original complaint unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous defendants, every paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party unless the court otherwise orders, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, designation of record on appeal, and similar paper shall be served upon each of the parties.
So, per Rule 5(a), when material is added to the court file, a copy must be served upon each of the parties.
Also, there is Rule 5(g)
(3) Attachments to Judge. Except for proposed orders and proposed judgments, a party may attach copies of
papers not otherwise to be filed under this rule to a copy of a motion or memorandum of points and authorities delivered to the judge to whom the case has been assigned. Any such papers provided to the judge must also be provided to all other parties.
That is, any paper entered into the court file by one party is, by law, supposed to be copied and provided to the opposing party. But at the time I inspected the court file there were no Notices of Filing in the court file. Nor were there any Certifications of Mailing associated with four documents I discovered.
While the Rules of Procedure are not within your jurisdiction, the following is.
After the trial, two witnesses and I made an exhaustive inspection of the physical court file. (Case number 20081217J) We found four documents that had been slipped into the court file without the proper required legal notices, per Rule 5(a) above. This constitutes tampering with a public record— namely the court file. In fact, if you were to look at the Superior Court's electronically
scanned record of the court file (CV 20091145), you would NOT see these four documents in the record, which is evidence of more tampering with a public record. (Since someone had to keep these four documents from being scanned into the record.) I have reason to believe that court clerk Cynthia J. Runner is the perpetrator.
I trust you know that a regular person cannot slip documents into a court file. Court file access is limited to clerks of the court. In fact, I was required to show my driver's license before being allowed to inspect the court file, and I was under constant supervision by clerk staff while handling the physical file. Therefore, a clerk of the court must necessarily be involved in criminal
tampering of a public record.
As the entire purpose of tampering with a court file is to interfere with judicial proceedings, you have your misdemeanor charge. If your investigation takes you to others involved, so be it. This may enlarge to charges of conspiracy, as one of the documents unlawfully inserted into the record was a supplemental police report. Therefore, it may be the Prescott Police department is involved.
Naturally, if a judge (or judges) caused the clerk to tamper with the court file, this is also conspiracy. Motive would be retribution, for my friend filed a complaint which caused a Superior Court judge in that courthouse in Yavapai County to resign from office.
If witnesses were briefed before trial about these documents being slipped into the court file, then you have witness tampering, also a felony.
Please, these are very serious matters, which affect the foundation of our legal system. As interim Maricopa County Prosecutor Romley said on Horizon last week about Judge Donahoe, "No one is above the law." In addition to being a law enforcement officer, the Office of the Attorney General is also an officer of the court. I trust, then, you will be diligent to investigate these serious matters.
If you should refuse, would you please forward this complaint to the Civil Rights branch of the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI?
Please advise me if your office decides to investigate or not o I can know who next to inform.
Signed,
Bxxxx
Finally, the Affidavit.
STATE OF ARIZONA
ss.
County of Yavapai
BE IT ACKNOWLEDGED that Bxxx, the undersigned deponent, attests to the following under penalty of perjury:
1. I was present on January 28, 2009 when Peter M. Palmer was served papers for a temporary Injunction against Harassment, designated as 20081217J in the Prescott Justice Court.
2. I inspected and made a photocopy record for myself of all the documents served on Mr. Palmer at the time immediately after service.
3. I attended Mr. Palmer's trial, where he was the Defendant for said Injunction on April 9, 2009.
4. Judge Hamm mentioned "new material" in the record at trial, which I had not seen in the papers served on Mr. Palmer on January 28. Mr. Palmer said at trial he had not seen this
new material.
5. On the morning of June 18, 2009, I inspected the court file for this case in the confines of clerk's office of the Prescott Consolidated court in the basement of the Yavapai County Courthouse.
6. The clerk required a copy of my driver's license before she would allow me into the clerk's office to touch and inspect the court file.
7. I examined every page of the court file from beginning to end.
8. There were no Notices of Filing in the file.
9. There was an apparent copy/printout of an email Mr. Palmer wrote to me. The copy/printout in the court file indicated the email was sent to josh@xxxx That email was not mentioned at trial.
10. There was an apparent copy of a letter Mr. Palmer sent a Mr. Chris Inman of First Baptist Church, dated May 7, 2008. A letter to Plaintiff's "pastor / minister" was mentioned by
Plaintiff and Judge Hamm at trial. Judge Hamm said this letter was submitted "this week by Ms. Bodine." But this document had not been entered into evidence at trial. There was no date stamp on the letter to indicate when it had been entered into the court file and again, there was no Notice of Filing.
11. There was an apparent copy of a letter Mr. Palmer sent a Mr. Shoemaker, father of my future son-in-law, dated October 9, 2007. A letter Mr. Palmer allegedly wrote to the "father-in-law" was mentioned by the Plaintiff and Judge Hamm at trial. But this document had not been entered into evidence at trial. There was no date stamp on the letter to indicate when it had been entered into the court file and there was no Notice of Filing.
12. There was a copy of Prescott Police Report DR 08-50969-005 in the court file, dated 02/04/2009. This date is seven weeks after the Petition had been filed in December 2008 and about a week after papers had been served on Mr. Palmer on January 28. At trial, Judge Hamm said she had read the police report but this supplement was not entered into evidence at trial. There was no Notice of Filing with this supplemental report.
These statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signed, Bxxxx
You may not believe the Bible, but I trust you believe this part:
"Therefore the law is paralyzed,
and justice never prevails.
The wicked hem in the righteous,
so that justice is perverted." Habakkuk 1:4
Amen?
No comments:
Post a Comment