former Judge Mary Hamm cheatsformer Judge Mary E. Hamm cheater

Friday, June 11, 2010

First Amended Complaint

Here is my pro se attempt at suing a judge. Two judges, actually. Judge Mary E. Hamm and Judge Arthur Markham. (Judge Markham "un-recused" himself to cover up this fraud.)

UPDATE TO MY UPDATE: As I learn more and more about legal stuff, I am more and more embarrassed by my initial complaint in this matter. I'm so embarrassed, I've removed it from the blog.

I also made the classic pro se mistake (which even professional attorneys make) and forgot to state a claim. As a result, my complaint was dismissed by Judge Sedwick. (Whereas, when I made the EXACT same mistake in my previous lawsuit against Prescott PD, Judge Campbell allowed me to amend my complaint and gave me "guidance," both which are required by Court Rules.) We're currently in the Ninth Circuit, arguing whether a pro se litigant should be allowed to amend such an obviously inartful complaint. (Technically, was it an abuse of discretion for Judge Sedwick to dismiss my complaint.)

ATTENTION ATTORNEYS: Yavapai County failed to file a timely answer. I moved for default judgment. If I'm allowed to amend my complaint, listing Yavapai County as one of the defendants in the count of failure to supervise, it seems to me the County is automatically liable for damages.

If you want in, please leave a comment. It will not be posted.

UPDATE: As I learn more about the process, I see this is an admittedly "inartful" pleading. (Sadly, I borrowed heavily from a professional attorney's civil right complaint in the Arizona District. I'm learning that judge because you've passed the Bar doesn't mean you know what you're doing.) I've moved to amend the complaint, and the next version should be better.

[Initial Complaint removed.]

No comments: