Proposed Amended Complaint

I was so embarrassed by my admittedly inartful initial complaint in this matter, I've pulled it from the blog.

I learned a lot when I made similar mistakes in my first federal rights lawsuit against the Prescott PD. And I learned how to cure my defects. See my complaint against Prescott City Prosecutor, Glenn Savona for example.

So, here are pertinent parts of what I may file if the Ninth Circuit agrees with me that it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Sedwick to not let me amend my initial complaint. (In my first suit, Judge Cambell did let me amend, and even gave me "guidance," as required by the Rules.)

ATTENTION ATTORNEYS: Yavapai County failed to file a timely answer to my complaint. I moved for default judgment. It was granted, but because I failed to list Yavapai Count as a defendant in a count, the judgment was set aside (or whatever the legal term is... I forgot for now). 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.

--------------------

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff incorporates each and every declaration set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
14. Some brief background as it supplies motive for certain defendants. In November 2008, after finding evidence in the public record of three years of egregious constitutional violations and falsified affidavits by a judge in Yavapai County, compelled by love of God and country to raise a "hue and cry," I filed a complaint of judicial misconduct with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct against a Yavapai County Superior Court judge, (now former) Judge Howard D. Hinson, Jr.
15. I publicized the complaint on a 'blog' on the Internet. I published an infamous "Exhibit 1," a graphic showing Judge Hinson's 60-day Rule Violations at a Glance. Knowing retribution for good deeds is a sad political reality in our country (resulting in the need for federal "Whistle blower" protection), I blogged anonymously during this time.
16. The author of a complaint of judicial misconduct is supposed to be anonymous until such time as the complaint is sustained. Nevertheless, before the Commission had ruled, I received an email on May 12, 2009 from a Yavapai County news reporter who had learned that I authored the complaint. If she knew, others in authority must have known. (Leaks may have come from the Presiding Superior Court judge in Yavapai County who had been a Commission member and/or the Yavapai County Prosecutor, also a member.)
17. On February 26, 2009, a TV reporter ran the Judge Hinson story Statewide on the 10 p.m. News. The Hinson story was echoed on-line Friday by various media outlets. The local Prescott newspaper published a front page story in print on Saturday, February 28, 2009. It is fair to say I made a big stink in Yavapai County which embarrassed the Judiciary there. (Although in fact it was Judge Hinson's actions that were an embarrassment.)
18. As I reside 100 miles away in Maricopa County, I thought I would be free from the typical whistle-blower retribution.
19. As Providence would have it, I was compelled to defend myself in a Yavapai County court shortly after the story broke when a long time friend who was divorcing her husband (Melody Bodine, now known as Melody Thomas-Morgan) filed and served an Injunction Against Harassment against me.
20. In her petition, Mrs. Bodine submitted four supporting: an anonymous letter addressed to a "Miss Thomas-Morgan" (she had not changed her name at that time, and had said she was going to change it "Eells."); a Cease and Desist letter I had sent Mrs. Bodine for spreading false rumors about me regarding the anonymous letter; a private letter I had written to a potential future son-in-law of the family, a young Ryan Shoemaker; and a police report regarding criminal allegations against her husband or me regarding the anonymous letter. When I was served with the Injunction, I was given copies of all these papers, pursuant to law and standard court procedure. Mr. Bodine was present at service and immediately made copies of all the paperwork I received. Since I had not had any contact with Mrs. Bodine since she first filed papers against her husband, I challenged the Injunction in court.
21. I filed many motions before trial. Initially I mailed copies of these to the Plaintiff as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a).
22. Soon thereafter, Judge Markham engaged in ex parte communication with me by having his clerk, Cynthia Runner, call me. Even though Injunction law allows for "legal process" and allows contact that serves a "legitimate purpose," he told me that the Injunction prevented me from sending copies of pleadings to Mrs. Bodine. An entry in the court record documents this call and directive. But this directive violates Rule 5(a) of the ARCP, which is binding on the Justice Courts, per A.R.S. §22-211. Interestingly his directive contradicted an Order from the Superior Court when I appealed the Injunction later. The Superior Court ordered me, correctly, to mail copies of all papers to Mrs. Bodine. I ended up incurring various expenses to have the court mail copies of my pleadings to my adversary to comply with the inferior court's inferior order.
23. Concerned about Judge Markham's preferential treatment toward the former Mrs. Bodine and against me, I filed a pre-trial Motion for a change of judge under our Rule 42(f). An automatic change of judge is a right in Arizona.
24. Judge Markham recused himself but would later "un-recuse" to rule against me.
25. In my motion for recusal, I also called for disqualification of any judge who was a member or knew leadership in the First Baptist Church of Prescott. Mrs. Bodine is a member of the First Baptist Church of Prescott, a big church in a small town, physically located adjacent to the Prescott Courthouse. The church made Mrs. Bodine their Poster Child, supporting her in her sin of leaving her husband. Her then husband, a potential witness for me, had been shunned by that organization, more so after mailing 600 plus cassettes and CD's to the 600 plus members asking them to rebuke his wife for her sin, per Jesus's instruction in the Bible. Also, the potential son-in-law I had written to, who might be a witness, worked for that church in their youth ministry.
26. I discovered later that ex parte "evidence" from the pastor of First Baptist Church had been slipped into the physical court file. as well as a private letter I wrote to Ryan's father. Nine months later, Mrs. Bodine reported "the court asked her for these papers."
27. Since Ryan Shoemaker did not know me, I introduced myself as a Christian Evangelist TO the Mormons in my private spiritual letter to him. On the assumption he was a Christian, in my letter to Ryan was a head-shot photo, offered as evidence of my suffering in my ministry for my Lord, showing me bloodied, the victim of felony assault by an angry Mormon gal while evangelizing Christmas Eve 2005 in Mesa, Arizona.
28. Knowing that Mormons call Christian Evangelists like me "Anti-Mormons" and knowing we have a high percentage of Mormons in political office in Arizona, in my motion for recusal I also called for disqualification of any judge who was a member or knew leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a the Mormon church), since my letter to Ryan about my ministry to Mormons was in the court record.
29. Judge Hamm was assigned to my trial on Monday, April 6. I discovered months after the trial from Judge Hamm's resume on line that Judge Hamm graduated from Brigham Young University, a Mormon owned institution. At the time she attended, a scholarly study showed 99% of all matriculates at BYU believe a peculiar doctrine of the Mormon church, that "God is a personal being with 'body, parts, and passions,'" (i.e., the god of Mormonism is a man and has a body of flesh and bones) a central church tenet and peculiar quote attributable to their prophet Joseph Smith. Yet BYU grad Judge Hamm did not recuse herself as required by Arizona law. (She said she had read everything in the court file, which necessarily means she read my Recusal Motion calling for a Mormon judge to disqualify in the trial of an "Anti-Mormon.")
30. In my motion for disqualification, I pointed out that pre-trial evidence had already been entered that I was a Christian Evangelist to the Mormons. I included pages from a California civil suit, filed by a Christian Evangelist brother against the Mormon Church showing the Mormon church fosters the use of the term "Anti-Mormon" and demonstrated that it is a racial epithet. I noted the Church settled with him out of court. I also included a screenshot from a Mormon apologetic website, showing me at a Mormon event with their caption "Anti-Mormon" under a photo of me. Last, I included an Affidavit from a former Mormon bishop, attesting the temple oath of allegiance Mormons make with their church, to use "everything with which the Lord has bless you" to "build up the [Mormon] church." By definition, this includes judgeships and requires a Mormon judge to vanquish a perceived enemy of the church. (I parenthetically add that I love Mormons and desire they be saved from hell.) In sum, an "Anti-Mormon" cannot get a fair trial from a true-believing Mormon. It would be like expecting justice from a Radical Muslim judge sitting on the case of a Zionist Jew.
31. Also, from 20 years in this ministry I know that prior to 1990, the Mormon temple ceremony literally portrayed Christian ministers such as myself as hirelings of Satan, as documented in TIME Magazine, May 14, 1990. Even though no longer acted out in the current ceremony, so pervasive is this teaching in Mormonism today that even Mormon kids taunt me with "How much to you get paid to do this?" (Implying Satan is paying me to share the Bible with them.) Exhibit A is an affidavit from a former Mormon attesting to these facts.
32. Strangely, three days before trial, on Monday, April 6, 2009 I received an un-court like "courtesy call" from Clerk Cynthia Runner. Much like a doctor's office confirming an appointment, she reminded me of court on Thursday. She told me the matter had been transferred to Judge Mary Hamm, then a pro tem judge.
33. Clerk Runner also told me that the plaintiff had filed three Motions prior to trial. To the extent they are stamped, the initials are "CJR," consistent with Cynthia J. Runner. A few months later, when Mrs. Bodine filed papers regarding this matter with the court, the court stamp says "C. Runner."
34. I realize now the Motions were time barred, being submitted days before trial allowing me no opportunity to respond. Nevertheless, they would be cited by Judge Hamm at trial.
35. Trial was held on April 9, 2009. I observed that court clerk Cynthia Runner knew Mrs. Bodine on sight, opening a controlled access door to the clerk's office at various times for her, for her family, and later, leadership of the First Baptist Church. See the affidavit of an independent witness, Exhibit B. I note that the judge's chambers are accessible via this door.
36. When I asked to make an Opening Statement, Judge Hamm told me "this isn't a trial type proceeding," that this was "a very informal proceeding." There was no clear demarcation between Direct and Cross Exam. I was told I could not Object to testimony. Thus, Judge Hamm effectively suspended the Rules of Civil Procedure, even though binding on Justice Courts, per A.R.S. §22-211.
37. Further, Judge Hamm called and questioned witnesses on behalf of Mrs. Bodine, acting as Mrs. Bodine's counsel, prosecuting Mrs. Bodine's case, even leading witnesses when they didn't answer as she wanted. (Mrs. Bodine did not call or question any witnesses.) Even the court transcriber documents this, calling them "The Court's witnesses." (Exhibit C) Judge Hamm did not ask any of the witnesses she called on behalf of Mrs. Bodine any exculpatory questions on my behalf. Judge Hamm excused one of the witnesses she called on behalf of Mrs. Bodine (Officer Murray) from the courtroom after she had called him and questioned him on behalf of Mrs. Bodine. The record says "not subject to recall," preventing me from calling him as a witness.
38. Early into the trial, Judge Hamm mentioned "new material" which had not been served on me or entered into the record at trial. When I told Judge Hamm I had not been given this new material (the pro se's equivalent of an Objection), Judge Hamm said "... the only thing that I recall being new in the material that was submitted this week by Ms. Bodine was a copy of a letter that allegedly you sent to her church." Thus, Judge Hamm admitted to knowing 1) that "new material" was put in the court file 2) what that material was, 3) that Mrs. Bodine submitted it and 4) that Mrs. Bodine did it "this week." (Specifically, Monday afternoon, coincidently the same time I received the "courtesy call" from Clerk Runner and when Mrs. Bodine filed her official paperwork with the court.)
39. When I made an exhaustive search of the physical court file later on June 18, 2009 in the presence of two witnesses, we found three documents had been slipped into the court file without the required Notices of Filings. (See Exhibits D.) There was a private letter I had written to Mr. [Wes] Shoemaker, Ryan's father; a private letter I had written to Chris Inman, the pastor of The First Baptist Church of Prescott, plantiff's church, and an email I had written to Greg [Bodine] the family head, which had been misdirected to Mrs. Bodine's son, Josh Bodine. None of these documents were introduced as evidence at trial. Nevertheless, Judge Hamm cited all these as evidence, referring to all of them except the e-mail to Greg [Bodine]. (Indeed, I would not have known she had read that e-mail and considered it had I not inspected the physical court file myself.) Never having been entered into the record, all these were hearsay. Yet Judge Hamm cited this ex parte material during sentencing as well.
40. All of us who inspected the court file were required to show identification and we were always supervised by clerical staff while we inspected the record.
41. I was advised by an attorney to contact the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice about the ex parte tampering of the court file.
42. I note for the record that Clerk Runner watched intently as we examined the court file. When I left the courthouse, a pastor from First Baptist Church and (I believe) a civilian officer of the Prescott police stalked me for a while.
43. Judge Hamm ruled against me and sustained the Injunction saying, "You seem to think that your [Christian] evangelism gives you the right to make accusations of any nature against people [calling out sin] and send those out to their friends, their relatives... "
44. At sentencing, Judge Hamm said, "And given your statements about the First Amendment, the right to free speech and right to express your opinions, I can't help but think you'd also express that opinion to these minor children." But the children were never mentioned at trial. There was no evidence presented about the children at all. (Ironically, I have never said anything to the children about the divorce.)
45. Judge Hamm enlarged Harassment law, claiming that anything I had written to third parties that mentioned Mrs. Bodine was harassment. She "ordered" that, while the Injunction was in force, I not contact anyone Mrs. Bodine may know saying anything about Mrs. Bodine. For example, I could not tell the church my belief that "Mrs. Bodine is in sin."
46. When Judge Hamm asked me if I had any questions, and I responded "yes," she rudely shot back, "I figured." I asked if her ruling prevented me from filing a pro se civil suit against Mrs. Bodine. Judge Hamm, who is a long time attorney, incorrectly told me that a person needed an attorney to appear in Superior Court. That is, of course, patently false.
47. Immediately after ruling, Judge Hamm served me in court with a so-called "Brady Notice," suspending my Second Amendment right, notifying the Yavapai County Sheriff I was not allowed to possess weapons and putting my name on the Federal government's NCIC database. Aside from erring by claiming Judge Markham had already suspended my Second Amendment right in his temporary Injunction, there is no State or Federal law giving a judge this authority in a civil Harassment matter. I challenged this later in a Petition and Judge Hamm reversed herself. I have been told by an Arizona State Assistant Attorney and just recently a federal prosecutor that the NCIC database is notoriously inaccurate, requiring a paper trail search by human hands before a federal prisoner can be sentenced.
48. I appealed Judge Hamm's ruling in Superior Court in Yavapai County. (Case # CV 20091145)
49. I could not find the three ex parte documents found in the physical court file when I viewed the case file electronically on the Superior Court Clerk's computer system. However, to be fair, the court file is hard to find on the computer. On the other hand, when I inspected the physical file, I was told Judge's notes are not viewable. I confirmed with with the Arizona Supreme Court's Administrative Office. Nonetheless, judge's notes appear in the scanned court file now. (I made copies.) Whether the court file was scanned as a proximate result of this suit, the local court administrator and Presiding Judge Mackey refuse to tell me. (Per letter to Judge Mackey.)
50. On October 1, 2009, I inspected the physical court file again at the Prescott Consolidated Court to see if the file had been "sanitized." While I was kept waiting to inspect the file, I believe I saw Judge Hamm (a red headed woman) enter the Clerk's office. Shortly after she exited, I was allowed to inspect the file. As judge's notes are not open to public inspection (although I have seen some left in by mistake), it cannot be known if anyone destroyed incriminating evidence in the court file.
51. On October 5, 2009 I filed a timely Notice of Claim with Yavapai County against Judge Hamm for violating my civil rights as documented herein.
52. On October 26, 2009, I filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Hamm with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.
53. On October 28, 2009 Presiding Judge Brutinel recommended Judge Hamm to a full time, $100,000/yr judgeship, to work two days a week.
54. On November 2, 2009 the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors appointed Judge Hamm to this full time post, without debate (agenda item adopted by consent) despite my NOC to them.
55. In light of the de facto ex parte communication and the other prima facie violations of the Rules committed by Judge Hamm, I filed a Rule 60(c) Motion to Vacate the Injunction for fraud with the Prescott Consolidated Court on December 22, 2009. In that motion, I clearly stated "Since Judge Markham and Judge Kennedy also recused themselves previously, this Motion should be reviewed by a new impartial judge who is not touched by my previous pretrial Rule 42(f) Motion."
56. Nevertheless, Judge Markham, who had recused himself from this case from the start, "un-recused" himself and ruled against me. He unlawfully ruled on a Motion in which he had no jurisdiction, being disqualified earlier by Rule 42(f).
57. In her Response to my Rule 60(c) Motion, former Mrs. Bodine says "The Court asked for my response on or before January 20, 2010." And later, "I was asked by the Court to respond to Mr. Palmer's many attempts to appeal the Orders." (See Exhibit E) She says she supplied three of the documents I had discovered earlier in the physical court file at ¶ 26.
58. In mid July 2010, Judge Markham issued an order sua sponte, claiming he had 'forgotten" he had recused from my Injunction trial earlier and now was vacating him ruling against me.
59. The Defendants are individuals, entities and municipalities acting under color of state law.
COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983-ABUSE OF PROCESS
(Defendants Markham, Hamm, Runner, Doe's)
60. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
61. Melody Bodine reported in a filing dated January 13, 2010 that she was "asked by the Court" to respond to a motion. This demonstrates ex parte communication between "the Court" and her.
62. She refers to the three documents cited in ¶ 26 which I found had been slipped into the physical court file ex parte, without any Notice of Filings or any other supporting paperwork. They were never served on me.
64. It is not clear who Mrs. Bodine means when she says by "the Court," and this material evidence will have to be determined upon discovery. If by "the Court," she means by judges communicating through Clerk Runner, then Judge Hamm is implicated, suborning the ex parte material, especially since Judge Hamm acknowledged one of the documents as "new material" which had been submitted by Mrs. Bodine on that fatal Monday. (¶ 38)
65. Considering that Judge Hamm had only been transferred to the case that Monday, it stands to reason that Judge Markham must be implicated, suborning the remaining documents which were not "new" to Judge Hamm, being in the record already.
66. Alternatively, Clerk Cynthia Runner could represent "the Court" to Mrs. Bodine and as such, Clerk Runner may have acted on her own volition, absent instruction from any judge, to tamper with the court file.
67. Despite my objections at trial, Judge Hamm cited these ex parte documents to rule against me.
68. By doing so, the defendants deprived plaintiff of his procedural and substantive due process rights and his First, Second and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
69. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
70. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since all the defendants are sworn officers of the court.
71. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - DEPRIVATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
(Defendants Markham, Hamm, Runner, Doe's)
72. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
73. Defendant Hamm willfully deprived plaintiff of due process by considering ex parte material at trial. She may have suborned said ex parte material. She may have engaged in witness tampering because she knew who to call at trial as witnesses when she prosecuted Mrs. Bodine's case. She did in fact unlawfully suspend the Rules of Civil Procedure, acted as legal counsel for Mrs. Bodine at trial to prosecute Mrs. Bodine's case, and willfully misused her position of authority to deprive me of my Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law.
74. Ex parte communication with a party at trial is, by definition, prejudicial, requiring immediate disqualification sua sponte (no Motion required), per the Arizona Code of Conduct, which is law for Arizona judges. Judge Hamm did not recuse.
75. Judge Hamm said she ruled on what she "imagined" I had done. She did not rule on the basis of evidence.
76. Judge Markham unlawfully "un-recused" himself and ruled against me.
77. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since they are judges.
78. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
79. The actions of the Defendant were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - EQUAL PROTECTION
(Defendant Hamm)
80. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
81. It is presumed that Judge Hamm is normally an impartial judge.
82. When it came to the case of the plaintiff, who Judge Hamm had prior information was a Christian Evangelist to Mormons, Judge Hamm, BYU graduate, presumably a current or former member of the Mormon church and/or sympathetic to the Mormon church, discriminated against me based on my religion, willfully misusing her position of authority to deprive me of equal protection of the law. She willfully refused to recuse on notice, despite the fact that the plaintiff is called an "Anti-Mormon" by the Mormon church, who the Mormon church teaches is a hireling of the devil. She would have further animus since I, in my pre-trial motion calling for recusal of a Mormon judge (or a judge who knew Mormon church leadership) had supplied an affidavit of the "sacred" (secret) Mormon temple ceremony. To divulge such is a "grievous sin" in Mormonism, punishable by death as portrayed in the pre-1990 Mormon temple ceremony.
83. The acts of the defendant toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendant is a judge and had been given ample time to recuse. Her refusal to recuse was premeditated.
84. As a direct result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
85. The actions of the defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - CONSPIRACY
(Defendants Markham, Hamm, Runner, Doe's)
86. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
87. Judge Markham, through his clerk Cynthia Runner, solicited and incorporated ex parte documents into the court file from Mrs. Bodine and the Prescott PD.
88. With no rational basis for it, Judge Markham contacted plaintiff via Clerk Runner on Mrs. Bodine's behalf to prevent me from filing court papers on Mrs. Bodine and to hinder my access to the court and as a personal favor to Mrs. Bodine, perhaps on behalf of Clerk Runner.
89. Judge Markham had communicated to Judge Hamm what he had done.
90. Judge Hamm, through her clerk Cynthia Runner, solicited and incorporated ex parte documents into the court file from Mrs. Bodine.
91. Either judge, or both, along with Clerk Runner and/or Clerk's Doe conspired to prevent four ex parte documents in the physical court file from being scanned into the electric record prepared for the Superior Court for my appeal of the Injunction.
92. When I inspected the physical court file a second time, Judge Hamm was alerted and called to the clerk's office by Clerk Runner or Clerk Doe.
93. Judge Markham un-recused himself to cover up and obstruct justice.
94. Before he was served the summons for this suit, Judge Hamm had informed Judge Markham he was a named party.
95. So to try to avoid suit, before service, Judge Markham un-un-recused himself by vacating his previously unlawful ruling against plaintiff.
96. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendants are judges.
97. As a direct result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff incurred economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
98. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT FIVE
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - DEPRIVATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT
(Defendant Hamm)
99. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
100. As previously rehearsed, the defendant, by her own admission (i.e., reversing her errant ruling) unlawfully suspended Plaintiff's Second Amendment right. (¶ 48) While somewhat remedied by reversal, permanent and incalculable damage has been done to plaintiff by unlawfully placing plaintiff's name in the NCIC government database where it may manifest in a future background check with dire consequences.
101. As the NCIC database cannot be inspected by the pubic nor corrected by the public, there is no remedy, save this Court act to audit and expunge the NCIC record on my behalf.
102. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, I incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
103. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT SIX
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - DEPRIVATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
(Defendant Hamm)
104. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
105. As previously rehearsed, the defendant, by expanding harassment law beyond the law, sough to, and in fact did, chill my right to free speech and my right to exercise my religion.
106. Judge Hamm called Ryan Shoemaker as a witness for the Plaintiff and questioned him about the letter I wrote him. My letter to Ryan was a private, deeply religious letter of warning, quoting God's words from the Bible. It was written in love, an older Christian man warning a younger that marrying the Bodine's daughter during the turbulent time of family divorce may not be prudent. My letter to Ryan was NOT written to Mrs. Bodine therefore was not directed at her (a requirement for harassment.) Yet Judge Hamm used the letter against me, saying I "knew" Ryan would share my private letter to him with Mrs. Bodine. This is a violation of my 1st Amendment right to free speech and exercise of religion.
107. Judge Hamm chilled my 1st Amendment Free Speech right by enlarging her definition of Harassment to include my opinions as well as "Thought Crime." (That is, what Judge Hamm thought my intentions were.) I feared that anything spiritual I wrote one time to anyone the Plaintiff may know, if the Plaintiff heard about it and was "upset" by it, that it would be considered "harassment" by the State.
108. Thus Judge Hamm has caused me irreparable harm by depriving me of my First Amendment rights.
109. As a result of defendants conduct, I incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
110. The acts of the defendant toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendant is a judge.
111. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT SEVEN
DEPRIVATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
(Defendant's Markham and Hamm)
112. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
113. Both defendants wrongly informed plaintiff that I would need to hire counsel to have equal access to the courts. In particular, Judge Hamm said I could not bring a civil suit against Mrs. Bodine as a pro se. I would have to hire an attorney or Judge Hamm would consider it harassment.
114. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, I incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
115. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendants are judges who know better.
116. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT EIGHT
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
(Defendants Yavapai County, Supervisors Springer, Thurman, Davis)
117. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
118. The named defendants approve judges for Yavapai County.
119. Upon information and belief, defendant Supervisors merely approved Judge Hamm as pro tem by way of a consent vote to an agenda item, which is their SOP.
120. A Notice of Claim had been filed prior to defendants approving Judge Hamm as a full time judge for the County. Yet the defendants approved Judge Hamm to a full time position without exercising any due diligence. Defendants merely approved Judge Hamm by way of a consent vote to an agenda item.
121. To this day, Judge Hamm continues to be approved by defendants, despite the prima facie case of ex parte communication, even though they've had notice of her malfeasance since being served in early July.
122. These policies and customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the part of the above-named Defendants which caused the violations of plaintiff's rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
A. For nominal and compensatory damages to be paid to the charities of my choice, plus special and incidental damages in such a sum as may be proven at trial;
B. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
C. For costs for the suit;
D. For attorney’s fees or equivalent;
E. For Declaratory relief, that my NCIC record be expunged of this incident and that the Prescott Court records and the Yavapai County Superior Court records documenting the Injunction hearing and appeal be expunged.
F. For Injunctive relief, that the Yavapai County Supervisors be ordered to perform due diligence when approving judges for the County, to include investigation of all complaints and perform Internet searches regarding candidate judges
G. For other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.