former Judge Mary Hamm cheatsformer Judge Mary E. Hamm cheater

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Sheila Polk in harm's way?

Why would Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk put herself, and her husband, in harm's way?

See, she refuses to investigate this matter of tampering with a public record, a class 6 felony in Arizona. (A crime with no statute of limitations. I'm hoping someone will run against Mrs. Polk next year and grant me some justice here.) After I sent her office an information, complete with affidavits from two witnesses who exhaustively examined the court file and saw evidence of tampering (evidence which is still there today!), Mrs. Polk refused to investigate, citing "conflict of interest." (I'll post the letter later.)

[One of the witnesses then wrote to Arizona AG Tom Horne's staff, but the complaint fell on deaf ears.]

See, Judge Mary Hamm would be Mrs. Polk's client. But, as far as I know, Mrs. Polk refuses to forward the matter to another County attorney.

Now, I have a video clip from PBS' Horizon program, where Interim Maricopa County attorney Rick Romley, talking about a similar matter involving judges in Maricopa County says, "Nobody is above the law . . . if there's any question, it should have been shipped out immediately to another County Attorney. That's a pretty basic decision . . . " Even former Arizona General Attorney Terry Goddard agrees. (I have the story somewhere.)

So, at first, I thought I'd include Mrs. Polk in my lawsuit for obstructing justice. But an ACLU acquaintance of mine from a long time ago (thanks, D!) told me County Attorneys can weasel out of prosecution, claiming "prosecutorial discretion." So I never served Mrs. Polk. Nevertheless, she insists on being in the suit, despite my motion to strike her out of it.

See, she's put herself, AND her husband, in the middle of a federal civil right lawsuit. Why would anyone do that? Usually, you do everything you can to get dismissed from a lawsuit, which is exactly what all the other defendants have tried.

I'm thinking Mrs. Polk did it so she can continue to dodge her duty as a criminal prosecutor and continue to claim a conflict of interest and not prosecute Judge Hamm and Clerk Runner. (And maybe the Prescott Court Supervisor, Rolf Eckel?)

I'm also thinking that, when she tries to claim absolute immunity in court, that she has waived that claim because she voluntarily put herself into the suit. Any attorneys want to weight in on that?

The ironic thing is, Mrs. Polk says she takes her oath of office seriously.

I say, "Actions speak louder than words."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is definitely unconstitutional and should be thrown out of court. Free speech is a constitutional right and should never be suspended just because some nut suspects she might be threatened. Even the police will not act on a threat and this isn't a threat to anyone!