Press Release - Civil Right lawsuit due to Religious Discrimination

Who wants to be (half) a Millionaire?

I am soliciting an attorney to champion my case. Should make good law and garner lots of media attention. You can have the money. I just want justice.

A federal civil right lawsuit has been filed against Judge Mary Hamm. (Posted below.)

It's said you can't sue a judge unless they lack jurisdiction. I argue here that Judge Mary Hamm lacked jurisdiction for at least two reasons: One, she was clearly required to recuse by Motion as well as automatically by law before going to trial. Thus, she had no business being my judge.

---

UPDATE: At the law library today. Found this from West's: Defendant bears the burden of proof proving immunity. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S Ct 2606, 125 L F2.d 209 (1993) How will Mary Hamm prove that it's okay to engage in ex parte communication with a Plaintiff?

---

Two, she unlawfully suspended the Rules of Procedure in court, saying "This isn't a trial" thus she removed any claim to jurisdiction she might otherwise enjoy because she nullified the entire court proceeding.

Here will be my argument to the jury. Please forward to others.
-----------------------------
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury: Suppose you were a judge. And suppose you were raised believing you were special, that you were a member of the One True Church. (And that, by extension, you were raised believed all the other churches were wrong.)

Suppose further that when your church deemed you worthy, you were allowed to attend a secret-you call it sacred-ceremony, where you swore secret blood oaths of allegiance to your church. In particular, you swore to use everything with which your lord has blessed you, which includes your judgeship, for the building up of your church. (Which, by extension, means using your judgeship to vanquish enemies of your church.)

And suppose you were taught in that ceremony that Evangelical Christians, who preach orthodox Christianity to you, were hirelings of Satan, paid by the devil to convert you. So strong is this teaching that you even call them "Anti's." It's somewhat like an radical Islamic judge sitting and ruling against a zealous Jews.

If you were a judge in this religion and a known "Anti" came before you at trial, do you have to recuse yourself for bias?

This is not a hypothetical. It really happened. In a recent trial in Prescott, Arizona, an Evangelical Christian came before such a judge as a Defendant. Evidence had been presented before trial that the Defendant specialized in the judge's religion and was very active in sharing the Gospel with members of her church. (Which the 10th Circuit court of appeals said was a "monolithic faith.") The Defendant's picture even appears with the caption "Anti" on a prominent church apologetic website!

Even though Arizona law requires a judge to automatically disqualify "herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned" the Defendant put it writing. He manually moved for disqualification. Because he knew that the judge's church teaches its belief that he's paid by the devil, to avoid religious discrimination, he filed a pre-trial motion calling for the recusal of such a judge. He supplied the photo of him labeled as an "Anti" and provided an affidavit from a former bishop in the judge's religion, attesting to the oath of allegiance the judge swore to her church called the "Law of Consecration."

Despite all this, the judge did not recuse herself. Despite lack of evidence (which would even include ex parte "evidence" she apparently suborned from the Plaintiff), based only on what she "couldn't help but think," she ruled against the Defendant.

Now, bias is very difficult to prove. But suppose that during this trial, the judge said she was suspending the Rules of Court Procedure? Suppose the judge referred to ex parte material at trial? And you later inspected the court file and found four documents had been slipped into the record without any Notices of Filings? (Which is a felony.) You objected at trial about the ex parte material, but were ignored. In fact, consistent with the Rules of Procedure being suspended, you were told you couldn't object to anything. And so, by considering hearsay as evidence, the judge also suspended the Court Rules of Evidence.

Suppose further that the judge called witnesses for the Plaintiff? Suppose the judge lead witnesses to make the Plaintiff's case, never asking any exculpatory questions to exonerate the Anti? And suppose the judge dismissed a witnesses with no recall to thwart the Defendant? Would these be indications of bias?

The Defendant, Mike Palmer, thinks so. He is a Christian Evangelist who specialized in the judge's religion. He has filed a federal civil right lawsuit against Judge Mary Hamm. It's an uphill battle because Arizona law gives judges "absolute immunity." But this cannot mean that a judge can violate basic law, suspending the Rules of Court and engaging in ex parte communication with a Plaintiff. Nor does immunity accrue when a judge has no jurisdiction. By failing to recuse in this very obvious matter where recusal was not only automatically required but required by Motion, Palmer argues that Judge Hamm had no business hearing his case. Further, by suspending the Rules of Procedure and saying "this is not a trial," Judge Hamm herself forfeit any jurisdiction she might have as a judge.

But again, it's an uphill battle. Mr. Palmer is only a pro se litigant. He is trying to find an attorney who will champion his cause. He says the attorney can have the money. He simply wants Justice. See www.maryhammmaryhamm.blogspot.com for the story. You can contact him anonymously by leaving a comment at the blog.

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.