The Secret ex parte document

I've thought (and prayed) long and hard about publishing these ex parte documents. (This is one of four.) I wasn't going to post these because they were private correspondence from me to others. But 1) since they're in the public record (kinda sorta—they're in the physical court file in Prescott, Arizona, even though they don't appear in the electronically scanned record of the same file for the appeal in Superior Court) [UPDATE: they are now in the electronic record. I don't know if they always have been or suddenly appeared when my suit was filed. No one will tell me. But, to be fair, it's not obvious where they are in the OnBase system and I could have simply overlooked them at first. Still, I was told that personal notes from judges were not viewable. Yet, they are in the electronic record. (I made copies.) and 2) since the private parties to whom I wrote chose to disclose them for court, well, I figure I'm not betraying any confidences that they didn't.

So here is a secret document supplied by the Plaintiff, Melody Bodine (now Melody Thomas-Morgan) which either Judge Hamm or Judge Markham solicited and unlawfully ordered slipped into the court file. (If the former Mrs. Bodine can be trusted, she filed a Response to a Motion claiming the court "asked" her for these documents.)

Judge Hamm said she had read the entire court file, so to whatever extent she used this against me, I would never have known about it unless I had inspected the court file myself.

Tampering with a court file is criminal. It undermines the integrity of our entire judicial process. It's cheating. How do any of you know the same isn't being done to you in Prescott?

You can inspect the court file yourself - ask to inspect the file for case 20081217J at the Prescott Consolidated Court. While you will find this document in the physical record, you will not find this document in the electronic scanned version of the case at appeal in Superior Court! CV 20091145

Background: Melody Bodine accused me of Harassment and obtained a temporary injunction against me. I fought the Injunction in court.

This is an email I wrote to a man about his son, Josh. Apparently mis-sent, the son received the email instead of the father. (The son eventually sent the email back to me and I forwarded it to dad.)

As you can see, this email was not sent to Melody Bodine and therefore, is not an act directed at Melody Bodine. (Which is part of the definition of harassment.) Nevertheless, the young man thought he ought to share this private email - written to his dad - with his mother anyway.

It found its way into the court file unlawfully without any notice to me and apparently was used against me by Judge Hamm.

---

Hi Greg:

It's late, I'm tired, and I'm still fighting off my head cold. Still, I had some thoughts I've been ruminating about all day, regarding your gracious offer to Josh. I wanted to share them (unsolicited) before crashing for the night. I know you've got court planned for tomorrow, and this isn't time critical. And this going to be somewhat long. Hence, an email.

I don't know if your offer to Josh constitutes an "unconditional vow." And I'll be surprised (albeit pleasantly - perhaps) if he takes you up on it. But if it's not unconditional, and if he takes you up on it, you might want to get some counsel from the other men and consider some conditions before allowing him to move in. While it would be nice if you both could be restored, especially if the Lord grants you more mercy and makes the government return custody of your children - [How did we get to the point where the government can come into a man's family and pervert God's ordained hierarchy?] - so that he can fellowship with his younger brothers and can watch over Allegra, there needs to be a demonstrable change of heart before he moves in. With confession, I expect. And an escape clause in case there hasn't been a real change of heart.

Please don't take this personally, but frankly, I've been disappointed in the way Joshua is acting in this spiritual battle between you and Melody. I don't think it's your fault in the way you raised him, as some of his "Oedipus" leanings may be normal. I'm trying to be gracious toward him, since I know what I was like when my mom died physically. I see myself in him now that his mom has died spiritually.

I was a few years younger than Josh when my mom died. Like him, I was the oldest male. (In fact, the oldest sibling.) When my mom died, I freakishly took on my mom's characteristics for a while, taking on her role, defending her memory and, I suppose, filling the hole left in our family. I essentially became my mom. I'm not in to psycho-babble, but some have told me that's "normal." (For a male child? But in our American society, kids spend more time with their mom's than their dad's. Rush Limbaugh is right when he talks about the "feminization of America.")

So I suppose it might be normal for kids to rally to their mom, in sort of a White Knight fashion when there's a dispute between mom and dad. On the other hand, I didn't claim to be a Christian then, nor did I have a Biblical upbringing. Josh has - or should have - Scripture to anchor him. I know you taught him well. That's partially why I'm disappointed in him. While he hasn't been as rebellious as Sarah, unless he has a change of heart, I think he would hurt what's left of your
family at this time if he moved back in rather than help.

Another reason for my dismay with Josh is that, as far as I can tell, he has not approached this matter with Proverbs 18:17 in mind. In fact, he has steadfastly been one sided in this spiritual battle, despite being challenged about his favoritism. Which disturbs me greatly. Again, I'm trying to be gracious here, since we've been surprised to see a few of your "friends," who claim Christ, who are older in the Lord and should know better, who haven't been stellar examples applying this Scripture either. In Josh's case, I'm willing to allow this is more a sin of youth plus "feeling" his way through this more than "thinking" his way through it. I'm sad to say that, in this, he is acting more like a woman than a man. [I can't remember... is he still staying at his fencing coach's house? Isn't his coach a woman? What's up with that? Why isn't he seeking a man's counsel? More "feminization of America?"]

Worse, without disclosing sources, I have it on good authority that Josh has observed that "many" family friends think his mom has turned against you. (Words to that effect. As opposed to you turning against Melody.) And yet, as far as I know from polling family friends, despite his observation, Josh has not bothered to ask his "elders" why they think what they think. He refuses to even gather data. It's a lot like being in a cult. His mind is closed. And I have to say, with a mind set like that, I'm worried whether he is really saved. (Even when I was an unbeliever, I would ask older people what they knew. Saved me time not reinventing the wheel.) I know Melody has poisoned all the children. But still, by now he should be asking questions, especially since he knows others, more mature, see something different. His not asking could be a reflection of his true spiritual condition. Refusing to see = blindness. Not good.

[To his credit, he may have been at the last hearing to gather his own data. Or maybe he was told to be there as a witness against you? Is there any way to know if Moore was pulling another trick, trying to sneak a witness under the radar? Wish we had that data.]

Still, I'm trying to be gracious. When I was his age, I didn't know how to critically think. (Although I was certain I did!) It wasn't until I was about 30 that I started to get it. You've heard my joke that the public school system sucked all the common sense out of my head and I've spent the rest of my life trying to get it back! (Still not there yet.) But again, Josh doesn't have my excuses. He was spared the public school system and again, has a Christian upbringing, which I did not. And too, he seemed pretty sharp when I knew him. On the other hand, after I became a Christian at about 30, it didn't take me very long to come to the unpleasant truth that my mom is in hell because she never found the remedy for her sin. (Something my family still is in denial about.) Josh has had a head start both in Christianity and smarts... am I'm being too gracious with him?

Of course, one major mitigating factor is that vile David Knight. And so again, I'm trying to be gracious with Josh. He's probably never seen wolves in sheep's clothing as I have. I'm sure it's hard for someone of 20 to come to the conclusion, let alone even consider the thought, that an older man - who most everyone (including his mom) tells him is a great spiritual leader in the church - fails the spiritual test, has rotten fruit and is a black cloud. But since no one else is willing to go all the way on Knight yet, I suppose I can't hold Josh accountable for not seeing it either. Still, Warren alluded to Knight's sin in the letter to the elders.

On the assumption my discernment about David Knight is correct, there's no "cure" for Josh's inability to see this except time (to allow growth) per Hebrews 5:14. ["But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."] Or, unfortunately, trials, as you're learning in your own life. As you know from James 1:2, trials have a way of accelerating spiritual growth. ("No pain, no gain," I guess.) Or trials reveal who is not
genuine, as we're seeing with Melody.

So how about this? While I want to be gracious, I think the gracious thing for me to do here is to change my prayers for Josh and ask that God turn him over to Satan for discipline as with Sarah. If God answers that prayer too, that will help us discern where his heart is before he takes your offer to move back in. I don't get the impression that Josh is as rebellious as she, so hopefully, if God answers, it will not be as gut wrenching with him as it has been (and will be) with her. [I
was talking to George Nieto from NCC earlier this evening. His daughter married early, had a child, divorced, lost custody, is now homeless and, he thinks, on drugs. Gird your loins.]

The upshot of all this: We need more data to see where Josh's heart is before you let him under your roof. If it was just you and him, that would be one thing. (Although if he was unrepentant, he would be a drain on you at a time when you cannot afford to be drained further.) But there are three other innocent lives at stake and for their sake, I counsel you to seek counsel if Josh asks to move back in. I know how you feel. But you want to think your way through this.

Okay, it's past 4am. Way past my bedtime. (When I'm sick, anyway.) Now I think I'm running a fever. I'm not going to get better this way. But I thought this was more important.

Mike

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.