Well this explains a lot.
I just found
Judge Hamm's resume. (She's being considered
by the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors for a semi-permanent position in Seligman. Considering this complaint of judicial misconduct, does anyone know if they approved her?
UPDATE: Yes, they did. Her approval was buried in "consent items" in the Agenda and approved en masse.) If you look on Page 2 of Judge Hamm's resume, you'll see she attended
Brigham Young University and was a Graduate Assistant there. I trust you know that
BYU is privately funded by the Church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. That is, it's Mormon.
As an aside, I have to give thanks to my God for all this material. I'm just a dumb citizen, but I keep stumbling onto evidence of wrongdoing by judges. If you're not a believer, you'll say it's coincidence. I say it's Providence. My Lord keeps pouring this stuff into my lap. As long as He does and as long as judges keep doing evil,
I'm obligated to pursue Justice.Now, you don't have to be Mormon to attend BYU, but it's highly probable you are. Why else would you go there? (
Among other things, you have to agree to no beer. And what would college be without an occasional beer?) We also know from her resume that Judge Hamm worked in Chandler, Arizona, which is strongly Mormon, being geographically adjacent to Mesa, Arizona, where there's a Mormon temple. (She also served Mesa.) She also was a clerk in Division 1 of the Court of Appeals when Judge Taylor sat. Maybe the latter is just coincidence, but Taylor is a Mormon name, and Judge Taylor
practiced law in
Mormon Snowflake, AZ. Her clerkship was also when
unabashed Mormon Judge Charles Jones was on the Arizona Supreme Court and could have put in a good word for her.
So in this post, I'm going to presume that BYU graduate Judge Mary Hamm is a member of the Mormon church. I'm even going to presume that she's a
"temple Mormon," which means she has
received her endowment. That means she's sworn the secret Mormon temple oath, specifically, the
"Law of Consecration." There, Mormons swear an oath of allegiance to their church, which, in situations like mine, can often put them in conflict with their oath of office. Since their godhood depends on keeping their first oath, what does that say about keeping the latter?
Don't see the problem? Suppose I told you that, before the church changed it, prior to 1990 the Mormon temple ceremony had a scene in it where
a Christian minister was portrayed as a hireling of Lucifer? Judge Hamm is old enough to have attended that version of the ceremony. This is like expecting a fair trial from a Muslim judge ruling on a zealous Jew in Palestine when Palestinian TV portrays Jews drinking the blood of Arabs! At the very least there's the appearance of impropriety if not outright hatred.
While the Rules governing recusal are supposed to be automatic (see Rule 2.11 of
the Code of Conduct), this is even more damning because, before trial, I had specifically called for any Mormon judge to recuse himself. Even if she's not Mormon, this post is still on point, for I called for recusal if the judge their spouse or immediate family members attend or know the leadership of one of two churches: First Baptist of Prescott or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Clearly, someone who has attended BYU knows leadership of the Mormon church since BYU is an arm of the church itself.
For, you see, I am a Christian Evangelist who loves the Mormon people. I used to go to their gatherings and offer to show them the differences between their god(s) and the God of the Bible. But instead of loving those they perceive to be enemies, they call me an "Anti-Mormon" instead. It turns out that the Mormon church itself says the term "Anti-Mormon" is a racial epithet. (See
EXHIBIT C, below.)
Knowing all this about Mormons, and since evidence was presented at petition by the Plaintiff that I evangelize to the Mormons (ironically, Plaintiff's son came with me once to a Mormon temple to evangelize), I had filed a Motion for Recusal before trial, specifically citing Mormonism as a trigger for recusal, as above. I mean, how could someone like me, who Mormons call an "Anti-Mormon" receive a fair trial from a Mormon?
In fact, during the trial, my ministry to the Mormons came up a few times. (See pg 37, 55, 56 of the
trial transcript.) At the very least, there is the appearance of impropriety. At worst, it becomes fact when Judge Hamm engaged in ex parte communication,
as the evidence shows.This highlights the foolishness of recusal law as practiced today. It's totally subjective. A judge gets to decide if he's prejudice or not. That's like asking a Radical Muslim if he is prejudice against Jews or asking a member of the KKK if he's biased against blacks.
Only honorable men recuse themselves.
As I said, this explains a lot of what happened at trial with the ex parte communication and Judge Hamm's hostile attitude toward me, which others tell me was evident in the first few minutes. Naturally, since
I'm commanded to pray for those who persecute me, my prayer is that Judge Hamm "chooses the right" and repents of her sin. (Which means admitting her sin in the record, vacating her ruling and calling for a new trial. And stepping down as a judge. There are consequences for sin, both now and in eternity.) Indeed, Mormon Doctrine requires she personally repent to me. (Step 3 of the Mormon
5 Steps of Repentance.") I'm not holding my breath, but to his credit, one young Mormon man repented to me in Mesa years ago for attacking me years before. So it happens.
During my hearing, I thought the Spirit was moving me to formally make the request that if Judge Hamm were LDS that she recuse herself. But 1) Judge Hamm was already hostile and was poo-poohing Motions during trial and 2) she said on the record that she had read ALL the material presented, so she was already aware of the Motion to Recuse. In retrospect, I should have obeyed the Spirit's calling anyway. (I'm working on it.)
You know, the funny thing is, after almost losing an eye from a punch by an angry Mormon gal (YouTube video on its way), I dusted my feet off and stopped witnessing to the Mormons a couple years ago. They've started getting more violent recently and I figure you can google "Mormonism" for yourself anyway. If, after Mormon Mitt Romney's run for President, if you're still ignorant about Mormonism and want to be Mormon, there's nothing I can do to help you. Pay your tithes and do your baptisms for the dead. Let me know when you've done enough to be perfect.
Strangely, I find myself still "witnessing" about Mormonism as I'm dragged along by the legal system.
You can stop reading here as the rest of this is included for completeness. (If you're a former Mormon, please read on a bit.)
I thought Judge Hamm was biased against me, but I didn't include that in my complaint because bias is always hard to prove, especially when you're the losing party. But now I need to amend my complaint to the Commission with this new information and provide them a copy of my Motion for Recusal with its affidavit attesting to the secret Mormon temple oath, which, by definition, puts Mormons in conflict with those they call "Anti's." It will be interesting to see if the Commission will ask Judge Hamm outright if she's a member of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints or if she'll admit to it or to her temple oath. (Or if any Mormons on the Commission run interference for her, although they themselves ought to recuse if they're LDS.)
Of course, if you're an ex-Mormon and took the temple oath, YOUR complaint to the Commission on my behalf about this will carry a lot more weight, since you can explain the bias here. Especially if you attended the pre-1990 version of the ceremony with Lucifer. Please leave a comment with your email address if you're willing to help.
Now, below is Motion for Recusal I had filed, with Exhibits. It may be educational for anyone else suffering through the system. (If it's not educational, it's certainly laughable.) For example, do you know you need to
send four copies of your Recusal Motion? Beside, the information here needs to be on the Net, whether Judge Mary E. Hamm is Mormon or not.
When you get to the part about Certificate of Mailing, note the silly conundrum
Judge Markham put me in. An inferior court suspends the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 5a), telling me I can''t send the Plaintiff a copy of my pleadings, as required by law? I'm learning that many judges
just make up the rules as they go along.In my defense, I learned that
Judge Markham doesn't really know the law that well anyway (as above) and was stymied about how to handle some of my Preliminary Motions. (I saw a note he sent to the Presiding judge along the lines of "What do I do with this?") Judge Markham signed off on this Injunction even when one of the allegations by Petitioner was clearly stale, by law.
No doubt attorneys will laugh at my folksy, non-legal style. Admittedly, I'm prolix. Hey, I'm just a dumb pro se. I get the impression that most judges don't read these things anyway, so what does it matter? (For example,
Judge Kennedy, who I heard converted to Mormonism a few years ago, recused himself because he knew the parties at trial, but not because he was Mormon). So you might as well write what you want to get it into the record. Beside, if I'm reading it right, Rule 5 of
the Arizona Rules of Protective Orders suspends the normal Rules of Evidence and Disclosure before trial. That's how the women sneak all their allegations in about you and get their Injunction without you having a chance to rebut their claims. So you might as well do the same. If I'm reading it correctly, anything you put in a pre-trial Motion should also automatically be considered as evidence by the judge. So go for it!
Regardless of my folksy, non-legal style, Judge Markham did recuse. So I guess I had merit. This went to Judge Kennedy next, and then Judge Hamm.
All below is in the public record. The text of your pleading is supposed to be double spaced. I post this below in single space for convenience.
IN THE PRESCOTT JUSTICE COURT
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE /
MOTION and AFFIDAVIT
FOR RECUSAL, per Rule 42(f)
Expedited Consideration Requested
SYNOPSISI (Defendant) am requesting a change away from Judge Markham as a matter of right, per Rule 42(f)(1). However, I'm told by a legal adviser that this is another due process right "suspended" in an Injunction.
Even if, technically, I have no (f)(1) right, the spirit of the law is that a change of judge is a matter of right. Since the Rule allows Judge Markham to informally honor such a request, I ask him to bypass the formalities and grant my request. If he will not, please see my Rule 42(f)(2) affidavit attached.
Now, I may be "out of order" here, because I already have a motion pending for a change of venue to Judge Lundy's court in Cottonwood. If granted, that would make most of this motion moot. (Except for recusal regarding intimate affiliation with First Baptist Church
or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) I'm told changes of venue are hardly ever granted and since this is a civil matter, where unheard of, I'm assuming my motion for change of venue will be summarily denied. But since my hearing is in a mere nine days, I'm filing this notice in advance so as to be timely.
As to the required Certificate of Mailing the Rule mandates, I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Even though Rule 42(f) requires "copies served on the parties," and even though Rule 5(a) requires "every written motion ... and every written notice... and similar paper shall be served upon each of the parties," and even though the law on Injunctions (A.R.S. 12-1809 (R)) allows for "legitimate purpose," and even though the Injunction itself allows for "legal process" (Exhibit A.), Judge Markham has told me, through his Clerk in an (ex parte?) communique, that I "am not to contact the Plaintiff, even in writing by mail." I take this to mean he feels I am not allowed to send Defendant (Melody) a copy of this as required by law. I further take this to mean that, rightly or wrongly, criminal charges may accrue if I send her the requisite motions. This is having a chilling effect on my right to due process. (In the best case, where Judge Markham is trying to help me avoid jail, this is grounds for recusal, per (f)(2), as I'll discuss later.)
Not sure how to comply with two contradictory "requirements," an attorney informally suggested I send a copy of this Motion to the court and have the court forward it to Melody. Therefore, since the court is telling me I cannot send Melody copies of motions, I must insist the court sends the requisite copies to her for me and that all the many rule requirements that I send her a copy be suspended. I trust this unusual work around will not cause immediate defect in this motion. If the court will not accept this work around, I need to know ASAP so that I may pursue another remedy.
Lastly, I'm sure I haven't crossed every "t" and dotted every "I.". I ask the court to grant me the leeway courts traditionally allow pro se litigants. "Pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers." (Haines v. Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594; Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 US 411, 421 (1996); Picking v. Penna. Rwy Co. 151 F.2d 240; Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.2nd 233.)
CERTIFICATE OF MAILINGI CERTIFY that I have NOT mailed a copy of this Motion to the Plaintiff cited above, under threat of law by Judge Markham. Instead, I have delivered an additional copy of this Motion to the Prescott Justice Court for the court to forward to the opposing party in my stead.
Copy of the original to be forwarded by the court to:
Melody A. Bodine
Christian Academy of Prescott
148 South Marina St.
Prescott, AZ 86303
Copies of the original hand delivered to the Clerk at Camp Verde on March 31, 2009, to be forwarded to:
Judge Markham
120 S. Cortez St., Room 103
Prescott, AZ 86303
Presiding Judge Brutinel
120 S. Cortez St., Room 300
Prescott, AZ 86303
Jeanne Hicks
Clerk, Superior Court
120 S. Cortez St.
Prescott, AZ 86303
Clerk of Justice Court
120 S. Cortez St., Room 103
Prescott, AZ 86303
AFFIDAVITSTATE OF ARIZONA )
) ss
COUNTY of Maricopa )
Pursuant to U.S.C. 28 Section 1746, I state under penalty of perjury that I am the Defendant in this action.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 12-406 B(5), I have "cause to believe and do believe that on account of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge, I cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial" for the reasons below.
1. In her application for an Injunction, Plaintiff (Melody) cites two incidents, both invoking hearsay as "evidence." One involves herself. The other involves the family children in an incident that is not "an act directed at a person." (Allegedly a weapon in a bedroom.) It is not harassment by definition as there is no premeditation. Further, she states that incident is from "two years ago." This is outside the one year limit in A.R.S. 12-1809 E and so is moot. But without a second act, there could be no Injunction, since an Injunction requires a "series of acts."
Now, I've heard good things about Judge Markham. Considering that he's an experienced judge in the Consolidated Court, I have to assume he is well aware of the one year limit in the law and has presumably not granted Injunctions for similar defects. Therefore, as Sherlock Holmes said, no matter how improbable, the only alternative left is to assume that Judge Markham is biased toward Melody in this matter and allowed the second incident so as to grant her Injunction.
2. At the end of her hearing for the Injunction, Judge Markham told Melody ""I hope things settle down for you, Mrs. Bodine." (Court's audio transcript, December 17, 4:50 p.m.)
This is NOT the same as "Have a nice day." It is not neutral. It connotes the assumption that Melody's complaint is legitimate, that there is something to be "settled." It may also refer to her history before this court. This is her third Restraining order now. The potential exists that the Judge, a male, may be the White Knight in shining armor who is saving the damsel in alleged distress.
3. In an email to her first husband, Melody says Judge Markham "specifically took careful consideration of the minor children." (Exhibit B.)
This confirms my observation in 1. Melody documents the prejudice too. Judge Markham is exhibiting a specific "interest," contrary to law.
4. Judge Markham has previously issued an OOP against my main witness. It would be better to have a judge who hasn't.
Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct [this is from the previous version of the Code. Use the new 2009 version in your filing] requires "a judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might be reasonably questioned" and goes on to specify this includes "personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." By being the one who ordered the OOP against my witness, Judge Markham has effectively stated a "bias," that he believes my witness is in the wrong. It is hard to imagine this can't have an effect on his assessment of my main witness.
5. Judge Markham conveyed to me, via his clerk, that I "am not to contact the Plaintiff, even in writing by mail." (Apparently this is in the record, as a different clerk read the same warning to me the other day.) Regardless of whether this interpretation of the law is right or wrong, and regardless of Judge Markham's motives, this is prejudicial. Judge Markham should not be communicating with the parties before trial.
Assuming Judge Markham means well and is trying to help me avoid jail: while I appreciate the thought, this extra communication to me could be perceived as bias by Melody. While I appreciate the help, Melody could argue the judge is showing favoritism toward me.
Conversely, if Judge Markham is trying to somehow shield Melody from the realities of legal conflict or has nefarious motives toward me, this is obvious discrimination and prejudice. Either way, this demonstrates impropriety and I request a change of judge.
It is best to play it safe here. Supreme Court Justice Scalia said, "what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance. Quite simply and quite universally, recusal [i]s required whenever ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'" Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)
Amen?
RECUSALSince the right to exercise of religion is a cherished 1st Amendment right and a judge's religion generally not discoverable, I make this request without prior knowledge, but to avoid a Canon 3E violation.
I must ask Judge Markham to recuse himself if he, his wife or immediate family are members of, or attend, or know the leadership of one of two churches: First Baptist of Prescott or
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.As to the former, the subject matter of this Injunction and its parties are tightly coupled to religion and the First Baptist church. Melody is a member of that church. Mr. Bodine is not, having been effectively excommunicated, receiving written notice that he is not to trespass on church property. If Judge Markham has any interest with First Baptist, he cannot be impartial to Mr. Bodine.
Further, Mr. Bodine mailed 600 CD's and audio tapes to the 600 member congregation, broadcasting his wife's sin to the church in accordance with Jesus' command in Matthew 18:17. Even though a command from the Lord, his action was almost universally repudiated by everyone in First Baptist.
Further, one of my witnesses, our previous church elder, scolded the leadership of First Baptist in a letter. I will be citing that letter regarding Melody as evidence.
I, myself, have written to the leadership of First Baptist, challenging their integrity, my letter being one of Melody's exhibits.
For all these reasons and more, if the judge or his immediate family are members of or attend First Baptist Church, or know the leadership personally, I must ask the judge to recuse.
As for the Latter, the judge must recuse himself if he or his immediate family are members of the Mormon church.In one of my letters in Melody's packet of evidence, I identify myself as a Christian Evangelist who witnesses to the lost Mormon people.
The Mormon church has fostered the term "Anti-Mormon." Exhibit C, a civil pleading brought against the Mormon church by a Christian Evangelist in California, documents that the term "Anti-Mormon" is a racial epithet. (The church settled out of court with him for a large undisclosed amount of money.) This establishes a "we vs. them" mentality within Mormonism, a necessary component for discrimination.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals notes that the Mormon faith is a "monolithic faith." (US v. Walter Gene Grassie, No 99-2281, Appeal # CR-98-516-LH)
Exhibit D is from a Mormon website. The second page shows a photo of me with the caption "Anti-Mormon."
Exhibit E is an affidavit from a former Mormon bishop, attesting to the secret Mormon temple oath and what it means. All good Mormons, and all those who've gone on a mission, swear an oath in the temple ceremony, known as the "Law of Consecration." The Mormon swears that "you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and EVERYTHING which the Lord has blessed you... to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up" of the church on earth. Former Mormons on the Internet warned that the "everything" includes public office and judgeship's, a very real concern for them when Mormon Mitt Romney ran for President.
Therefore, a Mormon cannot be neutral toward someone like me whom they perceive is tearing down their church. Therefore, I cannot get a fair trail from a judge who is Mormon, or whose immediate family is Mormon or one who knows Mormon leadership.CERTIFICATE OF MAILINGI CERTIFY that I have NOT mailed a copy of this Motion to the Plaintiff cited above, under threat of law by Judge Markham. Instead, I have delivered an additional copy of this Motion to the Prescott Justice Court for the court to forward to the opposing party in my stead.
Copy of the original to be forwarded by the court to:
Melody A. Bodine
Christian Academy of Prescott
148 South Marina St.
Prescott, AZ 86303
Copies of the original hand delivered to the Clerk at Camp Verde on March 31, 2009, to be forwarded to:
Judge Markham
120 S. Cortez St., Room 103
Prescott, AZ 86303
Presiding Judge Brutinel
120 S. Cortez St., Room 300
Prescott, AZ 86303
Jeanne Hicks
Clerk, Superior Court
120 S. Cortez St.
Prescott, AZ 86303
Clerk of Justice Court
120 S. Cortez St., Room 103
Prescott, AZ 86303
___________________________
Affiant Notary / Clerk
Subscribed and stated to before me on this date:________ Notary Exp Date: _________
EXHIBIT CDocuments the Mormon church's use of the word "Anti-Mormon" as a racial epithet.
EXHIBIT DNotice the caption where they call me an "Anti-Mormon."
EXHIBIT EAFFIDAVIT(Personal info redacted from this web version to protect the innocent.)
BE IT ACKNOWLEDGED that Jon - of Brunswick, Georgia, the undersigned deponent, being of legal age, under penalty of perjury, hereby deposes the following:
1. I was a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah (hereafter "Church" or "Mormon church") for 25 years, from 1978 to 2003.
2. During the time I was a member of the Church, I held numerous positions of leadership including Seminary Instructor, Elders Quorum President, lst and 2nd Counselors in the Bishopric, Sunday School Counselor, and lastly as Bishop and I became very familiar with the regulations and practices of the Church. I have personal knowledge and experience of the matters I refer to herein.
3. From October 2002 to April 2003 I held the position of "bishop" (pastor) of the Brunswick 1St Ward (congregation) of the Church in Brunswick, Georgia.
4. I have read the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, Stake Presidencies and
Bishoprics, Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, copyright held by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.
5. It is a strictly observed practice and policy of the Church that all missionaries, bishops, stake presidents and men in high leadership positions must have gone through a secret initiation-type ritual in a Mormon temple, called "the endowment," as a prerequisite to appointment to those positions. All adult Mormons are encouraged to "receive" this endowment. However it is an absolute requirement that missionaries, bishops, and stake presidents receive their endowment before office.
6. A "Temple Recommend" from a bishop or higher is required to participate in the temple ceremony.
7. I held a valid Temple Recommend from April 1988 to April, 2003 and received my endowment in April of 1988.
8. As a bishop, part of my duty was to interview temple patrons to ensure they qualified for temple recommends.
9. After receiving the endowment, a Mormon is encouraged to repeat the ritual frequently, as often as monthly.
10. We were told to keep all that goes on in the Temple secret. Specifically, we were instructed in the Ceremony, "to hold them sacred and under no condition will you ever divulge them."
11. An important part of the endowment ritual is the taking of certain oaths, called "covenants," to obey various "laws" of the Church, which the Church claims are required by God, and required to achieve godhood (known as exhalation).
12. Among the "laws" which the Mormon swears to obey during the endowment ritual is the "Law of Sacrifice." The exact wording of the Law of Sacrifice is: "to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God." The term "Kingdom of God" means the Mormon church.
13. Also among the "laws" which the Mormon swears to obey during the endowment ritual is the "Law of Consecration." The exact wording of the Law of Consecration is that "you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." The term "Zion" means the Mormon church, especially acting as a civil government.
14. After receiving the endowment, a Mormon is required to wear, at all times (twenty-four hours a day), specially marked underwear called "the garment" as a reminder of the endowment and the covenants made.
15. Every Mormon who has received the endowment and who wishes to remain a member of the Church in good standing is interviewed at least every two years, and before every appointment to a position in the Church. The interviews are private and conducted by the member's bishop (or a higher authority). Among the questions which must be asked of the member is whether the member is "keeping the covenants" which were made during the endowment ritual. A negative answer to that question is likely to result in the withholding of advancement, denial or revocation of a Temple Recommend, or other Church discipline. Another required question in such interviews is whether the member is wearing the garment at all times.
These statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signed this 21st day ~
(Seal)
State of Georgia
County of Glynn
On 21 of xx Jon - personally appeared to me and proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument. By his signature on this instrument, he executed same.
"... you might just get it."