Friday, September 21, 2012

Motion fo menal exam of Thomas-Morgan

It has been our bloggers experience and observation that women who seek these injunctions are generally paranoid and mentally sick.

Did you know that Arizona law prohibits someone of unsound mind from getting an Injunction? And that you have the right to request a court ordered mental exam of your accuser?

If you have good cause for it, there's no harm in filing a motion for a mental exam of your accuser.

A full PDF with the exhibits coming soon.

    Pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-211 and Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a), defendant files this Motion requesting a court ordered mental exam of Plaintiff Melody Thomas-Morgan before defendant's requested hearing.

    Defendant files this Notice under protest, holding that Arizona Injunction law is patently unconstitutional when applied ex parte (as here), as it violates defendant's right to due process as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 2, Section 4 of the Arizona constitution.


    Rule 35(a) states, “When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician or psychologist or to produce for examination the person in the party's custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.”

    Further, A.R.S.  § 12-2202 requires that "Persons who are of unsound mind at the time they are called to testify shall not be witnesses in a civil action."

    Plaintiff Thomas-Morgan’s petition for an Injunction per A.R.S. § 12-1809 is a civil action by definition, being under Title 12. Defendant believes Thomas-Morgan is of unsound mind and cannot be called to testify. If so found, that would make the Injunction hearing pointless, since she is the primary witness who must make her case.

    NOTE: If she is found of unsound mind, then this Injunction should be quashed sua sponte since 1) it was issued in violation of A.R.S. § 12-2202 then and 2) the defendant cannot testify to sustain the Injunction now.

    Good cause for a mental exam of Thomas-Morgan exists for the following reasons:

    1) Her own attorney told the court that "my client is in absolute serious need of counseling. She likewise basically is someone I would characterize [as] suffering from post traumatic stress [disorder]. And Judge, she is in counseling . . . " (Statement of Chester Lockwood, attorney, in case DO 2006-0917. Exhibit 1, line 8 ff.)

    According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, PTSD is a "mental disorder." (See the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, available on the Internet.)

    2) Consistent with this, plaintiff's father-in-law, who has Ph.D.'s in Clinical Social Work and in Social Service Administration and who knew his daughter-in-law during her 20 plus years of marriage to his son, attested that, "In my opinion, Melody [plaintiff] seems to be developing these same characteristics [as her mother] and I have advised her to seek more intensive psychiatric counseling and perhaps medication at this time." (Affidavit of Mr. Robert J. Bodine, Exhibit 2.)

    3) Consistent with this, plaintiff's home church elder of many years suggested to another church leader that ". . . Melody [plaintiff] is a totally different individual than the person we knew. At this particular time in her life, she could be experiencing a chemical imbalance in her body . . ." (Letter from Warren Rushton, Bible Teacher, Exhibit 3.)

    4) Consistent with this, plaintiff has exhibited paranoia and continues to exhibit paranoia. (Defined as an irrational fear.) For some examples:

    a) She hired armed security guards for her daughter's wedding. (Testimony of husband at trial in DO 2006-0917.  Exhibit 4, line 13.) Father was not invited to wedding. Wedding held in Prescott. Father went to Flagstaff the day of his daughter's wedding. There were no confrontations of any kind at the wedding.
    I trust the court recognizes that having armed guards at a wedding is not normal.

    b) Plainitff moved herself and the children out of the primary family residence without telling her husband or the court (or anyone) after plaintiff stopped home-schooling the children and enrolled them in a public school on questionable legal grounds.

    According to her testimony in court, she did this simply because a friend, this defendant, had called a school supervisor about the move. (See meandering testimony of plaintiff, then known as Melody Bodine, Exhibit 5, p 57 through 60.) As Mrs. Bodine testifies, defendant did not go to the school. Defendant made merely made a phone call from Phoenix.

    Nevertheless, Mrs. Bodine scooped up her children and herself to move out of the primary residence.

    c) Even former Superior Court Judge Hinson weighed in on plaintiff's mental state when he continued her Order of Protection against her then husband. Arguably continuing the OOP for the wrong reason (A.R.S. § 12-2202 applied and Mrs. Bodine should not have been allowed to testify), Judge Hinson said, "if I don't continue this order of protection, she's liable to decide that she has to take the children and go off to someplace where no can find her because of her desire to indulge her fear in order to reinforce her decision to continue on this course of separation from [her husband.]." (Exhibit 6.) Again, paranoia is defined as an irrational fear.

    5) Similarly, plaintiff has trouble with reality and does not know her own name.
    In a police report, plaintiff reported to police that her maiden name was "Thomas-Morgan." (This was before plaintiff changed her surname to "Thomas-Morgan.") But in fact, plaintiff's maiden name is "Eells." (See police report and marriage license, Exhibit 7.)

    6) As it pertains to trouble with reality, paranoia and this instant injunction, plaintiff's sworn petition to the court would have the court believe that, due to defendant's previous martial art training, he might "do a quick chop to my neck and kill me."

    This would be laughable if it weren't so seriously sad.

    Defendant has no belts in Karate and does not know how to do a "quick chop" to kill someone. This is the stuff movies are made of. And movies are fantasies. Not reality.

    Defendant offers a more realistic alternative narrative to plaintiff's freaky recollection of past events from happier times. (See Exhibits 8.) In addition to being an enjoyable read, this will help the court as it considers this motion regarding plaintiff's soundness of mind.


    While this list is by no means exhaustive, the mere fact that plaintiff suffered from PTSD and was in counseling demands that defendant, and this court, know if plaintiff continues to suffer from PTSD, is in counseling or is on medications.
    Therefore, for any or all these reasons, good cause exists for defendant's requests of a psychiatric exam of plaintiff Thomas-Morgan.

    As this court allowed before, defendant will lodge an extra copy of this motion with the court to serve on plaintiff since defendant Palmer has been threatened in the past by Judge Markham for complying with Rule 5(a). Once plaintiff is noticed, the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made can be determined.
DATED this 18th day of August, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment