Court paperwork in the case of Melody Thomas-Morgan v. Palmer, 20110410J in the so-called Prescott "Justice" court, an (unconstitutional) ex parte civil injunction against harassment.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Motion for continuance
Defendant Peter Michael Palmer has filed this day a Request for Hearing in the above-referenced Injunction, which, by statute, is to be held within ten (10) days of request.
However, since defendant has filed this same day several pre-trial motions and notices which will require responses and rulings from the court, defendant moves this court for a continuance along with an Order accelerating the time for plaintiff to respond, as this court has done before.
Defendant requests a hearing be set approximately four weeks from receipt of these filings, on Wednesday, September 12, 2012.
Since defendant has now waived his right to a hearing within ten days (but not a hearing before the injunction lapses), the court can act sua sponte to issue the continuance requested. That is, the court need not wait on a response from plaintiff to issue a continuance.
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.
As this court allowed before, defendant will lodge an extra copy of this notice with the court to serve on plaintiff, since defendant has been threatened in the past by Judge Markham for complying with Rule 5(a).