A Rule52(a) Notice forces the issue. It's a simple, perfunctory Notice.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-211 and Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), defendant Peter Michael Palmer serves this Notice on the Court requesting a finding of facts and conclusion of law in this above referenced matter.
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.
MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY
Rule 52(a) states, "In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court, if requested before trial, shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action.Requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. It will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or minute entry or memorandum of decision filed by the court."
Defendant Palmer so requests before trial.
While there can be no harm to plaintiff by not receiving a copy of this Notice, since the notice is perfunctory and impinges only on the court, as this court allowed before, defendant will lodge an extra copy of this notice 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).
DATED this 18th day of August, 2012
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.
MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY
Rule 52(a) states, "In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court, if requested before trial, shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action.Requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. It will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or minute entry or memorandum of decision filed by the court."
Defendant Palmer so requests before trial.
While there can be no harm to plaintiff by not receiving a copy of this Notice, since the notice is perfunctory and impinges only on the court, as this court allowed before, defendant will lodge an extra copy of this notice 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).
DATED this 18th day of August, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment