While our blogger was waiting (and waiting, and waiting) on pro tem judge Paul Julien (a staffer at the Arizona Supreme Court - guess how this is going to go) to rule on the Emergency petition, our blogger filed other papers as well.
Interestingly, the following documents were back-dated by Judge Julien and/or the Prescott "Justice" Court clerks. That will be detailed in a planned complaint of judicial misconduct, for all that's worth.
Anyway, below is the first of five filings that day.
Defendant files this Notice as a courtesy to the court.
Defendant has filed this same day a request for a hearing to challenge the above-referenced Injunction. This same day, defendant files five accompanying motions and notices.
In a suggested order of reading to enhance judicial economy, they are:
1) a Motion for Continuance. By law, a hearing should be scheduled within 10 (ten) days of defendant's Request for hearing. However, defendant realizes it will take time for plaintiff to respond before the court can rule on the following motion,
2) a Motion to Quash the Injunction. Naturally, if the court grants defendant's motion to quash the Injunction, then the following three motions and notices are moot. If the court does not quash, then,
3) a Motion for mental exam of Melody Thomas-Morgan and
4) a Notice for Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
5) a Motion to Compel discovery, which should not be necessary. But is.
Defendant has already learned that one needed witness will not attend without being subpoenaed. Therefore, defendant intends to ask the court for a subpoena once a hearing date has been set.
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).
DATED this 18th day of August, 2012
Defendant has filed this same day a request for a hearing to challenge the above-referenced Injunction. This same day, defendant files five accompanying motions and notices.
In a suggested order of reading to enhance judicial economy, they are:
1) a Motion for Continuance. By law, a hearing should be scheduled within 10 (ten) days of defendant's Request for hearing. However, defendant realizes it will take time for plaintiff to respond before the court can rule on the following motion,
2) a Motion to Quash the Injunction. Naturally, if the court grants defendant's motion to quash the Injunction, then the following three motions and notices are moot. If the court does not quash, then,
3) a Motion for mental exam of Melody Thomas-Morgan and
4) a Notice for Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
5) a Motion to Compel discovery, which should not be necessary. But is.
Defendant has already learned that one needed witness will not attend without being subpoenaed. Therefore, defendant intends to ask the court for a subpoena once a hearing date has been set.
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).
DATED this 18th day of August, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment