Michael's Law: No response from Tom Horne!

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

No response from Tom Horne!

Our blogger responded on February 1 to the Ninth's Order to Show cause (as to why the Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court do not have absolute immunity in a suit seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief).

The Arizona Attorney General's response was due ten days afterward. (Mr. Horne should have disqualified himself for conflict of interest.)

Nothing received. In an answer to an inquiry, Pamela Linnins, Asst AG, says,

Thank you for your inquiry. I did not file a response re: the OSC.

Pamela Linnins
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Arizona Attorney General

No comments:

Post a Comment

Suing two cheating judges and a cheating prosecutor + a religious twist

The civil rights law Congress gave us says you can sue "Every person" who deprives you of a civil right under the color of law. The law goes back to the civil rights era and the Ku Klux Klan.

Sadly, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, judges say that "every person" doesn't mean them. And it doesn't mean prosecutors. Judges say that they have "absolute immunity." (What, there were no biased KKK white judges in the Deep South in the 60's?)

I say that "Absolute immunity corrupts absolutely." As evidenced by the corrupt prosecutors of the late Senator Ted Stevens. Not even a Federal judge would punish the federal prosecutors for their willful wanton misconduct. Poor Senator Stevens died without having any recourse for justice.

This has got to stop. In essence, this policy by judicial fiat is a deprivation of the our First Amendment right to redress for grievances. So, let's "Redress for Success!" (Even Liberal Law Professor / Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is sympathetic!)

It's an uphill battle, but I'm suing a bunch of cheaters. See my two civil right lawsuits - one against two small town judges who cheated, the other against a small town prosecutor who cheated both now in the Ninth, appealing perfunctory procedural matters. In the first, the judges aren't arguing they didn't do anything wrong. Just that they can.

To wit, there's proof that one judge tampered with a court file (a felony in Arizona, but Yavapai County prosecutor Sheila Polk is obstructing justice and Arizona AG Tom Horne's staff wouldn't touch it), suspended the rules of court procedure, acted as attorney at trial for one of the parties, and so on. The other judge "un-recused" himself to cover for the first!

There's an interesting twist to this, as the first judge should have recused, per motion, due to religious bias. When you read about the temple ceremony and the oaths of allegiance some take to their church in there, it may give you some idea why you may not want a Mitt Romney in the White House.