Federal lawsuit filed against Judge Mary Hamm for violating civil rights of a "Hireling of Lucifer"
Soliciting an attorney
Suppose you were a judge. And suppose you were raised believing you were special, that you were a member of the One True Church. (And by extension, you were raised believing all the other churches were wrong.) Suppose further that when your church deemed you worthy, you were allowed to attend a secret-you call it sacred - ceremony, where, in addition to learning secret handshakes to become a god someday, you also swore blood oath allegiance to your church.in particular, you swore "to use everything with which your lord has blessed you for the building up of your church." And "everything" includes your judgeship.
Wouldn't that mean that you had to use your judgeship to vanquish known enemies of your church if they came before you in court? To rule against them at any cost?
Suppose further you were taught in your secret ceremony that Evangelical Christians, who preach orthodox Christianity to you, were hirelings of Lucifer, paid money by the devil to convert you. So strong is this teaching that you even call them "Anti's." And suppose a known "Anti" was a litigant before you and talked about your peculiar religion during trial?
Wouldn't it be blatantly unfair for you to sit on such a case? It would be like a radical Islamist judge sitting and ruling against a zealous Jew.in American, you are required by law to disqualify (recuse) yourself for bias in a situation like this.
But what if you don't? What if, in your zeal to vanquish your enemy, you break the law?
This is not a hypothetical. It really happened.in a recent trial in Prescott, Arizona, an Evangelical Christian came before such a judge as a Defendant. Evidence had been presented before trial that the Defendant specialized in the judge's religion, which the 10th Circuit court of appeals said was a "monolithic faith.") Evidence was presented that the Defendant was very active in sharing the Bible with members of her church. The Defendant's picture even appears on a prominent church apologetic website with the caption "Anti" below his name! And the judge knew it.
Now, Arizona law requires a judge to automatically disqualify herself "in any proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned." But the defendant went further by putting this requirement in writing. Because he knew the judge's church teaches its members he's paid by the devil and that its members really believe that (they always ask him "How much do you get paid to do this?), to avoid religious discrimination against him, he filed a pre-trial motion calling for the recusal of such a judge. He supplied the photo from the website of him labeling him an "Anti" and provided an affidavit from a former bishop in the judge's religion attesting to the blood oath of allegiance the judge swore to her church called the "Law of Consecration."
But despite the pretrial Motion and the law, the judge did not recuse herself. Despite any evidence (so she had to suborned ex parte "evidence" from the Plaintiff), based only on what she "couldn't help but think, " she ruled against the Defendant in a trial. Was there a legal basis for her ruling or was it religious bias?
Well, bias is very difficult to prove in court. (Although you know it when you see it.) But suppose during this trial the judge said she was (unlawfully) suspending the Rules of Court Procedure? That the Defendant couldn't object to anything? Suppose that the judge called witnesses for the Plaintiff? Suppose the judge led witnesses to try to make the Plaintiff's case, but never asked exculpatory questions to exonerate the Defendant. And suppose the judge dismissed a witness with no recall so the defendant couldn't question him?
Suppose the judge referred to "evidence" at trial that had never been entered into evidence or given to the Defendant? (Ex parte communication.) Suppose the Defendant later inspected the court file and found four documents had been slipped into the record without any required legal Notices? (Which is a felony, "Tampering with a Public Record.") Suppose the Defendant objected at trial about the ex parte material which was never entered into evidence, but he was ignored by the judge? By citing hearsay material at sentencing, the judge effectively suspended the Court Rules of Evidence. (There's the hint of witness tampering too, also a felony, since it's impossible to suborn ex parte material from a Plaintiff without talking to the Plaintiff.)
Would that prove bias?
Need more? Suppose the judge told the Christian Evangelist that he had no 1st Amendment Right to free speech and no 1st Amendment Right to the free exercise of his religion. (Even though the missionaries from the judge's church are allowed to teach her belief that "all the other churches are wrong; their creeds are an abomination in God's sight; that you are all corrupt.")
The Defendant, Mike Palmer, thinks this is clear religious discrimination. He is a Christian Evangelist who specialized in the judge's religion. He has been assaulted numerous times by members of the judge's church while quietly evangelizing, almost losing an eye after one felony assault, so he knows their hatred is real. He has filed a federal civil right lawsuit against Judge Mary Hamm for violating his 14th Amendment right to due process, his right to a fair trial, as well as his 1st Amendment rights as mentioned above. It's an uphill battle because Arizona law gives "absolute immunity" from lawsuits.
But this cannot mean that a judge can violate basic law, suspending the Rules of Court and engaging in ex parte communication with a Plaintiff. (And tamper with witnesses.) Nor does immunity accrue when a judge has no jurisdiction. Palmer argues that Judge Mary Hamm, by failing to recuse herself in this very obvious matter where recusal was not only automatically required but required by Motion had no business hearing his case and therefore lacked jurisdiction to be his judge.
Further, by unlawfully suspending the Rules of Procedure, saying "this is not a trial, " Judge Hamm effectively forfeit her own jurisdiction as a judge in his case because she nullified the entire court proceeding making it a mock trial, not a real trial.
But it's an uphill battle. Mr. Palmer is only a pro se litigant. He is trying to find an attorney who will champion his cause. A half-million dollars? He says the attorney can have the money. He simply wants Justice. See for the story and to contact him there or here.
0 comments