March 25, 2014 Prosecutorial Misconduct FIVE YEARS LATER

A prosecutor, state or federal or BOTH placed an ILLEGAL HOLD on an Arizona Superior Court Case on March 25, 2014. Then the judge proceeded to prohibit the ability to complain about it. That’s enough!

30 Friday March 22, 2019 NOT TODAY (3 unrelated opinions filed) and that ends the count up.

29 Thursday March 21, 2019 NOT TODAY (2 unrelated opinions filed)

28 Wednesday March 20, 2019 NOT TODAY (3 unrelated opinions filed)

27 Tuesday March 19, 2019 NOT TODAY (1 unrelated opinion filed)

26 Monday March 18, 2019 NOT TODAY (3 unrelated opinions filed)

25 Sunday March 17, 2019 CLOSED

24 Saturday March 16, 2019 CLOSED

23 Friday March 15, 2019 NOT TODAY (2 unrelated opinions filed)

22 Thursday March 14, 2019 NOT TODAY (4 unrelated opinions filed)

21 Wednesday March 13, 2019 NOT TODAY (5 unrelated opinions filed)

20 Tuesday March 12, 2019 NOT TODAY (4 unrelated opinions filed)

19 Monday March 11, 2019 NOT TODAY (1 unrelated opinion filed)

18 Sunday March 10, 2019 CLOSED

17 Saturday March 9, 2019 CLOSED

16 Friday March 8, 2019 2019 NOT TODAY (1 unrelated opinion filed)

15 Thursday March 7, 2019 NOT TODAY (3 unrelated opinions filed )

14 Wednesday March 6, 2019 NOT TODAY (No Opinions Filed Today)

13 Tuesday March 5, 2019 NOT TODAY (No Opinions Filed Today)

12 Monday March 4, 2019 NOT TODAY (3 unrelated opinions filed)

11 Sunday March 3, 2019 CLOSED

10 Saturday March 2, 2019 CLOSED

9 Friday March 1, 2019 NOT TODAY (2 unrelated opinions filed)

8 Thursday Feb 28, 2019 NOT TODAY (1 unrelated opinion filed)

7 Wednesday Feb 27, 2019 NOT TODAY (1 unrelated opinion filed)

6 Tuesday Feb 26, 2019 NOT TODAY (4 unrelated opinions filed)

5 Monday Feb 25, 2019 NOT TODAY (No Opinions Filed Today)

4 Sunday Feb 24, 2019 CLOSED

3 Saturday Feb 23, 2019 CLOSED

2 Friday Feb 22, 2019 NOT TODAY (1 unrelated opinion filed)

1 Thursday Feb 21, 2019 NOT TODAY (No Opinions Filed Today)

Chains Rattled

Five years ago prosecutors in Arizona put an illegal hold on an Arizona state Superior Court civil case. As the Plaintiffs in that case we have been desperately trying to stop that unconstitutional
act ever since. “There is a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not hard to make.”

What is hard is witnessing prosecutorial misconduct take on a new and dangerous meaning. State and county attorneys committing actual crimes inside court proceedings to further their initial
illegal hold of a civil case that started in default due to bribery. State and county attorneys committing crimes intentionally to delay the defaulted civil case and to delay the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions in forcing
its release.

When a justice system becomes so corrupt that Constitutional rights are destroyed before, after and during federal trials; it behooves those who oversee such criminal behavior to stand up
and demand accountability.

The state case, Hempfling v. CVDC Holdings LLC S-1100-CV-201102200 was blocked in March of 2014 without a rule 62 stay proceeding. Trial in federal court in Phoenix and subsequently
in the 9th Circuit retrial proved beyond any doubt that the case had never been released. No final order had ever been issued due to that illegal hold. The state court prohibited filing anything to complain about it.

As the federal case trying to stop that hold was filed in U.S. Mail (Hempfling et al v. Voyles et al 2:16-cv-03213) it was STOLEN and redirected to an international distribution center.
Mail was stolen a minimum of 2 more times during the retrial (Lee Hempfling, et al v. Kent Volkmer, et al 0:17-cv-16329). Mail was stolen two more times after the retrial and after the appeal mandate, which likewise has never
been released. Nothing has been released. The 9th Circuit is well aware of these events as they managed to acquire the stolen filings.

During the federal trial someone with the political clout to pull it off managed an arrangement with Google to actually censor and block the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals from showing up
in world wide search results. The court is very well aware of this and indicated their own ‘research’ on the appeals docket. The Appeals Court has also stated they will not entertain any further filings making any
attempt to receive release of issued documents falling on deaf ears. An appeal cannot be filed on missing orders and opinions. Defendants do not have a right to appeal.

Simply put, the state case is not in anyway related legally to any criminal proceeding and could not have been stopped without the commission of a constitutional violation. The Federal case
has been withheld, issuing notice of a final order in April for both a district case and the appeals case of last year but no final order has ever been issued. Anywhere. It mandated the same month a week later. Knowledge of
that content does not exist outside of the court. But what is known is no defendant responded to the final motion in the case after having been caught in quite a few acts of perjury.

While attempting to invoke local rule 36-4 (to publish the case) that letter was stolen and then stolen again as a copy. Together, these criminal acts are further withholding the Superior Court case which was the complaint to begin with.

We know a prosecutor enjoys nearly unlimited immunity no matter how horrible the acts perpetrated have been. But we have prevailed in a state court, two federal district courts and the appeals
court and not one of those cases has been permitted to be released and published. Not one.

Regardless of the immense size of the state court required award, it should be a foregone conclusion that such violations of Constitutional Rights would not be tolerated.

Prosecutorial Misconduct Epidemic Bears Rotten Fruit

The definition of Prosecutorial Misconduct is [1]:

Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Examples, among others, may include:

  • Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Examples, among others, may include:
  • Courtroom misconduct (making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice the jury: violating rules regarding selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
  • Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records;
  • Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant
  • Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
  • Presenting false or misleading evidence;
  • Selective or vindictive prosecution
  • Denial of a speedy trial rights
  • Use of unreliable and untruthful witnesses and snitches

The 'among others' will now also include:

Hijacking a civil case to prosecute unrelated (legally) criminal activity

The definition of Prosecutorial Vindictiveness is [2]:

  • Prosecutorial vindictiveness is defined as vengeful prosecution for the recovery of damages to person, property, of reputation, shown to have approximately resulted from a previous civil or criminal proceeding, which was commenced or continued without probable cause, but with vengeance, and which has terminated unsuccessfully. Riegel v. Hygrade Seed Co., 47 F. Supp. 290, 293 (D.N.Y. 1942)
  • Prosecutorial vindictiveness refers to filing a lawsuit for purposes of harassing the defendant when there is no genuine basis for the suit. If the defendant in the lawsuit wins and has evidence that the suit was filed out of harassing or vengeful motives and without any legal or factual foundation, it may be the basis of a claim for damages against the person who filed the original action. If vindictive prosecution is clearly proved against the party who brought the original suit, punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general damages.
  • In some cases, courts have held that an attorney who knowingly assists a client in filing a baseless lawsuit out of malice may also be liable for damages. Before bringing a suit for a vindictive prosecution, the original lawsuit must be decided in favor of the victim.

It will now have a new definition added to it:

Committing crimes inside a Federal Court trial (three trials to be exact) that create a chain of criminal interruptions that causes the original illegal stay of the state case to be compounded by more criminal proceedings. The purpose of which is to overturn the ruling of the appeals court, stick the middle finger up to the face of each judge who worked the case and keep the ruling from ever being made public.

The definition of Abuse of Prosecutorial Discretion is [3]:

  • Prosecutorial discretion is a term for the authority that a prosecutor has in deciding whether to formally charge someone with a crime, what charges to bring against that person, and how to pursue the case. This is the authority by which a prosecutor is able to offer plea bargains, and even offer immunity to someone who has committed a crime, in exchange for help in prosecuting another individual.
  • Prosecutorial discretion, by its very nature, can easily involve the abuse of power. For instance, if a prosecutor decides not to bring a case against someone, then he is said to have exercised “favorable” prosecutorial discretion. However, there are times when cases are harshly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when perhaps the case should not have been tried at all, or at least tried to a lesser extent. These prosecutors may be abusing their prosecutorial discretion.
  • Prosecutorial discretion is all about practicing good judgment while considering many different factors. Such factors include limited governmental resources, the balancing of governmental priorities, and the consideration of the rights and privileges of civilians.

It will now include:

Choosing to violate multiple Supreme Court Opinions restricting a criminal prosecution in conjunction with a civil case to be the same issue, the same parties and the same point: by deciding to go past the limits already set by precedent and case law and build cases that are based in a poisonous tree.

Every case brought from that poisonous tree is rotten fruit. Every case.

So… our cases are released and this criminal behavior of prosecutors stops . . .