I have to be careful telling the truth about Sun Grove Resort Village's crooked lawyer, Scott E. Williams, and the incompetent judge, Melanie Deforest. I will do it with public documents. I cannot be sued since the following are my well documented opinions on public documents.
 |
| SCOTT E. WILLIAMS SGRV'S ATTORNEY |
The first public document is our 07/25/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT Motion which showed all Scott E. Williams' trickery, illegal actions, and the favoritism that he received. Our motion was denied, the State Bar denied our complaint against him, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors ignored our warnings about Scott E. Williams' Political and Judicial Protection. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are responsible for Scott E. Williams' illegal misdeeds when they hired him in 2004 to represent the Maricopa County Officials and Politicians on election matters. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors created the MONSTER Scott E. Williams who uses misuses the legal system as a weapon against the poor, the vulnerable, and the old.
 |
| MELANIE DEFOREST DISGRACED ARROWHEAD COURT JUSTICE OF THE PEACE |
The second public document is our 09/09/10 JUDICIAL COMPLAINT against the Arrowhead Justice Court's pro-per judge Melanie Deforest which documents all her mistakes. Deforest was protected because her policeman husband was shot on the job and that is why she was appointed a JP. The Arizona Justice Court System is a Good-Old-Boy Reward System and Deforest was unqualified to be a judge (she was a gym instructor) but that did not matter. It only mattered when she was caught lying about her past jobs and education and she was asked to quit. Deforest resigned the end on 2012 in disgrace. Our Judicial Complaint was denied.
Norman Davis, Head of the Arizona Superior Court, protects the present broken system of incompetent appointed "Good-old-Boy" Justices of the Peace who are making terrible mistakes.
In the US thirty-three states require JPs to be lawyers but not in the ARIZONA BADLANDS. This state still has frontier justice that is antiquated, misused, and corrupt. The Arrowhead Justice Court has done an excellent job of hiding its corruption because our evidence and 07/08/10 Trial Recording has been destroyed. The Arrowhead Court was misused in the Sun Grove Resort Village Senior Scam with many BASELESS LAWSUITS against seniors who were duped because of SGRV's false advertising and had to move due to health reasons. SGRV used a court sanctioned senior financial exploitation to illegally raise operating capital for SGRV.
FRAUD OF THE COURT
BY SCOTT E. WILLIAMS
Maricopa County Justice Courts, State of
Arizona
CASE NUMBER: CC2010-038658
MARK R. FAIRALL V. SUN GROVE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. ET. AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
CAROL A. FAIRALL (nee BUCK) Williams & Zinman PC. Attorney at Law
THIRD PARTY
DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CASE NUMBER: CC2009-610571
SUN GROVE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. DBA V. CAROL A. FAIRALL (NEE Buck)
SUN GROVE RESORT VILLAGE (SGRV)
PLAINTIFF – (SGRV) DEFENDANT - Pro Per
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF- (SGRV) ATTORNEY OF DEFENDANT
Williams & Zinman, PC
__________________________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL’S 7/21/11
MOTIONS AND ORDER:
Statement as to July 8, 2011 Multiple Motions on
Plaintiff & Defendant for
Lawsuits #CC2009-610571 and # CC2010-038658
Defendants’ Motion for Vexatious Litigants
Defendant Will File Response if Requested by Court
Order – Re: Finding of Vexatious Litigants –
Leave of Court Required Prior to Filing Future
Motions
MOTION TO SET ASIDE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER,
#CC2009-610571
DENY MOTION TO NAME FAIRALLS AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, #CC2010-038658
MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
_________________________________________________________________
PAGE 1 OF 10 PAGES
FRAUD OF THE COURT NOT ADDRESSED IN
OPPOSING COUNSEL’S STATEMENT
The SGRV STATEMENT to our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION has NO CASE
LAW STATED in its defense. In fact SGRV’S STATEMENT never even has the
term FRAUD OF THE COURT mentioned anywhere in its pleading. The Opposing Counsel’s
statement: “Simply put, these motions were previously made and denied, and are
now made in bad faith, not supported by any law or rule, and solely for purpose
of harassment”. This is a GROSSLY
MISLEADING STATEMENT TO THE COURT
because it is UNTRUE. This is the first time this FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION has been made.
FRAUD OF THE COURT is basically described as an Officer of the Court, Judge
or Attorney, which has set into motion a scheme, Misconduct, which interferes
with the judicial system’s ability to act impartially and thereby unfairly
hampering the presentation of the opposing party. FRAUD OF THE COURT
has no statute of limitation because it defiles the Court which demands all
Court Decisions to be set aside. FRAUD OF THE COURT is
defined by the previously listed case laws:
1. Bulloch
v. United States, 763.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir 1985)
2. People
v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App. 3d 477, 410 N.E. (1980)
3. Kenner
v. C.I.R. F3d 689 (1968)
4. The
People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E.,
229 (1934)
5. Allen F.
Moore V. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill; N.E. (1929)
6. Village
of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App2d 393 (1962)
7. Dunham
v. Dunham, 57 Ill. App 475 (1894, affirmed 162 Ill 1896)
8. Skelly
Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill App 79, 86 N.E. 2d 875,883-4
(1949)
9. Thomas Stasel
v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; N.E. (1935)
10. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892. 2d 1115, 1118
(1st Cir. 1989)
Opposing Counsel, Scott E. Williams’
statement that the expansive filing of hundreds of pages violates Rule 11 of
Civil Rules of Procedures is another GROSSLY
MISLEADING STATEMENT TO THE COURT. Our
case is not presented to harass and increase the cost of litigation. Our case
is factual based upon existing laws. It is pointed out to the Court that SGRV
started this litigation on 10/20/09 with BASELESS
LAWSUIT #CC2009-610571 against Carol Fairall
(nee Buck) for the nonpayment of her rent. HUD is investigating our Complaint
#091104558 the SGRV VIOLATION
OF OUR HOUSING RIGHTS that forced Carol’s
moving to protect herself from an unsafe environment. SGRV’s refusal to fix a moldy
water leak caused the start of Carol’s rejection of her transplanted liver. The
second Lawsuit #CC2010-038658 is where SGRV continued to sue Carol, as a 3rd
Party Defendant, for breaking the same misdated SGRV Lease. That was DOUBLE SATISFACTION
of a wrongful debt which was granted in excess of Justice Court Limitations.
SGRV and its attorney, Scott E. Williams, have committed MALICIOUS PROSECUTION of Carol, who is dying due to SGRV’s actions, by
instigating BASELESS LAWSUITS as stated in Jarvis
v. Drake 250 Kan. 645, 830 P 2d 23 (1992).
PAGE 2 OF
10 PAGES
The Mark Fairall Lawsuit
#CC2010-038658 against SGRV was in response to the Lawsuit SGRV filed against
Mark and his Aunt Catherine Reinertson #CC2009-73227 on 12/24/09. Mark sued
SGRV in order to recover his losses as allowed by the law, but the Trial was
lost due to the FRAUD OF THE COURT. Opposing Counsel was the first to commingle lawsuits when
he sued Carol Buck as a 3rd party in the unrelated Mark Fairall
lawsuit. The Court even allowed the commingling of his exorbitant $5,240.00
attorney fees on the judgments against Carol Buck and Mark Fairall.
It is pointed out that SGRV’s STATEMENT
did not address any of our allegations in our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION which
were all supported by case laws, State Laws, or Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically,
the STATEMENT did not address:
1. Extremely Serious Abuse of Court Discretion – Independent Oil and Chemical Workers, Inc. v.
Procter & Gamble Mfg.
Co., 864 F. 2d and Anderson v.
Cryovac
Inc. 862 F 2d 910, 923 (1st Cir. 1988) and
6th Amendment
of US Constitution and UCC Article 2
and ARS 47-2611.
2. Favorability of Court to Scott E. Williams – Licky v. U.S., 144 S.CT. 1147, 1162 (1994) and
Pfizer v. Lord, 465 F. 2 532 (8th
Cir. 1972) and
Cox
v. Burke, 707 So 2d 43. 47 (Fla 5th D.C.A. 1998)
3. Failure to Disqualify Scott E. William – Levine v. US, 363 U.S. 610, 80 S. CT 1028 (1960).
4. Failure to Disqualify Judge Melanie Deforest as Judge – US v. Sciuto, 521 F2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996).
5. Violation of ARS 13-301
– Scott Williams became an accomplice to a crime.
6. Violation of ARS 13-2409
– Scott Williams tampered with physical evidence.
7. Violation of ARS 13-2802
& ARS 13-2894 – Scott Williams influenced and tampered with
witnesses.
8. Violation of ARS 13-2802
– Scott Williams interfered with judicial proceedings.
9. Violation of ARS 46-454
– Scott Williams failed to report Vulnerable Persons Abuse.
10. Violation of RPC 1.10 –
Scott Williams acted on his vendetta because of our Bar Complaint against him.
11. Violation of RPC 1.7
– Scott Williams had a Conflict of Interest with our Landlord and Renter.
12. Violation of RPC 3.1
– Scott Williams filed lawsuits that had no merit.
13. Violation of RPC 3.2
– Scott Williams used excessive Motions failed to expedite litigation.
14. Violation of RPC 3.3
– Scott Williams misled the judge.
15. Violation of RPC 3.4
– Scott Williams obstructed our ability to receive a Fair Trial.
16. Violation of RPC 3.5
– Scott Williams deceptively influenced the judge.
17. Violation of RPC 3.7
– Scott Williams cannot represent both our Renter and Landlord at the same time.
18. Violation of RPC 3.8
– Scott Williams failed to verify if our Housing Rights were violated.
19. Violation of RPC 4.3 –
Scott Williams took advantage of us by dismissing our evidence.
20. Violation of RPC 4.4 –
Scott Williams used the Court to Harass and Bully us.
21. Violation of RPC 8.1
– Scott William lied to the Bar in their investigation.
22. Violation of RPC 8.3
– Scott Williams failed to report our former attorney’s misdealings.
23. Violation of RPC 8.4 –
Scott Williams committed Misconduct with his dishonesty and manipulation.
24. Violation of Fair Housing
Law failure to provide safe environment for Disabled Persons.
25. Violation of Fair Housing
Law failure to provide Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Person.
26. Violation of Fair Housing
Law that restricts Landlord Retaliation against individuals that are
fighting for the Fair Housing Rights of other residents.
27. Violation of Due Process with
the Court’s destruction of our evidence and Trial Recording to cover up the
7/8/10 Kangaroo Trial which voids all judgments because all Appeals and
Mistrials were closed as stated in Dean v. State 900 S. State 900 S.W. 2d 367
(Tex., APP-Texarkana 1995).
PAGE 3 OF 10 PAGES
MOTION TO SET ASIDE CAROL’s 10/18/10
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER ON LAWSUIT #2009-610571 AND
DENY THE NEW MOTION TO FIND MARK AND CAROL FAIRALL
AS VEXATIOUS
LITIGANTS ON LAWSUIT #2010-038658
The SGRV’s attorney, Scott E. Williams’ STATEMENT to our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION was that he was not going to respond to our FRAUD OF THE COURT
MOTION
because we are vexatious litigants. This is his last ditch effect to calling us
names which is totally unacceptable and untrue. The ridiculous Vexatious Litigant
Order was only signed on Carol Buck’s Lawsuit #CC2009-610571 on 10/18/10. The
ridiculous Order never named Mark Fairall and it was written on Scott E. Williams'
personal stationary which the judge signed.
That Order does not pertain to Lawsuit #CC2010-038658. Again, Scott E.
Williams is MISLEADING THE COURT with this defense because it would be moot with a GRANTED FRAUD OF
THE COURT
Decision. This is a very rare Order because it denies the right of the access of justice. It was used by the
unscrupulous Judge Donald L. Graham and Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr. in 2001 to
block evidence. They were Criminally Prosecuted in Florida. Judge Graham was
much like Scott E. Williams because he was described as a liar and a bully and
the worst Florida Judge. Judge Graham was able to avoid going to jail because
of his relationship with former President George H. Bush. Judge Graham and
Scott E. Williams use the GOOD-OLD-BOY System to protect themselves. The new Vexatious Litigant Motion should not
be granted because it denies our RIGHTS
FOR DUE
PROCESS and the threshold of Bad Faith has
not been crossed. This Threshold is
outlined in the Premi v.
Khodeir, 2008 ONC 313 the Court of Appeal
statement:
“The threshold is important because depriving a
litigant of ordinary right to go to court is a serious restriction of a basic
right. Such an order should not be made without careful consideration of the
mandated threshold. As the motion judge failed to address the threshold
reasons, the order must be set aside.”
This ridiculous 10/18/10 Vexatious
Litigant Order illegally blocked Carol’s Legal Rights to fight a Baseless
Lawsuit filed against her by SGRV. This Court never addressed any correct
threshold reasons except to make the incorrect statement that her Motions were
not made in good faith and with the purpose of harassment. A person fighting for their Legal Rights with
a 200 plus-page count of evidence backed with case laws is not harassment. Her
200-page count of evidence backed by case laws desperately fails to be valid
reason for this ridiculous Order. In fact it supports the existence of her PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE against the Baseless Lawsuit filed against her which Scott
E. Williams wanted to hide from the Court. The 10/18/10 Order must be set aside
because it was made in order to Block
her Evidence which is not allowed as stated in Chambers v. Nasco., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991) and Cok v. Family
Court of Rhode Island, 985 F. 2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993).
PAGE 4 OF
10 PAGES
Justice does not exist for us by the Arizona
Judicial System. That is the reason we have hired our Private Investigator,
Jacob Mueller, Owner of Global Eye Investigations, and why we have requested a
full investigation of this Arrowhead Justice Court and Scott E. Williams by The Department of Justice.
SGRV is running an ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION SCAM which has been reported to the Arizona Better Business
Bureau, the Arizona Attorney General, and State Bar of Arizona (EXHIBIT 1: 7/9/11 Fairall email Complaint to
BBB) (EXHIBIT 2: 7/9/11 Fairall letter to Arizona Attorney General) (EXHIBIT 3:
Fairall Bar Complaint against Scott E. Williams #10-0232). This Court has helped exploit thousands of dollars from
SGRV Residents by rubber-stamping Scott E. Williams’ and SGRV’s Baseless
Lawsuits. Scott E. Williams was the
elections attorney for the returning 20-year Justice of the Peace Lex Anderson,
coming back after a four-year retirement, at the same time as our lawsuit was
in the same Arrowhead Justice Court. Scott E. Williams was up to his elections trickery
trying to get the signatures of the opposing Justice of the Peace Candidate
thrown out so then Anderson would have no election competition. However, the
signatures were valid and the Anderson Elections Lawsuit failed. Lex Anderson
lost the Arrowhead Justice Court election in the Primary Election held in August,
2010. It has been recently discovered that Scott E. Williams represented then House
Representative Russell Pearce in his 2007 Elections Problem where he violated
the state laws by raising money without declaring his Candidacy for the Senate (EXHIBIT 4: 2/8/08 ARIZONA
CAPITOL TIMES article “Arizona Legislator’s campaign committee falls into the
gray area”). SENATE PRESIDENT RUSSELL PEARCE IS ILLEGALLY IN
OFFICE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF SCOTT E. WILLIAMS’ ELECTIONS TRICKERY. Scott E. Williams is well connected being the elections
attorney responsible for getting the jobs for many Politicians and Judges. It
is no wonder why we cannot get Justice in the Arizona Judicial System nor can
we get new Senior Protection Laws passed in the Russell Pearce controlled Arizona
Legislature. Scott E. Williams needs
to have the same title as the corrupt
Florida Judge Donald L. Graham had which would be “TEFLON SCOTT E. WILLIAMS”. He is getting away with JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT, ELDER FRAUD & ABUSE, and THE INDIRECT MURDER OF SENIORS while the Arizona Judicial System looks the other way.
This is shocking!
Scott E. Williams is a Criminal and
needs to be Disbarred and Jailed for his Crimes against the most vulnerable
easy targets. This Elder Abuse is presently being investigated by our Private
Investigator and ARIZONA
REPUBLIC newspaper. They both have already
conducted many interviews and recordings that are being presented to Federal
Officials at the time of this Pleading. Scott E. Williams will not be able to
hide his and the SGRV’s illegal activities from the Public much longer. It is a
shame that the GOOD-OLD-BOY
JUSTICE SYSTEM is so strong in Arizona
because it has allowed this ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION to exist and defraud many seniors. This Pleading is being
forwarded to: President Barack Obama; The Honorable US Senator Jon Kyl,
Arizona; The Honorable US Senator John McCain, Arizona; The Honorable US
Representative Trent Franks, Arizona; The US Department of Justice; US
Department of Housing and Urban Development; The Arizona Attorney General; The
State Bar of Arizona; The ARIZONA
REPUBLIC newspaper; and Global Eye
Investigations – Jacob Mueller. It is up
to the Federal Government to Police this Cowboy
“Lawless” State of Arizona.
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Scott E. Williams’ 7/21/11 STATEMENT
to our 7/8/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT
MOTION states that Rule 7.1 (e), Ariz. R.
Civ. P. Motions for Reconsideration gives him the authority not to respond with
a STATEMENT disputing our FRAUD
OF THE COURT MOTION until our Pleading is
accepted. Scott E. Williams quotes the wrong law because the Motion for Reconsideration
is a “Horizontal Appeal”. We submitted a FRAUD
OF THE COURT MOTION which demands his
timely RESPONSE. Scott E. Williams does not have the luxury to pick and
choose MOTIONS that he will respond to and only if requested by the
Court. The fact is a FRAUD OF THE
COURT MOTION cannot be denied by the Court and
that is supported by the 10 previous case laws concerning the definition and
remedies of Misconduct of Officers of the
Court that interferes with the proper working of the Judicial System.
Scott E. Williams erred by not timely
answering our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION and therefore we are making a MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, again, granting all our previously submitted MOTIONS to:
1. Enjoin cases #CC2009-60571 & #CC2010-038658
2. Set aside all judgments.
3. Recover all Legal costs.
4. Reinstate case #CC2010-038658.
5. Award damages requested in case #CC2010-038658.
6. Apply Sanctions against Scott E. Williams.
PAGE 6 OF 10 PAGES
The Request for an ORAL ARGUMENT IS WITHDRAWN since the SUPREME
COURT RULE 216 requires an immediate DEFAULT JUDGMENT
when no timely RESPONSE is received. The Court has little discretion to excuse
late RESPONSE as stated in Bright
v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 2004 (1995) and Moy v. Ng. 341 Ill. App. 3d 984 (1st, 2003). Scott E. Williams is an expert on technicalities but his
current trickery has lost this case for him again. He tried the same trickery
at the beginning of the Lawsuit #2010-038658 by writing several Pleadings
without proper a LAWSUIT ANSWER while he wrote MOTIONS to dismiss our lawsuit because it was not properly served
in February, 2009. Scott E. Williams was playing this trickery game of not
properly responding to the Court while his client SGRV’s, Scott Green, dodged
the Process Server eight times. Judge Keegan ruled that since Williams was
answering our Lawsuit that SGRV had been served and that ended the DISMISSAL MOTION game of delays of not properly Answering the
1/25/10 Fairall v. SGRV Lawsuit #2010-038658
(EXHIBIT 5: 3/1/10 RULING ON
MOTION DENYING Scott E. Williams’ MOTION TO DISMISS) . This is a common
practice of Scott E. Williams to delay Answering in a Timely Manner because he
does not think Court Rules apply to him. His failure to Answer in a timely
manner, more than one months’ delay, caused the first DEFAULT JUDGMENT.
The Arrowhead Justice Court had me
fill out the 2/26/10 APPLICATION FOR
ENTRY OF DEFAULT for $10,485.00 when
Scott E. Williams was late on his first Answer (EXHIBIT 6: 2/26/10 Fairall’s Application for Entry of
Default). Scott E. Williams filed his 3/4/10 MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF
DEFAULT to stop the DEFAULT JUDGMENT (EXHIBIT 7: 3/4/10 Williams’
MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT). The Court awarded us the DEFAULT JUDGMENT on 3/24/10 when
Judge Deforest DENIED Williams’s MOTION
TO STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (EXHIBIT 8: 3/34/10 RULING ON
MOTION – WILLIAMS’ STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT – DENIED). Our Lawsuit #CC2010-038658 was won then with the first DEFAULT JUDGMENT.
Scott E. Williams was very clever by
not Responding to our FRAUD OF THE COURT allegations with more lies and trying to get his NEW MOTION granted
by labeling us as “Vexatious Litigants”. The only reason for his NEW “VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS MOTION” is his continued efforts to BLOCK OUR PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE AND EXTENSIVE CASE LAWS since he has no disputing evidence with any case laws.
Scott E. Williams has failed again to Respond in a timely manner to our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION. Scott E. Williams does not feel our MOTION is
worthy of his Response unless required by the Court. Court Rules require a
Response in 15 days, 10 days plus 5 days mailing, and since our MOTION was
filed on 7/8/11 that makes his RESPONSE LATE since it was REQUIRED by 7/23/11.
This Court saw through his Court Trickery of Delays in the beginning when he
stated that the lawsuit was not properly served by having his client SGRV dodge
the Process Sever eight
PAGE 7 OF
8 PAGES
times. His new Court Trickery to Delay a timely
Response has reached a new low with his name calling lies that we are vexatious
litigants not worthy of his Response. Our 7/8/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION has 410
pages of evidence supported by extensive case laws, Federal Laws, State Laws,
and Professional Rules of Conduct. Our PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE and NATURE OF THIS MOTION OF COURT
OFFICIAL FRAUD DEMANDED his timely answer and not his continued trickery of MISLEADING THE COURT.
This second DEFAULT JUDGMENT
should be granted since Scott E. Williams is late in his RESPONSE to our 7/8/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION. Today is 7/25/11 and it is past the timely Response
Deadline. This Court should immediately grant our DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION to show Court Rules also apply to Scott E. Williams. This DEFAULT JUDGMENT
is based upon a LEGAL TECHNICALITY
but that is the best and fastest decision that this
Court can make in order to correct our past injustices and to provide a swift
resolution to these manipulated unjust Court decisions. How many times do we
have to Petition the Court for DEFAULT
JUDGMENTS before they go into effect? Two DEFAULT JUDGMENTS in one Lawsuit is enough to end this SGRV LAWSUITS INJUSTICE and SCOTT E.
WILLIAMS’ MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION AND PERSECUTION!
We are the abused victims who are
suffering from his and SGRV’s illegal activities. Carol is dying due to the
liver rejection of her transplanted liver and her recent blood work that shows
her rejection level has increased to five times the normal level. Mark has
increased seizures and we have spent thousands of dollars for our medical bills
due to our declining health. We are victims of this MALICIOUS PROSECUTION by Scott E. Williams because we reported the unsafe and unhealthy conditions
plus the illegal activities of SGRV to the Governmental Authorities. He is also
angry because we filed our Bar Complaints against him and our former attorney,
Mark A. Tucker. We have $17,996.34 of
false judgments, $2,000.00 spent for unnecessary Court/Legal fees costs, and $3,500.00
spent for supplies, copying, and mailings. We have
been forced to use over 5,000 man hours
defending ourselves from this VINDICTIVE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION of Scott E. Williams.
This has also caused us great economic loss because of all the
exorbitant medical expenses which these lawsuits have caused forcing us to take
out a Reverse Mortgage on our Home. Scott E. Williams has ruined our lives with
his ABUSE OF POWER, COURT
MANIPULATION, and
COURT FRAUD for nearly two years. Our Lawsuits do not include any pain and
suffering awards. Hopefully, that will be handled by the Federal Government
when HUD sues SGRV for the VIOLATION
OF OUR
HOUSING RIGHTS.
These lawsuits have gone well past ARROWHEAD
JUSTICE COURT in Legal Precedence. If
Scott E. Williams would have answered our FRAUD
OF THE COURT MOTION with more lies then he
would
PAGE 8 OF
10 PAGES
have put himself at more risk for
continuing to MISLEAD THIS COURT. Scott E. Williams will be fighting his DISBARMENT because
of his ABUSE OF POWER, MISCONDUCT, and ILLEGAL
ACTIVITIES concerning SGRV’s ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION SCAM.
Based on all the above Scott E.
Williams’ total Misconduct in these cases should be Reprimanded with SANCTIONS. We
move this Court to do so.
We honor our deceased relative and
friends that were ABUSED AND
FINANCIALLY DEFRAUDED by SGRV and Scott E.
Williams with our continued legal efforts in this Court. We honor their memory
as we attempt to strengthen State and Federal Senior Protection Laws. We
continue our efforts to make the PUBLIC aware of the heinous crime of ELDER ABUSE and ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION. Our deceased friends and relatives had their voices
silenced by an indifferent uncaring Arizona Police and Justice System. We are
honor and remember the following:
Laura Boyd
Cliff
Dyrland
George
Grabach
Jack
Horner
Ed Hunt
Bill Klink
Frank
Matarrese
Alfred
Earl McHenry
Roslyn
Radden
Aunt
Catherine Reinertson
Based on the forgoing, we
respectfully urge the Court to grant all of our Motions presented in our FRAUD
OF THE COURT documentation.
We state under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: July 25, 2011
___________________________________
Mark R. Fairall – Plaintiff
_______________________________
Carol A. Fairall (nee Buck) – Defendant
PAGE 9 OF
10 PAGES
We certify that we mailed a
copy of these Motions to:
Williams Zinman & Parham, PC
7701 E. Indian School Road
Suite J.
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
EXHIBIT 1: 7/9/11 Fairall Complaint email about
Scott E. Williams to the Better Business Bureau
EXHIBIT 2: 7/9/11 Fairall Criminal Complaint Letter
about Scott E. Williams and SGRV to the
Arizona Attorney General
EXHIBIT 3: 7/9/11 Fairall Complaint Letter about
Scott E. Williams #File #10-0232 to the State Bar
Of Arizona
EXHIBIT 4: 2/8/08 ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES article
“Arizona legislator’s campaign committee
falls into gray area”
EXHIBIT 5: 3/1/10 Judge Keegan’s RULING ON MOTION
– DENYING WILLIAMS’
DISMISSAL MOTION AND
ORDERING THAT LAWSUIT HAS BEEN SERVED
EXHIBIT 6: 2/26/10 Fairall’s MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT
FOR JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
EXHIBIT 7: 3/4/10 Williams’ MOTION TO STRIKE
APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
EXHIBIT 8: 3/24/10 Judge Deforest’s RULING ON
MOTION filed by Defendant to STRIKE
APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT –DENYING SAID MOTION.
cc: President Barack Obama
The
Honorable US Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona
The
Honorable US Senator John McCain, Arizona
The
Honorable US Representative Tent Franks, Arizona
The US Department of Justice
The
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Arizona Attorney General
The
State Bar of Arizona
The ARIZONA REPUBLIC newspaper
Global Eye Investigations – Jacob Mueller
PAGE 10 OF 10 PAGES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
BY MELANIE DEFOREST
Your name: Mark R. Fairall & Carol Ann Buck Judge’s name: Melanie Deforest Date:9/09/2010
On July 8, 2010
a Travesty of Justice occurred in the Arrowhead Justice Court of bias, misconduct,
and complete lack of legal knowledge by the part-time judge Melanie Deforest in
our case Mark R. Fairall vs. Sun Grove
Resort Village LLC (CC2010-038658) & Carol Ann Buck (Third Party Defendant). This lawsuit and Trial were
concerning Sun Grove Senior Living, LLC dba Sun Grove Resort Village (SGRV), which is a senior living apartment
house that falsely advertises nonexistent services, misrepresents an imposter unlicensed
nurse as a real nurse, and withholds essential repair work as a form of Landlord
Retaliation. Judge Melanie Deforest “Murdered
Justice” by not allowing me, the Plaintiff, and Carol Ann Buck, the 3rd
Party Defendant, the fair opportunity to present our case in accordance with AZ.
Civil Rule 60. Judge Melanie Deforest
Violated the Arizona
Code of Conduct for Judicial
Employees (Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 97-41 dated August 20,
1997) by: 1. Failing to Maintain a high standard of conduct, 2. Failing
to Maintain the highest level of integrity and impartiality, 3. Failing to
Comply with the law, 4. Failing to be Professional and Courteous, and 5. Failing
to her perform her Judge Duties without bias, prejudice, or conflict of
interest. Due to Melanie Deforest’s outrageously illegal, inept misconduct as a
part-time judge in our case, she should not be allowed the by State of Arizona Judicial System
THE WRONGFUL DENIALS OF MY PRETRIAL MOTION
TO STRIKE LATE DISCLOSURE, MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
According to ARCP
Rule 26.1 (b)(1) a Disclosure
Statement must be exchanged 40 days prior to the Trial and we complied
with exchanging my Disclosure Statement timely on May 28, 2010, but opposing
counsel failed to comply by not presenting his Disclosure Statement until July
29, 2010 (only 10 days before Trial). My
Motion to Strike the Late Disclosure stated:
“I filed my
Disclosure Statement timely which has given the Defense time to threaten,
bribe, and harass my witnesses and Affidavit signers who pledged their support
and
Page 1 of 12 pages
testimony for
the Trial. I have lost nearly half of the people who pledged their support and
testimony due to the bully tactics of Sun Grove Resort Living, LLC and their
attorney, Scott Williams. It would be “Blind Justice” to allow the Late
Disclosure of Opposing Counsel to be submitted with only 10 days to Trial.” (Exhibit
1 - 7/1/10 Motion to Strike Late Disclosure/Motion for Default Judgment/Motion
for Sanctions).
However,
part-time judge Melanie Deforest denied these motions immediately prior to the
Trial on July 8, 2010, which gave opposing counsel an unfair tactical advantage
of information and extra time to harass, threaten, and bribe our witnesses. We tried
to explain this to part-time judge Melanie Deforest, but she rudely refused to
listen to our objections and denied our pretrial motions. We also moved that
the late Disclosure Statement presented only ten days prior to our Trial did
not give us the proper time needed to analyze it and the 300+ pages of evidence.
By not having a Pretrial Hearing and accepting the opposing counsel’s
late Disclosure Statement, part-time judge Melanie Deforest violated the Arizona
THE WRONGFUL REFUSAL TO GRANT OUR
CONTINUANCE MOTION FOR A DIFFERENT JUDGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL
Prior to the
Trial we called the Court to verify the fact that Judge Keegan was going to be
the Trial Judge and we were assured that he would be the sitting Judge. This
was done because we had filed a Telephonic Complaint on April 23, 2010 against
part-time judge Melanie Deforest concerning her April 22, 2010 Motions Hearing.
We reported that part-time judge Melanie Deforest was rude, condescending, and
badgering to us in the Motions Hearing. She even erred on two Court-Ordered
Minute Entries which had to be amended because she incorrectly confused to
plaintiffs and the defendants and incorrectly cited wrong dates. We complained to the Arrowhead Court
Supervisor: “she was not fit to be a dog
catcher”. When we spoke to the Arrowhead Court Supervisor, she referred us
to Judge Quentin Tolby, who oversees the Arrowhead Court Complaints. Judge Tolby
stated that he watched the Hearing and we discussed at length our verbal
complaint and problems with part-time judge Melanie Deforest. When we
complained about the questionable rulings of part-time judge Melanie Deforest, we
were assured that Judge Keegan would be sitting on the Bench two days before
the Trial. When part-time judge Melanie Deforest came onto the Bench for our
Trial, we immediately made a Motion for Continuance for a Different Judge. She curtly
and snidely denied our motion.
We attempted to
present the facts that our Witnesses had been pressured not to come to our
Trial by the defendant and opposing counsel and that one witness, Cliff Dyrland,
was missing. We stated that the Trial date desperately needed to be rescheduled.
Still, part-time judge Melanie Deforest refused to listen to our objections and
gave us an abusive, stern lecture that it was our fault that our witnesses did
not show up for Trial. She denied our Motion for Continuance and forced our Trial
to continue without any of our witnesses available, which set us up to fail. We
have later learned that our witness, Cliff Dyrland,
Page 2 of 12 pages
was in a coma in
John C. Lincoln Hospital
We had timely made
a Motion for Change of Venue in our second, related Trial (CC2010-038651) held on August 19, 2010 at Arrowhead Court Arizona
THE WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF OUR EXHIBITS
Opposing
counsel, Scott Williams, is also a 20+-year attorney and a part-time judge in Mesa Arrowhead
Court
Page 3 of 12 pages
David Osterfeld’s,
Melanie Deforest’s recent Estrella Mountain Justice of the Peace opponent, advertising
(Exhibit 4 – Osterfeld ad) which
stated that: “judges oversee trials and
hearings to ensure their fair
presentation. This is critical when only one party has an attorney, which can
often happen in justice courts.” If
we would have had a Pretrial, we would have been informed that Notarized Affidavits
of our witnesses were not acceptable according to Arizona Laws and we would
have packed the Court with witnesses. Melanie Deforest failed the keep a fair and
level playing field for our lawsuit by not having a Pretrial and by granting
opposing counsel’s motion to dismiss our 300+ pages of Exhibits. This action surprised us because we were told
to do this by the Court when we called asking when the Pretrial was scheduled. We
were told ten days before the Trial over the phone by the Arrowhead Justice Court Justice Court
We are able to
compare Melanie Deforest’s Judge Skills and Procedures to our second Trial
(CC2010-038651) in the Arrowhead
Court
THE WRONGFUL BADGERING, THREATS, AND INTERRUPTIONS
OF OUR TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS
It was nearly
impossible for us to speak in Court due to the abusively rude and
dictatorship-like control part-time judge Melanie Deforest imposed upon us at
our Trial. We believe that was because
of our Complaint filed against her. She would not let me, Mark Fairall, or the
3rd Party Defendant, Carol Ann Buck, speak without interruptions or
badgering. She even told Carol Buck that she was on “thin ice” and threatened her, a liver transplant patient dying of
liver rejection due to the actions of the SGRV slumlord. It is difficult to
document all the insults, interruptions, and demeaning actions part-time judge
Melanie Deforest subjected us to in the Trial. We hardly completed one sentence
throughout the Trial, and we respectfully urge this Commission to watch the Trial Video of the
July 8, 2010 Courtroom Chamber of Horrors that she created which did not allow
us a fair and just opportunity to present our case and “have our day in court.”
Part-time judge Melanie Deforest’s undignified, harsh demeanor and body
language needs to be watched, not read in a transcript of proceedings.
This is why we have not submitted a court reporter’s transcript of this
Kangaroo courtroom Trial.
Page 4 of 12 pages
In comparison
with our other recent Arrowhead Trial (CC2010-038651)
on August 19, 2010, Judge Terry Smith was very kind and considerate with both in propria persona parties. She kept
control of the Court in a friendly manner and she knew the law. The is this is
completely opposite from part-time judge Melanie Deforest, who broke the Arizona
Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3 by failing to maintain a
High Standard of Conduct, by failing to Avoid Impropriety, and by failing to be
patient, dignified, and courteous to us at the Trial.
THE WRONGFUL INTERPRETATIONS AND MISUSE OF
THE LAW
Our Mistrial will highlight the
wrongful interpretations and misuse of the law by part-time judge Melanie
Deforest. Specifically, part-time judge Melanie Deforest:
1. Did not have a full understanding of
the Lawsuit: The first question
asked by part-time judge Melanie Deforest was: “Did you live at the apartment
house and did you have a lease?...I have read every single page of this lawsuit
and understand the case.” That question
and statement by part-time judge Melanie Deforest proves she is a liar. That was
such a ridiculous question if she really had a complete understanding of our
lawsuit and interrelated Arrowhead
Court
The
landlord counter-sued Mark Fairall for $9,999.99 for Interference of a
Contractual Obligation and Carol Ann Buck for $9,999.99 for Breach of Contract.
Of course, we lived at SGRV and the question showed an absolute inability of
part-time judge Melanie Deforest to properly understand the lawsuit and Trial. Her
judgments on the Countersuits showed she continued to misunderstand the law or
ignore it when she awarded Sun Grove Resort Village a $0 verdict against
Mark Fairall for Contractual Interference when Carol Buck pointed out to the
Court she made her own decisions and was not influenced at all. Also, she
awarded Sun Grove Senior Living LLC a $9,999.99 judgment verdict against Carol
Ann Buck and exceeded the $9,999.99 judgment limitation of Justice Court Arrowhead Court Arrowhead Justice Court
Page 5 of 12 pages
costs
over the past Year due to
SGRV’s persecution and the Court’s looking the other way.
2. Wrongfully refused to allow all witnesses
to be properly questioned: It is pointed out that part-time judge
Melanie Deforest robbed us of our Court Judgment Award by blocking Mark Fairall
from properly questioning the defense witness, George Kieffer, who had key
information. I asked if I could question Mr. Kieffer, the opposing counsel lied
by saying that Mr. Kieffer had nothing to do with the Fairall part of the Trial,
and part-time judge Melanie Deforest sustained opposing counsel’s objection. Again,
part-
time judge
Melanie Deforest accepted the lies of opposing counsel and denied my legal right
to question Mr. Kieffer at our Trial. The opposing counsel lied and constantly duped
part-time judge Melanie Deforest in the Trial. This blocking of Mr. Kieffer’s
questioning prevented us from showing that Mr. Kieffer was threatening to kill
us and that we had an Injunction against Harassment filed against Mr. Kieffer
on October 2, 2009 and it was still in effect at our Trial date of July 8,
2010. This information would have prevented Carol Ann Buck’s Counterclaim
Judgment Award and would have showed that Sun Grove Senior Living, LLC was an unsafe
and unhealthy environment. This fact is supported by the fact that we were
afraid for our lives from the SGRV employee and our former renter, George
Kieffer, and part-time judge Melanie Deforest refused to let that evidence see
the light of day.
It is easy to
understand why opposing counsel, Scott Williams, did not want Mark Fairall to
question Mr. Kieffer because Williams had a conflict of interest between he and
his SGRV client for this Trial. Scott Williams represented Mr. Kieffer in Mark
Fairall’s other Arrowhead Court Case (CC2010-038651)
and set up an unknown and unapproved Stipulation Agreement which absolved Mr.
Kieffer of all his unpaid rent and damages to the Mark Fairall rental house.
That illegal Conflict of Interest cost us nearly $20,000 in uncollectible back
rent and damages and the State Bar of Arizona has been made aware of the
Collusion between our former attorney, Mark Tucker, and Scott Williams with Bar
Complaints of Collusion (Exhibit 6 – Mark
Tucker Bar Complaint Letter dated August 31, 2010). Also, Mr. Kieffer was fully aware that the former Sun
Grove Senior Living, LLC employee, Gail Magnuson, stole the Fairall house
countertop located in the Fairall rental house where Mr. Kieffer and Ms. Olach
previously lived. Mr. Kieffer was also aware that another former SGRV Employee,
Jim Sedlock, installed the stolen Fairall countertop in the SGRV dining room
located at 10134 W. Mohawk Ln. ,
Peoria , AZ 85382
That Counter-top Theft was part of our original Complaint and Mr. Kieffer’s testimony would have
completely prevented our Trial loss and obligation for the defendant’s attorney
fees and court costs (Exhibit 7 –
Kieffer Trial Documents). That wrongful barring of Mark Fairall’s legal
right to question a witness was a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and it prevented us a fair opportunity to present
our case at the Trial.
3. Wrongfully refused to rule that the illegal
$450 dog fee collected was a debt of the new owner: The
part-time judge Melanie Deforest made another wrongful interpretation of the
law when she said the $450 illegal collection of a pet fee for a Service Dog
was the
Page 6 of 12 pages
obligation of
the old owners and not of the new owners. The corporate structure was explained
to the Court in previous pleadings which part-time judge Melanie Deforest adversely
ruled upon. It was presented to the Court that 19 owners purchased the property
as a tax shelter investment property through the alleged $200 Million Ponzi
Scam artist, James Koenig, over four years ago. The 19 out-of-state investors
got the Ownership Deed to the property when California, Shasta County Superior
Court, prosecuted James Koenig and his Management Company, Oakdale Heights, on
May 9, 2009. Mr. Koenig has his Trial set for November 9, 2010 in California
property
investors but now they actually have possession of the Deed of the property
through litigation by the State of California
Also, we
attempted to make her aware that this Arrowhead
Court
“Judge Deforest also incorrectly ruled by
not allowing the debt owed to Mark Fairall for the illegally collected $450 Dog
Deposit Fee for a Service Dog to stand by stating the debt belonged to the
previous owner which is incorrect according to the ARS 47-2611 Anticipatory Repudiation. In fact U.C.C.-Article 2-Sales-Part 6. Breach, Repudiation and Excuse allows
the “Binding Effect” where the owners take over the rights and debts of the old
owners. Judge Deforest’s incorrect denial of the legal $450 debt owed me
allowed Sun Grove Resort
Village
4.
Wrongfully was misled by opposing counsel to ignore SGRV corporate
history and blocked newly discovered evidence at the Trial: It is very
apparent why opposing counsel, Scott Williams, took such an active role in this
small Justice Court case defense for SGRV because he wants the SGRV corporate
history to remain buried and wants to keep Seniority, Inc. from possibly facing
a huge Elder Abuse Judgment. The SGRV owners are the same 19 investors for the
past four years, but the senior living apartment house changed Management
Companies from Oakdale
Heights Oakdale Heights
Page 7 of 12 pages
operate SGRV
using the same ruthless and criminally illegal management practices for
Seniority, Inc. as he had used in the past at SGRV as Oakdale Heights
We attempted to
communicate this SGRV corporate history through our Motions and at the Trial,
but it was completely misrepresented by opposing counsel and the part-time
judge Melanie Deforest blocked our testimony. The “Piercing of the LLC Shield”
for SGRV’s illegal activities and management pattern of an underfunded
corporation and senior abuse were supported by case law and presented in our
March 23, 2010 Motion to amend the complaint to specifically name the five
property manager/owners as defendants (Exhibit
12 – 3/23/10 Motion to Amend the Complaint to Add Specifically Named Owners/Managers),
but that motion was denied by part-time judge Melanie Deforest. On
April 22, 2010 we made another Motion to add all 19 investor/owners as
defendants (Exhibit 13 – 4/22/10 Motion
to Amend the Complaint to Specifically name All The Property Owners as
Defendants), but part-time judge Melanie Deforest denied that motion and
let all of the owners off the financial hook which prolonged this lawsuit and
made any collection of our Lawsuit Award impossible. It took many calls to this
Court to obtain correct Minute Entries for the April 22, 2010 oral argument
held in the Arrowhead Courtroom because part-time judge Melanie Deforest had
wrong dates on the entry and was confused who the defendants and plaintiff were
in the case. We never got a totally correct Minute Entry for the April 22, 2010
oral argument which was the hearing where part-time judge was very befuddled
and extremely rude resulting in our judge Complaint (Exhibit 14 - two incorrect 4/22/10 oral argument Minute Entries).
It is extremely
important to point out to the Court that we were attempting to make the out-of-state
tax dodging investors of Oakdale
Heights Arizona
simultaneously occurred as the California California California
“The jury sent a loud message to elder-care
providers who choose profit over people and ignore laws designed to protect our
community’s most vulnerable members. This type of conduct will not be
tolerated.” (Exhibit 10 – 3/10 Newspaper Reports & Information of Oakdale Heights
The opposing
counsel objected when we asked the defendant, Scott Williams, if he knew
Page 8 of 12 pages
Beverly Seigel,
another resident who lives at SGRV. Again, the part-time judge blocked the
questioning concerning the newly discovered evidence that we had just
received concerning the fact that Beverly Siegel tried to rent Carol Buck’s previous
SGRV apartment but was declined by Scott Green because she was told it was full
of mold.
The opposing
counsel objected when we asked the defendant, Scott Green. about the
advertising on-line stating SGRV was an assisted living facility with a 24/7 monitored
emergency call system. Again, part-time judge Melanie Deforest also blocked that
line of questioning
because opposing counsel stated SGRV was not actually in control of on-line
advertising. This was another opposing
counsel lie and we have followed up on the twelve senior living referral companies
disclosed in their own evidence and we have removed five on/line ads misstating
that SGRV is an Assisted Living Facility with a 24/7 monitored resident emergency
alarm system. We also have a magazine where SGRV misrepresents their services as
newly discovered evidence being presented in the MISTRIAL (Exhibit 15 – The CB Time – SGRV Ad – May
2010).
The opposing
counsel objected when we asked their Mold Examiner, Environmental Consulting,
Inc. for lab information of Terra Science Laboratory, Inc. which processed the
mold air samples taken on 10/16/09 at Carol Buck’s previous SGRV apartment. We
now have newly discovered evidence which verifies that Terra Science
Laboratory Inc. has gone out of business because of poor work and is no longer
used by Environmental Consulting, Inc. The
opposing counsel misused the Court by blocking the new discovery questioning. Again, part-time judge Melanie
Deforest went along with the devious opposing counsel and blocked the new
evidence exploration. Finally, part-time judge Melanie Deforest had totally set us up for complete failure in our
Trial by blocking all our witnesses, blocking our old evidence, and blocking
our new discovery exploration.
5. Wrongfully failed to follow proper courtroom
procedures and protocols which allowed blatant perjury by the defense witnesses:
The proper procedures and
protocols of a Judge are to have all the witnesses be removed from the trial courtroom
in order to insure independent and uncorroborated testimony in accordance with 28
U.S.C & Fed. R. Civ. P. 83. In the July 8, 2010 Trial, none of the
defense witnesses were asked to leave the courtroom and they all had the
opportunity to hear all the witnesses and set up consistent lies. The lies
became very apparent in the Trial when the five SGRV witnesses testified under
oath as to the wrong date of September 18, 2009 for the water leak in Carol
Buck’s SGRV apartment. We attempted to point out that three witnesses perjured
their written documents (Exhibit 16 –
SGSL #095 & #096 – 9/18/09 Kieffer Perjury / SGSL #097 & #098 9/18/09 Olivares
Perjury / SGSL #099 – 9/21/09 Bennett Perjury) before the part-time judge
Melanie Deforest with the defense’s own Exhibits of the work orders requested by Carol Buck stating the water leaks
were October 2, 8, and 10, 2009. (Exhibit
17 – SGSL #105 & #106 – Buck’s Maintenance Request listing correct water
leak dates). When it was pointed out to the part-time judge Melanie
Deforest that the witnesses were perjuring themselves, she simply ignored the
truth and let the dummied up documents of the opposing counsel not to be
questioned and accepted the coached witnesses’ perjuries as the truth. Scott
Green, the Executive Director of Sun Grove Senior Living LLC, constantly
perjured himself and lied on the stand by stating
Page 9 of 12 pages
that they never
advertise as an Assisted Living Facility and never stated they had a monitored
24/7 emergency alarm system for the residents. We could not even get Scott
Green to admit that Mark Fairall was in charge of the Ambassador Committee, a
resident’s counsel, which helped the renters at the location.
When he was
shown his own letters written about Mark Fairall being the Chairman of the
Ambassador Committee, he would not acknowledge the truth. Finally, I said to
the part-time judge Melanie Deforest in the Trial when I was examining Scott
Green: “I cannot make him tell
the truth your Honor.” (Emphasis added)
Perjury was rampant in the Courtroom by the defense witnesses, and part-time
judge Melanie Deforest did nothing to stop it.
Melanie Deforest
committed misconduct by ignoring the proper courtroom procedures and protocols
in our July 8th Trial. Judge Terry Smith followed proper courtroom
procedures in our August 19, 2010 Trial by having all the witnesses for both
the prosecution and defense sit outside the courtroom until it was their time
to testify. Judge Terry Smith insured a fair and just Trial by not allowing any
perjury or collaborated witness testimony: part-time judge Melanie Deforest did
not and totally failed as a judge by not enforcing the law with fines and/or
jail time for perjury.
SUMMARY
We are very
concerned that part-time judge Melanie Deforest is unfit to be a part-time
Justice of the Peace because she lacks the understanding of the law since she
is not a lawyer and has a very limited two-year background of assisting the
Arizona Justice Court System. She used a very harsh and abrasive manner of
dealing with us in the Court Trial by using Berating, Shouting, Threatening, Intimidating,
Interrupting, Degrading, and Badgering Conduct from the Bench with little or no
respect or courtesy toward us as non-lawyers. The Arizona Justice Court System
does not need part-time judge Melanie Deforest making unsound judgments based
upon her own lack of professionalism, lack of common sense, lack of
fair-mindedness, and lack of knowledge. In fact, her strange abusive behavior
may indicate that she has a mental problem because she is non compos mentis. That evidence of not being of sound mind is
demonstrated when she threw out of Court our 94-year old threatened witness,
Millie Toedebusch because her driver, John Roberts whispered to Millie he
thought she was “doing a terrible job”. Both Mr. Roberts and Mrs. Toedebusch are
willing and anxious to testify about this judge’s misconduct. Also, Stephanie
McMahon witnessed the Courtroom Circus created by part-time judge Melanie
Deforest. Ms. McMahon has sat on the Arizona State Bar Ethics Committee Review Board
and she stated:
I have never seen a worse and more abusive
judge in my life and she should be taken off the Bench. I would not have
believed what happened in Court unless I had seen it myself.”
Ms McMahon is
willing and anxious to testify about this part-time judge’s misconduct.
It is abhorrent that part-time judge Melanie
Deforest lacks integrity and abused her part-
Page 10 of 12 pages
time judge
position to help herself. This was
especially evident in our Trial when she did not recuse herself from our Trial
when we had previously filed a Complaint with the Court. We feel that all her
motion decisions, Court style, and final judgments were hostile and against us
because she was upset about our initial Complaint against her. We believe her ultimate
goal was to be elected to the Estrella Mountain Justice of the Peace Position
and she did not want any negative press because of our Complaint. This is a
huge violation of the Arizona Judicial Conduct Code Cannon 4 Section
C Conflict of Interest which states:
“Judicial
employees shall mange personal and business matters so as to avoid situations
that might lead to conflict, or the appearance of conduct, in the performance
of their employment.”
Finally
part-time judge Melanie Deforest violated the Arizona Judicial Code Cannon 5 –
Judicial Employees Shall Refrain From Inappropriate Political Activities (B)(1)
when her police officer and Campaign Manager husband filed a Police
Report against her Estrella Mountain Justice of the Peace opposition David
Osterfeld for moving one of her signs. Part-time judge Melanie Deforest did not
maintain did not maintain the dignity of her Political Campaign and she failed
to encourage the same for her husband. We
believe Arizona Department of Public Safety Officer Kyle Deforest, part-time
judge Melanie Deforest’s husband, misused his Police Officer status and tried
to smear opponent David Osterfeld’s good name by filing a very petty and public
Police Complaint for illegally moving part-time judge Melanie Deforest’s
Campaign sign only one month before the Primary Election (Exhibit 18 - 7/10/10 WEST VALLEY VIEW Newspaper Article – “JP
Candidate Accused Of Tampering with Rival’s Campaign Sign). This was a “last
ditch” desperate act by the Deforest Family to help part-time judge Melanie
Deforest win the $90,000+ a year job full time as a Justice of the Peace to
replace her regular job as a group fitness instructor at Lifetime Fitness. It
also supports the fact that she was shocked about our Complaint on 4/23/10 and
made the desperate act of punishing us and trying to bury us by blocking our
ability to obtain a fair Trial in her Chamber of Horrors Courtroom. It is very apparent
that the Public is fully aware, by the recent August Primary Election Results
in the Estrella Mountain Area, that part-time judge Melanie Deforest is not
ready to make the leap from non-lawyer, full-time fitness instructor, and 2
year part-time judge to a full time Justice of the Peace Judge because she
placed a distant third with only 2417 votes (18.95%).
This Formal
Complaint to the State of Arizona
Commission Arrowhead Justice Court
We affirm, under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing information and the allegations contained in the above complaint
details are true.
Page 11 of 12 pages
Date: September 9, 2010
____________________________________
Mark R. Fairall
____________________________________
Carol Ann Buck
Attachments: Exhibit 1 – 7/1/10 Motion to Strike Late Disclosure –
Pages 1
Exhibit 2 –
6/10/10 Amended Disclosure – Page 6
Exhibit 3 – 6/10/10 Fairall Letter to Williams – Page 11
Exhibit 4 – Osterfeld Ad – Page – Page 13
Exhibit 5 – 7/8/10 Fairall’s Opening Statement – Page 18
Exhibit 6 - 8/31/10 Mark Tucker Bar Complaint Letter –
Page 23
Exhibit 7 – 8/19 /10 Kieffer Trial Documents – Page 26
Exhibit 8 – 8/30/10 Motion to Stay Debtor’s Hearing – Page
105
Exhibit 9 – 4/21/08 Seniority Inc. News – Page 142
Exhibit 10 – 3/2010 - Oakdale Heights
Exhibit 11 – 4/21/10
Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel–Page 150
Exhibit 12 – 3/23/10
Motion to Amend Complaint
Naming
5 Owners – Page 155
Exhibit 13 – 4/22/10
Motion to Amend Complaint
Naming
all Owners – Page 179
Exhibit 14 – Two
Incorrect Minute Entries
for
4/22/10 Oral Argument – Page 209
Exhibit 15 – 5/10 The CB
Times – SGRV False advertising – Page 212
Exhibit 16 – Perjury
Trial Documents for
Kieffer/Olivares/Bennett
– Page 214
Exhibit 17 – 10/10/09
Work Order Request by Carol Buck – Page 220
Exhibit 18 –
7/30/10 WEST VALLEY
Sign
Tampering – Page 223
cc: Arrowhead Justice Court
Page 12 of 12 pages
Well thanks for share this post and health care of pet animal is really necessary because if they catch any disease then this will bad for our family members. So weekly or monthly check up is also necessary for pet animals. One of them Dog is most pet animals in mostly our homes and their routine checkups and concrete on their food, their health injection, on their bark sound, and so many points which is necessary for point otherwise many of dangerous disease appear on them.
ReplyDeleteAssisted living sun valley
Incredible Blog! I might want to thank for the endeavors you have made in composing this post. I am trusting a similar best work from you later on also. I needed to thank you for this sites! Much obliged for sharing. Incredible sites! Click Here
ReplyDelete