This investigation into the loss of the Defendant’s home concludes with a discovery that challenges the very validity of the trial’s conclusion.
The “Judgment” used to displace a family from their property was based on a Jury Verdict Form that was never signed, following a trial held during a documented medical emergency. This investigation into the loss of the Defendant’s home concludes with a discovery that challenges the very validity of the trial’s conclusion.
The Medical Ambush: Trial in Absentia
The most egregious violation of the Defendant’s rights occurred when the court elected to proceed with the trial while Nick was experiencing a medical emergency. The Obstruction: Despite being provided with evidence of the emergency, Bryan L. Eastin of Provident Law, Commissioner Mulleneaux, and Donna Johanson continued the proceedings.
The Violation: The U.S. and Arizona Constitution’s guarantee the right to “meaningfully participate in one’s own defense.” By conducting the trial in the absence of the defendants, the court stripped the Defendants of their right to cross-examine witnesses, object to evidence, and present their notarized deed to the jury.
The Unsigned Verdict: A Document Without Power
The result of this “one-sided” trial was a Verdict Form that remains unsigned. In the American legal system, the Verdict Form is the only legal instrument that transfers a jury’s decision into a court judgment.
The Fact: To be valid, a verdict must be signed by the foreperson.
The Legal Consequence: Without a signature, the document is a nullity. It lacks the certification required to convert a jury’s deliberation into a binding order.
The Jurisdictional Void: Rule 96
This breakdown of order happened under the watch of a commissioner who, according to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 96, lacked the authority to preside. Without a written waiver and express consent from the Defendant’s, Commissioner Mulleneaux acted coram non judice—presiding over a case without the legal jurisdiction to do so.
Extrajudicial Engineering: The Full Picture
The loss of the Defendant’s home was achieved through a sequence of calculated exclusions:
Manipulation of Orders: Using an “Open Loop” scheduling order to block discovery for seven years.
Shadow Hearings: Holding a “unilateral proceeding” on January 27, 2021, while the Defendant’s waited on a dead line.
Resurrection of Defunct Claims: Reintroducing adjudicated claims that Judge Cohen had already extinguished on April 8, 2019.
The Medical Exclusion: Conducting the trial while the defendant’s were incapacitated by a medical crisis.
Procedural Failure: Finalizing the case based on an unsigned verdict form.
The TurboCourt Fraud: Seizing a Home Under the Cover of Darkness
The final phase of the Defendant’s investigation reveals a shocking subversion of the Clerk of the Court’s office. In the final days of April 2024, the “Shadow Bench” moved from legal manipulation to physical destruction.
The Unofficial Judgment
Following a trial where the disabled defendants were excluded due to a medical emergency, Commissioner Mulleneaux signed a judgment drafted by the opposing attorney, Bryan L. Eastin.
The Violation: The judgment lacked the Official Seal of the Superior Court.
The Breach: Instead of the Court Clerk entering the judgment, the documents show that Eastin himself filed the document through TurboCourt. By assuming the role of a judicial officer, Eastin bypassed the verification process required to make a judgment “Final.”
The Docket Blackout
While Eastin was rushing to record this unsealed document at the County Recorder’s office, the Clerk of the Court held the Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial off the official docket for ten days. This “administrative pause” ensured the Defendant’s could not legally challenge the proceedings until the property had already been “stolen” on paper.
The April 8th Fire: Arson of a Defended Home
The timeline of the fire is the most damning evidence of all: March 29, 2024: Eviction Notice to Defendants April 8, 2024: The home is set on fire.
April 18, 2024: The date the plaintiffs claimed “official” ownership.
The Reality: On the night of the fire, the Defendant’s remained the legal owners of the property. The “Judgment” used to justify the eviction was unsigned, improperly filed, and based on an unsigned jury verdict
Extrajudicial Engineering at its Peak
The destruction of the Defendants home was the final solution to a legal problem Eastin couldn’t solve: The Truth. By burning the property ten days before they even had a claim to “official” ownership, the architects of this scheme attempted to erase the crime scene of a jurisdictional theft.
The 11:45 AM Fraud: Stamping the Verdict Before the Jury Returned
The Reaper Times investigation has moved from “procedural error” to Direct Evidence of Court Fabrication. Through a frame-by-frame analysis of the official court video from January 30, 2024, the Reaper Times has exposed a timeline that defies the laws of physics and justice.
The Impossible Timeline
The court’s own records and video reveal a chilling sequence of events:
11:45 AM: The Court Clerk applies the official timestamp to the Jury Verdict Form.
11:50 AM: According to Commissioner Mulleneaux’s own minute entry, this is the earliest moment the jury returned to the courtroom.
The Implication: The Court “certified” a verdict that did not yet exist. The Clerk stamped a blank, unsigned form five minutes before the jury even ended their deliberations.
The “Guilty” Verdict Instruction (Directed Verdict)
Witnessed on video, Commissioner Mulleneaux bypassed the neutral role of the judge. By refusing to give the jury physical copies of the forms and instead reading the “Guilty” verdict form to them twice, she provided a Mandatory Directed Verdict. Mulleneaux did not give the jury the Defendants Verdict form’s. This is a fundamental violation of the right to a jury trial; a judge cannot tell a jury how to find, they can only explain the law.
The “Duplicate Original” Deception
Two weeks later, the court attempted to “fix” the record by filing a document labeled “Duplicate Original.”
The Fact: This document remained unsigned by any juror or foreperson.
The Reality: There is no such thing as a “Duplicate Original” of an unsigned, double-stamped, fabricated verdict. It is a manufactured document intended to paper over a jurisdictional void.
Southern Quill brings you the latest news updates to keep you informed.
Be First to Comment