This site contains actual case files which depicts the unlawful acts Committed by the Arizona Judicial System.
The Civil Case that spawned all other related litigations are from CV 2017-055490.
What is contained in this website is the information the Arizona Government does not want the public to know. It is the process of how the Arizona Government Violates their own written laws. Sometimes this occurs for the Court’s profit or the Judicial officer’s personal benefit.
This site may provide information of the process how to reduce or stop the abuse committed by the Arizona Judicial System against pro per litigants.
The Court’s (Judiciary) will not acknowledge or recognize the unlawful conduct of the Court or its officers including Attorneys.
This is inclusive of the Superior court of Arizona, the Arizona Appellate Court, the Supreme Court of Arizona, the 9th, Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal District Court of Arizona and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There are still ways to obtain Justice when dealing with Corruption in the judiciary.
These are through the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct is a Constitutionally Mandated judicial disciplinary agency in Arizona. It was established in 1970 after state voters approved an amendment to the Arizona Constitution. The commission has oversight over all state judges regarding judicial conduct.
Here is the Problem: A commission on judicial conduct is created to be composed of eleven persons consisting of;
Two Judges of the court of appeals, two Judges of the superior court, one Justice of the peace and one municipal court Judge, who shall be appointed by the supreme court, two members of the state bar of Arizona, who shall be appointed by the governing body of such bar association (Arizona Supreme Court), and three citizens who are not Judges, retired judges nor members of the state bar of Arizona, who shall be appointed by the governor subject to confirmation by the senate in the manner prescribed by law.
Do you see the problem?
The problem is the public participation factor is 3.6 to 1 ratio, 1 being the public, and 3.6 in favor to the governing judiciary (legal community). Simply, this means if all “three Citizens” rule that a Judge’s Conduct is reprimandable, the “citizens” ruling can be overridden
, by the other Nine Judges and Lawyers whom are part of “the system“,
(self-policing system
).
This is a typical structuring in a self policing system. This is to give the public the apperance of being fair and impartial and the sense of public participation.
Keep in mind that your opinion is out numbered by a 3½ to 1 ratio. This is not even close to fair or impartial. This is stacking
the outcome.
This in essence, is a useless task to file a judicial complaint with the office of The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Typically your complaint will be dismissed with the phrase attached “not clear and convincing“, although you have clearly proved the person you have made a complaint on has clearly committed a wrongful act or even broken the “known and established Laws“, as what happened in our circumstance when a judicial complaint was filed against Now Ex-Judge Sally Schneider Duncan. Some of you may have had interactions with Ex-Judge Sally Duncan. According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR), Ex-Judge Sally Schneider Duncan accepted retirement in lieu of being judicially removed and/or charged.
Ex-Maricopa County Superior Court Judge,
Sally Schneider Duncan.
According to the “J.P.R.” Once a Judge accepts the “option” to retire, that Judge is Not subject to place themselves on recall status and not eligible for recall status (time will tell). If anyone should discover that Sally Schneider Duncan is back on the bench as a judge, please contact us through this website with the details pertaining to Sally Schneider Duncan.
The Judicial Performance Review
In 1992 Arizona voters amended the state Constitution to create a process for evaluating the performance of judges appointed through merit selection. The Constitution requires that the performance evaluation process include input from the public and that judicial performance reports be given to the voters before the state’s general election. The Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR Commission) was created to conduct the periodic performance reviews of appointed judges required by the Constitution. The JPR Commission works under procedures adopted by the Supreme Court and sets standards for judicial performance including whether judges can apply the law fairly, treat people with respect and manage a courtroom.
The Voters Evaluation:
Under the performance evaluation process, public input about each judge’s performance is collected through surveys conducted by jurors, witnesses, litigants, people who represent themselves in court, attorneys and court staff who have observed the judge at work. This input is then used to rate key aspects of each judge’s performance.
Bryan Eastin being violent, threatened to hit the examiner (Nick Casavelli) during a deposition. The public has the key role in the performance review process, as the JPR Commission uses the public input to decide whether each judge subject to retention election “Meets” or “Does Not Meet” judicial performance standards. The Commission reports its decision and the information collected from the surveys in the Secretary of State Voter Information Pamphlet and on this website. Voters can use the JPR Commission’s findings and data reports to decide how they will vote on each judge on the retention ballot.
The Commission Composition The Commission on Judicial Performance Review is composed of 34 members, all appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Commission can have no more than seven judges and six attorneys, so the majority of the members are public members who are not members of the legal community. This gives the public a 2.6 to 1 ratio, the 2.6 being the public and the 1 being of the legal community. These ratios work, if you are aware of the process and procedures of the J.P.R.
Now, this doesn’t mean the judges up for retention doesn’t have or devised methods to evade the proper process of judicial performance review.
To know the entire process of judicial performance review is not an easy task to reveal, especially when the information you need is in the hands of the people you may be reviewing or up for retention.
No Isolated Incident At all phases of reporting a wrongful act or even a criminal act being perpetrated against you by the very people you are to report the misconduct to, resistance and obstruction is offered instead of compliance.
Before I get ahead of myself, let me explain in detail and with supporting evidence, That Arizona has become more than 90% Fascist. Although, the ideaology has been contorted in the state of Arizona, but the remaining effect[s] is still the same.
Lets explore the events and why this is no isolated incident that began starting on May 11th., 2016 and the preceeding events to the current date.
These events are all intertwined with the Judicial System from an Arizona justice court (country meadows) to to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The spark that ignited the flame that exposes the mass corruption in the Judicial system starting in Arizona was
Be First to Comment