The Story of JP Elizabeth Rogers in 4 posts

The Story in four posts:

(1) Once Upon A Time There Was A Judge Elizabeth Rogers (Overview of Events)

(2) Report of Misconduct by Justice of the Peace Elizabeth Rogers as submitted to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct

(3) Violations of Judicial Code of Conduct by JP Rogers

(4) Summary

Sunday, March 6, 2011

(1) Once Upon A Time there Was a Justice of the Peace Elizabeth Rogers


“I, Elizabeth Rogers, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Justice of the Peace according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).”

Judges are charged with adjudicating the law, and courts have established procedures for enabling them to do their job. Litigants bring cases to court, citing the event(s) and the law(s) they believe have been violated, and the judge is to decide whether or not the law has been violated and if so, implement the legally-prescribed enforcement procedures and/or punishments.

That’s what judges are SUPPOSED to do. But Kyrene District Justice of the Peace Elizabeth Rogers went awry. When she realized that she couldn’t decide in favor of her Constable and his friends (Anthony Miller and Plaintiff Sophia Johnson) because the Defendant (Sandra Miller) was too knowledgeable on the cited law and would probably appeal (which I would have), JP Rogers just couldn’t let it go at that.
She couldn’t issue the Injunction Against Harassment that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson wanted because Sophia Johnson couldn’t prove she was ever harassed (indeed, what Plaintiff Sophia Johnson presented as “evidence” was pathetic and wasted the court’s time). So JP Rogers made up 2 new “pseudo-laws” and publicly berated Defendant Sandra Miller for “violating” her 2 new laws:
  • “use language that would abuse or otherwise harm another person “
  • and
  • “chilling the other person’s ability to participate in the political process.”  
JP Rogers couldn’t include the Arizona Revised Statute numbers for these “laws” because they don’t exist… except in her own mind. But a judge's personal opinion doesn't make it a law.
By “harm” or “abuse,” she doesn’t mean physical harm because there was ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of that in Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller. The context of JP Rogers’ pseudo-law is “language that would hurt the feelings of another person,” and there is no such law—JP Rogers made it up on the spot and hoped no one would notice.
By “chilling,” she doesn’t mean interference—there was none. JP Rogers has decided that reminding a potential candidate for elected office of their past track record might make them hesitant to run for office, or “chill their ability to participate in the political process.” That’s what most voters call “being accountable for past performance.”

Those are the 2 pseudo-laws that JP Rogers tried to apply in Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller. JP Rogers couldn’t use existing laws like ARS 12-1809-R (anti-harassment legislation) because Plaintiff Sophia Johnson failed miserably to meet the conditions required.

In applying her new pseudo-laws, JP Rogers violated a number of court principles and provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. But she seemed so determined to accommodate friends of her constable that she didn’t care.

I believe the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct holds a different opinion; that’s the reason for my complaint.

*                  *                     *                       *                       *                            *
On Friday, January 14, Sophia Johnson filed a request (A) with the Kyrene Court for an Injunction against Harassment based on what she vaguely told the court was “a threatening e-mail.”(L-1) She didn’t include a copy of the “threatening e-mail” with the request, nor did the form she completed (A) provide specifics of just what made the e-mail “threatening.”

Justice of the Peace Elizabeth Rogers apparently reviewed the report and decided that she “wanted to hear both sides” before making a decision. There is no indication that JP Rogers reviewed the “threatening e-mail” or asked Plaintiff Sophia Johnson to substantiate her claim of “threatening.”

But there was no case to “hear both sides” of! The “threatening e-mail” (L-1) that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson reported didn’t even meet the ARS 12-1809-R requirement of harassment, and definitely wasn’t “threatening.” That JP Rogers didn’t require Plaintiff Sophia Johnson to substantiate her “threatening” claim to insure compliance with ARS 12-1809-R( C ) before scheduling a hearing was either sheer incompetence or malfeasance by the judge. Or perhaps a combination of both.

Rather than dismissal at that time, JP Rogers could have allowed Plaintiff Sophia Johnson to amend her Petition for Protection to meet the requirements of ARS 12-1809-R( C ) if indeed Plaintiff Sophia Johnson had sufficient evidence and if JP Rogers could have done it without offering legal advice or assistance to Plaintiff Sophia Johnson.

But JP Rogers didn’t do that. Despite Sophia Johnson’s report not meeting requirements for an Injunction Against Harassment, JP Rogers issued and signed a “Notice of Hearing”(B) for January 25 that was served to me that night (although without the required Petition for Protection (D) completed and submitted by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and recorded by court staff).

Is JP Rogers’ slipshod handling of all protective orders as consistently sloppy as with CC2011-008497? Or was it because Plaintiff Sophia Johnson is a friend of the judge’s Constable, Brandon Schmoll? Did JP Rogers in effect say to the Constable, “Your evidence is insufficient for a case, but we’ll try to slip it by since she’s a friend of yours.”? Neither possibility is appealing.

Yet when I submitted a Motion to Dismiss Without Hearing (H) the day prior to court because Plaintiff Sophia Johnson didn’t meet the criteria in ARS 12-1809-R, JP Rogers asked the consent of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson who predictably objected, and by her denial of my Motion (I) JP Rogers insisted on holding the following day’s hearing on a non-case.

JP Rogers’ justification for the previous day’s denial (I) when she opened court the next day was nothing more than legalese-sounding double-talk. (M)

Less than an hour later, JP Rogers dismissed the case for the same reason as my Motion for Dismissal (H) that she denied the day before and for the same reason the case should have been dismissed (or amended) on January 14: Plaintiff Sophia Johnson couldn’t produce credible evidence of harassment.

The primary outrage is that before she issued a verdict in my favor (K) to dismiss the request that should never have seen a courtroom, JP Rogers spent several minutes publicly berating me based solely on her opinion that I “chilled someone’s ability to participate in the political process” by using language “that was out-of-line.” Nothing was insulting or profane or threatening; JP Rogers just said it was “out-of-line.” JP Rogers then made every attempt to evade several requests that she define just what made the language “out of line.”

To the question “why file a complaint against the judge when she ruled in your favor in the end?”
• The case should never have wasted the time of the court and myself, nor taxpayers’ money. Even Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s post-hearing comment to the news media acknowledged she knew she had no case, she just wanted to “put me on notice (J).” Translated: Plaintiff Sophia Johnson wanted news media attention that followed her announcement of her alleged need for an “order of protection.” Thanks to the aid and enablement of JP Rogers, Plaintiff Sophia Johnson got the media attention she wanted.

• JP Rogers’ appalling court behavior, publicly berating me (M) for not following “laws” she made up on the spot that conform to nothing in ARS or the Arizona or US Constitution.

I and three friends present that day recognized immediately JP Rogers’ resentment of my use of the dictionary to show how ridiculous was Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s “threatening” interpretation of the word “remind,” my research and application of the law and my point-by-point replacement of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s exaggerated and unfounded claims with provable facts.

Viewing the audio and video CD of the January 25 hearing leaves no doubt why I won the verdict: JP Rogers observed my knowledge of the applicable law from research, as well as the concern by JP Rogers that I would appeal if she tried to rule in favor of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and her ludicrous charade.

In that concern, JP Rogers was right, and that would have brought the nightmare of every judge: being overturned on appeal. Had JP Rogers believed she would get away with a verdict against me, she would have ruled for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson. And the rule of law be damned.

The judge clearly objected to my exposing how ludicrous the case was because of the obvious question that would follow: “Who allowed this case to waste the court’s time?”

• The “Case that Shouldn’t Have Been” diverted 11 days of my time and attention from an important health matter. In January, I’d sufficiently recovered from my December surgery and hospitalization to investigate and evaluate post-surgical treatment options. JP Rogers’ slipshod handling of the case from the beginning required me to temporarily abandon the medical matter in order to prepare a defense against the frivolous court action by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson that JP Rogers allowed and enabled.

In addition to attending the January 25 hearing and the hours of phone calls and research, JP Rogers’ bungling required 4 trips from my home to the courthouse to obtain documents or to deliver motions or notification letters to the court because her court staffer Annie Cox says “she doesn’t accept faxes.”

Perhaps JP Rogers thinks that rendering a verdict consistent with the law negates her bungling prior to court and her contemptible treatment of me in court.

It doesn’t. Adjudicating the law (and nothing but the law) is the job she was elected and swore an oath to do in every case. Judges giving preferential treatment in cases involving family, friends and staff destroy the integrity of the justice system. Further, she swore to uphold ARS and state and federal constitutions, not the law according to her personal opinion or whatever so-called “law” she makes up on the spot to cover her sloppy and/or biased handling of a case that that a competent judge would never have allowed to waste court time, resources and taxpayers’ money.

Her refusal to fulfill that obligation in Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller is the basis for this complaint.

(2) Misconduct Complaint Against Justice of the Peace Elizabeth Rogers

Historic Association between Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, her friend Anthony Miller and Kyrene Constable Brandon Schmoll

Background information on pages 8-11 “set the stage” and give the Commission an understanding of the events leading to and surrounding Sections I, II, III & IV that I experienced in Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller and the report of malfeasance and/or misconduct.

The court action begun by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and her ludicrous court action originated within the 20th Legislative District (LD20) chapter of the Arizona Republican Party.

Defendant Sandra Miller became an LD20 precinct committeeman in September 2009 and was re-elected in August 2010. I’m a rank-and-file member and have never served as or declared candidacy as an LD20 officer. I’m not now nor have I ever been a member of a Tea Party group.

Brandon Schmoll became a precinct committeeman in March 2009 while living with his parents at 15015 South 5th Avenue in AZ Legislative District 20 (Ahwatukee Foothills, West Tempe & West Chandler) and the Kyrene Justice Court jurisdiction.

Anthony Miller was elected an LD20 precinct committeeman in September 2008, and was elected District Chairman in December 2009, with an expressed personal goal of recruiting young people into the Republican Party (N). Anthony Miller has actively promoted Brandon Schmoll’s advancement as a public elected official in the Republican Party.

Anthony Miller nominated and promoted Brandon Schmoll for election as Member-at-Large to the Maricopa County GOP Committee in January 2010. Brandon wasn’t elected, but Anthony continued efforts in Brandon’s campaign for Kyrene Constable in the 2010 General Election.

As LD20 District Director, Anthony Miller was instrumental in Brandon Schmoll’s November 2010 election to Kyrene District Constable. Examples of assistance to Brandon Schmoll “above and beyond” that given to other Republican candidates rendered by Anthony Miller include.
• press statements urging the incumbent Constable to resign before the election (O ),
• sending LD20 e-mail bulletins urging earmarked donations to the Schmoll campaign (P-1, P-2),
• rescheduling a monthly meeting as a precinct walk in the neighborhood where Brandon lived with his parents Craig & Kim Schmoll (Q-1, Q-2, R).

Plaintiff Sophia Johnson moved from West Phoenix to LD20 in February 2010. She knew District Chair Anthony Miller from past McCain presidential and senatorial campaigns when they worked together, and she was elected to precinct committeeman in August 2010.

She attended the October 16 event at the Schmolls, as well as other precinct walks in October, so Kyrene Constable Brandon Schmoll knows her as someone who helped his campaign. She also attended “meet and greet” events (S) to prepare for both the November general election as well as the LD20 election in December.

When word spread among LD20 members that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson had asked the court for the “order of protection” against me, it was widely recognized that the Plaintiff wasn’t alone in the action; Anthony Miller was an acknowledged participant despite his name not being a party to the action. Any doubts of Anthony Miller’s involvement disappeared when he accompanied Plaintiff Sophia Johnson to court and remained with her for the entire session.

When Constable Schmoll phoned my home on January 20, he mentioned having served the Motion to Continue (E) upon Plaintiff Sophia Johnson earlier that afternoon. He explained, “we got to talking and she said she didn’t know you.”

It’s very rare for a Constable to have any sort of discussion with people upon whom he serves court papers unless he knows them outside the court-service venue! Constable Schmoll’s failure to recuse himself from serving court papers on people he knows is one of the subjects included in a CESTB complaint filed February 14 2011.

*                      *                    *                    *                     *                           *

Brandon Schmoll was elected Kyrene Court Constable on November 2 1010.

The 2010 Election of LD20 officers was held on December 1 where Constable Brandon Schmoll was elected one of LD20’s 40 state committeemen, a voting delegate to the January state Republican convention. At the same election meeting, Anthony Miller was re-elected District Chairman and Plaintiff Sophia Johnson was elected Secretary.

The December 6 report from the Maricopa County Recorder (T) showed that Constable Brandon Schmoll had moved from his parents’ home in LD20 to another legislative district within the Kyrene Justice District.

Upon moving from LD20, both his precinct committeeman and state committeeman status ended. Another LD20 precinct committeeman elected to LD20 1st Vice Chair on December 1 was also found ineligible for his district and state offices after moving from the precinct he represented as a precinct committeeman.

During December 2010, new Board Members initially attempted to resolve the matter quietly and in a timely manner prior to the County and State GOP meetings on January 8 and 22, but District Chairman Anthony Miller refused to address the matter “until after the holidays.” Rank-and-file LD20 members like myself were unaware of the 2 ineligibles until we received an e-mail bulletin on January 1 from the newly-elected LD20 Board.

Ultimately, the matter of the 2 state committeemen posts (Brandon Schmoll and Roger Dickinson) was resolved at the January 8 County Republican Meeting when County Chairman Rob Haney announced rejection of the 2 state committeemen reported as “moved out of the jurisdiction” by the December 6 County Recorder (T). The meeting Minutes record Chairman Haney’s replacing them with the next 2 highest-voted (U).

After the 1281 – 575 defeat at the Maricopa County January 8 Meeting of the “moderate” candidate for County Chairman by the “conservative” candidate, “moderate” Anthony Miller resigned his post as LD20 District Chairman, citing as his reason the Tucson shootings and his family’s concern for their safety from the threats and violence of tea party members. He released the ineligibility matter to news media as an “internal squabble of moderates vs. conservatives” rather than an issue of law, adding a few hints of alleged racism (Y) for a juicier story.

(I understand that Anthony Miller later withdrew the “Tea Party” accusation when challenged for specific names of those making the threats (V). He also recanted the “racial” accusations in a later story to the Los Angeles Times (W)).

On January 10, newly-elected Secretary Sophia Johnson voluntarily resigned her post, followed 3 minutes later by Anthony Miller’s resignation, and a third resignation followed 10 minutes later. 3 resignations in 13 minutes is no coincidence! (X-1, X-2, X-3).

What I’ve seen as Constable Schmoll’s misconduct is the subject of a separate complaint filed with CESTB (Constables Ethics, Standards and Training Board). Nonetheless, most of Constable Schmoll’s alleged bias and misconduct would not have been successful without the “assistance” of JP Rogers.
It required either the tacit or implicit aid of JP Rogers to achieve the automatic Injunction Against Harassment that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson hoped to obtain when filing her January 14 Petition (A). Had JP Rogers done her job and followed her sworn oath and Judicial Canon/Rule 2.2 (“Impartiality and Fairness -- A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”), the entire case would have stopped on January 14 when Plaintiff Sophia Johnson lacked the evidence required by ARS 12-1809-R. There would have been no hearing held where JP Rogers openly advocated for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, cut off and interrupted my testimony and ultimately berated me publicly to vent her resentment at being forced to follow the law and rule in my favor.
The background described is readily verifiable from newspaper accounts and documents listed on page 7 of the complaint text and copies accompany the complaint.

While its connection with my Justice Court case and my current complaint to Arizona CJC may be speculation, it’s the only explanation that makes any sense at all; the case filed against me by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson had no credibility at all.

The Petition submitted by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson (A) didn’t even fulfill the requirement of ARS 12-1809-R that a “series” of harassing acts have occurred—her court petition listed only one. The few LD20 meetings where she and I may have both attended have not even led to so much as a nodding acquaintance; even she admitted to the Arizona Republic (Y) that we don’t know each other at all.

That Plaintiff Sophia Johnson truly believed my use of the word “remind” was a threat is far too ludicrous to even consider. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (the authority on American English usage for 182 years since 1828) DOES NOT agree with Plaintiff Johnson that “remind” is threatening or with JP Rogers that it’s “rude,”“bad language,” or “chills someone’s ability to participate in the political process.”

Merriam-Webster defines remind as "to put in mind of something : cause to remember"
and M-W cites usage examples that expose as foolishness the contentions of Plaintiff Johnson and JP Rogers that it reflects “rude,” “threatening,” “chilling” or “bad language:”
(1) She'll forget to call the doctor if you don't remind her
(2) Remind me to buy some groceries after work.
(3) I had to remind him that we were supposed to leave early.
(4) The audience was reminded to turn off their cell phones inside the theater.
(5) The mail just arrived. That reminds me--did you mail that letter I gave you yesterday?

Plaintiff Johnson’s own post-hearing statement to the Arizona Republic (J) reveals her true intent from the beginning as well as her knowledge that she had no case and only wanted attention from the news media:

“Earlier this month, Johnson sought an order of protection in Kyrene Justice Court against fellow District 20 Republican Sandra Miller based on one e-mail that Johnson perceived as a threat. Justice of the Peace Elizabeth Rogers denied the order Tuesday, citing a lack of evidence to show a pattern of harassment.”

“Johnson said after the hearing that she doesn’t dispute Rogers’ decision. ‘I just wanted to put her (Miller) on notice so we don’t have any more of this.’”

That the combined errors, irregularities and inappropriate handling in Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller were the result of just an innocent mistake, coincidence or a new and inexperienced constable are highly unlikely. Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s own statement that she just wanted to draw attention (“notice”) reveals the intention of Anthony Miller and herself to use Arizona’s legal system to retaliate against people they regard as political opponents.

That JP Rogers enabled them is undeniable. The degree of malfeasance is for the Commission to investigate and establish.

I. Prior to Court (January 14 – 24)
A. January 14 2011 – Scheduling an IAH on January 25 when the Plaintiff’s report made clear there was insufficient basis to grant the protective order. JP Rogers approved and signed an incomplete Notice of Hearing (B) for service and scheduled a hearing based on non-existent and unfounded “harassment” of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson by Defendant Sandra Miller

There was no case to hear because Plaintiff Sophia Johnson failed to meet legal criteria.

JP Rogers should have realized on looking at the petition (A) that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson didn’t fulfill the law’s requirements (as I realized during my research of the law after FINALLY obtaining Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s Petition from the Court). The “case” should have been dismissed on January 14. After that, Plaintiff Sophia Johnson could have sought legal assistance in meeting the law’s requirements—either amend the petition with more “acts” (providing they were truthful) or dismiss it entirely and avoid the whole charade. It’s not the job of JP Rogers or any court staff (including the Constable) to give legal advice or make exceptions for non-compliant situations.

B. January 14 2011 (Friday evening 9:00pm) Failure to deliver to Defendant Sandra Miller ALL the documents required by law and court procedure. The Notice of Hearing (B) was delivered, but the required “petition”(D) was omitted. I received only the 1-page Notice of Hearing.

While the service was by a deputy rather than Constable Schmoll himself, the obvious need for the Petition (D) was plainly printed on the Notice (B): “Plaintiff must serve Notice of Hearing, together with a copy of the petition for a protective order, on the defendant at least two days prior to the scheduled hearing.”

In addition, the Notice of Hearing (B) was only partially completed. JP Rogers signed the Notice with neither of the three options checked so not only did her Constable’s office serve the Notice (B) without the required Petition (D), but she enabled the Court to send a Notice that withheld from me which of the three orders were being sought.

The need for both items was plainly printed on the Notice. Neither omission was accidental; the Petition wasn’t “mislaid.”

I was delayed 4 days until the court would reopen on Tuesday, January 18 (after the 17th Monday holiday) before I could inquire about the missing petition.

In the meantime, the missing Petition (D) and the incomplete Notice (B) meant I had no idea what the plaintiff was requesting against me or the events or bases for the requested court order that are normally listed on the Petition. When Plaintiff Sophia Johnson told the news media she’d requested an “order of protection,” nothing on the Notice (B) told me whether or not her claim was true.

Only later did I learn Sophia Johnson’s claim was false. That Plaintiff Johnson clearly knew the pending request was for an “Injunction Against Harassment” and NOT an “Order of Protection” is clear by her “IAH” entry on the Confidential Service Information sheet (DD).

I phoned the Kyrene Court at 9:05am Tuesday, January 18 and spoke with two staffers (Ellie and Annie) to notify them of the incomplete service and determine what processes the Court had to correct the incomplete service, and my needed action to set it in motion.

It began as a three-way conversation, with my talking to Ellie whereupon she relayed my question to Annie, and then relayed Annie’s reply back to me.

Both agreed that the Petition for Protection (C) should have been included with the Notice of Hearing (A); neither could explain why it had not been included. I was told to make a personal trip to the court to get the petition that the Constable’s office was responsible for delivering to me. (I found it incredible that I was expected to go to the court to pick up documents to compensate for non-performance by the Constable’s Office.) Ultimately Annie took over the call so we could speak directly.

The first of many excuses Annie offered was “it’s not our responsibility because the Court doesn’t employ the process servers. File a complaint against the process server.” Next was “I don’t know who served the papers since the Constable’s office has not filed the Proof of Service,” but nonetheless she evaded answering questions about any court processes in place for correcting the incomplete service and delivering the petition to me as it should have been on January 14.
Annie said only the judge could make that decision, but I wasn’t allowed to speak to the judge. When I asked what court procedure addressed the matter of incomplete service, she cut off the question in mid-sentence and repeated “Only the judge can make that decision and if you insist on speaking with the judge you’ll have to come at a time when she doesn’t have court” and began listing the days and times she might be available.

After a frustrating hour-and-20-minute phone call of repeated runarounds, interruptions and contradictions, Annie finally agreed to mail the petition (D), but only “as a courtesy.”

To be certain the document she planned to mail was indeed the same Petition for Protection (D) named on the Notice (B), I asked Annie Cox if the Petition contained the specific order and the events as basis for the requested protective order. She rudely and arrogantly replied, “I’ll mail it to you, but I’m not going to read it to you over the phone.”

Despite the evasions and runarounds from Annie Cox, I was certain that incomplete and/or improper service of court documents is an issue in court proceedings; JP Rogers herself told the Arizona Republic (Z) that failure by the former Constable Jon Levenson to serve court processes had hindered proceedings and evictions on the court calendar. Those rules didn’t change just because voters elected a new Constable. For whatever reason, Annie Cox chose not to give me the information about notifying the court of improper and/or incomplete service.

Because of the sloppy handling, “errors and slip-ups” of JP Rogers’ court and the resulting delays, I didn’t learn the charges against me and the specific court order requested until the 5:00pm mail arrival on Wednesday January 19 brought the Petition for Protection (D) 5 full days after it should have been delivered with the Notice of Hearing (B)!

Interestingly, I went to the court on Thursday morning (January 20) to request a Hearing postponement to compensate for the Court’s delay in delivering ALL the required documents to me. When Lubia came to the window and heard what I hoped to do, she handed me a “Motion” form to complete. Nothing about “…if you insist on talking to the judge” or any other runarounds with which Annie Cox proved herself so adept. Both Lubia and Linda were very courteous and answered legitimate questions courteously and fully. In other visits, I also spoke with Chrissie. With the exception of Annie Cox, all were courteous and provided forms or answers to questions presented to them. They didn’t exhibit the overbearing attitude as Annie Cox nor habitually cut me off in mid-sentence as Annie Cox has.

Another experience that day with Annie is further evidence of her arrogance and overbearing attitude. Upon returning to the Kyrene window with the completed “Motion to Dismiss” form, I asked the clerk which date to enter—the original scheduled hearing date or the new date I was requesting (I entered the “hoped” date because the form didn’t make it clear). The staffer wasn’t sure and said she’d check. Next, Annie stood up from her desk with the form in her hand and called out “This is Wrong!” so loudly that everyone in the area could hear—I could hear it myself from the other side of the window! Annie and the other staffer came to the window, whereupon Annie called out twice more “This is Wrong!” and told me the date needed to be the original hearing date. As evident on the “Motion” form (E), I corrected the date and re-submitted it.

Annie Cox achieved nothing by loudly calling everyone’s attention to my error. She could have pointed out the error to the window clerk to bring back to me. Instead, she chose to try to intimidate me by informing the entire office staff, then going to the window to confront me with two more “This is Wrong!” proclamations).

I have experienced Annie Cox’s behavior both on the phone and in person—both are abominable—overbearing, arrogant, confrontational and rude.

Until I could obtain the Petition (D), seeking legal counsel was an exercise in futility; the attorney’s first question is “what are the charges against you?” The delay caused by the Constable’s failure to deliver all the needed documents rendered me virtually unable to seek legal counsel or to even prepare my own defense during that 5-day period.

I’ve since concluded it was intentional to keep me unaware and to hinder my defense, making it harder to prepare after the delay. To that purpose, it was successful; only the help of a former paralegal friend enabled me to prepare a defense that was successful despite the hindrances by JP Rogers, the Constable’s Office and court staffer Annie Cox.

C. January 20 2011 (Thursday evening 6:00pm) JP Rogers allowed and arranged for Constable Brandon Schmoll to phone my home for no legitimate reason during an active court case in which I was a defendant against 2 of the Constable’s friends, Anthony Miller and Plaintiff Sophia Johnson.

That a constable would contact a principal in active case (aside from serving the actual papers) is highly improper and smacks of intimidation. Even more inappropriate was his twice-repeated suggestion that I contact the plaintiff directly to “work things out.”

My phone is unlisted; it’s not in directories. Constable Schmoll could only have my phone number if he got it from the court. And court staffers wouldn’t have provided a confidential number unless Constable Schmoll had the approval of JP Rogers in making the call.

Knowing Constable Schmoll’s close association with “unofficial party” to the case Anthony Miller (Section I, Background, pages 8-11), I was even more wary of the Constable’s call, and told him so.

Rather than end the call as he should have done, Constable Schmoll continued the conversation on several topics that were highly improper under the circumstances:
1. he said JP Rogers told him that my Motion to Continue (E) mentioned the missing Petition for Protection (D) on the January 14 service, giving the impression that he was calling at the direction of or on behalf of JP Rogers.
2. he mentioned JP Rogers’ wanting to “hear both sides” before making a decision. My Motion to Continue (E) didn’t prevent “hearing both sides;” Constable Schmoll was referring to JP Rogers’ original January 14 action of accrediting a case that should have been dismissed. -
3. he wanted to talk with me about the service process and documents delivered to determine if problems existed in the system, even asking if I’d meet with him and staff members.
4. he didn’t want to accept my position of deferring the conversation in #3 until the current court action was completed. Instead, he wanted to do it ASAP, calling it a “courtesy” to me.
5. he recommended TWICE during the call that I contact Plaintiff Sophia Johnson directly to discuss the issues in her court action and resolve the matter outside court. He commented that he’d served papers to the plaintiff that afternoon, talked with her and learned she didn’t know me, leading him to recommend that I contact the Plaintiff Sophia Johnson directly rather than wait for the next week’s hearing. After two attempts, he dropped the matter only when I pointed out that the court action wasn’t my idea; if Plaintiff Sophia Johnson wanted to “work things out” she was free to withdraw the action and approach me directly.
6. he offered legal advice to me as in Item #5 above (albeit unsolicited as well as advice that I would have been foolish to follow) in violation of policy against court staff providing legal advice. In addition, Constable Schmoll’s advice directly contradicted Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s express comment on her Petition:

Constable Schmoll’s twice-repeated proposal that I as the Defendant contact Plaintiff Sophia Johnson directly to “work things out” was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” eliminating any and all doubts I may have had that Constable Schmoll was assisting Anthony Miller and Plaintiff Sophia Johnson in their case against me.

Constable Schmoll tried several ruses to get me to talk further (“just doing it as a courtesy to you’) rather than wait until after the conclusion of the active case. When I finally said, “I’ll call you—what’s your phone number,” he provided his office number 602 372-3510 (“if I’m not in, there’s always someone who will answer”) where I could contact him at the appropriate time. When he AGAIN tried to pursue the matter, I told him “that’s where we need to leave this conversation for now.”

Considering that most people in this situation would feel pressured by an officer of the court or even feel that the outcome of their case depended on cooperating with Constable Schmoll, there’s no doubt that it’s attempted intimidation. That JP Rogers arranged and allowed Constable Schmoll’s call is an abomination and betrayal of her public trust.

When researching the anti-harassment law ARS 12-1809-R (C), it became increasingly clear that Constable Schmoll’s January 20 phone call and attempt to get me to contact Plaintiff Sophia Johnson was intended to generate the second event in the “series” of harassing events required for the Injunction Against Harassment, without which the plaintiff had no case. Indeed, it was the Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s inability to show the required “series” that forced JP Rogers to dismiss the case despite her obvious aversion to ruling with a verdict in my favor (K), even if it did follow the law.

Whether or not JP Rogers was aware of Constable Schmoll’s attempt to “set me up,” the Constable wouldn’t have made the call without JP Rogers’ approval. Constable Schmoll didn’t show any concern that his phone call was unethical, indicating that JP Rogers approved the call and the topics Constable Schmoll presented.

D. January 20-21: Refused to Investigate Reports of Constable’s Improper Conduct.
The matter was reported TWICE to JP Rogers, both documented in writing or recorded:
• Original letter (G) hand-delivered to the Kyrene window on Friday morning, January 21.
• My open court testimony at 9:07.59am on Tuesday, January 25.

That JP Rogers has failed to report and/or investigate Constable Schmoll’s January 20 phone call eliminates any doubt of her tacit or implicit approval of the attempt to “set me up” by urging me to contact Plaintiff Sophia Johnson directly. In the 4 weeks since JP Rogers’ dismissal of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s case, there’s been no attempt to contact me for the details. Failure to follow up would only happen if JP Rogers knowingly arranged and approved the call, and now wants deniability.

“Silence is consent.”

JP Rogers cannot credibly claim to be unaware of how such a phone call might be misinterpreted, yet she enabled it to occur. It’s clear to me that JP Rogers is ignoring Constable Schmoll’s ethics breach to prevent disclosure of her own participation.

Nor can she credibly claim “I can’t do anything; I have no control over the Constable.” Only last year, she took action against her previous constable Jon Levenson’s non-performance of his duties by filing a complaint with the Constable Ethics, Standards & Training Board (Z).

For JP Rogers to enable and approve such a phone call is not only a breach of court and judicial ethics, but by allowing and enabling Constable Schmoll to investigate his errors and failures and providing him the opportunity to cover them up, she’s sending the fox to guard the henhouse.

E. January 21 2011 (Friday morning 9:00am). Allowing a male court staffer to assist Constable Schmoll’s attempts to deter my filing a CESTB complaint against the Constable for ethics violations described in I-B and I-C above).
When on Friday I delivered a letter addressed to JP Rogers (G) to the Kyrene court window notifying her of Constable Schmoll’s call to my home the previous evening, a male staffer came to me with a Post-it note (AA) telling me that any feedback or comments of the January 14 process service should be reported directly to Constable Schmoll.

I recognized and was annoyed with this continued “badgering” by Constable Schmoll after his repeated attempts the previous evening, but asked the staffer why further discussion with the Constable was necessary beyond that from the evening before. The staffer claimed he didn’t know.

I immediately phoned Constable Schmoll at the Post-It phone number (AA) that differed from what he provided the night before. He had nothing new to say except to mention the number (602) 219-8721 as his cell phone number that would reach him right away, rather than his office phone. I reiterated where we left the matter the previous evening and that nothing had changed since then.

Both events C and D occurred AFTER about 1:00pm Thursday afternoon when I inquired of court staffers the procedure for filing a complaint against the Constable as Annie Cox told me to do during the Tuesday morning (Jan. 20) phone call, and they provided me with the CESTB agency and phone number.

I doubt Annie Cox had the Constable’s Office in mind when she cut me off in mid-sentence during Tuesday morning’s phone call to tell me “the court doesn’t employ the process server—you’ll have to file a separate complaint against them.” To follow her advice, I asked the name of the process server; it was then she admitted the Proof of Service hadn’t been filed yet. Experience with her speed at countering customer inquiries with a variety of excuses (all with the message: “the court isn’t responsible for anything and I can’t give legal advice”), it was more likely the first excuse that came to her mind.

That JP Rogers enabled and allowed court staff to assist in a cover-up of Constable Schmoll’s ethics violations is undeniable. The male staffer who delivered the Post-it note that morning didn’t seem to be at all concerned that JP Rogers would object.

F. January 21 2011: JP Rogers’ Denial (F) of my Motion to Continue that would have compensated for her court’s delay in Petition delivery, giving no reason for her refusal of accountability.
By refusing to “refund” to me the 5 days’ preparation I lost due to her court staff’s bungling and non-service, JP Rogers refused accountability and denied responsibility for what happened in her court. She also hindered my access to legal counsel that I clearly mentioned intending to seek on the completed Motion to Continue (E):
“The Notice of Hearing Served Thurs, Jan 14 did not include the Petition for Protection listing Charges. I didn’t receive the Petition until Wednesday (Jan 19) after the court mailed it to me. I’d like to consult an attorney for advice but was delayed pending arrival of the petition.”

That JP Rogers showed no recognition or responsibility for the hardship her court staff created for me is an outrage. But that’s the message she sent in denying the 5-day continuance!

Her support and agreement with the objection of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson further reinforced the trend of JP Rogers accommodating the Plaintiff, as well as trying to cover-up her own initial bungling and trying to accommodate her Constable and his friends.

While it was at the time unthinkable to me that JP Rogers (or any judge) would hinder a defendant’s access to legal counsel, it’s become clearer in retrospect. An attorney would immediately have recognized the court’s incomplete service of the process papers and insisted on quashing the original service (the process that Staffer Annie Cox evaded with runarounds and double-talk during my Tuesday (January 18) phone inquiry. An attorney would have recognized immediately that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s case was without basis and insisted on a dismissal, and JP Rogers wanted to do all she could to prevent my learning it.

Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s response to my motion reveals she knew in advance JP Rogers would side with her in denying the motion: “Keep the court date of 1/25/11 at 8:45am for the hearing. Thank you.” Plaintiff Johnson wouldn’t have thanked the judge in advance if she thought there was the slightest chance the judge would grant my motion to compensate me for the days lost in defense preparation due to the bungling of her Constable and her court staff.

On Friday January 21, I hadn’t yet discovered ARS 12-1809-R and JP Rogers undoubtedly hoped to complete the January 25 hearing before I did.

G. January 24 2011: JP Rogers denied my Motion to Dismiss (H, I), refusing FOR THE SECOND TIME to comply with ARS 12-1809-R and providing no reason for continuing to insist on hearing a non-compliant case. She refused to acknowledge her January 14 error and/or negligence when she accepted a non-compliant petition as a valid case.

My motion form clearly stated “dismiss prior to IAH Hearing” and “Dismiss the case and scheduled Hearing for the Requested Protective order.” A copy of ARS 12-1809-R ( C) was attached to the Motion to Dismiss (H) to prove there was no harassment, and that JP Rogers had erred by scheduling a hearing when Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s own petition (A) proved there was no harassment.

That JP Rogers AGAIN arrogantly gave no reason for her denial indicates her continuing to pander to Plaintiff Sophia Johnson.

Evidently JP Rogers hadn’t reviewed ARS 12-1809-R ( C) to insure that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s Petition (A) complied on January 14. When my January 24 Motion to Dismiss pointed out the non-compliance, she should have reviewed the matter then and there. Instead, she apparently didn’t want to admit her January 14 error so insisted on holding an unnecessary hearing the next day.

That Plaintiff Sophia Johnson came to court the following day with 2 more e-mails that she called “angry and hateful” (downgraded from her petition statement of “threatening”) suggests that JP Rogers may have allowed the Plaintiff to amend her petition with more “acts” to meet legal criteria.

If the Plaintiff amended her petition, I should have been informed of and received a copy of the petition and any and all amendments.

If the Plaintiff did NOT amend her petition, JP Rogers had no valid basis for denying my Motion to Dismiss; the copy of ARS 12-1809-R ( C) attached to the Motion to Dismiss (H) made clear I was well aware that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson had no case. Instead, JP Rogers continued to flaunt the law by insisting on regarding what Plaintiff Sophia Johnson presented as valid when it wasn’t.

After her misinformed insistence on “hearing both sides” of a non-case, JP Rogers rendered a verdict (K) less than 24 hours later dismissing the request for the same reason as my Motion to Dismiss that she summarily rejected the day before!

Her arrogance for the second time in deferring to objections of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson again shows her bias for the Plaintiff. Sophia Johnson clearly wants the attention of a hearing and doesn’t care about compliance with the law.

The difference between Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and JP Rogers SHOULD BE that JP Rogers swore an oath to uphold the law. By accepting and upholding Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s objection to Dismissal as valid, JP Rogers abdicated her oath and sworn duty.

II. In the Courtroom (January 25 2011 - 8:49:15 – 9:27am)
A CD (with software download directions) of the audio and video proceedings will enable the Commission to see and hear the disgraceful behavior of JP Rogers.

A. Excuse for Denying 1/24 Motion to Dismiss (Time 8:49.27 am)
“There was a motion to dismiss, however I denied that motion. We have not—this court has not issued an injunction in this matter, so there is nothing for me to actually dismiss. So we are going to proceed on with the hearing, which is a hearing on whether or not I will grant an Injunction Against Harassment.”

This is nothing but double-talk with legal terms thrown in hoping to give credibility to meaningless jibberish. JP Rogers’ red herring of “nothing to dismiss” begs the obvious question “if there’s nothing to dismiss, then why are we here in the first place?” There IS something to dismiss—the petition and request for protective order.

It’s also hogwash. JP Rogers claims “this court has not issued an injunction in this matter, so there is nothing for me to actually dismiss.” Yet with her Verdict (K) that followed less than an hour later, that’s exactly what she did by checking “The Court dismisses the protective order listed above.”

Nothing changed as a result of the hearing. No Injunction Against Harassment was ever issued, whether before or after the hearing. Yet before the hearing she claimed there was nothing to dismiss, and less than an hour later, she dismissed the very thing she earlier claimed couldn’t be dismissed because it didn’t exist!

This is the first example of her increasing her speaking speed when what she says is false—the increased speed is noticeable. Another example appears later in Section II-C-2 below.

JP Rogers could have offered Plaintiff Sophia Johnson to amend her petition with more “acts” but instead the judge allowed the Plaintiff to present 2 more “surprise” e-mails at the hearing. I wasn’t notified of any amended petition or provided a copy when I checked in at the Kyrene window on January 25. Since Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and Anthony Miller had already checked in, they should have submitted to the court any amendments to her original petition (such as notation of additional “threatening” e-mails).

That Plaintiff Sophia Johnson came to court the following day with 2 more e-mails she called “threatening” suggests that JP Rogers allowed the Plaintiff to amend her petition with more “acts” to meet legal criteria.

If so, I should have been informed of and received a copy of the amended petition. I RECEIVED NOTHING.

If not, JP Rogers had no valid basis for denying my Motion to Dismiss; the copy of ARS 12-1809-R ( C) made clear that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson had no case and that I now knew it. Instead, JP Rogers continued to flaunt the law by insisting on regarding what Plaintiff Sophia Johnson presented as a valid case when the law made clear it wasn’t.

After her misinformed denial (I) of my Motion to Dismiss (H) that showed her continued insistence on “hearing both sides” of a non-case, JP Rogers rendered a verdict less than 24 hours later dismissing the request for the same reason as my previous day’s Motion to Dismiss (H) that she summarily rejected the day before!

B. Repeatedly stopping my testimony

That JP Rogers cut me off several times during my testimony and then later having the audacity to call my behavior “rude” and “uncivil” is the height of hypocrisy.

1. I wasn’t able to say “Be prepared that politics may hurt your feelings…” because at 9:05:41 am, JP Rogers rudely stopped me with the excuse ”I’m going to stop you because you’re kind of getting outside of where we’re going with this. I think I’ve gotten your point in what you’re trying to explain to the court…”

Ironically, she guessed wrong to think I planned something like “if you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen.” What I actually planned to say (above) was very similar to what she said at the beginning of her rant at me that’s coming up soon. Her implication is that because she THOUGHT she knew what I planned to say, her rude behavior is justified. It isn’t.

JP Rogers has a court staffer named Annie Cox with the same rude habit of cutting off a customer’s comment or question because she already thinks she knows without listening the question or comment that’s coming and seems to think it isn’t necessary that she listen. Cox then gives an answer that’s not related to the questioner’s inquiry, and when the questionerrepeats the question to obtain the answer they initially wanted. Annie Cox interrupts again, parroting the same non-responsive answer. Section I-B (page 13-14) describes my conversation with Annie Cox on my first phone call to Kyrene Court.

It’s just as “rude” and “uncivil” from a judge as from a court staffer.

JP Rogers may have been bored (or resentful) at what I said, but I was reasoned, analytical and well-prepared. Analytical reasoning is what JP Rogers should have exercised when Plaintiff Sophia Johnson first submitted her Petition(A).

Further, she could have avoided having to hear anything had she done her job on either January 14 (by proper review of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s Petition for Protection (A) for compliance with ARS 12-1809-R before signing the Notice of Hearing (B) for service to me), and again on January 24 when my Motion to Dismiss (H) exposed her non-compliant case that JP Rogers never should have allowed. But with JP Rogers’ insistence on holding the unnecessary hearing, I expected her to hear everything I had to say pertinent to the issue. After all, she and her refusal to do her job by following the law were the only reason I was required to be there; the so-called “case” was a loser from the start.

2. Several interruptions with other cases, but only during MY testimony.
More “rude” and “uncivil” behavior demonstrated by JP Rogers. I was forced to attend the hearing only because of her slipshod handling of the original request, and I expect her to listen attentively and without interruptions. JP Rogers “sandwiched” these cases at her discretion but ONLY during my testimony; she didn’t interrupt the testimony of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson with phone calls and other cases.
Examples: 8:58 am: speaker-phone call with JP Rogers’ “not yet-we’re late” reply
9:09:36 – 9:15.26: “jury trial/bench trial, bankruptcy” (6 minutes)

3. Reading Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s petition statement: “I received a threatening e-mail.” JP Rogers wouldn’t allow me to read Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s 5-word petition statement that documented and proved both Plaintiff Johnson’s non-compliance with the law from the beginning and JP Rogers’ failure to properly know and apply the law.

4. Anti-harassment law ARS 12-1809-R that required dismissal of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s request for lack of evidence. Time 9:17.15 am
JP Rogers wouldn’t allow me to read the 55-wprd definition of harassment that made clear the criteria required by judges dealing with matters of harassment.

While she may claim in #3 and #4 that “the court knows this” as justification for stopping my reading them into the record, “the court” (meaning JP Rogers herself) had established a track record of being totally unaware or determined to ignore the law and the Petition’s (A) noncompliance. That JP Rogers was unaware (or chose to be unaware) of the law made clear her need to be “reminded” and “reminded” that I was also aware.

C. JP Rogers adopts a role of advocate/apologist for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson.
1. Accepting additional last-minute surprise evidence from Plaintiff Sophia Johnson without advance disclosure to me or amending them into the Petition. Time 8:50 am

JP Rogers accepted as evidence from Plaintiff Sophia Rogers 2 additional e-mails that the Plaintiff didn’t list on her original Petition for Protection (A).
a. January 15 e-mail (L-2) with image copy of Notice of Hearing (B) attached. Plaintiff Johnson’s objection: the 45 LD20 members who received it saw her DOB on the Notice of Hearing (B) and now knew her age as 48.
b. January 1 e-mail (L-3) commenting on her video interview with Anthony Miller
Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s objection: she doesn’t like my comment that “grouped” her with Anthony Miller. Later evidence showed Plaintiff Sophia Johnson has “grouped” herself #1 in a 3-person mass resignation that included Anthony Miller. JP Rogers asked and learned that Anthony Miller accompanied the Plaintiff to court that day.

These 2 e-mails and Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s objections are pathetic. They should have been included originally on January 14, or amended after the Motion to Dismiss and a copy provided to me, but weren’t. I can visualize Plaintiff Sophia Johnson on a last-minute Monday-night frenzy to find more “angry and hateful” or “threatening” e-mails after learning that day with my Motion to Dismiss that I knew and applied the “harassment” definition of the law to her non-compliant Petition (A).

JP Rogers should have excluded them as tardy (unless she chose to provide me a copy and grant a continuance for me to review them).

Early in the hearing at 8:53am and again at 8:55am, I asked JP Rogers if Plaintiff Sophia Johnson would be required to identify the e-mails and specific language that the Plaintiff vaguely termed “angry and hateful” or that met the law’s requirement of “threatening” or “harassment.” JP Rogers brushed me aside, saying that she as the judge will decide the proper weight to give the evidence presented.

That’s not the question I asked, and it’s also irrelevant. JP Rogers is trying to both shield Plaintiff Sophia Johnson from accountability.

With her reply, the judge took on the responsibility for identifying the passages, and even acknowledged the request as reasonable. Yet at the end of her tirade when she ruled in my favor, the judge needed a reminder of her own accountability after her attempted “hurry-up adjournment” to AGAIN evade accountability.

It’s incumbent on those alleging that I wrote “angry and hateful” or “threatening” messages to prove their accusations. That requires identifying the specific text and why it’s objectionable. JP Rogers’ comment about “weighting” the evidence is a red herring and achieves nothing to identify “threatening” language. JP Rogers shielded the Plaintiff from that responsibility throughout the hearing.

Ultimately, the judge acceded only at the conclusion of her rant and then only because I “reminded” JP Rogers of the request after her attempt to hurriedly declare “Hearing is Adjourned.”

2. Defending misrepresentations and false claims (“US mail,” “talk to me”) on the Petition (A) of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson as “standard” checkoff items on petition form when no such list exists. (Time 9:07:07 am).
During my point-by-point replacement of rhetoric with facts, I pointed out these red herrings by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, who wrote them on the Petition Intake form (A) for the court to “stop me from doing” but offered no evidence that they had ever occurred..

JP Rogers AGAIN interrupted my testimony to pooh-pooh my demonstration that the Plaintiff’s claims were false: “That’s standard for pretty much every single petition –those are listed for a person to pick from.”

This is Example #2 of JP Rogers’ higher-speed speaking when her comments are false.

To check if JP Rogers’ claim was truthful, I went to the Kyrene Court window for the forms needed to request an Injunction against Harassment. The staffer provided the Intake Form (BB) for me to complete, the Plaintiff’s Guide Sheet (BB), and the Confidential Service Information (BB) sheet.

Finding no “list to pick from” on any of the provided forms, I asked the staffer for the paper with the “list” of things I could check off, but she had no idea what I was talking about. Nor had staffer Annie Cox, the apparent authority for the Kyrene Court window.

Plaintiff Sophia Johnson didn’t check them or choose them from a list, she wrote them on the form intentionally despite total absence of any attempts at “US Mail” or “talk to me.”

There was no “list to pick from” on the blank IAH intake form or any separate sheet; the “list” cited by JP Rogers doesn’t exist. The judge was once again trying to defend the misrepresentations of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, and in the process the JP destroyed her own credibility.

3. Verdict stated with “spin” toward Plaintiff Sophia Johnson.
Even when denying the Injunction, JP Rogers just couldn't bring herself to tell Plaintiff Sophia Johnson the plain unvarnished truth that “you have insufficient evidence to qualify, the additional e-mails beyond the single one on your petition aren’t harassment, and they definitely aren’t threatening.”

“…but I don’t think that Miss Miller did that in this case.” The verdict should not be based on what JP Rogers believes; it’s cut-and-dried to anyone who can count. Even the one dubious item on the Petition isn’t a series regardless of what JP Rogers wants so badly to accept as valid. Instead, JP Rogers does all she can to emphasize what she thinks I did or might do that’s “bad.”

Having said all that, I do understand why JP Rogers feels the need NOT to reprimand Plaintiff Sophia Johnson for her frivolous court action that wasted everyone’s time. None of it would ever have moved forward without the aid of JP Rogers; had the judge done her job in the beginning, none of it would have happened.

D. Publicly Berating a Law-Abiding Citizen who has violated no law and has been falsely accused . Time 9:24 – 9:27am

Just before being forced to rule in favor of both me and the rule of law, JP Rogers launched into a 3-minute rant publicly berating me with no justification.

At the same time, she defended Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s hysterical and unfounded accusations against me with a lame “politics is emotional.” Not once did she chide Plaintiff Sophia Johnson for bringing an unfounded case to court, wasting everyone’s time and taxpayers’ money, again demonstrating her bias toward the Plaintiff and against me as the Defendant. Or perhaps she just didn’t like being publicly proven wrong.

“When it comes to politics, it’s one of the fastest things to send a person into an intemperate mood, one might say. It’s very easy to get heated, it’s very easy to get angry, it’s very easy to use language that is rude, uncivil, and can eventually turn over into something that invokes violence, because it’s politics.

No one has the right to use language that would abuse or otherwise harm another person."

JP Rogers is again being the Plaintiff’s advocate by misrepresenting the word “harm” as “physical injury” (equally ludicrous as Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s claim that “remind” was a “threatening” word), and that’s nonsense. An e-mail between 2 people like the January 11 one causes “harm” only if it’s seen beyond the sender and receiver. I showed it to no one else; Sophia Johnson didn’t even attempt to prove otherwise. Others saw it only because the Plaintiff herself distributed the so-called “threatening e-mail” rather than apply the “Delete” button that rational people would. She bears full responsibility for anyone with whom she shared it (such as the news media).

JP Rogers substitutes the context of “hurting someone’s feelings” for “harm” in further attempts to be the advocate/apologist for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson. While the judge may intend to make her admonition more compelling and add to the dramatic impact, it’s also misrepresentation.

JP Rogers should certainly know that “hurt feelings” are much different from physical injury. JP Rogers should also know that an incident of “hurt feelings” very rarely constitute “harassment.”

That Plaintiff Sophia Johnson overreacts is demonstrated very clearly with her contention that “remind” as “threatening.”(Y)

Another of her e-mails makes obvious her eagerness to be “be offended” or “have hurt feelings”—a November 22 asking “vote for me for Secretary”(S) e-mail that she initiated. Upon hearing of a slate of conservative candidates, she’s “frankly very offended” at not being included. What she really means is that her feelings are hurt. Her January 11 “resignation e-mail” (L-1) also spoke of her feelings being hurt because Board Members didn’t include her in discussions and current information.
Since this case began, I’ve both seen several examples myself as well as spoken with other LD20 members characterizing the court action as “more of Sophia’s drama.”

Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s attempts to escalate her “hurt feelings” into something more dramatic and sensational is “crying wolf.” By adopting the role of advocate for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, JP Rogers’ panders to such behavior.

"Miss Miller, in one of the e-mails you used some language that was definitely out of line. It was. You shouldn’t use that kind of language when talking to a fellow PC. Yes, I understand you can get angry; I get angry too. But you can’t use that against another person.

Take a moment to breathe and then respond before you do, so that way you don’t accidentally or even with intent, say something you’ll regret later. The fact is, the language you used in one of those e-mails was definitely bad.

But that didn’t rise to the level of granting an Injunction Against Harassment because, once again, it is a series of acts that intend to harass, annoy or otherwise bother somebody.

And that’s definitely not a good thing to do, but I don’t think that Miss Miller did that in this case.

Now I am to understand that you are both PCs. Are you PCs in the same precinct?"

Sophia: No

Judge: No?

Sandra: No, different precincts, but the same District.

It is again easy to get angry, but when you do that you chill the other person’s ability to participate in the political process, and I’m fairly sure both of you that’s the last thing you intend no matter how upset you get over something.

So, Miss Miller, in the future, you may wish to pause and think before you send an e-mail.

But I’m going to be dismissing this order; it is not granted. Hearing is adjourned.

“I’m going to be dismissing this order.” She contradicts her own claim made at the opening of the hearing that because the court hasn’t issued an injunction, there’s nothing to dismiss. Further evidence that her excuse for Denial of the Motion to Dismiss is bogus. It’s the petition/request that the judge dismisses, even when no previous injunction exists. JP Rogers could just as easily have dismissed the same petition/request at my January 24 Motion to Dismiss as she did the following day. (H)

Sandra: Your Honor?

ER: Um-hmm?
Sandra: I would ask if you would identify the e-mail and text that you feel is objectionable.

Finally – JP Rogers must identify my “out of line” language
JP Rogers’ must finally show her hand—no more bluffing. When finally forced to identify the language she claims is “out of line,” there is none. Her bluff below fools no one. She knew it from the beginning; that’s why she tried to do a fast-shuffle adjournment.

Notice that JP Rogers’ voice changes from her rather mellow “I’m enjoying this” timbre during her tirade at me to the terse and snippy tone that she uses when “reminded” that she’s expected to be accountable for her ranting accusations after brushing it aside in the beginning and later trying to adjourn before she can be held accountable.

ER: “Your whining and sniveling makes me very glad I didn't waste my vote on you for Secretary. And don't kid yourself that a big part of Anthony's reason for resigning isn't due to the shellacking that the RINO/McCain/Anthony faction took at Saturday's County meeting. The better than 2-to-1 vote was a referendum on John McCain, and they know it's likely to be repeated for the state GOP chair.

They like to win, but they are nasty losers. Luckily we have another candidate to fill in as Secretary. Should you ever utter a complaint as a PC about how LD20 operates, you'll be reminded that you voluntarily gave up your opportunity to change things. If I'm present, I'll be honored to be the one to remind you.”

Miss Miller, this is what I’m talking about—chilling the other person’s ability to participate in the political process.

There’s no need for those words. That is all.”

JP Rogers’ rhetoric is a combination of misrepresentation and meaningless jibberish.

The judge’s purpose with this tirade is:
(1) to vent her resentment of me for exposing her slipshod handling of the case (or perhaps she’s “angry” as she admits in her tirade),
(2) to convince those in the courtroom that there was a valid reason for her insistence on holding the hearing, or
(3) throwing a consolation prize to the friends of her Constable (Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and Anthony Miller) who thought they would win the case.
Or perhaps a combination of all three.

No provision exists in the US or Arizona constitution or Arizona Revised Statutes that makes “hurting someone’s feelings” actionable. The same is true of “chilling someone’s ability to participate in the political process”—it’s not designated a crime.

Except possibly in the minds of plaintiffs like Sophia Johnson and judges who pander to them as JP Elizabeth Rogers did on January 25.

(3) Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by JP Elizabeth Rogers

III. Violations of Code of Judicial Conduct

After reviewing the Code of Judicial Conduct against both the pre-court and in-court conduct of JP Rogers, I first wonder is she is even aware of the Code and then if she recognizes her obligation to comply. What I saw and experienced in Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller was rife with violations of Canons and Rules by not only JP Rogers but staffers in her court. Examples are provided in the gray boxes following each Canon/Rule.


Rule 1.1. Compliance with the Law – A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Comment: For a discussion of the judge’s obligation when applying and interpreting the law, see Rule 2.2 and the related comment.

Rule 2.2. Impartiality and FairnessA judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
1. to ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded. 2. Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a just must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.
3. A good faith error of fact or law does not violate this rule. However, a pattern of legal error or an intentional disregard of the law may constitute misconduct.
4. It is not a violation of this rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure self-represented litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

By adopting the role of advocate/apologist for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, JP Rogers discarded any impartiality on January 14. Defending Sophia Johnson’s actions soon overlapped into defending her own actions to enable Sophia Johnson’s non-case and eventually resulted in the judge making false statements to defend her own actions and those of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson. (Section II-C, page 22).

From January 14 when the Plaintiff’s Petition (A) was submitted, JP Rogers refused to comply with ARS 12-1809 regarding harassment and the requirements. JP Rogers’ disapproval of the “series” requirement is obvious. The judge’s disapproval of that condition (at least when it applied to the friend of her Constable (Plaintiff Sophia Johnson) is the reason the judge signed the Notice of Hearing (B) that allowed the non-case to proceed.

Had JP Roger’s acceptance of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s Petition (A) and signing the Hearing Notice (B) been a good-faith error as described in Comment (3), my January 24 Motion to Dismiss (H) gave the judge the opportunity for correction. That the judge let the Plaintiff’s no-reason objection decide the matter (F) reveals that it was no “good faith error” at all but an intentional attempt to subvert justice and the law to “help” a friend of her Constable.
Under Comment (4), Arizona’s Canons would have enabled JP Rogers to make reasonable accommodation for the time lost in preparing my defense when the Constable’s Office removed the required Petition (A) from the papers served to me on January 14. JP Rogers refused to do so, AGAIN enabling Plaintiff’s objection (for no stated reason) to decide the matter.

That JP Rogers allowed and enabled her Constable to phone me while the case was active is an abomination and obviously improper, even to someone without legal education or background. Allowing her staffers to assist the Constable in covering up the Constable’s impropriety that in which she herself was complicit shows she had gone beyond the point of caring about impropriety or the appearance of impropriety. It’s obvious that the improprieties had accumulated beyond any defensible level; the primary concern by then was “keeping the lid on.”

RULE 2.3 Bias, Prejudice and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment including but not limited to bias, prejudice or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
(C ) Not Applicable.
(D) The restrictions of paragraph (B) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making legitimate reference to the listed factors, or similar factors, when they are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.

The basis for the bias and prejudice I experienced is in the category of “including but not limited to.” It was “politics” of the “office politics” variety, whereby JP Rogers gave preferential treatment to friends of her newly-elected Constable Brandon Schmoll.

RULE 2.4. External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

Comment: An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to in appropriate outside influences.

Rule 2.4 Comment says it perfectly.

As a Democrat and a liberal, JP Rogers would have eagerly accepted the events described in Background (pages 8-11) by Anthony Miller, Sophia Johnson and the news media who dutifully and eagerly reported their spin of “angry and hateful tea partiers and right-wing extremists.” (Y, CCW) These same tales fell like a house of cards when facts were substituted for exaggerated rhetoric (J, L, V, W, K). The “tea party/right-wing extremist” version enables JP Rogers to believe that she was doing more than just accommodating her Constable’s friends—the judge convinced herself that by her preferential treatment she was pursuing a noble-sounding purpose of preventing someone like myself who the judge had convinced herself had the goal of “chilling someone’s ability to participate in the political process.”

Had JP Rogers left politics and public clamor out of the matter as she should have, she would have decided based on the law (and nothing but the law).

An “independent judiciary” requires that the judiciary does the job assigned by the Constitution, AND ONLY THAT ROLE! Judges who “legislate from the bench” (by making up laws to produce a verdict compatible to their personal agenda) are taking on the role of the legislative branch. On behalf of the entire judicial branch, those judges forfeit that independence because legislators are partisan and by definition MUST listen to public opinion and public clamor—these activist judges like JP Rogers can’t have it both ways despite their insistence.

It’s important to recognize that JP Rogers limited her “legislation from the bench” to her tirade and didn’t issue the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff that the judge wanted so badly to issue was NOT because she realized her error and wanted to do the right thing. She retreated from the verdict only because she was faced with a Defendant who had researched the law, dispelled the hysterical claims of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, and whom the judge thought might suspect malfeasance in the case.

Watching the Kyrene court proceedings CD leaves no doubt at all that she clearly resented my bringing facts, the law, and the Plaintiff’s non-compliance into my testimony.

RULE 2.6. Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute, but shall not coerce any party into settlement.
1. The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.

By signing the original Notice of Hearing on January 14 as well as her continued ignoring of the law by denying my Motion to Dismiss, JP Rogers insisted on taking my time, energy and resources to defend a non-case. She approved by “silence is consent” the Constable’s Office refusal to deliver the Petition, refused my Motion to Continue that would “refund” that lost time, and then upon requiring my court presence allows all sorts of interruptions to limit or stop my testimony. Service of the Notice of Hearing (B) on January 14 signed by JP Rogers herself gave me the right to be heard on the matter.

My contention has consistently been that the case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom and that Sophia Johnson’s Petition (A) should have been dismissed before even being assigned a case number and scheduling a hearing. Those who claim that Sophia Johnson also had “the right to be heard” should note the clause “…the right to be heard according to law” in 2.6 (A). The law decides who has the right to be heard, NOT JP Rogers based on whether the plaintiff is a friend of her court officer.

When passed by the legislature, ARS 12-1809-R decided the criteria upon which anti-harassment cases should be heard, and the vague and minimal claims on Plaintiff Johnson’s petition didn’t even come close to meeting them! JP Rogers should have challenged the claim and asked for proof but chose instead to schedule a hearing that wasted everyone’s time and insulted the integrity of the judiciary.

ARS 12-1809-R says that Plaintiff Sophia Johnson did NOT have the right to be heard. Whether or not JP Rogers approves of the provisions of 1809-R, the Canons require that she comply with them and she refused. It was the job of the legislature (and ONLY the legislature) to define the criteria. The law doesn’t allow her to make up new criteria when the plaintiff is a friend of her Constable or for whatever other reason JP Rogers chose to repeatedly flaunt the law in Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller.

It’s possible that the January 20 phone call from Constable Brandon Schmoll urging me to contact Sophia directly was an attempt by JP Rogers at “outside settlement” mentioned in Rule 2.6 (B) when she read on the Motion to Continue form (E) of the second “irregularity:” incomplete/improper service when the Petition (D) was omitted from the January 14 documents served to me.

If so, it was not only an attempt to manipulate justice, but it failed. Rather than allow another court staffer to join the “cover-up,” she should have jumped at the opportunity presented by my Motion to Dismiss on January 24, but she STILL resisted having her “error/accommodation” publicly exposed.
It might explain her obvious resentment of me that was evident from the moment court convened on January 25.

RULE 2.8. Decorum, Demeanor and Communication with Jurors.
(A) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.
(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

JP Rogers’ public rant at me (Defendant Sandra Miller) was a disgrace, pure and simple. There’s simply no excuse for it, especially after her berating me for her ersatz “laws” of “rude and uncivil language” and “chilling someone’s ability…”

Even before court convened, JP Rogers herself was guilty of every accusation she leveled at me. Her tirade served only to compound her offenses to her own “laws.”

Her tirade directed her resentment at the wrong person.

O I didn’t publicly brag at having used the court system and legal processes to get attention to my political agenda and “hurt feelings.” (J)
O I didn’t file a bogus case and then resisted the application and compliance with the law by objecting to motions that were legitimate and well-founded (F, I).
O I didn’t come to court with e-mails and flimsy reasons for labeling them “angry and hateful”(L-1, L-2, L-3) and trying to misrepresent them as “threatening.”

Those were actions by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson, and any public lambasting from a judge that was needed should have been directed at the Plaintiff.

Except that the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct frowns on judges’ behaving in such a disgraceful manner.

And the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct applies to public berating of any litigant, not just the ones JP Rogers doesn’t like, gets angry at, or resents.

It’s called “Equal Justice under the Law.”

(4) Summary

IV. Summary

While it seemed from the beginning that JP Rogers was biased for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and against both myself as the Defendant as well as biased against the rule of law, I didn’t want to believe it.

It was obvious that JP Rogers chose not to recognize her court’s obligation to deliver the specified court papers for this case completely and in a timely manner, and she arbitrarily refused to continue the hearing for the 5 days I lost because her Constable’s Office bungled the service. JP Rogers was determined NOT to acknowledge her own bungling by repeatedly insisting on holding a hearing for a case that lacked sufficient evidence and repeatedly allowed Plaintiff Sophia Johnson’s vague claims to substitute for facts as true evidence.

But finally all the errors, slip-ups and mishandles forced me to acknowledge the obvious—JP Rogers was part and parcel of the fraudulent scheme to convince the public that “we resigned because of fear of our safety” perpetrated by Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and Anthony Miller. JP Rogers aided their media campaign by allowing Plaintiff Sophia Johnson to depend on vague and unsubstantiated accusations instead of evidence and provable facts. That Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and Anthony Miller tried their case in the news media in advance of the court hearing clearly revealed their agenda even before filing the action against me.

JP Rogers’ courtroom comments and decisions as well as her final tirade at me is a textbook example of “Do As I Say and Not As I Do.”

While JP Rogers reprimanded me for “chilling someone’s ability to participate in the political process,” she did the same to me when she allowed Constable Schmoll and a court staffer to try to prevent my filing a complaint with CESTB on Constable Schmoll’s misconduct.

Only last year, JP Rogers herself filed a CESTB complaint against her previous Constable Jon Levenson with comments that his non-performance hindered the administration of justice. After observing her style of “administration of justice,” her words against Levenson can be most politely called hypocritical.

By trying to subjugate my First Amendment right of free speech under her personal notion of language that’s “out-of-line,” she became one of those she accused of “chilling someone’s ability to participate in the political process.”

And what was that self-righteous dictate at the beginning of her rant? “No one has the right to use language that would abuse or otherwise harm another person.” Obviously she sees no need to apply her pseudo-laws made up on the fly to her own conduct—only to others! And even then, she exempts her court staff and their friends!

But the final proof of her advance bias was her very carefully avoiding any hint of criticism of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson for bringing a matter to court without foundation, for her hysterical and unfounded accusations, her wasting of court time and resources and the time of myself and friends who also observed JP Rogers’ biased behavior. Not once did JP Rogers reprimand Plaintiff Sophia Johnson for the lame pretexts she offered as e-mail evidence such as “with the Notice of Hearing with my birth date sent around, now everyone knows my age is 48.”

JP Rogers should have directed her tirade to Sophia Johnson rather than to me. Yet she lambasted me despite my doing nothing wrong. (JP Rogers’ admonition about “rude” and “uncivil” is nothing but smoke and mirrors to cover up her cooperation with the self-admitted scheme of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson to get news media attention (“put me on notice”) (S).

The scheme of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson and Friends couldn’t succeed without the aid of JP Rogers (who seemed a very eager and willing panderer).

JP Rogers does not demonstrate the proper courtroom deportment expected of judges. After viewing her behavior on the courtroom CD, Commission members will see that she’s in no position to admonish me or anyone else for being “rude” or “uncivil.”

With her lack of legal background, it would be predictable for JP Rogers to believe that TV court shows are a valid model for real-life courts. Maybe that’s where JP Rogers got the idea that publicly berating a litigant who is in the right is the proper thing to do. It isn’t. Predictable doesn’t make it acceptable.

My testimony was reasoned, well-founded and made sense but JP Rogers repeatedly cut me off and wouldn’t allow me to read into the record the law or 5 words of the plaintiff’s bogus claim. Both passages into the record would have further documented the false claims of Sophia Johnson and the repeated refusal of JP Rogers to follow the law.

Sophia Johnson’s testimony was unprepared, lame and worthless. She failed to meet the law’s requirements and her testimony didn’t even make sense. Yet JP Rogers insisted on wasting court time and resources, taxpayers’ money and the time of myself and 4 friends just to give Sophia Johnson her 15 minutes of fame in the media spotlight.

JP Rogers is sworn to uphold ARS and the constitution and those alone, not her personal opinions. When confronted on January 24 with ARS 12-1809-R that she insistently and repeatedly ignored, she suspected that rendering the verdict for Plaintiff Sophia Johnson would exacerbate the problem she faced of being overruled on appeal. She was right; I would have appealed.

Either JP Rogers was biased on behalf of Plaintiff Sophia Johnson from the beginning, or the judge refused to acknowledge and admit her January 14 error. There is no possibility that the hearing of Sophia Johnson v. Sandra Miller was conducted impartially and objectively by JP Rogers.

JP Elizabeth Rogers is a disgrace to the court and an insult to law-abiding citizens like myself.
After my first (and hopefully final) experience, I call it the “Kyrene Legal Court” instead. While what JP Rogers dispenses there is legal, any justice that results is strictly an accident.