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.
