Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
1 qualified to testify on the subject matter of this Motion
2 to Dismiss Judge Paula Aboud.
2
1 of revenue for Pima County government and mem-
2 bers of the bar.
3
1 illustrates the deplorable conduct of some attorneys
2 and the misuse of judicial power, which reaches from
3 Pima County right up to the Arizona Supreme Court.
6 CASE BACKGROUND
4
1 3. On March 7, 2016 Mr. Whitaker sought immediate In-
2 junction Against Harassment in in Tucson Municipal
3 Court, as per A.R.S. 12-1809.
5
1 10. On April 17, 2016 Defendant published the following
2 article highly critical of Judge Sara Simmons:
6
1 13. (As of the date of this filing all briefing to Division II has
2 been completed; the parties are waiting for resolution.)
23 ARGUMENT
7
1 prohibited in Arizona by LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482
2 (2003).
19 PRAYER
8
1 off this case or be DISMISSED from this case, by Order of the
2 Pima County Court.
4 ________________
5 Roy Warden
Original filed with the Pima County Justice Court, and copies
sent by email to the following recipients on May 19, 2017.
Judge Paula Aboud
9
EXHIBIT ONE
10
DAVID J. EUCHNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
7465 EAST BROADWAY BLVD., SUITE 201
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85710
TEL: (520) 326-3550 FAX: (520) 326-0419
March 2, 2005
Roy Warden
4602 E. Glenn St.
Tucson, Arizona 85712
Dear Roy:
The obvious problem with what you did was that you put your own
subject line on an ACLU / Euchner press release, and thereby attributed
your language to us. Angela Polizzi and I drafted this press release and
we were very careful in our language, and your subject line Pima
County Corruption Results In Federal Case" implies that the ACLU and
I are suing on your behalf because of Pima County corruption.
Another concern I have - though I can't say whether this is of your doing
or not - is that your messages are being sent to the judiciary. Now, nat-
urally I do not blame you if you send a message to Lawyers X, Y and
Z, and then one of them chooses to forward it to his third-cousin by
marriage who happens to be Chief Justice Jones. But you must not
make any contact whatsoever with the judiciary
When Angie and I met with you on June 9, 2004 to discuss terms of
representation, we both made it clear to you that you had to be very
careful with how you spoke publicly about this case. You were not to
allege that your arrest was specifically the act of Judge Fell, and you
were not to allege that your arrest was the result of rampant corruption
11
in the judiciary or otherwise. Rather, the focus of this case, as far as the
ACLU and I are concerned, is that you were arrested due to application
of an unconstitutional policy by the chief of security, Chris Hoffman.
This case provides excellent opportunity for you to talk about the cor-
ruption in the office of the Pima County Attorney. However, there is a
difference between making solid points and taking indiscriminate pot-
shots. If you speak and act wisely, you will make progress in getting
people to listen to you and getting an investigation underway. But if
you fly off the handle over every little thing, then you will find that
your words fall upon deaf ears.
In particular, you must not allow any of your other cases or potential
cases to interfere in any way with this case in which the ACLU and I
are representing you. Even if you are of the opinion that such actions
you may take do not prejudice your case, that does not mean that the
ACLU or I share your opinion. And considering that we are offering
free legal services to you, we have the right to place certain demands
upon you. I quote From the ACLU's retainer agreement with you:
The lawsuit will only assert a violation (by means of arrest) of your
First Amendment right to free speech, and will not allege any other
claims including, but not limited to, conspiracy.
Similarly, if the Client fails to follow the Attorney's advice and the
case is thereby jeopardized, the Attorney has the right to withdraw.
The Client further agrees that he will contact the ACLU-AZ before
engaging in any publicity regarding the instant lawsuit, and further
agrees he will not engage in any such publicity before receiving the
ACLU-AZ's consent. Such publicity includes, but is not limited to,
press releases, interviews to the media, distribution of pamphlets and
other materials. etc.
You are already in breach of your retainer agreement, and the ACLU
and I are well within our rights to withdraw as counsel on the basis of
your actions. But, speaking for Eleanor as well as for myself, we do not
wish to drop your case because the nature of your case is interesting
and important and because the severity of your infraction is relatively
low.
But please understand, this is a warning that the ACLU and/or I reserve
12
the right to withdraw as counsel if you jeopardize this case or make any
public statements without our prior consent (Eleanor has authorized me
to provide or withhold the ACLU's consent in this regard).
If the talk you gave to the We The People group on February 10 was to
any other audience, I would have dropped this case on the spot; but
because that group is particularly receptive to the hang em high" atti-
tude toward the judiciary, I considered your inflammatory rhetoric to
be no harm, no foul." But I warned you on certain aspects of your
message and I informed you that my continued representation of you
was contingent upon you cutting out this kind of rhetoric. I will attend
your talk at the Saturday Morning Breakfast Club on March 12 and see
if you can avoid this kind of unnecessary inflammatory language.
Let me wrap this up by reminding you that neither I nor Eleanor are
afraid of the powers-that-be, rather we are trying to avoid undue preju-
dice to your case, which we consider winnable. Also, neither Eleanor
nor I are capable of infringing upon your First Amendment rights, as
we are not the government. You are free to speak as you choose; how-
ever, we are also free to drop our free representation of you in your civil
rights case. You will have to decide for yourself which is more im-
portant to you.
Sincerely,
David J. Euchner
13
EXHIBIT TWO
14
In defense of Paula Aboud and
maybe even 'cheating'
New justice of the peace faces sanctions over
'joke,' but should she?
Posted May 15, 2017, 11:52 pm
No.
15
support or leeway in my job than I got from Rogers. Aboud
was my main sponsor on all manners having to do with
Phoenix and I have enormous respect for her, personally.
I also owe her $20. So there's that.
The counts
April Elliott, disciplinary counsel for the Arizona Commis-
sion of Judicial Conduct crafted the second of two
charges against Aboud:
16
stealing the answer key undermines the confidence in the
judge's integrity. That's not the charge. The charge is that
it's not dignified.
There's only one way to judge a joke and that's if it's funny.
"I probably wasn't even going to read it," the charges said
Aboud told the judge.
17
Aboud's outlook dimmed significantly as she took on her
new job. The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct got
involved to see if the snaking of the answer constituted an
actionable offense.
The test isn't a test like we know tests. This isn't a bar
exam. It's not a driver's test. If she scored 70 percent or
higher she could take her seat on the court. If she scored
lower than 70 percent, she could take her seat on the court
but would have to retake the test until she got above 70
percent. But she'd hearing cases the whole time.
18
Heather Murphy, spokeswoman for the Arizona Supreme
Court, said she did not know of any case in which a judge
has been kicked off the court for not passing the test.
Aboud is not a lawyer but I guarantee you she's not the
dumbest non-lawyer to be elected justice of the peace.
19
I've seen many a presidential debate and no candidate for
Leader of the Free World has been asked compare and con-
trast military theorists Carl Von Clausewitz and H.H. Lid-
dell Hart. We still give the candidate with 270 electoral
votes the keys to the most bodacious military in the history
of the world regardless of their understanding of vertical
envelopment.
20
what they need to know to do their jobs and leave it at
that. It's the voter's decision. Respect it until voters decide
to change their minds.
- 30 -
Kit Warden
2 comments
May 16, 2017, 1:19 pm
-0 +0
I am now appearing before Judge Aboud on a criminal
charge of electronic harassment, in which the
charges are based upon an article I wrote and published
on Facebook critical of Pima County Judge Sara Sim-
mons.
YES!
21
There is much documented evidence in the court rec-
ord to support what I just said. There is even an appeal
now proceeding in the Arizona Appellate Court Divi-
sion 2 which asks the Court to declare that comments
made on Facebook political blogs should be classified
as Political Speech protected by the First Amend-
ment!
Dylan Smith
514 comments
22
We dont unmask our pseudonymous commenters
without good reason, but wed do so if a subject of a
news report or opinion column were pretending to be
someone else in the comments on it, and we knew
about it. Thats not the case here.
Kit Warden
2 comments
May 16, 2017, 11:14 am
-2 +0
Youve GOT to be kidding, right?
23
I was ONLY joking! I wasnt going to KEEP the
money!
Friar Tuck
6 comments
May 16, 2017, 10:48 am
-0 +0
Im a friend of Paulas so ever so slightly biased in her
favor in this caper. And I think Blake is basically cor-
rect: for whatever reason, a big deal is being made out
of something of little or no importance. Drop it and
lets move along with matters of consequence, like
amending our state constitution to require testing leg-
islative candidates basic knowledge of the constitu-
tions, state and federal, they will swear to uphold when
they take office.
24
Join the conversation...
25