Tuesday, December 9, 2014







Please read the sixth in our series of the complete Sun Grove Resort (SGRV) story. Today's posting is the most shocking and took the most effort to write. It focuses on SGRV's attorney, Scott E. Williams, who misused the Arizona Legal System to defraud SGRV seniors with Baseless Lawsuits in order to provide capital to SGRV. We posted THE FRAUD OF THE COURT Motion, a public document, which detailed Scott E. Williams’ fraud of us, other seniors, and the court.

The former judge Melanie Deforest was totally incompetent, and we posted our JUDICIAL COMPLAINT, a public document, which detailed Melanie Deforest's mistakes, prejudices, and lack of knowledge of the law. She was an aerobics instructor who got her job as a gift because her policeman husband was shot on the job. She was forced to withdraw last year from the election in DISGRACE because she had lied about her previous work experience and education.

This whole problem was caused by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. We have contacted the new Supervisor Hickman, but we have yet to receive a return call. That is no surprise because the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has been ignoring us for years.

The public needs to know the truth about the broken and
corrupt Arizona Justice Court System.

I have to be careful telling the truth about Sun Grove Resort Village's crooked lawyer, Scott E. Williams, and the incompetent judge, Melanie Deforest. I will do it with public documents.  I cannot be sued since the following are my well-documented opinions in public documents.

The first public document is our 07/25/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT Motion which showed all Scott E. Williams' trickery, illegal actions, and the favoritism that he received. Our motion was denied, the State Bar denied our complaint against him, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors ignored our warnings about Scott E. Williams' Political and Judicial Protection. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is responsible for Scott E. Williams' illegal misdeeds when they hired him in 2004 to represent the Maricopa County Officials and Politicians on election matters.
 Scott E. Williams

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors created the MONSTER
who uses misuses the legal system as a weapon against the poor,
the vulnerable, and the old.

The second public document is our 09/09/10 JUDICIAL COMPLAINT against the Arrowhead Justice Court's pro-per judge Melanie Deforest, which documents all her mistakes. Deforest was protected because her policeman husband was shot on the job and that is why she was appointed a JP.

The Arizona Justice Court system is a Good-Old-Boy Reward System and Deforest was unqualified to be a judge (she was an aerobics instructor), but that did not matter. It only mattered when she was caught lying about her past jobs and education and she was asked to resign. Deforest resigned the end of 2012 in DISGRACE.  Our Judicial Complaint was denied.                                                                                                            

Norman Davis, Head of the Arizona Superior Court, protects the present broken system of incompetent appointed "Good-Old-Boy" Justices of the Peace,
who are making terrible mistakes.

In the United States thirty-three states require JPs to be lawyers, but not in the ARIZONA BADLANDS. This state still has frontier justice that is antiquated, misused, and corrupt. The Arrowhead Justice Court has done an excellent job of hiding its corruption because our evidence and 07/08/10 Trial Recording has been destroyed. The Arrowhead Court was misused in the Sun Grove Resort Village Senior Scam with many BASELESS LAWSUITS against seniors, who were duped because of SGRV's false advertising and had to move due to health reasons. 

SGRV used court sanctioned senior financial exploitation
to illegally raise operating capital for SGRV.



Maricopa County Justice Courts, State of Arizona Arrowhead Justice Court


Statement as to July 8, 2011 Multiple Motions on Plaintiff & Defendant for
Lawsuits #CC2009-610571 and # CC2010-038658
Defendants’ Motion for Vexatious Litigants
Defendant Will File Response if Requested by Court
Order – Re: Finding of Vexatious Litigants –
Leave of Court Required Prior to Filing Future Motions



The SGRV STATEMENT to our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION has NO CASE LAW STATED in its defense. In fact SGRV’S STATEMENT never even has the term FRAUD OF THE COURT mentioned anywhere in its pleading. The Opposing Counsel’s statement: “Simply put, these motions were previously made and denied, and are now made in bad faith, not supported by any law or rule, and solely for purpose of harassment”. This is a GROSSLY MISLEADING STATEMENT TO THE COURT because it is UNTRUE. This is the first time this FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION has been made.

FRAUD OF THE COURT is basically described as an Officer of the Court, Judge or Attorney, which has set into motion a scheme, Misconduct, which interferes with the judicial system’s ability to act impartially and thereby unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party. FRAUD OF THE COURT has no statute of limitation because it defiles the Court which demands all Court Decisions to be set aside.   FRAUD OF THE COURT is defined by the previously listed case laws:

1.   Bulloch v. United States, 763.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir 1985)
2.   People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App. 3d 477, 410 N.E. (1980)
3.   Kenner v. C.I.R. F3d 689 (1968)
4.   The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E., 229 (1934)
5.   Allen F. Moore V. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill; N.E. (1929)
6.   Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App2d 393 (1962)
7.   Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill. App 475 (1894, affirmed 162 Ill 1896)
8.   Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill App 79, 86 N.E. 2d 875,883-4 (1949)
9.   Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; N.E. (1935)
10. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892. 2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)

Opposing Counsel, Scott E. Williams’ statement that the expansive filing of hundreds of pages violates Rule 11 of Civil Rules of Procedures is another GROSSLY MISLEADING STATEMENT TO THE COURT. Our case is not presented to harass and increase the cost of litigation. Our case is factual based upon existing laws. It is pointed out to the Court that SGRV started this litigation on 10/20/09 with BASELESS LAWSUIT #CC2009-610571 against Carol Fairall (nee Buck) for the nonpayment of her rent. HUD is investigating our Complaint #091104558 the SGRV VIOLATION OF OUR HOUSING RIGHTS that forced Carol’s moving to protect herself from an unsafe environment. SGRV’s refusal to fix a moldy water leak caused the start of Carol’s rejection of her transplanted liver. The second Lawsuit #CC2010-038658 is where SGRV continued to sue Carol, as a 3rd Party Defendant, for breaking the same misdated SGRV Lease. That was DOUBLE SATISFACTION of a wrongful debt which was granted in excess of Justice Court Limitations. SGRV and its attorney, Scott E. Williams, have committed MALICIOUS PROSECUTION of Carol, who is dying due to SGRV’s actions, by instigating BASELESS LAWSUITS as stated in Jarvis v. Drake 250 Kan. 645, 830 P 2d 23 (1992).

The Mark Fairall Lawsuit #CC2010-038658 against SGRV was in response to the Lawsuit SGRV filed against Mark and his Aunt Catherine Reinertson #CC2009-73227 on 12/24/09. Mark sued SGRV in order to recover his losses as allowed by the law, but the Trial was lost due to the FRAUD OF THE COURT. Opposing Counsel was the first to commingle lawsuits when he sued Carol Buck as a 3rd party in the unrelated Mark Fairall lawsuit. The Court even allowed the commingling of his exorbitant $5,240.00 attorney fees on the judgments against Carol Buck and Mark Fairall.

It is pointed out that SGRV’s STATEMENT did not address any of our allegations in our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION which were all supported by case laws, State Laws, or Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the STATEMENT did not address:

1.  Extremely Serious Abuse of Court Discretion – Independent Oil and Chemical Workers, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F. 2dand Anderson v.   Cryovac Inc. 862 F 2d 910, 923 (1st Cir. 1988) and 6th Amendment of US Constitution and UCC Article 2 and ARS 47-2611.
2.  Favorability of Court to Scott E. Williams – Licky v. U.S., 144 S.CT. 1147, 1162 (1994) and Pfizer v. Lord, 465 F. 2 532 (8th Cir. 1972) and Cox v. Burke, 707 So 2d 43. 47 (Fla 5thD.C.A. 1998)
3.   Failure to Disqualify Scott E. William – Levine v. US, 363 U.S. 610, 80 S. CT 1028 (1960).
4.   Failure to Disqualify Judge Melanie Deforest as Judge – US v. Sciuto, 521 F2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996).
5.   Violation of ARS 13-301 – Scott Williams became an accomplice to a crime.
6.   Violation of ARS 13-2409 – Scott Williams tampered with physical evidence.
7.   Violation of ARS 13-2802 & ARS 13-2894 – Scott Williams influenced and tampered with witnesses.
8.   Violation of ARS 13-2802 – Scott Williams interfered with judicial proceedings.
9.   Violation of ARS 46-454 – Scott Williams failed to report Vulnerable Persons Abuse.
10. Violation of RPC 1.10 – Scott Williams acted on his vendetta because of our Bar Complaint.
11. Violation of RPC 1.7 – Scott Williams had a Conflict of Interest with our Landlord and Renter.
12. Violation of RPC 3.1 – Scott Williams filed lawsuits that had no merit.
13. Violation of RPC 3.2 – Scott Williams used excessive Motions failed to expedite litigation.
14. Violation of RPC 3.3 – Scott Williams misled the judge.
15. Violation of RPC 3.4 – Scott Williams obstructed our ability to receive a Fair Trial.
16. Violation of RPC 3.5 – Scott Williams deceptively influenced the judge.
17. Violation of RPC 3.7 – Scott Williams cannot represent both our Renter/Landlord at the same time.
18. Violation of RPC 3.8 – Scott Williams failed to verify if our Housing Rights were violated.
19. Violation of RPC 4.3 – Scott Williams took advantage of us by dismissing our evidence.
20. Violation of RPC 4.4 – Scott Williams used the Court to Harass and Bully us.
21. Violation of RPC 8.1 – Scott William lied to the Bar in their investigation.
22. Violation of RPC 8.3 – Scott Williams failed to report our former attorney’s misdealings.
23. Violation of RPC 8.4 – Scott Williams committed Misconduct with his dishonesty and manipulation.
24. Violation of Fair Housing Law failure to provide safe environment for Disabled Persons.
25. Violation of Fair Housing Law failure to provide Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Person.
26. Violation of Fair Housing Law that restricts Landlord Retaliation against individuals that are fighting for the Fair Housing Rights of other residents.
27. Violation of Due Process with the Court’s destruction of our evidence and Trial Recording to cover up the 7/8/10 Kangaroo Trial which voids all judgments because all Appeals and Mistrials were closed as stated in Dean v. State 900 S. State 900 S.W. 2d 367 (Tex., APP-Texarkana 1995).

ORDER ON LAWSUIT #2009-610571

The SGRV’s attorney, Scott E. Williams’ STATEMENT to our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION was that he was not going to respond to our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION because we are vexatious litigants. This is his last ditch effect to calling us names which is totally unacceptable and untrue. The ridiculous Vexatious Litigant Order was only signed on Carol Buck’s Lawsuit #CC2009-610571 on 10/18/10. The ridiculous Order never named Mark Fairall and it was written on Scott E. Williams' personal stationary which the judge signed.  That Order does not pertain to Lawsuit #CC2010-038658. Again, Scott E. Williams is MISLEADING THE COURT with this defense because it would be moot with a GRANTED FRAUD OF THE COURT Decision. This is a very rare Order because it denies the right of the access of justice. It was used by the unscrupulous Judge Donald L. Graham and Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr. in 2001 to block evidence. They were Criminally Prosecuted in Florida. Judge Graham was much like Scott E. Williams because he was described as a liar and a bully and the worst Florida Judge. Judge Graham was able to avoid going to jail because of his relationship with former President George H. Bush. Judge Graham and Scott E. Williams use the GOOD-OLD-BOY System to protect themselves.  The new Vexatious Litigant Motion should not be granted because it denies our RIGHTS FOR DUE PROCESS and the threshold of Bad Faith has not been crossed.  This Threshold is outlined in the Premi v. Khodeir, 2008 ONC 313 the Court of Appeal statement: “The threshold is important because depriving a litigant of ordinary right to go to court is a serious restriction of a basic right. Such an order should not be made without careful consideration of the mandated threshold. As the motion judge failed to address the threshold reasons, the order must be set aside.”

This ridiculous 10/18/10 Vexatious Litigant Order illegally blocked Carol’s Legal Rights to fight a Baseless Lawsuit filed against her by SGRV. This Court never addressed any correct threshold reasons except to make the incorrect statement that her Motions were not made in good faith and with the purpose of harassment.  A person fighting for their Legal Rights with a 200 plus-page count of evidence backed with case laws is not harassment. Her 200-page count of evidence backed by case laws desperately fails to be valid reason for this ridiculous Order. In fact it supports the existence of her PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE against the Baseless Lawsuit filed against her which Scott E. Williams wanted to hide from the Court. The 10/18/10 Order must be set aside because it was made in order to Block her Evidence which is not allowed as stated in Chambers v. Nasco., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991) and Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F. 2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993).

 This new Vexatious Motion is only used by a Court Bully, Scott E. Williams, who has no defense for his Misconduct and Illegal Activities but to illegally gag us, the opposing party. This is Scott E. Williams’ LAST DITCH EFFORT to silence our voices in order to block the Court from hearing the TRUTH. He again is MISLEADING THE COURT and trying to block our PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE which supports our allegations of his FRAUD OF THE COURT. He is a master of HIDING THE TRUTH and he did that effectively when he had our evidence wrongly dismissed in our 7/8/10 Trial. The Court has done an effective job of HIDING THE TRUTH with the destruction of our Evidence, Blocking our Witnesses, and the destruction of our 7/8/10 Trial Recording. The Court needs to stop this ABUSE OF POWER by Scott E. Williams and the very QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES of Judge Melanie Deforest. The wrongful dismissal of our JUDICIAL COMPLAINT and initial BAR COMPLAINTS shows that the Arizona Justice System continues in HIDING THE TRUTH and supports the present Arizona GOOD-OLD-BOY JUDICIAL SYSTEM of incompetence, favors, and corruption. Justice does not exist for us by the Arizona Judicial System. That is the reason we have hired our Private Investigator, Jacob Mueller, Owner of Global Eye Investigations, and why we have requested a full investigation of this Arrowhead Justice Court and Scott E. Williams by The Department of Justice.  

SGRV is running an ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION SCAM which has been reported to the Arizona Better Business Bureau, the Arizona Attorney General, and State Bar of Arizona (EXHIBIT 1: 7/9/11 Fairall email Complaint to BBB) (EXHIBIT 2: 7/9/11 Fairall letter to Arizona Attorney General) (EXHIBIT 3: Fairall Bar Complaint against Scott E. Williams #10-0232). This Court has helped exploit thousands of dollars from SGRV Residents by rubber-stamping Scott E. Williams’ and SGRV’s Baseless Lawsuits.  Scott E. Williams was the elections attorney for the returning 20-year Justice of the Peace Lex Anderson, coming back after a four-year retirement, at the same time as our lawsuit was in the same Arrowhead Justice Court. Scott E. Williams was up to his elections trickery trying to get the signatures of the opposing Justice of the Peace Candidate thrown out so then Anderson would have no election competition. However, the signatures were valid and the Anderson Elections Lawsuit failed. Lex Anderson lost the Arrowhead Justice Court election in the Primary Election held in August, 2010. It has been recently discovered that Scott E. Williams represented then House Representative Russell Pearce in his 2007 Elections Problem where he violated the state laws by raising money without declaring his Candidacy for the Senate (EXHIBIT 4: 2/8/08 ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES article “Arizona Legislator’s campaign committee falls into the gray area”). SENATE PRESIDENT RUSSELL PEARCE IS ILLEGALLY IN OFFICE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF SCOTT E. WILLIAMS’ ELECTIONS TRICKERY. Scott E. Williams is well connected being the elections attorney responsible for getting the jobs for many Politicians and Judges. It is no wonder why we cannot get Justice in the Arizona Judicial System nor can we get new Senior Protection Laws passed in the Russell Pearce controlled Arizona Legislature. Scott E. Williams needs to have the same title as the corrupt Florida Judge Donald L. Graham had which would be “TEFLON SCOTT E. WILLIAMS”. He is getting away with JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, ELDER FRAUD & ABUSE, and THE INDIRECT MURDER OF SENIORS while the Arizona Judicial System looks the other way. This is shocking!

Scott E. Williams is a Criminal and needs to be Disbarred and Jailed for his Crimes against the most vulnerable easy targets. This Elder Abuse is presently being investigated by our Private Investigator and ARIZONA REPUBLIC newspaper. They both have already conducted many interviews and recordings that are being presented to Federal Officials at the time of this Pleading. Scott E. Williams will not be able to hide his and the SGRV’s illegal activities from the Public much longer. It is a shame that the GOOD-OLD-BOY JUSTICE SYSTEM is so strong in Arizona because it has allowed this ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION to exist and defraud many seniors. This Pleading is being forwarded to: President Barack Obama, The Honorable US Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona; The Honorable US Senator John McCain, Arizona; The Honorable US Representative Trent Franks, Arizona; The US Department of Justice; US Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Arizona Attorney General, The State Bar of Arizona, The ARIZONA REPUBLIC newspaper, and Global Eye Investigations – Jacob Mueller.  It is up to the Federal Government to Police this Cowboy “Lawless” State of Arizona.


Scott E. Williams’ 7/21/11 STATEMENT to our 7/8/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION states that Rule 7.1 (e), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Motions for Reconsideration gives him the authority not to respond with a STATEMENT disputing our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION until our Pleading is accepted. Scott E. Williams quotes the wrong law because the Motion for Reconsideration is a “Horizontal Appeal”. We submitted a FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION which demands his timely RESPONSE. Scott E. Williams does not have the luxury to pick and choose MOTIONS that he will respond to and only if requested by the Court. The fact is a FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION cannot be denied by the Court and that is supported by the 10 previous case laws concerning the definition and remedies of Misconduct of Officers of the Court that interferes with the proper working of the Judicial System.

Scott E. Williams erred by not timely answering our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION and therefore we are making a MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, again, granting all our previously submitted MOTIONS to:

1. Enjoin cases #CC2009-60571 & #CC2010-038658
2. Set aside all judgments.
3. Recover all Legal costs.
4. Reinstate case #CC2010-038658.
5. Award damages requested in case #CC2010-038658.
6. Apply Sanctions against Scott E. Williams.

The Request for an ORAL ARGUMENT IS WITHDRAWN since the SUPREME COURT RULE 216 requires an immediate DEFAULT JUDGMENT when no timely RESPONSE is received. The Court has little discretion to excuse late RESPONSE as stated in Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 2004 (1995) and Moy v. Ng.341 Ill. App. 3d 984 (1st, 2003). Scott E. Williams is an expert on technicalities but his current trickery has lost this case for him again. He tried the same trickery at the beginning of the Lawsuit #2010-038658 by writing several Pleadings without proper a LAWSUIT ANSWER while he wrote MOTIONS to dismiss our lawsuit because it was not properly served in February, 2009. Scott E. Williams was playing this trickery game of not properly responding to the Court while his client SGRV’s, Scott Green, dodged the Process Server eight times. Judge Keegan ruled that since Williams was answering our Lawsuit that SGRV had been served and that ended the DISMISSAL MOTION  game of delays of not properly Answering the 1/25/10 Fairall v. SGRV Lawsuit #2010-038658  (EXHIBIT 5: 3/1/10 RULING ON MOTION DENYING Scott E. Williams’ MOTION TO DISMISS).  This is a common practice of Scott E. Williams to delay Answering in a Timely Manner because he does not think Court Rules apply to him. His failure to Answer in a timely manner, more than one months’ delay, caused the first DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

The Arrowhead Justice Court had me fill out the 2/26/10 APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT for $10,485.00 when Scott E. Williams was late on his first Answer (EXHIBIT 6: 2/26/10 Fairall’s Application for Entry of Default). Scott E. Williams filed his 3/4/10 MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT to stop the DEFAULT JUDGMENT (EXHIBIT 7: 3/4/10 Williams’ MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT).The Court awarded us the DEFAULT JUDGMENT on 3/24/10 when Judge Deforest DENIED Williams’s MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (EXHIBIT 8: 3/34/10 RULING ON MOTION – WILLIAMS’ STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT – DENIED). Our Lawsuit #CC2010-038658 was won then with the first DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

Scott E. Williams was very clever by not responding to our FRAUD OF THE COURT allegations with more lies and trying to get his NEW MOTION granted by labeling us as “Vexatious Litigants”. The only reason for his NEW “VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS MOTION” is his continued efforts to BLOCK OUR PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE AND EXTENSIVE CASE LAWS since he has no disputing evidence with any case laws. Scott E. Williams has failed again to Respond in a timely manner to our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION. Scott E. Williams does not feel our MOTION is worthy of his Response unless required by the Court. Court Rules require a Response in 15 days, 10 days plus 5 days mailing, and since our MOTION was filed on 7/8/11 that makes his RESPONSE LATE since it was REQUIRED by 7/23/11. This Court saw through his Court Trickery of Delays in the beginning when he stated that the lawsuit was not properly served by having his client SGRV dodge the Process Sever eight times.  His new Court Trickery to Delay a timely Response has reached a new low with his name calling lies that we are vexatious litigants not worthy of his Response. Our 7/8/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION has 410 pages of evidence supported by extensive case laws, Federal Laws, State Laws, and Professional Rules of Conduct. Our PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE and NATURE OF THIS MOTION OF COURT OFFICIAL FRAUD DEMANDED his timely answer and not his continued trickery of MISLEADING THE COURT.

This second DEFAULT JUDGMENT should be granted since Scott E. Williams is late in his RESPONSE to our 7/8/11 FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION. Today is 7/25/11 and it is past the timely Response Deadline. This Court should immediately grant our DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION to show Court Rules also apply to Scott E. Williams. This DEFAULT JUDGMENT is based upon a LEGAL TECHNICALITY but that is the best and fastest decision that this Court can make in order to correct our past injustices and to provide a swift resolution to these manipulated unjust Court decisions. How many times do we have to Petition the Court for DEFAULT JUDGMENTS before they go into effect?  Two DEFAULT JUDGMENTS in one Lawsuit is enough to end this SGRV LAWSUITS INJUSTICE and SCOTT E. WILLIAMS’ MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND PERSECUTION!

We are the abused victims who are suffering from his and SGRV’s illegal activities. Carol is dying due to the liver rejection of her transplanted liver and her recent blood work that shows her rejection level has increased to five times the normal level. Mark has increased seizures and we have spent thousands of dollars for our medical bills due to our declining health. We are victims of this MALICIOUS PROSECUTION by Scott E. Williams because we reported the unsafe and unhealthy conditions plus the illegal activities of SGRV to the Governmental Authorities. He is also angry because we filed our Bar Complaints against him and our former attorney, Mark A. Tucker. We have $17,996.34 of false judgments, $2,000.00 spent for unnecessary Court/Legal fees costs, and $3,500.00 spent for supplies, copying, and mailings. We have been forced to use over 5,000 man hours defending ourselves from this VINDICTIVE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION of Scott E. Williams.  This has also caused us great economic loss because of all the exorbitant medical expenses which these lawsuits have caused forcing us to take out a Reverse Mortgage on our Home. Scott E. Williams has ruined our lives with his ABUSE OF POWER, COURT MANIPULATION, and COURT FRAUD for nearly two years.  Our Lawsuits do not include any pain and suffering awards. Hopefully, that will be handled by the Federal Government when HUD sues SGRV for the VIOLATION OF OUR HOUSING RIGHTS.

These lawsuits have gone well past ARROWHEAD JUSTICE COURT in Legal Precedence. 

If Scott E. Williams would have answered our FRAUD OF THE COURT MOTION with more lies then he would have put himself at more risk for continuing to MISLEAD THIS COURT.


Based on all the above Scott E. Williams’ total Misconduct in these cases should be reprimanded with SANCTIONS. We move this Court to do so.

We honor our deceased relative and friends that were ABUSED AND FINANCIALLY DEFRAUDED by SGRV and Scott E. Williams with our continued legal efforts in this Court. We honor their memory as we attempt to strengthen State and Federal Senior Protection Laws. We continue our efforts to make the PUBLIC aware of the heinous crime of ELDER ABUSE and ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION. Our deceased friends and relatives had their voices silenced by an indifferent uncaring Arizona Police and Justice System. We are honor and remember the following:

Laura Boyd
Cliff Dyrland
George Grabach
Jack Horner
Ed Hunt
Bill Klink
Frank Matarrese
Alfred Earl McHenry
Roslyn Radden
Aunt Catherine Reinertson

Based on the forgoing, we respectfully urge the Court to grant all of our Motions presented in our FRAUD OF THE COURT documentation.

We state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: July 25, 2011

Mark R. Fairall
Carol A. Fairall (nee Buck)

EXHIBIT 1: 7/9/11 Fairall Complaint email about Scott E. Williams to the Better Business Bureau
EXHIBIT 2: 7/9/11 Fairall Criminal Complaint Letter about Scott E. Williams and SGRV to the Arizona Attorney General
EXHIBIT 3: 7/9/11 Fairall Complaint Letter about Scott E. Williams #File #10-0232 to the State Bar of Arizona
EXHIBIT 4: 2/8/08 ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES article “Arizona legislator’s campaign committee falls into gray area”


Your name: Mark R. Fairall & Carol Ann Buck
Judge’s name: Melanie Deforest
Date: 09/09/2010

On July 8, 2010 a Travesty of Justice occurred in the Arrowhead Justice Court of bias, misconduct,
Melanie Deforest
and complete lack of legal knowledge by the part-time judge Melanie Deforest in our case
 Mark R. Fairall vs. Sun Grove Resort Village LLC (CC2010-038658) & Carol Ann Buck (Third Party Defendant). This lawsuit and Trial were concerning Sun Grove Senior Living, LLC dba Sun Grove Resort Village  (SGRV), which is a senior living apartment house that falsely advertises nonexistent services, misrepresents an impostor unlicensed nurse as a real nurse, and withholds essential repair work as a form of Landlord Retaliation. Judge Melanie Deforest “Murdered Justice” by not allowing me, the Plaintiff, and Carol Ann Buck, the 3rd Party Defendant, the fair opportunity to present our case in accordance with AZ. Civil Rule 60. 

Judge Melanie Deforest violated the Arizona Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees (Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 97-41 dated August 20, 1997) by:

1. Failing to maintain a high standard of conduct,

2. Failing to maintain the highest level of integrity and impartiality,

3. Failing to Comply with the law,

4. Failing to be Professional and Courteous.

5. Failing to her perform her Judge Duties without bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest.

Due to Melanie Deforest’s outrageously illegal, inept misconduct as a part-time judge in our case, she should not be allowed the by State of Arizona Judicial System to ever sit on the bench again. The complaints against this part-time judge, Melanie Deforest, are detailed below:


According to ARCP Rule 26.1 (b)(1) a Disclosure Statement must be exchanged 40 days prior to the Trial and we complied with exchanging my Disclosure Statement timely on May 28, 2010, but opposing counsel failed to comply by not presenting his Disclosure Statement until July 29, 2010 (only 10 days before Trial).  My Motion to Strike the Late Disclosure stated: “I filed my Disclosure Statement timely which has given the Defense time to threaten, bribe, and harass my witnesses and Affidavit signers who pledged their support and testimony for the Trial. I have lost nearly half of the people who pledged their support and testimony due to the bully tactics of Sun Grove Resort Living, LLC and their attorney, Scott Williams. It would be “Blind Justice” to allow the Late Disclosure of Opposing Counsel to be submitted with only 10 days to Trial.”  (Exhibit 1 - 7/1/10 Motion to Strike Late Disclosure/Motion for Default Judgment/Motion for Sanctions).

However, part-time judge Melanie Deforest denied these motions immediately prior to the Trial on July 8, 2010, which gave opposing counsel an unfair tactical advantage of information and extra time to harass, threaten, and bribe our witnesses. We tried to explain this to part-time judge Melanie Deforest, but she rudely refused to listen to our objections and denied our pretrial motions. We also moved that the late Disclosure Statement presented only ten days prior to our Trial did not give us the proper time needed to analyze it and the 300+ pages of evidence. By not having a Pretrial Hearing and accepting the opposing counsel’s late Disclosure Statement, part-time judge Melanie Deforest violated the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3 by not maintaining a high standard of conduct, not complying with the law, and not maintaining Professionalism and Impartiality. 


Prior to the Trial we called the Court to verify the fact that Judge Keegan was going to be the Trial Judge and we were assured that he would be the sitting Judge. This was done because we had filed a Telephonic Complaint on April 23, 2010 against part-time judge Melanie Deforest concerning her April 22, 2010 Motions Hearing. We reported that part-time judge Melanie Deforest was rude, condescending, and badgering to us in the Motions Hearing. She even erred on two Court-Ordered Minute Entries which had to be amended because she incorrectly confused to plaintiffs and the defendants and incorrectly cited wrong dates.  We complained to the Arrowhead Court Supervisor: “she was not fit to be a dog catcher”. When we spoke to the Arrowhead Court Supervisor, she referred us to Judge Quentin Tolby, who oversees the Arrowhead Court Complaints. Judge Tolby stated that he watched the Hearing and we discussed at length our verbal complaint and problems with part-time judge Melanie Deforest. When we complained about the questionable rulings of part-time judge Melanie Deforest, we were assured that Judge Keegan would be sitting on the Bench two days before the Trial. When part-time judge Melanie Deforest came onto the Bench for our Trial, we immediately made a Motion for Continuance for a Different Judge. She curtly and snidely denied our motion.

We attempted to present the facts that our Witnesses had been pressured not to come to our Trial by the defendant and opposing counsel and that one witness, Cliff Dyrland, was missing. We stated that the Trial date desperately needed to be rescheduled. Still, part-time judge Melanie Deforest refused to listen to our objections and gave us an abusive, stern lecture that it was our fault that our witnesses did not show up for Trial. She denied our Motion for Continuance and forced our Trial to continue without any of our witnesses available, which set us up to fail. We have later learned that our witness, Cliff Dyrland, was in a coma in John C. Lincoln Hospital due to an auto accident at the time of the Trial. The wrongful refusal to grant our Continuance Motion at the very beginning of our Trial for a different Judge did not give us a fair opportunity to properly present our case at our Trial.

We had timely made a Motion for Change of Venue in our second, related Trial (CC2010-038651) held on August 19, 2010 at Arrowhead Court against our former renters. Judge Terry Smith came into the Court and she said she was going to be the Trial Judge. She put our concerns to rest by stating that she had many years practicing as an attorney, a part-time judge, and that she knew the law.  We stated our fears that we thought were getting the non-lawyer and bad part-time judge Melanie Deforest again, and we immediately withdrew our motion. It is interesting to note that one the defendants in that case did not show up to Court and Judge Terry Smith even offered the availability of a phone for his testimony for the Trial. That defendant was supposedly unreachable by phone. The point is made comparing the two part-time judges which shows that Judge Terry Smith is properly trained, licensed as an attorney, and is a competent judge who really tried to obtain the facts for a fair Trial, whereas part-time judge Melanie Deforest is incompetent, is not an attorney, and does not care about justice. By failing to recuse herself from our Trial, part-time judge Melanie Deforest broke Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3 by failing to act without Prejudice, Bias, and Courtesy, and with her blatant Misconduct and Illegal Activities


Opposing counsel, Scott Williams, is also a 20+-year attorney and a part-time judge in Mesa. Melanie Deforest “failed to keep a level playing field” in Court by not having the normal Pretrial Hearing. I submitted an Amended Disclosure dated July 8, 2010 advising the Court that a Peoria Police Report (10-007447) was filed and that the Exhibits were available for review at the Mediation Hearing held on May 7, 2010.   The defendant, Scott Green, the representative of Sun Grove Senior Living, LLC (SGSL), and opposing counsel, Scott Williams, refused to examine any exhibits and refused to properly mediate any settlement. The 7/8/10 Amended Disclosure stated that: “It is submitted to this Court that the Defendant has waived his right to examine the evidence by his actions and needs to wait for the Pretrial Hearing for the second opportunity to review the evidence and settle this lawsuit" (Exhibit 2 – 6/10/10 Amended Disclosure). Opposing counsel was mailed a letter dated June 10, 2010 stating that I had not received his Disclosure Statement 40 days before the Trial, as I had done, and that I was bringing the exhibits to the Pretrial Hearing. The withholding of Exhibits was done in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedures – Rule 26 in order to protect the vital information being investigated by the Peoria Police Department in the Complaint (10-00747) for Elder Abuse filed May 30, 2010. This was all disclosed to the opposing counsel, but no Pretrial was held in Arrowhead Court. According to the Arizona Civil Justice Court Rules a Pretrial Conference is scheduled to clarify the issues for the Trial and allow parties to exchange information and to possibly settle the lawsuit (Exhibit 3 - 6/10/10 Fairall Letter to Williams). This Pretrial Conference procedure is especially important for a judge to properly schedule when overseeing a Trial when one party is representing themselves while the other party has an attorney. This procedure was presented well by David Osterfeld’s, Melanie Deforest’s recent Estrella Mountain Justice of the Peace opponent, advertising (Exhibit 4 – Osterfeld ad) which stated that: “judges oversee trials and hearings to ensure their fair presentation. This is critical when only one party has an attorney, which can often happen in justice courts.”  If we would have had a Pretrial, we would have been informed that Notarized Affidavits of our witnesses were not acceptable according to Arizona Laws and we would have packed the Court with witnesses. Melanie Deforest failed the keep a fair and level playing field for our lawsuit by not having a Pretrial and by granting opposing counsel’s motion to dismiss our 300+ pages of Exhibits.  This action surprised us because we were told to do this by the Court when we called asking when the Pretrial was scheduled. We were told ten days before the Trial over the phone by the Arrowhead Justice Court: “to bring the Exhibits to the Trial because they had no time for a Pretrial and that this was just Justice Court.” We told part-time judge Melanie Deforest these facts in our rebuttal to the Motion to Strike the Exhibits. Our objections were rudely and belligerently overridden by the unfit part-time judge Melanie Deforest. We were completely disarmed by our lack of Exhibits and we were not allowed a fair opportunity to properly present our case at Trial as allowed by law.

We are able to compare Melanie Deforest’s Judge Skills and Procedures to our second Trial (CC2010-038651) in the Arrowhead Court on August 19, 2010 against our former renters. That Judge, Terry Smith, allowed undisclosed exhibits and testimony information in the interest of obtaining the truth and making a fair decision.

Because of not properly having a Pretrial, we believe judge Melanie Deforest purposely set us up to fail. We believe her misconduct and retaliation with the dismissal of our Exhibits was motivated due of our April 23, 2010 Complaint.  Melanie Deforest broke Arizona Judicial Conduct Code Canons 1, 2, and 3 with her failure to maintain a high standard of conduct, failing to act with integrity and impartiality, failure to be patient and courteous, and failure to act without Prejudice or Bias.


 It was nearly impossible for us to speak in Court due to the abusively rude and dictatorship-like control part-time judge Melanie Deforest imposed upon us at our Trial.  We believe that was because of our Complaint filed against her. She would not let me, Mark Fairall, or the 3rd Party Defendant, Carol Ann Buck, speak without interruptions or badgering. She even told Carol Buck that she was on “thin ice” and threatened her, a liver transplant patient dying of liver rejection due to the actions of the SGRV slumlord. It is difficult to document all the insults, interruptions, and demeaning actions part-time judge Melanie Deforest subjected us to in the Trial. We hardly completed one sentence throughout the Trial, and we respectfully urge this Commission to watch the Trial Video of the July 8, 2010 Courtroom Chamber of Horrors that she created which did not allow us a fair and just opportunity to present our case and “have our day in court.” Part-time judge Melanie Deforest’s undignified, harsh demeanor and body language needs to be watched, not read in a transcript of proceedings. This is why we have not submitted a court reporter’s transcript of this Kangaroo courtroom Trial.

In comparison with our other recent Arrowhead Trial (CC2010-038651) on August 19, 2010, Judge Terry Smith was very kind and considerate with both in propria persona parties. She kept control of the Court in a friendly manner and she knew the law. The is this is completely opposite from part-time judge Melanie Deforest, who broke the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2, and 3 by failing to maintain a High Standard of Conduct, by failing to Avoid Impropriety, and by failing to be patient, dignified, and courteous to us at the Trial.


Our Mistrial will highlight the wrongful interpretations and misuse of the law by part-time judge Melanie Deforest. Specifically, part-time judge Melanie Deforest:

1. Did not have a full understanding of the Lawsuit:  The first question asked by part-time judge Melanie Deforest was: “Did you live at the apartment house and did you have a lease? I have read every single page of this lawsuit and understand the case.”  That question and statement by part-time judge Melanie Deforest proves she is a liar. That was such a ridiculous question if she really had a complete understanding of our lawsuit and interrelated Arrowhead Court cases. Simply put, this lawsuit was based in facts which supported our allegations that our former landlord collected an illegal service dog deposit, illegally used a stolen item, and failed to provide a safe and healthy place in which to live in accordance with the law.  We attempted to detail our allegations and the facts of this Lawsuit with our July 8, 2010 Opening Trial Statement; but opposing counsel objected to our opening statement and SGRV corporate history of illegal activities, and part-time judge Melanie Deforest refused us our right to a complete opening statement (Exhibit 5 – 7/08/2010 – Fairall’s Opening Trial Statement).

The landlord counter-sued Mark Fairall for $9,999.99 for Interference of a Contractual Obligation and Carol Ann Buck for $9,999.99 for Breach of Contract. Of course, we lived at SGRV and the question showed an absolute inability of part-time judge Melanie Deforest to properly understand the lawsuit and Trial. Her judgments on the Countersuits showed she continued to misunderstand the law or ignore it when she awarded Sun Grove Resort Village a $0 verdict against Mark Fairall for Contractual Interference when Carol Buck pointed out to the Court she made her own decisions and was not influenced at all. Also, she awarded Sun Grove Senior Living LLC a $9,999.99 judgment verdict against Carol Ann Buck and exceeded the $9,999.99 judgment limitation of Justice Court because of a previous $2,600 judgment verdict (CC2009-610571 under Appeal (LC2010-000385-001 DT) by Arrowhead Court on October 20, 2009 and in Superior Court for the same contract. Now, due to the unfit behavior and illegal rulings of part-time judge Melanie Deforest, the Arrowhead Justice Court has over $12,600.00 of judgments plus $5,334.00 for excessive attorney fees and costs against Carol Ann Buck for just one lease. That $17,934.00 judgment award on one lease is a violation of the Arizona Justice Court Limitations and exceeds the $9,999.99 judgment limitation which makes both Carol Buck’s Arrowhead Justice Court Cases eligible for one Mistrial. Presently, we have been forced to pay the absurd, totally unnecessary $1,400.00 filing fees for an appeal and this Mistrial. This does not take into consideration our wasted time, energy, and other costs over the past year due to SGRV’s persecution and the Court’s looking the other way.

2. Wrongfully refused to allow all witnesses to be properly questioned: It is pointed out that part-time judge Melanie Deforest robbed us of our Court Judgment Award by blocking Mark Fairall from properly questioning the defense witness, George Kieffer, who had key information. I asked if I could question Mr. Kieffer, the opposing counsel lied by saying that Mr. Kieffer had nothing to do with the Fairall part of the Trial, and part-time judge Melanie Deforest sustained opposing counsel’s objection. Again, part-time judge Melanie Deforest accepted the lies of opposing counsel and denied my legal right to question Mr. Kieffer at our Trial. The opposing counsel lied and constantly duped part-time judge Melanie Deforest in the Trial. This blocking of Mr. Kieffer’s questioning prevented us from showing that Mr. Kieffer was threatening to kill us and that we had an Injunction against Harassment filed against Mr. Kieffer on October 2, 2009 and it was still in effect at our Trial date of July 8, 2010. This information would have prevented Carol Ann Buck’s Counterclaim Judgment Award and would have showed that Sun Grove Senior Living, LLC was an unsafe and unhealthy environment. This fact is supported by the fact that we were afraid for our lives from the SGRV employee and our former renter, George Kieffer, and part-time judge Melanie Deforest refused to let that evidence see the light of day.

It is easy to understand why opposing counsel, Scott Williams, did not want Mark Fairall to question Mr. Kieffer because Williams had a conflict of interest between him and his SGRV client for this Trial. Scott Williams represented Mr. Kieffer in Mark Fairall’s other Arrowhead Court Case (CC2010-038651) and set up an unknown and unapproved Stipulation Agreement which absolved Mr. Kieffer of all his unpaid rent and damages to the Mark Fairall rental house. That illegal Conflict of Interest cost us nearly $20,000 in noncollectable back rent and damages and the State Bar of Arizona has been made aware of the Collusion between our former attorney, Mark Tucker, and Scott Williams with Bar Complaints of Collusion (Exhibit 6 – Mark Tucker Bar Complaint Letter dated August 31,2010). Also, Mr. Kieffer was fully aware that the former Sun Grove Senior Living, LLC employee, Gail Magnuson, stole the Fairall house counter-top located in the Fairall rental house where Mr. Kieffer and Ms. Olach previously lived. Mr. Kieffer was also aware that another former SGRV Employee, Jim Sedlock, installed the stolen Fairall counter-top in the SGRV dining room located at 10134 W. Mohawk Ln., Peoria, AZ 85382.

That Counter-top Theft was part of our original Complaint and Mr. Kieffer’s testimony would have completely prevented our Trial loss and obligation for the defendant’s attorney fees and court costs (Exhibit 7 – Kieffer Trial Documents). That wrongful barring of Mark Fairall’s legal right to question a witness was a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and it prevented us a fair opportunity to present our case at the Trial.

3.  Wrongfully refused to rule that the illegal $450 dog fee collected was a debt of the new owner: The part-time judge Melanie Deforest made another wrongful interpretation of the law when she said the $450 illegal collection of a pet fee for a Service Dog was the obligation of the old owners and not of the new owners. The corporate structure was explained to the Court in previous pleadings which part-time judge Melanie Deforest adversely ruled upon. It was presented to the Court that 19 owners purchased the property as a tax shelter investment property through the alleged $200 Million Ponzi Scam artist, James Koenig, over four years ago. The 19 out-of-state investors got the Ownership Deed to the property when California, Shasta County Superior Court, prosecuted James Koenig and his Management Company, Oakdale Heights, on May 9, 2009. Mr. Koenig has his Trial set for November 9, 2010 in California. In reality, the present owners are the former property investors but now they actually have possession of the Deed of the property through litigation by the State of California. This is an important fact to clarify which explains many of the past strange Motion Denials of part-time judge Melanie Deforest because she simply did not fully understand the complexities of this case.

Also, we attempted to make her aware that this Arrowhead Court had previously ruled that a refundable deposit of the previous owner was allowed and awarded to Bonnie Hunt’s Case (CC2009-079586) because the same ridiculous SGRV claim was made at that time. Unfortunately, part-time judge Melanie Deforest refused us to submit that information in rebuttal of her incorrect interpretation of the law. In fact the August 30, 2010, Motion to Stay the Financial Disclosures which was filed on this case states: “Judge Deforest also incorrectly ruled by not allowing the debt owed to Mark Fairall for the illegally collected $450 Dog Deposit Fee for a Service Dog to stand by stating the debt belonged to the previous owner which is incorrect according to the ARS 47-2611 Anticipatory Repudiation. In fact U.C.C.-Article 2-Sales-Part 6 Breach, Repudiation and Excuse allows the “Binding Effect” where the owners take over the rights and debts of the old owners.”

Judge Deforest’s incorrect denial of the legal $450 debt owed me allowed Sun Grove Resort Village a misdirected verdict.” (Exhibit 8 – 8/30/10 – Motion to Stay Debtor’s Hearing).

4.  Wrongfully was misled by opposing counsel to ignore SGRV corporate history and blocked newly discovered evidence at the Trial: It is very apparent why opposing counsel, Scott Williams, took such an active role in this small Justice Court case defense for SGRV because he wants the SGRV corporate history to remain buried and wants to keep Seniority, Inc. from possibly facing a huge Elder Abuse Judgment. The SGRV owners are the same 19 investors for the past four years, but the senior living apartment house changed Management Companies from Oakdale Heights, run by alleged Ponzi Scammer James Koenig, to Seniority, Inc. in April 2008 (Exhibit 9 – Seniority Inc. News – 4/21/08). We now are presenting newly discovered explosive evidence to the Court in our MISTRIAL which supports the SGRV “abuse culture”. SGRV was previously run by the Oakdale Heights Management Company which was just found guilty of a $12.5 million elder abuse case in March, 2010 by a California Superior Court. The Court found that “Koenig and the others in the Ponzi scheme allegedly bled the elder-care facilities by cutting costs, permitting under-staffing and lax security and supervision.” (Exhibit 10–Elder Abuse Verdict and Newspaper Information –  Sophie Schwartz  –  Oakdale Heights property – March, 2010). Senior abuse, withholding of services and lax security is exactly what happened to Mark Fairall and Carol Buck at SGRV because Scott Green, the SGRV Executive Director, continued to operate SGRV using the same ruthless and criminally illegal management practices for Seniority, Inc. as he had used in the past at SGRV as Oakdale Heights site manager. Scott Green’s management style continues in his merciless attempt to maximize the return for the same investors. We are fully aware of opposing counsel’s illegal activity as an attorney in assisting SGRV extort phony debts from seniors and breaking the state law ARS45-454 by not reporting the illegal abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable adults. We made a Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel on April 21, 2010 because of his SGRV criminal accomplice role and his Collusion with George Kieffer but the motion was denied by part-time judge Melanie Deforest (Exhibit 11 – 4/21/10 Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel).

We attempted to communicate this SGRV corporate history through our Motions and at the Trial, but it was completely misrepresented by opposing counsel and the part-time judge Melanie Deforest blocked our testimony. The “Piercing of the LLC Shield” for SGRV’s illegal activities and management pattern of an underfunded corporation and senior abuse were supported by case law and presented in our March 23, 2010 Motion to amend the complaint to specifically name the five property manager/owners as defendants (Exhibit 12 – 3/23/10 Motion to Amend the Complaint to Add Specifically Named Owners/Managers), but that motion was denied by part-time judge Melanie Deforest.  On April 22, 2010 we made another Motion to add all 19 investor/owners as defendants (Exhibit 13 – 4/22/10 Motion to Amend the Complaint to Specifically name All The Property Owners as Defendants), but part-time judge Melanie Deforest denied that motion and let all of the owners off the financial hook which prolonged this lawsuit and made any collection of our Lawsuit Award impossible. It took many calls to this Court to obtain correct Minute Entries for the April 22, 2010 oral argument held in the Arrowhead Courtroom because part-time judge Melanie Deforest had wrong dates on the entry and was confused who the defendants and plaintiff were in the case. We never got a totally correct Minute Entry for the April 22, 2010 oral argument which was the hearing where part-time judge was very befuddled and extremely rude resulting in our judge Complaint (Exhibit 14 - two incorrect 4/22/10 oral argument Minute Entries).

It is extremely important to point out to the Court that we were attempting to make the out-of-state tax dodging investors of Oakdale Heights and SGRV property Owners legally responsible for their mismanagement and misdeeds in March 2010. Our Motion to name the SGRV owners here in Arizona simultaneously occurred as the California $12.5 million award for elder abuse against another Oakdale Height’s mismanaged senior living property. Of course, the owners do not want to be held responsible for the illegal activity they cause, but California is piercing the corporate shield and making unscrupulous investor/owners financially responsible for their misdeeds. Gregory Owen, the attorney for the abused California senior, stated: “The jury sent a loud message to elder-care providers who choose profit over people and ignore laws designed to protect our community’s most vulnerable members. This type of conduct will not be tolerated.” (Exhibit 10 – 3/10 Newspaper Reports & Information of Oakdale Heights’ $12.5 million judgment award for elder abuse).

The opposing counsel objected when we asked the defendant, Scott Williams, if he knew Beverly Seigel, another resident who lives at SGRV. Again, the part-time judge blocked the questioning concerning the newly discovered evidence that we had just received concerning the fact that Beverly Siegel tried to rent Carol Buck’s previous SGRV apartment but was declined by Scott Green because she was told it was full of mold. The opposing counsel objected when we asked the defendant, Scott Green, about the advertising on-line stating SGRV was an assisted living facility with a 24/7 monitored emergency call system. Again, part-time judge Melanie Deforest also blocked that line of questioning because opposing counsel stated SGRV was not actually in control of on-line advertising.  This was another opposing counsel lie and we have followed up on the twelve senior living referral companies disclosed in their own evidence and we have removed five on/line ads misstating that SGRV is an Assisted Living Facility with a 24/7 monitored resident emergency alarm system. We also have a magazine where SGRV misrepresents their services as newly discovered evidence being presented in the MISTRIAL (Exhibit 15 – The CB Time – SGRV Ad – May 2010).
The opposing counsel objected when we asked their Mold Examiner, Environmental Consulting, Inc. for lab information of Terra Science Laboratory, Inc. which processed the mold air samples taken on 10/16/09 at Carol Buck’s previous SGRV apartment. We now have newly discovered evidence which verifies that Terra Science Laboratory Inc. has gone out of business because of poor work and is no longer used by Environmental Consulting, Inc.  The opposing counsel misused the Court by blocking the new discovery questioning. Again, part-time judge Melanie Deforest went along with the devious opposing counsel and blocked the new evidence exploration.

Finally, part-time judge Melanie Deforest had totally set us up for complete failure
in our Trial by blocking all our witnesses, blocking our old evidence,
and blocking our new discovery exploration.

5. Wrongfully failed to follow proper courtroom procedures and protocols which allowed blatant perjury by the defense witnesses:  The proper procedures and protocols of a Judge are to have all the witnesses be removed from the trial courtroom in order to insure independent and uncorroborated testimony in accordance with 28 U.S.C & Fed. R. Civ. P. 83. In the July 8, 2010 Trial, none of the defense witnesses were asked to leave the courtroom and they all had the opportunity to hear all the witnesses and set up consistent lies. The lies became very apparent in the Trial when the five SGRV witnesses testified under oath as to the wrong date of September 18, 2009 for the water leak in Carol Buck’s SGRV apartment. We attempted to point out that three witnesses perjured their written documents (Exhibit 16 – SGSL #095 & #096 – 9/18/09 Kieffer Perjury / SGSL #097 & #098 9/18/09 Olivares Perjury / SGSL #099 – 9/21/09 Bennett Perjury) before the part-time judge Melanie Deforest with the defense’s own Exhibits of the work orders requested by Carol Buck stating the water leaks were October 2, 8, and 10, 2009.(Exhibit 17 – SGSL #105 & #106 – Buck’s Maintenance Request listing correct water leak dates). When it was pointed out to the part-time judge Melanie Deforest that the witnesses were perjuring themselves, she simply ignored the truth and let the dummied up documents of the opposing counsel not to be questioned and accepted the coached witnesses’ perjuries as the truth. Scott Green, the Executive Director of Sun Grove Senior Living LLC, constantly perjured himself and lied on the stand by stating that they never advertise as an Assisted Living Facility and never stated they had a monitored 24/7 emergency alarm system for the residents. We could not even get Scott Green to admit that Mark Fairall was in charge of the Ambassador Committee, a resident’s counsel, which helped the renters at the location.

When he was shown his own letters written about Mark Fairall being the Chairman of the Ambassador Committee, he would not acknowledge the truth. Finally, I said to the part-time judge Melanie Deforest in the Trial when I was examining Scott Green: “I cannot make him tell the truth your Honor.” (Emphasis added) 

Perjury was rampant in the Courtroom by the defense witnesses,
and part-time judge Melanie Deforest did nothing to stop it.

Melanie Deforest committed misconduct by ignoring the proper courtroom procedures and protocols in our July 8th Trial. Judge Terry Smith followed proper courtroom procedures in our August 19, 2010 Trial by having all the witnesses for both the prosecution and defense sit outside the courtroom until it was their time to testify. Judge Terry Smith insured a fair and just Trial by not allowing any perjury or collaborated witness testimony: part-time judge Melanie Deforest did not and totally failed as a judge by not enforcing the law with fines and/or jail time for perjury.


We are very concerned that part-time judge Melanie Deforest is unfit to be a part-time Justice of the Peace because she lacks the understanding of the law since she is not a lawyer and has a very limited two-year background of assisting the Arizona Justice Court System. She used a very harsh and abrasive manner of dealing with us in the Court Trial by using Berating, Shouting, Threatening, Intimidating, Interrupting, Degrading, and Badgering Conduct from the Bench with little or no respect or courtesy toward us as non-lawyers. The Arizona Justice Court System does not need part-time judge Melanie Deforest making unsound judgments based upon her own lack of professionalism, lack of common sense, lack of fair-mindedness, and lack of knowledge. In fact, her strange abusive behavior may indicate that she has a mental problem because she is non compos mentis. That evidence of not being of sound mind is demonstrated when she threw out of Court our 94-year old threatened witness, Millie Toedebusch  because her driver, John Roberts whispered to Millie he thought she was “doing a terrible job”. Both Mr. Roberts and Mrs. Toedebusch are willing and anxious to testify about this judge’s misconduct. Also, Stephanie McMahon witnessed the Courtroom Circus created by part-time judge Melanie Deforest. Ms. McMahon has sat on the Arizona State Bar Ethics Committee Review Board and she stated: “I have never seen a worse and more abusive judge in my life and she should be taken off the Bench. I would not have believed what happened in Court unless I had seen it myself.”  Ms. McMahon is willing and anxious to testify about this part-time judge’s misconduct.

It is abhorrent that part-time judge Melanie Deforest lacks integrity and abused her part-time judge position to help herself.  This was especially evident in our Trial when she did not recuse herself from our Trial when we had previously filed a Complaint with the Court. We feel that all her motion decisions, Court style, and final judgments were hostile and against us because she was upset about our initial Complaint against her. We believe her ultimate goal was to be elected to the Estrella Mountain Justice of the Peace Position and she did not want any negative press because of our Complaint. This is a huge violation of the Arizona Judicial Conduct Code Cannon 4 Section C Conflict of Interest which states: “Judicial employees shall mange personal and business matters so as to avoid situations that might lead to conflict, or the appearance of conduct, in the performance of their employment.”

Finally part-time judge Melanie Deforest violated the Arizona Judicial Code Cannon 5 – Judicial Employees Shall Refrain From Inappropriate Political Activities (B)(1) when her police officer and Campaign Manager husband filed a Police Report against her Estrella Mountain Justice of the Peace opposition David Osterfeld for moving one of her signs. Part-time judge Melanie Deforest did not maintain did not maintain the dignity of her Political Campaign and she failed to encourage the same for her husband.  We believe Arizona Department of Public Safety Officer Kyle Deforest, part-time judge Melanie Deforest’s husband, misused his Police Officer status and tried to smear opponent David Osterfeld’s good name by filing a very petty and public Police Complaint for illegally moving part-time judge Melanie Deforest’s Campaign sign only one month before the Primary Election (Exhibit 18 - 7/10/10 WEST VALLEY VIEW Newspaper Article – “JP Candidate Accused of Tampering with Rival’s Campaign Sign). This was a “last ditch” desperate act by the Deforest Family to help part-time Judge Melanie Deforest win the $90,000+ a year job full time as a Justice of the Peace to replace her regular job as a group fitness instructor at Lifetime Fitness. It also supports the fact that she was shocked about our Complaint on 4/23/10 and made the desperate act of punishing us and trying to bury us by blocking our ability to obtain a fair Trial in her Chamber of Horrors Courtroom. It is very apparent that the Public is fully aware, by the recent August Primary Election Results in the Estrella Mountain Area, that part-time judge Melanie Deforest is not ready to make the leap from non-lawyer, full-time fitness instructor, and 2 year part-time judge to a full time Justice of the Peace Judge because she placed a distant third with only 2417 votes (18.95%).

This Formal Complaint to the State of Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct should support our request to remove her totally from her part-time Justice of the Peace Court Position.

Melanie Deforest’s misconduct, lack of legal knowledge, wrong interpretation of the Law, and not being of sound mind has changed our probable Appeal to a definite Mistrial which is a first for the Arrowhead Justice Court.

We affirm, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information and the allegations contained in the above complaint details are true.

Date: September 9, 2010
Mark R. Fairall
Carol Ann Buck

 Exhibit 1 –   7/1/10 Motion to Strike Late Disclosure
 Exhibit 2 –   6/10/10 Amended Disclosures
 Exhibit 3 –   6/10/10 Fairall Letter to Williams
 Exhibit 4 –   Osterfeld Ad
 Exhibit 5 –   7/8/10 Fairall’s Opening Statement
 Exhibit 6 -    8/31/10 Mark Tucker Bar Complaint Letter
 Exhibit 7 –   8/19 /10 Kieffer Trial Documents
 Exhibit 8 –   8/30/10 Motion to Stay Debtor’s Hearing
 Exhibit 9 –   4/21/08 Seniority Inc. News
 Exhibit 10 – 3/2010 - Oakdale Heights – Elder Abuse Info
 Exhibit 11 – 4/21/10 Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel
 Exhibit 12 – 3/23/10 Motion to Amend Complaint Naming 5 Owners
 Exhibit 13 – 4/22/10 Motion to Amend Complaint naming all Owners
 Exhibit 14 – Two Incorrect Minute Entries for 4/22/10 Oral Argument
 Exhibit 15 – 5/10 The CB Times – SGRV False advertising
 Exhibit 16 – Perjury Trial Documents for Kieffer/Olivares/Bennett
 Exhibit 17 – 10/10/09 Work Order Request by Carol Buck
 Exhibit 18 – 7/30/10 WEST VALLEY VIEW - Sign Tampering