ATTORNEY SCOTT E. WILLIAMS AIDED A FELON IN SCAMMING THE ELDERLY
 |
| SCOTT E. WILLIAMS |
THE SUN GROVE RESORT VILLAGE ELDER ABUSE STORY
CHAPTER SIX
THE CROOKED LAWYER AND INCOMPETENT JUDGE
SUN GROVE RESORT
VILLAGE'S
CROOKED LAWYER, SCOTT E.
WILLIAMS,
AND INCOMPETENT JUDGE,
MELANIE DEFOREST
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 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
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.
FRAUD
OF THE COURT COMMITTED BY SCOTT E. WILLIAMS
Maricopa County Justice
Courts, State of Arizona Arrowhead Justice Court
CASE NUMBER: CC2009-610571 - SUN GROVE SENIOR LIVING,
LLC. DBA SUN GROVE RESORT VILLAGE
V. CAROL A. FAIRALL (NEE BUCK)
RESPONSE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL’S 7/21/11 MOTIONS AND
ORDER:
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
MOTION TO SET ASIDE VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT ORDER, #CC2009-610571
DENY MOTION TO NAME FAIRALLS AS
VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, #CC2010-038658
MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
FRAUD OF THE COURT NOT ADDRESSED IN OPPOSING
COUNSEL’S STATEMENT
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).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE CAROL’s
10/18/10 VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
ORDER ON LAWSUIT #2009-610571
ORDER ON LAWSUIT #2009-610571
AND DENY THE NEW MOTION TO FIND MARK
AND CAROL FAIRALL
AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS ON LAWSUIT #2010-038658
AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS ON LAWSUIT #2010-038658
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.
MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
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.
Scott
E. Williams will be fighting his DISBARMENT because
of his ABUSE OF POWER, MISCONDUCT, and ILLEGAL
ACTIVITIES concerning SGRV’s
ELDER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION SCAM.
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”
EXHIBIT 5: 3/1/10 Judge Keegan’s
RULING ON MOTION – DENYING WILLIAMS’ DISMISSAL MOTION AND ORDERING THAT
LAWSUIT HAS BEEN SERVED
EXHIBIT 6: 2/26/10 Fairall’s MOTION
AND AFFIDAVIT FOR JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
EXHIBIT 7: 3/4/10 Williams’ MOTION TO
STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
EXHIBIT 8: 3/24/10 Judge Deforest’s
RULING ON MOTION filed by Defendant to STRIKE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
– DENYING SAID MOTION.
JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT BY MELANIE DEFOREST
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,
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.
 |
| Melanie Deforest |
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:
THE WRONGFUL DENIALS OF MY PRETRIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE LATE DISCLOSURE,
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
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.
THE WRONGFUL REFUSAL TO GRANT OUR CONTINUANCE MOTION
AND
FOR A DIFFERENT JUDGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL
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.
THE WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF OUR EXHIBITS
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.
THE WRONGFUL BADGERING, THREATS, AND INTERRUPTIONS
OF OUR TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS
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.
THE WRONGFUL INTERPRETATIONS AND MISUSE OF THE LAW
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.
SUMMARY
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
