“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King,Jr.
First of all, we are taught as soon as we can read and understand, that the American system of justice is fair and equal. And, there are some of us, who believed it, and some of us who continue to fight for that fairness and equity. Now, some will say that this post is about ‘sour grapes’, but please be assured, it is not. And since I asked the question, I will provide the answers which support my opinion that the court is unfair, biased, and, unfortunately, it has ‘pockets’ of racism.
In my opinion, there is a ‘circle of corruption’, and those who are within that circle make it a point to ‘steer’ a case to the other members of that circle. In that way, they are assured of an illegal victory. And that circle does not stop at the doors of that particular court, it goes up to the next level, which is Pima County Superior Court. Now, the coincidences must be looked at objectively, and one being that Lisa Royal, the current Court Administrator for Justice Court, was also once part of the administration of Superior Court. That does not automatically translate into the existence of a ‘conspiracy’, but when everything starts going south, and the rules are bent and/or ignored, then one has to, at the very least, explore that possibility.
For example, in Arizona, there is something that is called the Arizona Landlord Tenant Act, now in this particular case, the landlord, admitted that he was retaliating. The ACT says that if a landlord is asking a tenant to move based upon a complaint about living conditions, then it is retaliation, and it is prohibited. Now, if a tenant not only has proof of the complaint, but has that proof in writing, the landlord is supposed to be prohibited from making a tenant move. When a judge sees a document that has a statement written by the landlord, under oath, then why would Judge Pro Tem say that he did not “see” retaliation? This is the portion of that sworn document:
(As most people know, the word “troublemakers” is code for those who request their rights. That is the term used in the 1950’s and 1960’s to describe Martin Luther King, Jr.) This was an admission to retaliating, written under oath, and to which he admitted on the record. So what stopped the judge from ruling as to retaliation?
When an agency director, who is paying a portion of the rent, testifies under oath that the landlord promised to provide a lease, then why would the testimony of that independent third-party be ignored by the judge? And, then, why would a Superior Court judge mis-state the facts and state that the tenant “assumed” that there was supposed to be a lease,even though that issue is not properly before them?
Why would Lisa Royal and Xavier Verdugo promise to adhere to specific rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, then not do so? But instead, allegedly use their connections to speed up the process while ignoring those rules? Why would a Superior Court judge refuse to rule upon a Motion for New Trial when it is within his purview to do so, and again, rush the case back? Why would Justice Court then rule on that motion without jurisdiction, but delay in ruling on the motion to vacate the ruling? Why, when one of the other tenants/defendants no longer resides with the other, would Justice Court refuse to serve that party with notice of a hearing using their mailing address?
When all of the above questions, in and of themselves, represent judicial aberrations, then one must come to the conclusion which forms the opinion that the specific parties, and their court, are indeed, unfair. One must also, at that point, look at what is similar and dissimilar between all of the parties. If all of the parties are of all races except for Black, but the defendants/tenants are Black, then one can fairly come to the conclusion, (based upon the judicial aberrations), that the issue of race, must indeed be a factor, and that the scales of justice are not balanced, and in this case, lady justice was not blind at all.
And yet, they boldly do it in plain sight, on the record, and blatantly. It is my opinion, that the parties involved not only lack a conscience, but also lack a soul, and have neither integrity nor respect for the offices which they hold. It is my opinion that their loyalty is not to the law, but to one another. Could that be why the plaintiff’s attorney, Blythe Edmondson, felt comfortable paying fast and loose with the facts, and, the truth?
It seems as if this were some re-creation of the feudal system, and the poor laborer has no rights when it comes to the wealthy landowner or the aristocracy. But wait … what? No, but that can’t be right? That was England, right? This is America, right? And, slavery has been abolished in America, right? There is something called the U.S. Constitution, right? There is something called Due Process, right? There is something called “Equal Protection Under The Law”, right?
Based upon all of the above, this is not an issue of sour grapes, but an issue of injustice and of justice denied.
So my friends, that is why my opinion is that Pima County Consolidated Justice Court is unfair and biased. That is why it is my opinion that this particular case was steered to those within the alleged ‘circle of corruption’.
I would say to each and every one of them – ‘Shame on you for what you have done.’
#EqualProtectionUnderTheLaw #MartinLutherKingJr #ArizonaLandlordTenantAct