You are on page 1of 25

Roy Warden, Publisher

Arizona Common Sense

6502 E. Golf Links Rd., #129
Tucson Arizona 85720







1 COMES NOW ROY WARDEN, Defendant in the above cap-

2 tioned action, with his Motion to the Pima County Justice
3 Court to Dismiss Judge Paula Aboud for Misconduct as set
4 forth below:


6 I Roy Warden, under penalty of perjury, do herein declare,

7 swear and affirm as follows:

8 1. I am the Defendant in the above captioned case and,

9 based on personal experience and interviews with nu-
10 merous members of the Pima County Bar (both in my
11 capacity as Publisher of Arizona Common Sense and as
12 a political-activist-defendant), I am particularly well

1 qualified to testify on the subject matter of this Motion
2 to Dismiss Judge Paula Aboud.

3 2. The Pima County Justice Court, a court of limited juris-

4 diction1, has the following unwritten policy:

5 a) The Pima County Justice Court, through the imposi-

6 tion of fines, operates as a revenue producing enter-
7 prise for Pima County government.

8 b) Pima County government, through the appointment

9 of government officials (like Pima County Public De-
10 fender Margo Cowan and former Pima County Legal
11 Defender Isabel Garcia), is well recognized by local
12 attorneys to support Open Border Policy.

13 c) Consequently; Pima County judges process a signif-

14 icant number of criminal cases2 involving illegal al-
15 iens.

16 d) Over the years, Ive observed Pima County judges

17 warn illegal alien criminal defendants: If you pay
18 your fines we will not turn you over to I.C.E. But if
19 you fail to pay your fines you will be deported.

20 e) Thus; the processing of illegal aliens and the collect-

21 ing of the fines they generate, is an important source

1 This means: as per A.R.S. 22-375, all rights of appeal end in

Pima County Superior Court. Thus; local government has,
and exercises, the power to criminalize the political conduct
of local activists who oppose the policies of local government.
2 One Tucson City prosecutor told me that an illegal alien is 4
times more likely to be a victim of crime than a lawful citizen.

1 of revenue for Pima County government and mem-
2 bers of the bar.

3 f) Moreover; Pima County Justice Court judges are ex-

4 pected to move their cases expeditiously3 through
5 the system.

6 g) This means: Pima County Justice Court Judges are

7 loath to entertain constitutional defenses which
8 tend to delay the proceedings and thus clog up the
9 judicial system with unresolved cases.

10 h) Thus; for the courts to efficiently generate revenue,

11 defense attorneys often refuse to advance constitu-
12 tional arguments and judges operate on the basis
13 their judgements on constitutional cases, such as
14 the case at bar, are bullet-proof from reversal4 in
15 the appellate courts because of A.R.S. 22-375

16 i) More disturbingly; local attorneys are often loath to

17 criticize Pima County Court Judges, or to represent
18 political activists who criticize judges, fearing their
19 cases will suffer prejudice.

20 j) Please see Exhibit One, a 2005 letter written by

21 Pima County Public Defender David Euchner, which

3 We are like plumbers moving effluent through the system,

observed one local attorney.
4 Tucson Municipal Court Judge Eugene Hays successfully ap-
plied this technique on two occasions; the Arizona Appellate
Court and Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear three con-
stitutional challenges to Municipal Court Convictions.

1 illustrates the deplorable conduct of some attorneys
2 and the misuse of judicial power, which reaches from
3 Pima County right up to the Arizona Supreme Court.

4 Further Affiant Sayeth Not.

5 May 19, 2017 Roy Warden


7 The First Amendment, and the Integrity of the

8 Court, Lie at the Heart of This Case:
9 1. On March 4, 2016, while Defendant Warden5 conducted
10 a political rally in front of the U.S. Court, District of Ar-
11 izona advocating Justice for LaVoy Finicum, Defend-
12 ant Warden was interrupted, shouted down, as-
13 saulted and challenged to a fistfight by the ostensible
14 victim in this action, Cody Whitaker.6

15 2. Subsequently; Defendant published commentary and a

16 series of articles critical of Whitakers conduct at the
17 rally and conduct within de-facto public forums con-
18 ducted within Facebook political blogs, such as Ari-
19 zona Politics and Pima County Republicans.

5 Warden is charged with Electronic Harassment and Violating

a Court Order.
6 For more than 2 years, Whitaker and Warden have engaged
in a long term political dispute within Facebook political and
legal blogs like Arizona Politics, Pima County Republicans,
and Pro-Se Litigants.

1 3. On March 7, 2016 Mr. Whitaker sought immediate In-
2 junction Against Harassment in in Tucson Municipal
3 Court, as per A.R.S. 12-1809.

4 4. The Tucson Municipal Court refused to grant the imme-

5 diate injunction, instead setting the matter for hearing
6 on March 21, 2016.

7 5. Subsequently; On March 7, 2016 Mr. Whitaker applied

8 for, and was granted, an immediate Injunction Against
9 Harassment by disgraced Pima County Superior Court
10 Judge Catherine Woods.

11 6. The Pima County Court Order enjoined Defendant from

12 having contact with Mr. Whitaker.

13 7. Subsequently; solely on the basis of articles Defendant

14 published in Facebook political blogs, which Defendant
15 contends serve as de-facto public forums, Mr. Whitaker
16 (who often is found in the company of convicted pimp
17 John LaVoie) filed a Notice of Contempt in action
18 #C20161109.

19 8. Thereupon; Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on the

20 basis his written commentary is protected by the First
21 Amendment.

22 9. Consequently; Pima County Superior Court Judge Sara

23 Simmons held hearings on April 14, 2016, April 26,
24 2016, May 25, 2016, June 25, 2016, and August 2,
25 2016 to resolve the matter.

1 10. On April 17, 2016 Defendant published the following
2 article highly critical of Judge Sara Simmons:

3 From Witches, Pimps and Pima County

4 Superior Court Judge Sara Simons to
5 Shawna Forde, Neo Nazis and Red Necked
6 Thugs: Everyone Seems to Hate the First
7 Amendment.7
8 11. On August 2, 2016, the same day Judge Simmons ruled
9 in action #C20161109 the Pima County Attorney filed
10 the above captioned criminal case, citing (1) an alleged
11 act of criminal harassment by communication and (2)
12 an alleged criminal violation of the injunction by an act
13 of communication, on or about April 17, 2016, on or
14 about the same day Plaintiff distributed the above refer-
15 enced story to some 2,000 recipients of Arizona Com-
16 mon Sense.

17 12. On August 12, 2016, Defendant filed his Appellant

18 Opening Brief in Division II, action #C20161109, rais-
19 ing significant First Amendment concerns regarding the
20 Pima County Courts using the process of Injunction
21 against Harassment to silence the voice of political ac-
22 tivists critical of Pima County public officials, and
23 judges, in spite of LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482
24 (2003) which proscribes such conduct.

7 Defendant distributed this article to some 2,000 recipients of

Arizona Common Sense, which include 1,200 members of the
Pima County Bar.

1 13. (As of the date of this filing all briefing to Division II has
2 been completed; the parties are waiting for resolution.)

3 14. Regarding Defendants current criminal prosecution: On

4 March 6, 2017, after a series of hearings before a series
5 of different judges, Defendant filed a Special Action to
6 Division II, asking the Appellate Court to Delay the Pima
7 County Justice Court criminal proceedings until the Ap-
8 pellate Court resolved the issues raised in the appeal
9 Defendant filed on August 12, 2016.

10 15. However; even though this case presents substantial

11 First Amendment issues, the Arizona Court of Appeal,
12 which loves to proclaim itself a champion of the First
13 Amendment, immediately declined to even hear the
14 case.

15 16. Thereafter; on March 6, 2017 Judge Aboud angrily

16 stated Dont threaten this Court when Defendant, in
17 response to a comment made by the state, remarked
18 that in the absence of a hearing before Division II he
19 might move the U.S. District Court for an injunction de-
20 laying his prosecution until Division II resolved the
21 pending appeal on the underlying constitutional issues
22 regarding Facebook Blogs and the First Amendment.


24 This case presents substantial constitutional issues regard-

25 ing de-facto Facebook public forums and the use of A.R.S. 12-
26 1809 to prohibit or criminalize political speech, now expressly

1 prohibited in Arizona by LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482
2 (2003).

3 A case of this magnitude, which criminalizes Defendants le-

4 gitimate First Amendment debate on Facebook blogs, should
5 only be decided by a competent, and more importantly, an hon-
6 est judge with unquestioned integrity, who is more interested
7 in applying the law than in gotcha and the engagement of
8 coarse partisan politics.

9 Judge Abouds stealing a test result so she could cheat

10 on an exam, and then lying to cover up, though without
11 doubt common enough in Pima County8, is grotesque, and an
12 affront to the honor of the many fine jurists who DO sit on our
13 local courts.

14 Particularly disturbing is the reaction of partisan members

15 of the public, and the media, who ignore Abouds stealing to
16 cheat and lying and accept her disgraceful conduct as some
17 sort of joke or a prank, inspiring KVOA News to proclaim
18 Judge Aboud Justice of the Prank. (See also Exhibit Two.)


20 Therefore; in the interests of Justice, and in the public inter-

21 est, this Defendant DEMANDS that Judge Paula Aboud step

8 Read Killer Instincts by Jeffrey Tobin, which documents

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall protecting Ken Pea-
sley, a prosecutor who lied and cheated to secure convictions
on capital murder cases!

1 off this case or be DISMISSED from this case, by Order of the
2 Pima County Court.


4 ________________
5 Roy Warden

Original filed with the Pima County Justice Court, and copies
sent by email to the following recipients on May 19, 2017.
Judge Paula Aboud

Pima County Prosecutor Parker Stanley

Selected attorneys and members of the media

This document will be sent to all 2,000 recipients of Arizona

Common Sense, including 1,500 members of the Pima County


TEL: (520) 326-3550 FAX: (520) 326-0419

March 2, 2005
Roy Warden
4602 E. Glenn St.
Tucson, Arizona 85712

Re: your contact to the public

Dear Roy:

This letter is to memorialize our telephone conversation. I spoke with

Eleanor Eisenberg today regarding contact she received from the Ari-
zona Supreme Court on account of the version of the press release that
you are sending to lawyers. Eleanor e-mailed me what she received (ei-
ther directly or indirectly) from you.

The obvious problem with what you did was that you put your own
subject line on an ACLU / Euchner press release, and thereby attributed
your language to us. Angela Polizzi and I drafted this press release and
we were very careful in our language, and your subject line Pima
County Corruption Results In Federal Case" implies that the ACLU and
I are suing on your behalf because of Pima County corruption.

Another concern I have - though I can't say whether this is of your doing
or not - is that your messages are being sent to the judiciary. Now, nat-
urally I do not blame you if you send a message to Lawyers X, Y and
Z, and then one of them chooses to forward it to his third-cousin by
marriage who happens to be Chief Justice Jones. But you must not
make any contact whatsoever with the judiciary

When Angie and I met with you on June 9, 2004 to discuss terms of
representation, we both made it clear to you that you had to be very
careful with how you spoke publicly about this case. You were not to
allege that your arrest was specifically the act of Judge Fell, and you
were not to allege that your arrest was the result of rampant corruption

in the judiciary or otherwise. Rather, the focus of this case, as far as the
ACLU and I are concerned, is that you were arrested due to application
of an unconstitutional policy by the chief of security, Chris Hoffman.

This case provides excellent opportunity for you to talk about the cor-
ruption in the office of the Pima County Attorney. However, there is a
difference between making solid points and taking indiscriminate pot-
shots. If you speak and act wisely, you will make progress in getting
people to listen to you and getting an investigation underway. But if
you fly off the handle over every little thing, then you will find that
your words fall upon deaf ears.

In particular, you must not allow any of your other cases or potential
cases to interfere in any way with this case in which the ACLU and I
are representing you. Even if you are of the opinion that such actions
you may take do not prejudice your case, that does not mean that the
ACLU or I share your opinion. And considering that we are offering
free legal services to you, we have the right to place certain demands
upon you. I quote From the ACLU's retainer agreement with you:

The lawsuit will only assert a violation (by means of arrest) of your
First Amendment right to free speech, and will not allege any other
claims including, but not limited to, conspiracy.

Similarly, if the Client fails to follow the Attorney's advice and the
case is thereby jeopardized, the Attorney has the right to withdraw.

The Client further agrees that he will contact the ACLU-AZ before
engaging in any publicity regarding the instant lawsuit, and further
agrees he will not engage in any such publicity before receiving the
ACLU-AZ's consent. Such publicity includes, but is not limited to,
press releases, interviews to the media, distribution of pamphlets and
other materials. etc.

You are already in breach of your retainer agreement, and the ACLU
and I are well within our rights to withdraw as counsel on the basis of
your actions. But, speaking for Eleanor as well as for myself, we do not
wish to drop your case because the nature of your case is interesting
and important and because the severity of your infraction is relatively

But please understand, this is a warning that the ACLU and/or I reserve

the right to withdraw as counsel if you jeopardize this case or make any
public statements without our prior consent (Eleanor has authorized me
to provide or withhold the ACLU's consent in this regard).

If the talk you gave to the We The People group on February 10 was to
any other audience, I would have dropped this case on the spot; but
because that group is particularly receptive to the hang em high" atti-
tude toward the judiciary, I considered your inflammatory rhetoric to
be no harm, no foul." But I warned you on certain aspects of your
message and I informed you that my continued representation of you
was contingent upon you cutting out this kind of rhetoric. I will attend
your talk at the Saturday Morning Breakfast Club on March 12 and see
if you can avoid this kind of unnecessary inflammatory language.

Let me wrap this up by reminding you that neither I nor Eleanor are
afraid of the powers-that-be, rather we are trying to avoid undue preju-
dice to your case, which we consider winnable. Also, neither Eleanor
nor I are capable of infringing upon your First Amendment rights, as
we are not the government. You are free to speak as you choose; how-
ever, we are also free to drop our free representation of you in your civil
rights case. You will have to decide for yourself which is more im-
portant to you.


David J. Euchner

cc: Eleanor Eisenberg


In defense of Paula Aboud and
maybe even 'cheating'
New justice of the peace faces sanctions over
'joke,' but should she?
Posted May 15, 2017, 11:52 pm

Blake Morlock

Ask me if I'm a dump truck.

Are you a dump truck?


In honor of Mother's Day, that has long been my mom's

favorite joke. Don't get it? No. Well, it goes like this: I can
get you to ask a ridiculous question with a straight face
and you'll do it.

Still don't get it?

Welcome to my childhood but that's neither here nor there.

What is here and there is that if I were a judge and told
another judge that joke, I could apparently be removed
from office.

One of the two counts against Justice of the Peace Paula

Aboud is that she told a joke that didn't land. The former
state lawmaker stepped in it needlessly by snaking an
answer key to a test during new-judge orientation in
January and then saying she was trying to play a joke
on her court-sponsored mentor who was leading a study

Now, full disclosure: Aboud was my maternal figure in

Democratic politics. Her paternal equivalent was former
county chair Jeff Rogers. I could not have asked for more

support or leeway in my job than I got from Rogers. Aboud
was my main sponsor on all manners having to do with
Phoenix and I have enormous respect for her, personally.
I also owe her $20. So there's that.

So naturally, last year, Rogers and Aboud ran against

each other for of all things a Pima County justice of
the peace slot. Both of them have been known to fight
mean. Forces tried to enlist me to choose sides in this
race. I just hid under a pillow. Why are mom and dad

Still, I started writing this column ready to take her to task

just to prove that's the kind of columnist I am. The more I
closely I read the Aboud especially one of the charges
against her that maybe this case has gone way too far.

Now I want to play the advocate of the Great Deceiver who

won't tell you stuff. Everyone's piling on. So why not stand
up for someone I know and respect?

The counts
April Elliott, disciplinary counsel for the Arizona Commis-
sion of Judicial Conduct crafted the second of two
charges against Aboud:

A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to jurors,

witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials and others
with whom the judge deals with in an official capacity.
Taking test questions and the answer key at a judicial
training, in jest, is not dignified conduct for a judicial of-
Ease off the gas there, April. Not dignified? The construc-
tion of the charge argues the joke itself is not dignified.
That's curious. Tell me a dignified joke. They don't exist.
Jokes are, by their very nature, undignified. They're zany.
They're wacky. They're tasteless. Maybe joking at all about

stealing the answer key undermines the confidence in the
judge's integrity. That's not the charge. The charge is that
it's not dignified.

There's only one way to judge a joke and that's if it's funny.

And to be sure, Aboud's joke (giving her an enormous ben-

efit of the doubt that it was a joke) is not funny. Mom's
dump truck joke is vaguely a joke looking through my fam-
ily's unique comic lens. Where's the punchline to Aboud's
joke? It's like I got a good one. So the other day a cop
stopped me for jaywalking So I reached for his gun. Then
he shot me! Ahahahahah. Wait. I didn't tell it right.

Now what if Aboud had managed to construct a joke from

swiping the answer key in a way that left the room peeing
its collective pants. Would Elliott still be recommending
that Aboud be censured, suspended or removed from of-

Here's what went down on an evening in January as Aboud

joined other new judges in a study session for a test the
next day.

Judge James Sampanes, the mentor running the new

judge orientation, called a break in a study session the
night before an exam was to be given to Aboud and other
new judges. During that break, Aboud grabbed the
fuschia-colored answer sheet and stuck it in a stack of her
papers. Sampanes saw this move and confronted her, and
took it back.

"I probably wasn't even going to read it," the charges said
Aboud told the judge.

Aboud later told investigators that she was trying to "play

a joke" on Sampanes, although she didn't tell him that.

Aboud's outlook dimmed significantly as she took on her
new job. The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct got
involved to see if the snaking of the answer constituted an
actionable offense.

Last week, Elliott returned with a recommendation that

Aboud be punished.

Respondent's conduct, as described in Paragraphs 5-14,

violated rule 1.1 of the code, which states. "A Judge shall
act at all times in a manner that promotes confidence, in-
tegrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and avoid the appearance of impropriety."
Yeah, if Elliott can prove Aboud tried to cheat on the test
in an effort to get ahead, then Aboud undermined her in-
tegrity and propriety. I imagine the issue is aggravated by
the fact that Aboud didn't have to pass the test to sit on
the court. She's elected and there's no test that can limit
the powers of an elected official. Cheating on such a test
would be monumentally stupid.

If this were a real test ...

But can't it work the other way? I mean, Aboud grabbing
the answer key doesn't give her a leg up on competition. If
she scores a 100 on the test or a 0 on the test, she's still
going to be hearing cases. A 50 doesn't mean she loses her
parking space. Her salary is determined by the Arizona Re-
vised Statutes and can not be reduced for failing to pass a
test. It's all covered by Article 6 of the state Constitu-

The test isn't a test like we know tests. This isn't a bar
exam. It's not a driver's test. If she scored 70 percent or
higher she could take her seat on the court. If she scored
lower than 70 percent, she could take her seat on the court
but would have to retake the test until she got above 70
percent. But she'd hearing cases the whole time.

Heather Murphy, spokeswoman for the Arizona Supreme
Court, said she did not know of any case in which a judge
has been kicked off the court for not passing the test.
Aboud is not a lawyer but I guarantee you she's not the
dumbest non-lawyer to be elected justice of the peace.

The test in question is just a teaching tool to assess a jus-

tice of the peace's knowledge to help fill in the gaps. So
why shouldn't she have the information on the answer
key? I know, I know. My question challenges everything we
know about schooling and testing. Testing is largely con-
sidered a cleaver to separate the fat from the meat and
confer status on those who pass. Those who fail, well they
must endure the consequences. But that's not the case
here. In this case every test taker is a winner because eve-
ryone is literally a winner. They all won elections.

If the test is meant to teach and not to prohibit then why

is Sampanes calling down the gods' vengeance on Aboud's
head? Did it really have to go this far?

The state isn't empowered to proctor the kind of exam we

are all used to taking, so what does it matter if Aboud has
the answers? And that's where the argument leads us. The
state has no business testing elected officials in the first

On Lincoln and Clausewitz

Oh, there are times I wish it did.

We don't force the state Legislature to take a test about the

social or economic policy even though they are in a posi-
tion to determine the economic and social policy that affect
all 7 million Arizonans. Boy, would I love to test state law-
makers but that's not my call.

I've seen many a presidential debate and no candidate for
Leader of the Free World has been asked compare and con-
trast military theorists Carl Von Clausewitz and H.H. Lid-
dell Hart. We still give the candidate with 270 electoral
votes the keys to the most bodacious military in the history
of the world regardless of their understanding of vertical

We don't require a law degree to sit on the U.S. Supreme


Great Darrow's Ghost! Joe Arpaio said he never heard of

the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (that's
the passage of the U.S. Constitution that grants federal
civil liberties on those charged with state crimes).

Where did Lincoln go to law school? He didn't.

So long as Aboud is applying the law to the best of her

ability with each case in front of her, then why should
James Sampanes or anyone else be giving her tests to stop

Now, someone I respect pointed out that a single judge

holds a lot of power over the person in their court. This is

If the founders of the state meant for only lawyers to serve

as justices of the peace, they could have required it. If the
citizens of this state had decided to change the Constitu-
tion to make such a rule, they had 105 years to do it. They
haven't. Perhaps there's a wisdom to impose some non-
lawyerly wisdom on the judicial process. No? The argu-
ment to the contrary isn't with me. It's with the founders
of the state Constitution.

Other than some sort of post-agrarian pedagogical norm

and Calvinistic need for judgment, there's no reason for
this test. Just help teach the elected legal officers learn

what they need to know to do their jobs and leave it at
that. It's the voter's decision. Respect it until voters decide
to change their minds.

Blake Morlock covered Arizona government and politics for

15 years, including 11 in the Tucson Citizen. He also
worked on Democratic Party campaigns in the field of polit-
ical communications. Now hes telling you things that the
Devil wont.

- 30 -

Latest comments on this story

Kit Warden
May 16, 2017, 1:19 pm
-0 +0
I am now appearing before Judge Aboud on a criminal
charge of electronic harassment, in which the
charges are based upon an article I wrote and published
on Facebook critical of Pima County Judge Sara Sim-

What? you say, Here in America you can be prose-

cuted criminally for expressing your opinion about a
public official?


There is much documented evidence in the court rec-
ord to support what I just said. There is even an appeal
now proceeding in the Arizona Appellate Court Divi-
sion 2 which asks the Court to declare that comments
made on Facebook political blogs should be classified
as Political Speech protected by the First Amend-

Say, Dylan Smith and Blake Morlock; as reporters you

should look into this. Are people REALLY being prose-
cuted criminally for criticizing public officials?

Respond to this and I will send you the documented


Better yet: On Friday May 19, 2017 at 11:30 am I am

appearing in Judge Abouds court and filing a Motion
to Dismiss on the basis of HER argument:

I was Just Kidding!

Dylan Smith

May 16, 2017, 11:55 am

-1 +1

We dont unmask our pseudonymous commenters
without good reason, but wed do so if a subject of a
news report or opinion column were pretending to be
someone else in the comments on it, and we knew
about it. Thats not the case here.

Im much more skeptical of this prank claim than

Blake is, but it bears repeating that this isnt a crimi-
nal case, and there would be only a little benefit to
cheating on a test that doesnt require a passing

The assessment of the (at least one) direct witness to

the incident would be informative, but that new JP
hasnt publicly discussed this yet.

Kit Warden
May 16, 2017, 11:14 am
-2 +0
Youve GOT to be kidding, right?

Stealing to Cheat, and then LYING ABOUT IT?

I would LOVE to hear what happens when ANY common

person advances this defense in criminal court:

I was ONLY joking! I wasnt going to KEEP the

Friar Tuck (who may be Aboud herself, we dont

know) and Blake Morelock are hopelessly biased, and
based on their personal relationship with Aboud, will-
ing to accept a nonsensical defense that No unbiased
Judge in history has EVER accepted.

Friar Tuck
May 16, 2017, 10:48 am
-0 +0
Im a friend of Paulas so ever so slightly biased in her
favor in this caper. And I think Blake is basically cor-
rect: for whatever reason, a big deal is being made out
of something of little or no importance. Drop it and
lets move along with matters of consequence, like
amending our state constitution to require testing leg-
islative candidates basic knowledge of the constitu-
tions, state and federal, they will swear to uphold when
they take office.

Get a life, folks. A joke that falls flat isnt a misde-

meanor. Taking a piece of paper that is of minimal
value isnt a high crime. And Im betting Paula will do
a creditable job as JP. Any takers?

Join the conversation...