Warden Requests Time To File Arizona Supreme Court Brief

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO

) ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) ) HON. EUGENE HAYS, Judge of the ) Tucson City Court; HON. MITCHELL )) EISENBERG, Judge of the Tucson City ) ) Court; ) ) ) Respondents, ) ) and ) ) ) STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Real Party in Interest. )) ) ROY WARDEN,

Court of Appeals Division 2 No. 2CA-SA2009-0076

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

8 9

Pursuant to Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Rule 23 (j)

10

Roy Warden, Petitioner in the above captioned Special Action, herein

11

submits his Motion to Extend Time to File Petition for Review to the

12

Arizona Supreme Court, for reasons set forth below:

13

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1

1

1.

On October 05, 2009 the Clerk of the Arizona Appellate Court

2

Division 2 filed Petitioner’s Petition for Special Action, No. 2CA-

3

SA2009-0076.

4

2.

accept jurisdiction regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Special Action.

5

6

On October 21, 2009 the Court of Appeals Division 2 declined to

3.

On November 03, 2009 Petitioner sent a letter to the American Civil

7

Liberties Union requesting the ACLU assist him in preparing his

8

Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court. (See Exhibit One) DECLARATION AND ARGUMENT

9

10

4.

For the past 4 years Petitioner has investigated allegations of mal-

11

feasance within the legal and political institutions of Pima County,

12

including the malfeasance of Pima County and Tucson City Officials

13

who have used their public offices (1) to

14

interests of local contractors, etc., who now depend upon a continual

15

flow of low cost illegal Mexican labor, and (2) to advance a political

16

agenda, which includes but is not limited to the deliberate violation of

17

federal immigration law, the flooding of the American Southwest

18

with millions of illegal Mexican citizens, and the creation of a new

19

empire called “Aztlan.”

2

protect the financial

1

5.

Petitioner has used a public forum to challenge the rectitude of

2

official action, and as a result of his political activities intended to

3

protect the public interest, he has suffered numerous acts of

4

retaliation from local officials, including 12 arrests, an unlawful

5

eviction, the blocking of his email publications Common Sense II and

6

CSII Press, excoriation in the local media, etc., all of which have

7

ruined his professional reputation as a Arizona State Certified Legal

8

Document Preparer, depleted his savings, and occasionally placed

9

him on the street.

10

6.

Petitioner has lived a number of years under totalitarian regimes in

11

North Africa where one may not challenge government action. This

12

experience has given Petitioner great insight and appreciation for the

13

rule of law, and the role of the courts in protecting the rights of the

14

people.

15

7.

The role of the American judiciary is central to our concept of justice.

16

Intrinsic to that belief is the perception that judges must honor and

17

respect their judicial office as a public trust; by word and conduct

18

they must strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal

19

system. In Baker v Carr, 369 US 186, Justice Frankfurter stated: “The

3

1

Court’s authority possessed of neither the purse nor the sword

2

ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.”

3

8.

In Matter of Doe, 801 F.Supp. 478, 479 (D.N.M. 1992), Judge

4

Burciaga stated:

5

“(W)e hear the complaint, ‘it’s not the law,’ the cry, ‘they’re not following the law.’ Or the clarion call, ‘there ought to be a law,’ we are jarred to the reality that our nation is a legal polity. Within this polity there is an increasingly palpable perception that the public is no longer empowered and that the legislature and the executive are no longer responsive to its needs. It is not surprising, then, that the public turns to the remaining independent branch of Government—the judiciary—to vindicate its rights under the law.”

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

9.

Petitioner’s Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court

16

will present the following singular issue which has great consti-

17

tutional significance:

18

Does “the Constitution compel (the Court) to consider all issues, both factual and legal, which bear upon the constitutional privileges accorded by the first amendment and article 2, §6 of the Arizona Constitution” as set forth by the Arizona Supreme Court in Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, 150 Ariz. 475, 482, 483 or may the Court decline to accept jurisdiction in such cases where the Court finds the subject matter politically embarrassing?

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

10. Petitioner, who is not a legal professional, earnestly believes that a

27

constitutional issue of such magnitude and public importance would

28

benefit from the briefing skills of legal professionals and experts on

29

constitutional law such as the ACLU.

4

PRAYER

1

2

WHEREAS current ACLU policy requires a four week evaluation

3

period before deciding as to whether or not to provide legal assistance (see

4

last paragraph of Petitioner’s Letter to ACLU, Exhibit One) Petitioner

5

earnestly prays the Court GRANT his present Motion to Extend Time to

6

File Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court and GRANT him an

7

additional six weeks to prepare his Petition for Review so the Arizona

8

Supreme Court may be fully briefed on the serious constitutional issue

9

presented herein.

10 11

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 08th day of November, 2009.

12 13 14

BY: ____________________________________ Roy Warden, Petitioner

15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

5

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

8

EXHIBIT ONE

9

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

6

1 2

3 4

November 03, 2009

5 6 7 8 9 10

ACLU of ARIZONA Attn: Intake Screening PO Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148 Website: www.acluaz.org

11 12 13

Re: May Arizona Courts Deny First Amendment Protection to Persons the Court Finds Politically Objectionable?

14 15

Dear Sir:

16 17 18 19 20 21

From right wing Tea Party activists marching in the streets of Tucson to left wing Brown Berets clashing with Neo Nazis in Southern California: as we move from an era of political apathy to intense political activism and vigorous public debate on the contentious issues which divide our country, America needs the ACLU more than ever to protect the people’s right of assembly and free political speech.

22 23 24 25 26 27

The Arizona Appellate Court Division 2 recently denied jurisdiction and refused to hear my Petition for Special Action involving the most egregious violation of First Amendment rights on record: the three year suspension of my political rights by Order of the Tucson Municipal Court, which declared I “may not speak within a 1,000 feet of any demonstration.”

28 29 30 31 32

“Alleged prior restraints on free speech will be upheld only if they provide for a prompt decision during which the status quo is maintained, and there is the opportunity for a prompt judicial decision.” Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 991 (9th Cir. 2004)

33 34 35 36 37

I believe the clear language of two Courts, the Ninth Circuit in Dream Palace and the Arizona Supreme Court in Citizen Publishing Co. v Miller, 210 Ariz. 513 (both citing the U.S. Supreme Court) forbid courts otherwise competent, to deny jurisdiction in cases involving prior restraint of political speech and other serious

7

1 2

First Amendment violations merely because the courts may find the subject matter politically embarrassing.

3 4 5 6

To rule otherwise means simply this: By closing their eyes and plugging their ears Arizona Courts may deny First Amendment rights to all persons the Court finds politically objectionable.

7 8 9 10

“(I)t is plain that a State cannot escape its constitutional obligations by the simple device of denying jurisdiction in such cases to Courts otherwise competent.” Dream Palace at 1006 citing Bilagody v Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88 (App)

11 12 13 14 15 16

I request the ACLU read my current Petition for Special Action #999001032P which may be found on the website of the Arizona Appellate Court Division 2 at: http://www.appeals2.az.gov/APL2Docs1/COA/263/2357599.pdf and submit an Amicus Curiae Brief on the singular issue I plan to present in my Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court:

17

“May the Arizona Appellate Courts Escape Their Constitutional Obligation to Protect First Amendment Rights by Denying Jurisdiction?”

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Regarding your policy of four week case evaluation: Within the next several days, as per Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Rule 23 (j), I will file in the Arizona Appellate Court Division 2 a Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court.

26 27

Very Truly Yours,

28 29 30 31 32

Roy Warden 1015 W. Prince Road #131-182 Tucson Arizona 85705

33 34 35 36 37

cc:

Former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas Subscribers to CSII Press, including 1,000 Pima County attorneys and legal professionals

38 39 40 41

8