At last, to my friends on FidoNet, I am breakinmg my over two year silence
regarding the vile judiciary mistreatment which has led to the destruction of
my law practice. A few misinformed persons have periodically ranted on
various FidoNet echos, gloating about, and mischaracterizing what has been
done through judicial misconduct, to deprive my many valued clients of my
services. The following is a news release dated 10/18/95, following my
receipt of the 10/17/95 appellate decision, 1 CA-CV 93-0547, Arizona Court of
Appeals, Division One, which was initiated in September 1993, was fully
briefed as of May 1994 after my unlawful incarceration, and which languished
for eighteen months before being placed before the panel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NEWS RELEASE - PHOENIX AZ - OCTOBER 18, 1996
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ATTORNEY HIRSCHFELD VINDICATED ON APPEAL;
ALL OF JUDGE ALFRED ROGERS' ACTIONS OVERTURNED
In an eight page unanimous decisioon, a three-judge appellate panel has found
that Judge Alfred Rogers had no jurisdiction for any of the decisions and
orders in 1993 and 1994 against Attorney Robert A. Hirschfeld and his client,
Clint Taliaferro.
Hirschfeld, the Appellate Court ruled, had properly disqualified Rogers at
the very beginning of Rogers' handling of the case. Rogers, the record shows,
refused to honor the disqualification. Subsequently, Rogers fined Hirschfeld
$20,000 for keeping confidential that Taliaferro had "taken an overdose of
prescription medication". After the appeal was filed, Rogers put out a
warrant for Hirschfeld's arrest, causing the lawyer to be incarcerated for
thirty hours in a "debtor's prison" effort to collect the $20,000 money
judgment, and triggering the collapse of Hirschfeld's law practice.
Imprisonment for debt is prohibited by the Arizona Constitution.
Hirschfeld has filed a Four Million Dollar Civil Rights lawsduit personally
against Rogers in the United States District Court in Phoenix. According to
Federal Ninth Circuit case law, "A judge who acts without jurisdiction loses
all claim to immunity." The state appellate victory therefore deprives Rogers
of what was expected to be his main defense in the Federal lawsuit.
Hirschfeld's aggressive tactics on behalf of fathers have also led to his
being charged with, and convicted of, allegedly "harassing a woman in the
courthouse," upon which he was suspended from practice. The conviction was
affirmed, but is the subject of a new Petition for Review before the Arizona
Supreme Court. Hirschfeld denies harassment. According to Hirschfeld, the
woman's own testimony showed that his only words to her in the courthouse
incident were, consistent with his duty to his client, to twice ask her,
"Where are you hiding my client's child?"
Judge Norman Hall, whose court chambers are next door to those of Alfred
Rogers, took over many of Rogers' cases. Hall charged Hirschfeld in March
1995 with criminal contempt for "offending the dignity of the court."
Hirschfeld questions whether a court which habitually exhibits bias against
fathers is "dignified," and believes lawyers have a duty to challenge
judicial genderism.
The State Bar of Arizona has taken the position that some of Hirschfeld's
former clients, who dismissed him as a result of publicity or
non-availability arising from Judge Rogers' actions, should receive refunds
despite each having entered into a non-refundable attorney agreement.
Hirschfeld alleges that the real source for depriving his clients of their
lawyer was the judicial misconduct of Alfred Rogers, and the wrongful stance
of the State Bar. Hirschfeld urges that Rogers personally, or the State Bar,
be ordered to compensate each of the deprived clients.
Hirschfeld is now working, during his suspension, with a new organizatyion,
"HOW2", to teach litigants how to represent themselves in court without a
loawyer. HOW2 prepares litigation documents having the aggr4essive flavor for
which Hirschfeld became known
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--- DB 1.58/004910
---------------
* Origin: Bob Hirschfeld, Moderator, FidoNet LAW Echo (1:114/74.2)
|