NEWS RELEASE October 19, 1995
      OPEN LETTER TO ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL GRANT WOODS RE:
  TAXPAYER-FUNDED STATE REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT ALFRED ROGERS
 
      Grant Woods, AZ Attorney General          October 19, 1995
      Sir:
      As your office is aware, on August 7, 1995, I filed in United
States District Court a Civil Rights personal injury lawsuit
against, among others, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Alfred
Rogers. As is clearly stated on the face of the Federal Complaint,
Rogers is being sued, not in his capacity as judge, but as a
private citizen.
 
      I thereafter received from your office, communications
alleging that the Attorney General's Office would be representing
Rogers, requesting that service be made upon the AG's office rather
than personally upon Rogers, and threatening to seek sanctions
against me if I did not immediately withdraw the Federal lawsuit.
 
      The threat of sanctions was based upon your office's position
that Alfred Rogers is protected by "absolute judicial immunity."
Based upon the recent 10/17/95 decision of the Court of Appeals in
the Taliaferro matter, 1 CA-CV 93-0547, it is clear that Alfred
Rogers committed his vile acts against me and Mr. Taliaferro,
without having any jurisdiction to do so.
 
      "Because Judge Rogers had no jurisdiction to proceed after
      husband's notice was filed, we vacate all rulings and orders
      made by him after February 24, 1993, including the decree of
      dissolution of marriage between husband and wife, and the
      $20,000 order of sanctions against attorney Hirschfeld."
 
      Contrary to claims by your office, the Ninth Federal Circuit
does not protect judges from liability for their private
misconduct, even though conducted from the bench, when the judge
has no jurisdiction. See Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980) and
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986). Certainly Alfred Rogers'
attempt to use contempt proceedings in the Taliaferro dissolution
action, where he lacked jurisdiction, to unconstitutionally
incarcerate Taliaferro's attorney in order to collect an arguably
void money judgment, is as bereft of jurisdiction as Rogers'
earlier acts in the Taliaferro case.
 
      Therefore, I demand that you publicly acknowledge that it
would be improper for the Attorney General, at taxpayer expense, to
conduct the defense of Alfred Rogers in a damage action arising
from what the Court of Appeals clearly views as extra-judicial
acts.
 
      Sincerely,
      Robert A. Hirschfeld
      Plaintiff and
      Attorney at Law, Suspended
--- DB 1.58/004910
---------------