(CONTINUED)
     15. On August 6, 1993, at the conclusion of a hearing in
Maricopa County Superior Court Case #DR92-07715, in which Plaintiff
was attorney for a party, and Defendant MARTIN D. LaPRADE was
opposing attorney, Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS ordered that a $20,000
judgment for purported discovery omission sanctions shall issue
against Plaintiff ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD personally. Subsequently, as
part of the Final Decree dated August 24, 1993, in matter # DR92-
07715, Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS did issue and sign said Judgment.
     16. Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS repeatedly characterized his
assessment of an attorney fee sanction against Attorney Robert
Hirschfeld as a "Judgment", and directed opposing counsel in the
Superior Court case, Defendant MARTIN D. LaPRADE, after collecting or
executing said money judgment, to hold the proceeds in his trust
account pending further disposition by Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS. An
interest rate was set on the judgment by Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS.
No date certain was set for collection or execution of said Judgment.
     17. Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS has publicly and privately
exhibited, both on and off the record, prior to and after September
1, 1993, an extreme and virulent personal bias and prejudice against
Plaintiff ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD. On June 15, 1993 the following
wording was added as Rule 81, Canon 3, Section E(1)(a) of the Arizona
Rules of Judicial Conduct, effective September 1, 1993:
 
      "E. Disqualification.
          "(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a
      proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably
      be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
          "(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
      a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed
      evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."
 
     18. Notwithstanding Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS' personal
knowledge of his duty to disqualify himself by virtue of the above
recited, newly effective, Judicial Conduct mandate, Defendant ALFRED
J. ROGERS continued, until he was in mid-1994 removed from the
Domestic Relations division, to utilize, under color of law, action
DR92-07715 to commit the tortious acts herein complained of.
     19. The Maricopa County Recorder refused recordation of the
August 24, 1995 Final Decree in matter DR92-07715 herein as a
Judgment against Plaintiff ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD because Plaintiff was
not a named party. Therefore, Defendant MARTIN LAPRADE drafted, and
Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS entered, on or about October 5, 1993, a
separately captioned Judgment in the same amount of $20,000 against
Plaintiff ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD in matter DR92-07715.
 
                               CLAIM I
     20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 19 hereinabove, and further alleges:
     20. On February 11, 1994, Defendant MARTIN LaPRADE submitted,
and Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS, knowing or having reason to know that
he had neither jurisdiction nor legal basis to do so, issued an Order
to Show Cause re: Contempt against Plaintiff, set for February 22,
1994, for not satisfying the $20,000 Judgment.
     21. Plaintiff ROBERT HIRSCHFELD, although represented by his
counsel, was not present at the 2/22/94 hearing. Through Counsel,
Plaintiff ROBERT HIRSCHFELD unsuccessfully Moved to quash the Order
to Show Cause, in part upon the unconstitutionality of seeking
incarceration to collect of a money judgment. Defendant ALFRED J.
ROGERS had prepared for said hearing by requesting two Sheriff's
deputies to be present, with the apparent intention of immediate
incarceration of ROBERT HIRSCHFELD. Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS
declined to rule on the Motion to Quash, but later issued a second
Order to Show Cause for the same Contempt, set for 9:45 AM, March 11,
1994, never personally served upon Plaintiff HIRSCHFELD, which added
language threatening issuance of a warrant for HIRSCHFELD's arrest if
HIRSCHFELD did not personally appear.
(CONTINUED)
--- DB 1.58/004910
---------------