(CONTINUED)
    22. Plaintiff on March 8, 1994 filed a Suggestion of Recusal,
enumerating some, but not all of the reasons why Defendant ALFRED J.
ROGERS could not fairly hear post-Judgment matters in the case, nor
avoid the appearance of judicial impropriety if he did not recuse
himself. The suggestion notified Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS in detail
of the argument and authorities supporting Petitioner's assertion
that Judge Rogers had been completely divested of jurisdiction as of
February 24, 1993, prior to the date of the Judgment.
    23. At the 9:45, Friday, March 11 1994 hearing, upon learning
that retained counsel would continue to appear in HIRSCHFELD's stead,
and that HIRSCHFELD would not be likely to appear, Defendant ALFRED
J. ROGERS continued the hearing to 4:00 PM that same day.
    24. At the 4:00 continuation, two Sheriff's Deputies were again
present at the ALFRED J. ROGERS' request, ostensibly for arrest and
incarceration of HIRSCHFELD, who again did not personally appear but
was represented by Counsel.
    25. Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS, at the March 11, 4:00 PM
hearing, ordered that an Arrest Warrant shall issue on Monday, March
14, or Tuesday, March 15, 1994, for ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD.
    26. On March 14, 1994, Plaintiff ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD filed his
first Special Action in the Arizona Court of Appeals, 1-CS-SA 94-
0079, and was granted a 24-hour stay of the Contempt and Arrest
proceedings regarding the $20,000 judgment. Defendant ALFRED J.
ROGERS, having been notified of this stay, quashed the March 11
Arrest Warrant, not because he admitted lacking jurisdiction, but
only because personal service of the earlier OSC had not been made.
The stay was not renewed on March 15.
    27. On March 22, 1994, Defendant MARTIN LaPRADE submitted,
Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS issued, and Plaintiff ROBERT A.
HIRSCHFELD was served with, a fresh Petition and "Order to Show Cause
re: Contempt/Sanctions/Incarceration (Failure to Satisfy Judgment)"
set for appearance on April 4, 1994.
    28. Plaintiff ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD filed and served, on April
4, 1994, a comprehensive, sworn Response to the March 22 Petition re:
Contempt, once again bringing to Defendant ROGERS' attention the
defense that his division had been divested of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff was represented once again by counsel, at the 2:00 PM,
4/4/94 hearing, and on jurisdictional grounds, declined to appear
personally. Defendant ALFRED J. ROGERS orally refused to consider the
written 4/4/94 Response, and without making a finding as to actual
contempt for non-payment of the $20,000 Judgment, issued a second
Arrest Warrant against ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD. The minute entry thereto
states:
      
      "IT IS ORDERED that a Civil Arrest Warrant shall issue. Cash
      bond is set in the amount of $22,000. Said Cash bond will be
      applied towards the judgment previously entered against Mr.
      Hirschfeld."
 
    29. Both the first and the second Arrest Warrants, and the
disposition set in the 4/4/94 Warrant for the Arrest Cash Bond, were
attempts to Incarcerate Plaintiff in order to execute or collect a
Money Judgment.
    30. A money judgment is not enforceable by contempt
proceedings, particularly where the effect of the contempt would
create the risk of jail for non-payment of a debt.
    31. The Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 18, provides
that "There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in cases of
fraud." The Federal Constitution is less explicit, but has similar
effect. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
may exercise pendent jurisdiction to adjudicate and enforce matters
flowing from the Arizona State Constitution in conjunction with its
Federal Question jurisdiction, to the extent that the Supremacy
Clause of the Federal Constitution is not violated.
(CONTINUED)
--- DB 1.58/004910
---------------