From Witches, Pimps, and Pima County Judge Sara

Simmons to Shawna Forde, Neo Nazis and Red

Necked Thugs: Everyone Seems to Hate The First
Amendment1

(Remember Brisenia,
Judge Simmons?)
From Shawna Forde and Witches to Pimps and Neo-Nazis; from Red
Necked Thugs to Pima County Superior Court Judge Sara Simmons,
EVERYBODY sings praises to the First Amendment, until they disagree
with the opinion expressed.
Then its Damn the Torpedoes and the Law, suspend the First Amendment and force the unpopular public speaker to shut his mouth and
submit to psychiatric treatment2.

Everyone LOVES to dish it out but sure HATE to take it.

Whitakers Notice of Contempt, supported by the Affidavit of Laine Lawless,

asked the Court to Order the Defendant to obtain a psychiatric examination
from a court appointed diagnostician to determine the psychological cause of
the Defendants contempt with regard to the March 7, 2016 order which prohibits the acts of harassment, and to determine his bizarre obsessive fixation

You may THINK Im kidding, but all those themes played out in Whitaker v. Warden # C20161109 on April 15, 2016 in room 808 of the Pima
County Court, Judge Sara Simmons presiding.
Cody Whitaker sought to have Tucson political activist and publisher
of Arizona Common Sense3 Roy Warden held in contempt for violating
the No Contact order the Court issued on March 7, 2016, when Warden, in a Facebook political blog, expressed the opinion that Whitaker
was dangerous and a Red-Necked Thug for assaulting Warden on
March 4, 2016 in front of the U.S. District Court, Tucson Arizona, during a public demonstration Warden held seeking Justice for LaVoy
Finicum
Significantly, a half hour prior to the Pima County Court issuing the
No Contact Order4, the Tucson Municipal Court denied Whitaker a similar order, instead setting the matter for hearing on March 21, 2016 at
which time the Court dismissed Whitakers application.
Prior to testimony, Warden apprised Judge Simmons that she lacked
jurisdiction and the authority to even hold such a contempt hearing as
per LaFaro v, Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482 (App.) (2003), which expressly excludes citizens engaging in political commentary and debate from the

upon the Plaintiff, and to determine whether the Defendant should be classified
as a prohibited possessor of firearms and ammunition.(emphasis added)
3

Arizona Common Sense is received by the local media and some 1,500 members
of the Pima County Bar.

Whitakers Pima County Superior Court application intentionally misled the

court into believing Whitakers various encounters with Warden were your
usual, garden variety neighborhood disputes, which may legitimately be enjoined by A.R.S. 12-1808, rather than examples of political contentious political
debate which are expressly excluded from the harassment provisions of
A.R.S. 12-1809. LaFaro v, Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482 (App.) (2003)

No Contact provisions of A.R.S. 12-1809. Additionally Warden apprised Judge Simmons he had outlined the law in a Motion to Dismiss
which was part of the case file.
Simmons insisted she would not entertain any arguments on the
Courts authority or lack thereof; the ONLY matter she would consider
was whether or not Warden had violated the No Contact Order issued on March 7, 2016.
Then, Whitaker gave a lengthy opening statement extolling his virtues
as a former Marine who was proud of his service and his status as a
law abiding citizen, and took the stand making a series of similar, self
serving and irrelevant remarks.
However; Judge Simmons denied Wardens objections that Whitakers
testimony went beyond the scope of Courts expressed purpose of inquiry: whether or not Warden had initiated any enjoined contact subsequent to the March 7, 2016 order.
Then Whitaker introduced three witnesses who all testified they had
viewed Warden Facebook commentary which they considered to be
rude, insulting and defamatory; however none were certain
whether these alleged comments were made before or after the
March 7, 2016, and thus subject to the order.
Judge Simmons denied Wardens request to exclude such testimony
as being beyond the scope of the inquiry.
Significantly; Neither Whitaker nor his witnesses supplied the Court
with any evidence or screen shots5 of the alleged rude, insulting
and defamatory commentary, other than to express their own opinion that Wardens statements were indeed, rude, insulting and
defamatory.

5 Screenshots are a simple, and widely used, process to save disputed commentary.

Then Warden briefly testified and reiterated that Arizona case law expressly prohibited the Court to use the harassment provisions of
A.R.S. 12-1809 to limit political commentary. However; Judge Simmons interrupted Wardens testimony, saying Im the Judge. Ill decide what the law is.
Then, during cross examination, the Court allowed Whitaker to ask a
variety of irrelevant, and frankly rude questions including:
Are you taking prescription medications for psychiatric treatment?
Judge Simmons overruled Wardens objection, and ordered him to anser the question.
Judge Simmons then asked Warden whether or not calling Whitaker,
dangerous and a Red Necked Thug was appropriate political commentary. (Evidently she didnt; Warden did.)
Wow! Lord Bolingbroke was right when he opined:
The profession of the law in its nature the noblest and most beneficial
to mankind, is in its abuse and abasement, the most sordid and pernicious.
Subsequent to Wardens testimony, in what the Court generously
termed rebuttal,6 Judge Simmons allowed Whitaker to introduce
into evidence 10 affidavits in support of Whitakers motion.
Now, HERE we get to the Good Part, the Juicy Part, all about Witches,
Pimps, Shawna Forde and Neo Nazis.
Included were the following two affidavits:

Whitaker had neglected to introduce the evidence during direct testimony.

The Affidavit of Laine Lawless, a Neo Nazi, racist and self identified
lesbian witch, who ALSO opined, like Whitaker, that Warden should
be forced to submit to psychiatric examination.
We ALL remember Laine Lawless, dont we?
In 2006, subsequent to the April 10, 2006 Mexican Flag Burning in Armory Park, Lawless opined widely that Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and other Patriots should teach illegal immigrants a lesson for
invading America by, amongst other things, following them to automatic bank teller machines to rob and beat them up subsequent to
making withdrawals.
And HOW was one to identify an illegal Alien?
Lawless didnt say, but presumably by their brown skin.
And more; Lawless actually still supports Shawna Forde, calls her a
freedom fighter and Patriot, this the very same Shawna Forde who
was convicted in our very same Pima County Superior Court for the
murderer of Raoul and Brisenia Flores.
Warden to Judge Simmons: You DO remember THAT horror show,
dont you?
Well, If YOU dont remember the case, look AGAIN at Brisenias picture at the top of page one.
Remember the picture of this sweet little girl while you ponder the
legal issues of Whitaker v. Warden.
But what about Pimps?
I promised you Pimps. Didnt I?

Where do Pimps figure into Whitaker v Warden?

Heres where, in the submitted Affidavit of John LaVoie, minister of
the Church of Liberty, and self anointed constitutional and legal expert who has advised Cody Whitaker during every step of these proceedings.
To his credit LaVoie does have a lot of experience with legal proceeding. As he should having been convicted in 2008 in this very same Pima
County Courthouse for Pimping and Racketeering.
Congratulations, Judge Simmons, for introducing into evidence the Affidavits of John Lavoie and Laine Lawless, a convicted pimp and lesbian witch, congratulations for making these despicable creatures a
permanent reminder of your arrogance in Whitaker v. Warden.
Im sure your fellow judges and the readers of Arizona common Sense
are so proud of you!
So, the time has come for YOU to LISTEN UP Judge Simmons, listen
up because Im going to teach YOU a little law:
Heres the REAL DEAL and a renewal of my offer to you:
As I told you in Court on April 14, 2016; give me an adverse ruling in
Whitaker v. Warden, and I will be delighted to take you to up to Division Two, to see if the law regarding A.R.S. 12-1809 is the same in Pima
County as it is in Maricopa.
Is LaFaro v, Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482 (App.) (2003) law in Tucson as it is
law in Phoenix?
In other words, Give me an adverse ruling you miserable skank and I
Will be Delighted to Shove this Case Right Up your Ass!

Got it?
Warden the Notorious Mexican Flag Burner
Roy Warden 2016
roywarden@hotmail.com