Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Roy Warden 1015 W. Prince Road #131-182 Tucson Arizona 85705 roywarden@hotmail.com (520) 284 oo89

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ROY WARDEN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) ) THE HON. THOMAS BERNING, ) ) Judge of the Tucson City Court, ) ) ) ) Respondent, ) ) ) and ) ) ) STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) ) COA # 2 CA-CV 2012-0013 Pima County Cause #: C 20115469 Tucson City Court #: CR 9006068

NOTICE TO WITHDRAW

14 15 16 17 18 19

COMES NOW THE PETITIONER, Roy Warden, appearing in forma pauperis, with his Notice to Withdraw his request to this Court for relief by special action, for reasons set forth below:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Regarding the underlying case: on January 31, 2012 Petitioner sent a letter to his court appointed attorney, Eric Manch, renewing Petitioners request that Mr. Manch obtain the documents necessary to present a competent statement of facts, so that this Court would have an accurate factual basis on which to apply the law and render a just decision. (Exhibit One) 2. Mr. Manch failed to comply with Petitioners request; on February 03, 2012 he filed a Motion to Withdraw with the Tucson City Court, stating he and Petitioner had an irreconcilable conflict. 3. Subsequently; during oral argument before Judge Berning, Mr. Manch intentionally misled the Court by stating, in sum and substance, Petitioner, a non-lawyer and he, a practicing attorney, each had a different legal theory on how best to proceed. 4. Following Judge Bernings order granting the withdrawal, Mr. Manch then requested this Court to grant a 30 day time extension so that Petitioner would have adequate time to prepare his opening brief. 5. On April 18, 2012 the State filed a motion objecting to a time extension, stating Petitioner has engaged in a three year delay of this case, and a pattern of disputes with appointed counsel including Robert Gaffney, Kimberly Hunley, Brad Roach, thus prejudicing Petitioner and Petitioners cause before this Court.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

6. Under penalty of perjury Petitioner declares: the States allegations as set forth in paragraph 5 are misstatements of material facts for which Petitioner will seek legal redress. 7. Subsequently; this Court issued an order which (1) required Mr. Manch to immediately provide Petitioner with the case file, and (2) required Petitioner to file his opening brief by May 07, 2012. 8. On or about April 27, 2012 Petitioner received the case file; however the file lacked many vital documents including; (1) the police report of the underlying incident which led to Petitioners arrest and prosecution, and (2) any of the paperwork or motions filed by other attorneys who, one time or another, had been assigned to represent Petitioner in the underlying criminal action. ARGUMENT 9. Petitioner herein declares this Court has provided him with insufficient time in which to gather the evidence necessary to write an accurate Statement of Facts, for reasons set forth in his January 31, 2012 letter to Mr. Manch. (Exhibit One) 10. Moreover; Petitioner additionally declares the States misstatements of material facts, as set forth in paragraph 5, has irretrievably prejudiced his relationship with this Court, as well as his opportunity for just resolution of the important constitutional issues presented.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

NOTICE TO THE COURT Petitioner herein expresses his sincere belief he cannot get a fair hearing on this issue before this Court. Therefore; Petitioner will now seek remedy and redress before the Arizona Supreme Court, in Federal Court and before the Arizona State Bar. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this seventh day of May, 2012. ___/Roy Warden/____

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

EXHIBIT ONE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

January 31, 2012 Eric Manch Attorney at Law 177 N. Church Avenue #200 Tucson Az. 85701 Re: State v Warden Dear Mr. Manch: I believe my action against Tucson Municipal Court Judges for using the court, and conditions of release, to determine who may speak on the streets of Tucson and who must remain silent, presents constitutional issues of great magnitude. However; our pleadings lack foundational substance to our argument in law in that they do not accurately reflect the factual record which shows: for a ten month period of time prior to my arrest, Judge Berning refused my verbal request to modify the conditions of release which prevented me from speaking within a thousand feet of library square. You have repeatedly refused my reasonable requests to obtain the court file in the three underlying cases cited in my letter to Judge Berning, so that I could get recordings of the proceedings. For a final time I renew my request that you obtain the court files so that I may obtain the recordings. If you dont I will take the issue of your failure to properly research the facts and present my case up with Judge Berning and the State Bar. Yours truly, Roy Warden CR 9006068