Full Press Release
Law Suit
Latest Info
News, Video, Stats

How do you know you are in court? You are facing: this!
Hi how are ya.
"I believe in ETHICS in GOVERNMENT! Help me spread my message of transparency in government.*"
Amanda Stanford, Clerk of Pinal County Superior Court
"When the public trust is broken, we all suffer and Pinal County serves as no safe harbor for corruption. With transparency and a dedication to finding justice for the people of Arizona, my office holds all individuals accountable for their crimes."
Lando Voyles, Former Pinal County Attorney

Hempfling v. Stanford

* Spelling corrected from original donation page.
Why not come back to see if anything changed.
1 Lando Voyles


Federal Lawsuit Uncovers Government

Corruption in Arizona County Superior Court

Clerk's Office

In retaliation for political support of the former Superior Court

Clerk's reelection, newly elected Clerk of Court Amanda Stanford and Chief Deputy Lynn Hurley became self-appointed judges and declared an unfinished medical malpractice court case to be 'over'. Then they decided the loser through criminal interference in a judicial proceeding, of an open civil case ALREADY under the dark shadow of criminal activity in the clerk's office.

November 13, 2015 Apache Junction, PINAL COUNTY Arizona

"When the public trust is broken, we all suffer and Pinal County serves as no safe harbor for corruption. With transparency and a dedication to finding justice for the people of Arizona, my office holds all individuals accountable for their crimes."

A recent survey by California's Chapman University found that Americans' greatest fear is GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION1; while Pinal County Arizona's long held reputation as the most corrupt county in the most corrupt state2 is secure.

Speaking in the Casa Grand Dispatch former Pinal County

Manager Fritz Behring, now Scottsdale City Manager "...


pg. 1

called Pinal County's government 'the most dysfunctional government I've ever worked for.'3"

The Dispatch reported that former Pinal County Manager Stan Griffis "spent nearly three years in prison for numerous convictions, including stealing more than $400,000 in highway improvement funds from the county.3" The laundry list is only the tip of this iceberg.

In 2009 The Phoenix New Times reported that the Pinal County Recorder hired her daughter's boyfriend, a convicted felon. He allegedly began stealing checks submitted to the recorder's office and then turned them over to one of three accomplices as payment for drugs4.

In 2009 a Pinal County Superior Court bailiff was arrested for bribery and fixing cases.5

In 2011 Family Court Judge and Pinal County Family Law Commissioner, Theresa Ratliff was arrested for domestic violence among other things. Today, she is, still the Family Law Commissioner.

In 2011 the Superior Court was officially notified of an illegal scheme in the County Clerk's office to fix a civil case.6

In 2012 a 40-year-old man tried to bribe a Pinal County Deputy Court Clerk. He was subjected to a sting from the Sheriff's office and wound up arrested for trying it.7

Pinal County's history is full of corruption and scandal.

It is no wonder then that in 2014 when Republican primary voters were offered the opportunity to vote to 'Bring ETHICS back to GOVERNMENT'8, and were subjected to a litany of slanted local news articles they took the bait and chose a long time Democrat operant.

pg. 2

After being appointed to her position in the Clerk of Court's office by two

Democrat Clerks (Democrats do not appoint Republicans) Amanda Stanford's last minute, miraculous conversion to Republican, placed her in a primary fight for the Clerk's position. "GOVERNMENT must be honest stewards of the people's money," stated Stanford on her political donation page, "I believe in ETHICS in GOVERNMENT! Help me spread my message of transparency in goverment.8" She was elected by default as the Democrats didn't have to bother offering a truthful candidate for the position they had

held for many years prior.

It was not the first time Pinal County was subjected to a variation of the Democrat tactic of switching parties. On June 26, 2012 the blog, Pinal County Politics, reported25 that Stanford mouthpiece and supporter Tisha Castillo "had an apparent miraculous change of heart and reregistered as a Republican at the last minute to apply for the [Board of Supervisors] 2 seat vacated by Bryan Martyn. That was caught by the PCRC, addressed with the BOS, and made public in a press release." The release was reported by the Southwest Border Sheriffs26.

As a personal blog publisher in Pinal County Castillo went on to support fellow Democrat Stanford in her miraculous conversion to Republican with "The last thing Pinal County Needs, is a 'Chad' in any of Our Records"27 which miraculously reappeared on SanTanValley.Com under the same title and has since been scrubbed.28

On May 8, 2014 the San Tan Valley Chamber of Commerce removed Castillo from her position as President of that

pg. 3

organization saying it was "time to go in a new direction."29

Amanda Stanford's first six months on the job as the

Pinal County Superior Court Clerk had been anything but ethical.

Stanford converted the Clerk's office from the steward of court records to a collection agency. Official policy was established finally announced to the public during a Pinal County Board of Supervisor's financial budget meeting by Stanford's chief Deputy Lynn Hurley on April 15, 2015 making the focus of the Clerk's Office; enhancement of the county's General Fund.

Upon Stanford's arrival at the Clerk's office she found it had been left in disarray. The San Tan Valley Sentinel reported that: "nearly $80,000 in random inventory was strewn all over the office9" as often happens when a politician is replaced. She quickly levied accusations of

'untraceable inventory' against former Clerk Chad Roche.9 "Roche, in an email to the Maricopa Monitor, said Stanford should have addressed the issue while in her former position with the department9. 'Ms. Stanford was the bookkeeper and manager for

three years,' he said. 'If there was an asset management problem, maybe she should have brought it up when it wasn't politically motivated because she was in charge of the purchasing, and supervised the staff who would have been responsible for tracking assets.'9"

In-Maricopa reported how Stanford unleashed the power of her office to accuse the County Attorney Lando Voyles and

pg. 4

former Clerk (Chad Roche, her previous opponent) of illegal cover up. "'A severe dereliction of duty' is what Clerk of the Superior Court Amanda Stanford is calling a reported security breach that could impact hundreds of criminal cases in Pinal County. Stanford is alleging her predecessor, Chad Roche, gave the county attorney's office access to files that had been sealed by the court.10"

"Roche, meanwhile, hinted at politics. 'The election is over and Mrs. Stanford is now the clerk and I wish her the best but, the most recent breach of sealed records happened after she took office and fired the IT director,' he said in a prepared statement that he said would be his last on the subject. 'Instead of trying to continuously falsely allege wrongdoing under my administration (which she was a part of for nearly the entire time) she should focus on correcting the issues happening under her own administration.'10"

Her efforts and claims even garnered opinion from Tri Valley Central that claimed, "Stanford, who previously worked in the clerk's office before running against her former boss, Roche, no doubt has faced a backlash because of her efforts to expose wrongdoing. But her work to shed light on some things should bring rewards to Pinal residents in the form of improvements. Sunlight shining on government operations almost always makes things better." Said the editorial11.

pg. 5

The Phoenix New Times even declared the newly elected Clerk had accomplished her goal: "Stanford, a GOPer, unseated an incumbent in 2014 and has gone on to restore integrity to what was a badly-managed clerk's office in Pinal County. She's smart, savvy, and easily the most attractive woman in Arizona politics.12" This, as they named her the Hottest Woman in Arizona Politics.

The Administrative Office of the Court (a branch of the Arizona Supreme Court), upon official review of the cover up allegations "found 6 percent of 732 criminal cases may have been accessed by the County Attorney's Office or the public access terminal without proper authority. The instances of sensitive material being exposed may have been as few as three cases.13" Three cases.

There was no 'cover up'. In fact, there was no 'there', there14.

In-Maricopa quoted County Attorney Lando Voyles as saying: "'I couldn't imagine it could be true. And from what I know of the people who work there, I knew it couldn't be true. There's no

reason for me to cheat the system.'10"

But then the Phoenix New Times went on to expose Stanford's alleged on the job extracurricular activities15. Heather Ojeda accused Stanford of cheating with Ojeda's husband. "Ramon Ojeda, Heather's husband and alleged biting victim, agrees with his wife. He describes Stanford, a 30-year-old Republican politician who beat her former

pg. 6

boss in November's election, as a temptress who made advances at him at work at the start of their two-and-a- half-month relationship.15"

Stanford denies it all16. She never spoke to the press, but she did post on Facebook. "Her statement leaves a few questions unanswered, such as why her phone number appears to show up frequently on Ramon Ojeda's phone records; his wife texted us a few pages,15" wrote the New Times. In the Facebook post Stanford blamed "Mrs. Ojeda's" "own criminal behavior17".

In the meantime, that 2011 Civil Superior Court case; where the court had to be noticed of criminal behavior in the Clerk's office: remains unresolved. Four years after a criminal investigation and prosecution should have commenced, the case is still without a final judgment and still without a final order. There had been no activity in the case since March 25, 2014 when Pro Tem Judge Bradley Soos filed a notice-order informing the parties that the Appeals Court had mandated the Special Action and stopping any additional hearings.

The Plaintiffs in that case, Apache Junction Arizona seniors Suesie Hempfling (62) and Lee Hempfling (63) on social security retirement have patiently been attempting to receive answers as to why their case is still pending.

The malpractice civil case was witnessed as a default, by a Deputy Clerk. Originally assigned to Superior Court Judge Boyd T. Johnson, the case was re-assigned to Judge Bradley M. Soos on May 3rd of 2012, as Judge Johnson was immediately removed from all civil cases.

For four years there has been no known prosecution. No arrests. The civil case remains open without an issued final judgment and without an issued final order.

On March 25th 2014 a draft order was placed on the docket. On April 02, 2014 Former Pinal County Clerk of Court Chad Roche stated: "Once the final order is completed and

pg. 7

signed the draft will be deleted and replaced with the actual order."

On July 21, 2014 Jeffrey P. Handler, Clerk of the Court of Appeals Division Two stated: "...this court's mandate issued March 10, 2014, and constituted the final order as far as the special action which arose from your case. I assume that since only the special action was decided, the "final order" in the case must await further proceedings in the trial court..."

There have been no further proceedings in the trial court. Roche's correspondence was copied to Stanford.

Roche, whom the Hempflings had supported in the Republican Primary for Clerk in 2014, and Jeffrey Handler, Clerk of the Appeals Court Second Division had professionally and ethically responded to queries and been as helpful as they could. But when Mrs. Hempfling wrote to the new Clerk, Amanda Stanford everything was different.

At first Stanford did not respond. When she did, it was 20 days later and no questions were answered at all. Mrs. Hempfling pressed her for a response, attaching copies of Chad Roche's

informative correspondence.

The result was reprehensible. Stanford and her Chief Deputy Lynn Hurley attacked. They had decided the civil case was finished. Something a Judge had not done. They imposed a definition on

pg. 8

the case that did not apply, they declared the case was closed and no further orders would be issued. They claimed the Appeals Court Mandate was on the case itself, not the Special Action and they illegally imposed Debt Set Off, Tax Intercept Collection proceedings against the Hempflings (both, separately) for filing fees. They did that at least twice.

"Perhaps your difficulty lies in not understanding a few legal terms and I will take this opportunity to help you and guide you in your understanding. An 'adjudicated' case means that it is finished. It is closed. There are no further actions, motions, findings or rulings on an adjudicated matter.18" If any 'adjudication' exists it has never been released, served or signed by a judge overseeing the case.

The Arizona Code Of Conduct for Judicial Employees indicates that a deputy clerk is permitted to provide assistance to Litigants (C) [to] explain legal terms, [but] without providing legal interpretations by applying legal terms and concepts to specific facts19. Amanda Stanford and Lynn Hurley, blatantly violated that rule. "As you can see, all that remains is the portion of your payback to the court for fees incurred. Your balance is $686.00."

A deputy clerk told Lee Hempfling on the phone after receipt of Hurley's email that the internal accounting records showed Lee Hempfling as PAID IN FULL (the clerk was indeed perplexed but it totally explains how the

pg. 9

clerk's office's internal accounting system did not previously identify the Hempflings as owing anything).

The Superior Court Case is in default. That means the Hempflings shall recover all costs expended or incurred from the losing parties.21 It is the law.

This blatant misuse of authority, under the color of state law, is facilitated by the more than 19 month delay in the release of the final order-ruling in the civil case this is in regards to, the over FOUR year period since serious crimes were reported to have occurred in the Clerk's office, without any known prosecution: and is blatant disregard for the law, the written instructions and essentially written testimony of the previous elected Clerk of Court and the Appeals Clerk of Court.

In the Federal lawsuit, the Hempflings claim that Amanda Stanford, Clerk of the Superior Court and Chief Deputy Lynn Hurley acted under the color of law, through violation of law, rules, and regulations to willfully cause to be deprived the rights of Plaintiffs under the Fourteenth Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process under the law and to the rights to protection of property through the Fifth Amendment not to have private property be taken for public use or deprived of private property without due process of law and the rights to be secure from unreasonable seizures afforded by the 4th Amendment18 19. The clerks appointing themselves judges is interference in a judicial proceeding.

The Hempflings are Plaintiffs in an open and ongoing action in Pinal County Superior Court. They identified and reported criminal illegal activity within the Pinal County Superior Court Clerk's office while both Stanford and Hurley were employees thereof; and they publicly supported the re-election of the prior Clerk of Court. The Hempflings claim Stanford and Hurley retaliated for

pg. 10

those associations and totally ignored the statements of Roche about the case.

On November 10, 2015 a law suit18 was filed in The United States District Court for The District Of Arizona, against Amanda Stanford and Lynn Hurley for 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation Of Rights 'Under the color of state law': for willful abuse of position, violation of rules and law and interference in a judicial proceeding.

"This matter is serious," said Lee Hempfling.

Amanda Stanford (who touts herself as restoring ethics to the office) and Lynn Hurley, acting under the color of law have misused their official positions to inflict malicious retaliation and punishment17, claim the Hempflings.

Stanford declared, "I believe in ETHICS in GOVERNMENT! Help me spread my message of transparency in government8,20."

Criminal behavior in the Clerk's office remains unresolved. Four years after a criminal investigation and prosecution should have commenced, the case is still without an issued and public final judgment or order and no one has been brought to justice for the crimes committed in the clerk's office in 2011.

The Hempflings say they have had enough and that corruption of this nature cannot be tolerated in any elected office.

The law suit demands a very minor monetary award and equitable relief.

In what appears to be Amanda Stanford's standard defensive procedure, after being notified that she will be sued for serious violations of ethics and law she posted the following on her Facebook Page on July 25,

pg. 11

2015 (after she was also just sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU):

"Did you know that my staff are not only bound by every

Policy and Procedure within Pinal County Rule… but also - and JUST AS IMPORTANTLY - every one of our team members is bound by the Judicial Code of Conduct. I am going to upload a copy of this governing set of rules. For one thing, being a judicial employee means that we take on the very special burden of maintaining comportment becoming of a judicial employee 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's a little different than most policies, but this added level of accountability and responsibility allows you to feel more confident about who works with your sensitive documents. What do you expect of a judicial employee? Do you expect them to uphold the law in their personal lives? I do. Please read this code for yourself....I hope that it gives you greater confidence in the team at the COSC (Clerk of the Superior Court). If you are ever given less than excellent service, please let me know IMMEDIATELY. Our Mission and Vision aren't just words....they are words we live by."

"I am still laughing at the little girl's claim." Said Mrs. Hempfling.

To automatically receive this press release in its complete form, with included references and citations send an empty email to

pg. 12

To automatically receive the law suit in its complete form, with listed references and citations send an empty email to

This press release in full form, most references; contact information and the law suit itself are available online at


1Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles announcing the arrest of City of Maricopa Police Detective Jose Lizarraga in 2013.

2In December of 2014, the Harvard University Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics released the and-legal-corruption-american-states-some-results-safra Corruption in America Survey. "Arizona is perceived to be the most corrupt state with legislative and executive branches both scoring 4." Illegal corruption is perceived to be 'very common' in Arizona. Illegal corruption in Arizona's Judicial Branch is perceived to be "slightly common". Legal Corruption is perceived to be "slightly common" in Arizona's Judicial Branch as well.

3 -pinal-has-history-of-corruption/article_bf9666c0-7781-11e2-ba99- 001a4bcf887a.html

4 scrutiny-for-hiring-daughters-boyfriend-he-used-position-for-id-theft- cops-say-6646338

5 bailiffarrested.html

6No charges have been made public in this case, no one arrested four years later.

7 clerk-via-email


9 erk-inventory-untraceable-under-roche/article_9502be8e-cc36-11e4-9962- 4b63de03b87b.html


11 court-files/article_3e8125be-ffd5-11e4-8d32-1f38cdd0b26a.html

12 politics-6643033

13 limited-security-breach-of-files

14AOC Concludes Audit of the Clerk of Court 8

pg. 13

15 pinal-county-superior-court-clerk-for-husbands-affair-6633443

16 superior-court-clerk-denies-allegation-of-affair-6661559

17Well, this is Pinal County. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu issued a press release on 9/13/2013 entitled Criminals for Hire? In it, Heather Marie Ojeda is identified: "When asked if she has ever committed a felony she said 'no.' When asked if she had ever committed a criminal offense involving dishonesty, theft, unlawful sexual conduct or physical violence she said, 'No.' Her record shows she has multiple arrests and convictions for battery, retail theft and traffic related offenses. Chicago Police Department has a "Caution" warning for law enforcement when dealing with her.

18Hempfling v. Stanford, United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2:15-cv-02268-DJH

19RULE 2.6 Assistance to Litigants A judicial employee shall assist litigants to access the courts by providing prompt and courteous customer service and accurate information consistent with the employee's responsibilities and knowledge and the court's resources and procedures while remaining neutral and impartial and avoiding the unauthorized practice of law. Employees are authorized to provide the following assistance: (C) Explain legal terms, without providing legal interpretations by applying legal terms and concepts to specific facts;

20Spelling has been corrected for use in this quotation.

21Arizona Revised Statutes 12-341. Recovery of costs: The successful party to a civil action shall recover from his adversary all costs expended or incurred therein unless otherwise provided by law.

22Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings: A 2. Disobeys or resists the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court; and 4. Publishes a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding; B. Interfering with judicial proceedings is a class 1 misdemeanor.


24All photographs are in the public domain from the Facebook accounts of Amanda Stanford.

25"While applying for appointment as a Republican and then successfully filing to run for election as a Republican Ms. Castillo remained a [Democratic Precinct Committeeman]. As a matter of fact she was a [Democratic Precinct Committeeman] until June 20, almost two months after her filing for a Republican Appointment, as is readily found on the BOS consent agenda for June 20." candidate.html

26"Pinal County Politics is getting interesting. Long time democrat and activist Tisha Castillo has switched to the republican party in order to get an appointment to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. A vacancy on the board came about last month with Bryan Martyn resigning to work for the Arizona state parks. Tisha Castillo widely known throughout Pinal County as an opportunist has added her name to the

pg. 14

list of persons to a possible appointment. Tisha has ties to the current board chairman Pete Rios who is also under investigation for not living in the district he was elected to represent. A lawsuit is pending to have Rios removed from office." tisha-castillo.html

27 needs-is-a-chad-in-any-of-our-records

28 ounty_needs_is_a_chad_in_any_of_our_records/





pg. 15

Full Press Release

Law Suit

Questions, Comments, Interviews, Complaints

If you do NOT wish to have your comment appear on this site please indicate in the subject selection below and it will not be published: unless it is offensive.


Latest Info





Karen J. Hartman-Tellez USED to list herself as Assistant Attorney General Chief Counsel Civil Rights. Now she lists herself as Attorney at Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Almost all of her online presentations and listings have had her relationship to the Attorney General's office scrubbed. Why would she do that? She represents Amanda Standford in Cov v. Voyles against the ACLU and they don't know she violated rules, stuck a middle finger up to the judge and made up her own rules literally refusing to honor a valid court summons to appear in the very same court before the very same judge as Cox v. Voyles.

Somebody's Trying To Protect Their Reputation. Related to this case? In a most fundamental way!!!

Funny how things are on the internet. Its amazing how small code oversights can generate so much information. Like this one. A Spambot had managed to access this site before and saved links from it. Located in the News section of the site saving that link let us know whenever it was clicked even though it was not in the site and was going to another site. Its just how things work. In fact here's one of the links that was saved: Pinal County People. When the Spambot goes to that link we know it. When an article comes to us in an email update moments later we know the Spambot is following up its track to identify how well it did in identifying a location to post an alternative document. That's reputation management.

You see the fine art of reputation management involves writing up really good sounding articles praising the person or company trying to make themselves look good, whether true or not (but when they say it is true or nobody paid them to write it, IT ISN'T and THEY DID!) Then their human controllers post those articles on sites where information is contained that is in some way detrimental to the person or company wanting to safe face. It is what reputation management does. And it is not a cheap process.

Well, today, the 29th of April 2016 we had the link above clicked from a Spambot. It is using a Comcast account located in Lombard Illinois (the location of the access hub NOT the physical address of the company using it) which is quite obviously a robot running from a private address using Comcast and has been reported widely as a spambot. Spambots are spiders that access what they have been told to access. Often they are used to provide data necessary for a human to use. What is near the hub in Lombard Illinois and why would someone there care about Pinal County? Well there's Wheaton Illinois which is the main town right next door. And inside Wheaton is Rainmaker Internet Marketing. Now, we're not saying good ol' Rainmaker's Reputation Management process is the one responsible for writing up this article: The Extraction over at the same PinalCountyPeople.Com website the link above is posted at on the very same day within hours of each other, but that is exactly how reputation management works. And according to this site: Wheaton Reputation Management from Marketing.Codes; Rainmaker is the ONLY Reputation management firm in the area. They would be using Spambots to find offensive data about a client and then move to counteract that information. Nothing in the press release at named their client. But it is highly related and details what happened in the Superior Court case and would be a serious target to attempt to suppress.

The article is professionally written. It claims to be from a feeble 70 year old man who's wife saved a mail flyer and saved his tooth because he took the advice of the flyer and went to Canyon Vista Dental Care where everything is sweet and roses and lovely and happy and not scary at all and painless! (of all things) and well (the article makes sure to include the website address, phone numbers, street address, totally unidentified 'personal' recommendation: you know everything necessary to be found in search and help to overcome the bad potential of a story on the same site about the case that dental firm is involved in. But why now?

Think about it. If you were a 70 year old man happy with a tooth job would you write that article? Would you then manage to carefully insert the keyword tags "activities, education, Family, health, Home, opinions, People, truth, Uncategorized" since the article takes care of everything else? Doubtful! In fact, impossible unless that 70 year old man is also a professional writer who understands keyword ranking and search engine parsing and how to try to save the reputation of a company badly in need of help. Or in this case, would be badly in need of help if the Federal Court case was released and the Superior Court case was released.

So why is somebody now attempting to protect their reputation or better stated: why is a company now trying to make things look peachy when: they did not attempt to protect their reputation when this site was published after the Federal law suit was filed and clerks had declared THEM the winner (no Judge had "completed and signed" any final orders). They did not attempt to protect their reputation when anything happened in the three year active case or in the more than two years since the Special Action mandate. They did not in 2011 when the Superior Court case was filed (but they did shuffle assets in October of 2013; like we didn't know: Canyon Vista Dental Care amending AZ filing and Canyon Vista Dental Care new company agent and new owner members. These documents are just samples from all of the companies involved in the Superior Court case. They were written the very same day (October 2, 2013) the docket reflected the issuance of the Arizona Court of Appeals decision in the Special Action we had filed had been sent to the Superior Court (incoming documents): making the shuffling of ownership and assets a direct result of knowing the gig was up. Do they know something? Wonder how! Like we wouldn't know.


Amanda Stanford has scrubbed her social media accounts. The Facebook Government Official Page was scrubbed see HERE. It used to have February 19, 2016 as its last posting date (see screen shot HERE courtesy of Lynn Hurley announcing her resignation as Chief Deputy of the Clerk's Office showing postings on the official page long after the last one shown now (January 22, 2016.) and showing Hurley's announcement of resigning.) [Update to the update: as of 4/3 Stanford as 're-shared' the Feb 19 posting back to the official page from her private Facebook page.] The second Stanford Facebook account HERE is parallel to her official page but this one has never been publicly available outside of Facebook. It appears that this account was used to post most items to as it still carries the last Feb 19 posting. Stanford would then share a post to the official account where new additions would automatically be added to her Twitter Account HERE which has also been scrubbed. Only official looking tweets remain. The Friday Fotos feature weekly posts are gone and so are all of the officially released attack postings on Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles and former Superior Court Clerk Chad Roche. Evidence of those attacks can be viewed HERE. Stanford's third Facebook account HERE has not been updated since Nov 2015 but the main ICON has been changed recently. As of 4/3 this third account HERE has been removed from public view altogether. Facebook membership required to even see if it exists. All of Stanford's Clerk's Office secures Santa's List, Clerk's Office uncovers waste, Clerk's Office finds improper activity by the county attorney's office, Clerk responds to allegations of cheating in the office with a bailiff and a whole lot more all seem to have been scrubbed and removed from view.


It has been such a long time since the docket of this very old medical malpractice case in Pinal County Superior Court had changed we have resorted to once a week taking a peek. As it turns out on Thursday February 18, 2016 the docket turned up differently. First time a change had taken place since April 2, 2015! Background: April 1, 2015 is when we were told (in email not as a legal notice) that tax intercept was placed on us for court fees. See the law suit on this site for why that is false and illegal. The docket ever since that moment has reflected the act of doing that on April 1, 2015 followed by additional entries of tax intercept on April 2, 2015. The Judge line on the docket has always been left blank. (Keep in mind this is the Internet docket that is 'not' official, and quite possibly could be very misleading given the state of the relationship we have with the court clerk and her staff.) Now, the Judge line shows 'N/A'. Does N/A mean not applicable or does it means not assigned? We do not know and are unable to ask the clerk's office as well, we're suing the clerk and her chief deputy how much could we believe them? The April 1, 2015 entry for Tax Intercept has been removed and the April 2, 2015 entry is listed just once instead of twice, as it had been. See the thumbnail popup full size screen shots of both dockets , one from April 2015 and one from February 18, 2016.

Update 2/19/2016

Seems we once again have a Judge. (Or somebody stopped playing games with the Internet Docket.) Today the docket no longer shows N/A for the Judge's name. It just shows nothing. As it has always been.


Normally, in the real world, when one website takes another web site's content verbatim and runs it in their site Google considers both sites to have what is called 'thin content'. It isn't a penalty it is being referred to as a site with boiler plate content and that does harm ranking. BUT in this case this local Pinal County collection of local rags republishes the same thing over and over and over, keeping what they want to be known in the Google News search result even though they are out dated and irrelevant when published a second time, let alone 3 and more times. Google's Humming bird and Penguin algorithm revisions were a great deal about stopping the system being played. This rag just flat ignores that attempt in news. The sites should be de-listed for the tactic.


Posting under an affiliation with Roosevelt University huh?: "Until you have lived the nightmare of feeling targeted, it's hard to describe to anyone....we're grateful for the outcome. Hurtful, harming words are being tossed about, yet we will hold firm because free speech remains a cornerstone to the American way of life....John & I honor that right - for all citizens." NEWSFLASH: HURLEY IS NOT THE VICTIM.


"After finding out that Lynn Hurley obviously orchestrated a series of news articles in which she, acting in her professional capacity of Chief Deputy of the Pinal County Superior Court claimed the office of the clerk was being sued," said Lee Hempfling, a Pro Se Plaintiff in Federal Court suing, along with his wife, Clerk Stanford and Clerk Hurley individually; "we thought it might be prudent to see if she was also acting in bad faith elsewhere. Turns out she did." Click the link to her Twitter account below, or better yet click the screen shot to the left before she scrubs the comments. * "I've been called many things in my life, most recently retired radio disk jockey," said Hempfling, "but never a 'resident activist'." The law suit Hurley is named in along with Stanford is an extremely serious matter. She was apparently upset because her husband decided to cause a problem for the process server legally engaged to serve her a valid COURT SUMMONS. There can be no worse light shed on the Supreme Court of Arizona than to have one of its employees use their office in this fashion. Intimidation and retribution is the basis of the Federal complaint and it is continuing. Calling Lee Hempfling a 'twisted individual' for her husband's charge is downright silly, besides absurd. Hempfling said, "Why she thought going to Twitter months after the account was last used to make comments about me, when she had blocked my Twitter access of her account a long time ago is, in her words used in the news accounts: 'mysterious'." When the court has its say, which can happen at any moment for reasons best left to legal scholars, we'll find out the truth behind the allegations.

* = Too late. Checking Twitter with the link below on 1/31/2016 resulted in : PAGE DOES NOT EXIST. So she didn't scrub the account she removed the account. See the screen shot above. This is how the Arizona Supreme Court's clerk employees treat active litigants in open Superior Court Case? At least this one it is. Oh but wait... she didn't just kill the account attacking a pro se litigant, she killed ALL of her Twitter accounts. Hmmmmmm.

Rose Law Group of Phoenix picked up this disgusting planted story and republished it.
Phoenix Metro Properties of Phoenix picked up this disgusting planted story and republished it.

In the article below Lynn Hurley admits to speaking officially in her capacity of Chief Deputy of the Pinal County Superior Court Clerk's office. At the end of the story she threatens the Plaintiffs in Hempfling v. Stanford in her official capacity for what she will do in her personal capacity:

"Once the federal suit involving the valid collection by the COSC of an outstanding court order has been resolved, I will have more to say on the subject as a private citizen," Hurley continued. "A public servant must be accountable to the public - but dragging innocent family members into the fray is unconscionable."
The court will determine the legal status and outcome not Ms. Hurley. The assault was between her husband and the process server. We are not involved in that. A threat is a threat.


In a headline sure to win 'The Most Misleading and False Headline of the Year Award', a local hack writer has finally given the people of Pinal County a hint of what is going on in their county. Only problem is, HE LIED! The headline reads Hurley/Stanford suit dismissed. NO! The Federal Lawsuit filed in Arizona District Court has NOT been dismissed. Far from it. The law suit is also NOT against the office of the Pinal County Clerk. The sub title reads Charge against spouse of Pinal clerk aide dismissed Arose from service of mysterious suit. Yes. A process server hired by us to legally serve a valid federal summons was assaulted in the process. She filed charges. Yes the Apache Junction City Attorney, claiming he needed video or audio evidence of a misdemeanor infraction refused to prosecute, so it was dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. The Pinal County Attorney champions against violence against women and here is a woman process server assaulted and it is treated like a class of infraction it is not just to wash it under the rug. A press release (See below) was sent out, even to the disgusting unprofessional political hack who wrote this article, but it was never published. Neither was any press release dealing with the law suit. In Pinal County Arizona it isn't what happens, it is who you side with. The writer tells the story told in the press release announcing the assault charges but never ran that story. This piece also quotes Lynn Hurley. A ridiculous attempt at damage control. We will not litigate a serious federal question in a local rag.

WE DEMAND that The Coolidge Examiner and their parent TriValleyCentral newspapers should immediately retract that misleading headline and for once, pretend to be professional reporters.

THAT will never happen.
As this rag has a habit of during (always running articles written by Amanda Standord under someone else's name) they have republished the article. This time they have updated the headline. More to be different I presume, than corrective because as of 10AM the original posting is still showing the false headline, as in Google News. With so many clone papers running the press in Pinal County there will be more of course.
FACEBOOK disabled PINALCOSC account.

After a visit from Facebook's corporate account to this site, Facebook disabled the account today. Is it normal for Facebook to follow a site link, check out the contents of it, before killing an account? Doubtful.

Hempfling et al v. Stanford et al
Hempfling et al v. Stanford et al
Hempfling et al v. Stanford et al

John Steven Hurley, Husband of Pinal County Court Clerk Chief Deputy Lynn Hurley and 2nd District member of the Pinal County Audit Committee facing assault charges.

Government Corruption in Arizona Pinal County Court Clerk's Office
Federal Lawsuit: Government Corruption in Arizona County Court Clerk's Office PRESS RELEASE PUBLICATION
Federal Lawsuit: Government Corruption in Arizona County Court Clerk's Office PRESS RELEASE PUBLICATION
Federal Lawsuit: Government Corruption in Arizona County Court Clerk's Office Short Press Release Version: Clerks criminally interfere in the judicial proceeding of an open civil case under the dark shadow of criminal activity. Apache Junction, Arizona November 14, 2015

Government* Visits Since Dec 31, 2015
* And specific accesses being watched.

News, Stats, Video