Sex Education Links

Home	The News on Sex Education Links
Activism & Sex
Arts & Sensuality	City Attorney James Hays Commits Perjury Before a Federal Court
Commercial Sex
Contraception	There are three things one needs to remember before reading the portions of the Transcript
Disabilities/Illnesses	for Temporary Restraint Order Hearing on 2/19/2003. The first thing to remember is that
Dysfunctions	TRO's (Temporary Restraint Orders) are always automatically granted unless they are
Human Body	filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or 56. The TRO for this Case was filed under Fed. R.
History of Sex	Civ. P. 65 (b), thus it should have automatically been granted.
Law & Sex	Second, James Hays is the attorney for the Defendant, City of Phoenix, and James Hays
Love & Intimacy	(James Haas as named on another suit completely unrelated to the case at hand)
Paraphilias	and Judge Rosenblatt are presently being sued for not providing a fair hearing in
Pleasures of Sex	the U.S. District Court. In that case, the last court ruling came on 2/14/03, the
Pregnancy	same day that Judge Rosenblatt required James Hays to file a Response to a TRO
Relationships	that was supposed to automatically have been granted.
Religion & Sex	Third, James Hays commited verifiable perjury before the U.S. District Court
Research	several times during the hearing a) he perjured himself saying Plaintiff did
STDs	not give list of numbers, when Plaintiff has a tape-recorded message that Phoenix
Societies	received the list of numbers and a copy of the numbers they were given.
Variances	That is perjury because James Hays knows they received the list, but perjured
Violence	himself in Court saying that they didn't receive it. If it's taped that they received
	the list of numbers, they know Plaintiff has tape, and they lie in court, it is perjury.
	b) James Hays claimed that if Plaintiff filed another application, they would give said
	license promptly. Application was filed and the process of filing was also tape-recorded.
	Before Plaintiff could obtain a copy of the Transcript as Defendant City of Phoenix said
	they would allow Plaintiff to do, the license was not promptly given, but promptly denied.
	Another and second verifiable act of perjury that City Attorney James Hays committed before
	a Federal Court. Both are proveable by TAPES and the Transcript of the Hearing.

	Transcript Prepared by Court Reporter Gary Moll
	Fairs v. City of Phoenix, CV 03-0221-PHX-PGR, February 19, 2003

	P. 5 - COURT: (JUDGE ROSENBLATT speaking to Plaintiff) Okay. Thank you.
	That states your side of the case, and we'll get -- you know, we're going to
	have a lot more that takes place, but for right now I'll consider that your
	opening statement. So you may be seated, and Mr. Hays, if you'd step up, please.
	As I indicated while there are a great number of substantial issues here, as the
	Court understands the motion and the plaintiff's position, the reason for denial
	was because the telephone numbers were not all attached. Is that correct?

	(This statement by Judge Rosenblatt is very important because it proves beyond a
	reasonable doubt that James Hays and Judge Rosenblatt discussed this case without
	the Plaintiff, a violation of the Civil Rules of Federal Procedure. In no place in
	James Hays "Response to Motion for TRO" does he make this statement. In the "Response"
	James Hays perjured himself in writing and claimed that he did not receive the telephone
	number list at all. The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY, ONLY way that Judge Rosenblatt could have made
	this statement is if James Hays and Judge Rosenblatt discussed this case without the
	presence of the Plaintiff (a violation of Federal Court Rules). Supposedly, this is Judge
	Rosenblatt's "first" question to James Hays and supposedly the first time they spoke.
	Clearly, it wasn't a question at all, but Judge Rosenblatt asked a question in the form
	of answering that question on behalf of James Hays when no such statement was made in
	writing in the Defendant's first filing of the case in their Response to Motion for TRO.)

	p. 5 MR. HAYS: Yes, Your Honor, that's basically correct.

	(Hays committing perjury. He received two faxes, admitted to receiving the list of numbers
	with the Application on TAPE. He denied the Application even though the numbers were given
	and City of Phoenix admitted on TAPE to receiving those numbers with the Application.
	Thus for Hays to claim in writing in the Response to Motion for TRO that no list was received
	at all, and then for him to say that they weren't attached to the application, when it was
	the City of Phoenix who should have attached the faxed list of numbers are both acts of
	perjury in a Federal Court, in writing of the Response and in the Transcript of the Hearing.
	Perjury in a Federal Court is a felony.)

	P. 5 - THE COURT: (Judge Rosenblatt) Okay. So here we are on Wednesday evening, late in the
	day. My question, I guess, is: If that was the defect with the application, could we not avoid the
	temporary restraint order issues by simply having Miss Fairs file a new application, together with
	those telephone numbers, and then in due course address the validity of the complaint and the
	constitutional issues?

	(When U.S. District Judges refuse to automatically grant TRO's per Fed. Civ. Rule 65, hold a hearing
	to avoid a TRO that was automatically supposed to be issued, and then refuse to hold said
	hearing saying that they want to "avoid the temporary restraint order issues", then such said Judges
	are no longer functional judges for failing to uphold the U.S. Constitution and breaking federal
	rules of procedure. This statement by Judge Rosenblatt was made about 5 minutes after the hearing
	began. Appropriate complaint against Judge Rosenblatt is being filed against him at the 9th Circuit.)

	P. 8 - THE COURT: (Judge Rosenblatt speaking to James Hays) And there's no reason, if
	she submits the application in its proper form, together with those telephone numbers, that
	the permit will not -- the license will not be issued.
	P. 8 - MR. HAYS: Yes, Your Honor, if it's otherwise in compliance with the code, as I
	believe it would be, the license would be issued.

	(Judge Rosenblatt answers Hays questions once again for him, instead of asking him
	questions. Judge Rosenblatt never really asks any questions of Hays during the hearing
	unless he's answering the question for Hays during the question. Judge Rosenblatt could
	only have answered Hays questions for him, if the two of them had a prior discussion of
	the case without presence of the Plaintiff. Hays commits another act of perjury. The
	application did have the list of numbers before and it was still denied. He said if Plaintiff
	filed a second application with a second list of numbers that it would be approved. So
	Plaintiff filed two applications, both with list of numbers and they were both denied.
	Clearly, the "list of numbers" is not the issue. Thus, there are two unconstitutional denials
	of First Amendment rights when it is an unconstitutional prior restraint to require a license
	to begin with, and Hays perjured himself in several ways, several times in Federal Court.)

	(Judge Rosenblatt refused to listen to any Constitutional Issues, refused to even hold
	an appropriate TRO hearing for a TRO that was automatically supposed to be granted per
	Fed. Civ. Rule 65 (b), and he refused to look at any and all exhibits. Judge Rosenblatt
	ignored Plaintiff's protests and ordered Plaintiff to file a second application, with
	numbers, when Plaintiff had filed first application with numbers, and required the
	Plaintiff to file for a second unconstitutional license stating the reason is he wanted
	to avoid the hearing for a TRO on First Amendment rights. Plaintiff protested the stipulation
	against her First Amendment rights for the filing against a second application for an
	unconstitutional license that was intruding on her First Amendment rights. Rosenblatt responded
	after 5 pages of Plaintiff's protest in the following way.)

	P. 13 - THE COURT: (Judge Rosenblatt) See, I don't know all about that. Those are factual
	issues that are going to take time to flesh out. I'm just trying to avoid the necessity of having to
	make a hip shot here on the issuance or the denial of a temporary restraint order when it
	doesn't appear that it's necessary as the Court understands.

	(TRO's are always automatically granted per Fed. Civ. Rule 65 (b), without hearings.
	Judge Rosenblatt wanted to "avoid" the "factual issues" as he already knew it was
	"factual issues" as he stated, to assist City Attorney James Hays in helping to
	violate the United States Constitution, and help James Hays break the oldest law
	in the nation, the First Amendment. Judge Rosenblatt violated ALL Federal Rules of
	Civil Procedure in a Federal Court with regards to Plaintiff's case as the Transcript
	demonstrates and he refused to do the job assigned to him, which was uphold the
	Constitution. Meanwhile, since Hays and Rosenblatt are presently being sued by
	someone else altogether different, for a completely different case, for not providing
	a fair hearing, James Hays committed several acts of perjury, verifiable perjury
	in a US District Court. This case is being appealed to the 9th Circuit of Appeals,
	along with a formal complaint about Judge Rosenblatt, and using as example, the
	the other 6 suits against him for not providing fair hearings with city officials.)

	Other Sites Discussing Judge Paul Rosenblatt's Rulings/Court Procedures

	A Raping Book: Rosenblatt - Arizona Judges Using a Blind Eye
	Judge Rosenblatt Rules in Favor of Child Exploitation
	Rosenblatt Helps Dead Beat Dads: Anti Women and Children Ruling

	HINTS: For further Research on Judge Paul Rosenblatt Rulings Search for
	Bizarre/Fishy Rulings on Gambling/Gaming (and PBS Comments About Fishy Rulings)
	Bizarre/Fishy Rulings on Voting, Ballots
	Discover the Connection Between a Microsoft Case Under Rosenblatt,
	When He Simultaneously Ruled on Internet Ballots

	Back to the News
	Back to Phoenix Escort Ordinances

This is a non-pornographic sex education site. Click here for live chat and adult videos.

For the best meeting/dating place online, Click here

Check out

The Big Eye

Dental Plans - Careington Dental Plan discounts 20%-60%
Reverse Mortgages for Seniors
California Reverse Mortgages
Florida Reverse Mortgages
Ohio Reverse Mortgages
Reverse Mortgages in other states