Blog

UPDATE @ 3:06 PM – My process server just made contact w/ Mata’s JA. She said Mata was not on vacation; she is just refusing to accept service. My guy (his name is Gary) responded: “That is not legal. She can’t refuse service.” Apparently with that, the JA ended the discussion.

So Gary is going to, on his own, file a complaint against Mata for violating Supreme Court Rule 54(d)(1). I didn’t even suggest this. He brought it up on his own. Members of the bar have a duty to cooperate with the bar (like I am doing). Violating that duty is grounds for discipline. That’s true for Mata, and anyone else, although Gary is still trying to serve Mata’s dad.

The next step – I called Jim Lee to discuss this. He was busy but said he would call back later this afternoon. Absent some other agreement, I am going to file something reporting all this to the PDJ, and I will ask her to allow alternative service on Mata per Supreme Court Rule 47(c)(1).

After that request is granted (which it will be), if Mata still refuses to appear, I will ask the PDJ for an Order to Show Cause requiring Mata to appear and explain why she should not be held in contempt. I know that sounds dramatic, but keep in mind — the same thing just happened with Bill & Hillary Clinton (they eventually caved). Since the penalty for contempt can include jail, I assume Mata will cave, too.

At the end of the day, if Mata continues to hide, the result is simple – aside from other consequences, Jim Lee won’t be able to call her as a witness. No witness means I will win that part of the case. Since the Mata claims are squarely within the anti-SLAPP law, it also means I can seek fees and compensation from the bar when they lose that motion.

I knew this case was crazy. I never expected this. But at the same time, I will turn blue in the face repeating this: people with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST:

I was going to title this post: “My Roof is on Fire”, because a team of roofers is here tearing off my 27 year old roof so I can sell my house and get the flock out of AZ. But that isn’t the point….I have some other news which is wayyy more concerning….

Here’s the issue – my process server just got in touch and said it appears Judge Mata is evading service of my subpoena. YIKES.

I mean, look – we don’t have all the facts (yet). MAYBE she is on vacation. MAYBE she’s taken a leave of absence for personal reasons (maternity?) MAYBE she just quit?

My process server says he has left multiple messages for her which have not been returned. He said she was not in court at all last week. I also tried emailing her department to ask if they would accept email service of the subpoena. No one responded.

Obviously there could be an innocent explanation. Sometimes judges go to “judicial conferences” (I know this from past experience). But surely someone from her department would still answer the phone. They can’t ALL be gone?

Here is why this could be SUCH a bad sign — all lawyers have an ethical duty to comply with requests from the bar. If you are asked to provide information to the bar and you refuse, that is grounds for discipline all by itself.

Similarly, lawyers also cannot do something called “evading service” (meaning taking steps to avoid service of process, including subpoenas). Evading service OR refusing to cooperate is, standing alone, a violation of Supreme Court Rule 54(d)(1) and is grounds for discipline.

That means one of two things:

1.) Judge Mata is unreachable (including by phone/email) for totally legitimate reasons such as a vacation or attending a conference; or

2.) Something is seriously wrong.

Given what happened last week, I am afraid it’s the latter. To be totally candid — I obviously have my opinion, and this is ONLY my opinion, not a fact – I think there is a very, very serious coverup going on here. I can think of no valid or legitimate reason for the CJC to withhold information if that information is GOOD for Judge Mata and Jim Lee. The only reason they would want to hide something is if it is BAD. That makes me much more concerned about Mata going AWOL.

But wait, there’s more — over the weekend I spent time looking at Jim Lee’s disclosure statement, particularly regarding what he said about Judge Mata. Just like in civil cases, the bar rules require Jim Lee to provide: “the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witnesses whom the disclosing party expects to call at the hearing with a description of each witness’ expected testimony.” Sup. Ct. R. 58(e)(1).

Jim’s disclosures do not comply with that rule. He listed Mata as a witness, but he gave me literally ZERO description of her expected testimony. That’s improper.

Once I realized this, I sent an extremely long email to Jim Lee explaining my position and asking him to meet and confer with me today by 5 PM (again, I am not trying to be unfair with short deadlines, but this process is moving at light speed, so I really have no choice). If he doesn’t respond, the next step will be to file a notice with the judge advising her that Jim has not complied with the disclosure rules. I intend to file this today unless Jim addresses my concerns before then.

NOTE – this happened last time I dealt with Jim in 2022. He withheld information in violation of the rules, which resulted in me filing a notice with the judge: Notice of State Bar’s Failure To Comply With Disclosure Rules.

Just days later, rather than complying with the disclosure rules, Jim Lee moved to drop the case: State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss.

Is the same thing about to happen here? It’s too early to say, but I will say this — when you have a winning hand, you show your cards. When you don’t….it looks a lot like this.

P.S. I forgot to add one thing — after Jim Lee moved to drop the 2022 case, I was a nice person and filed a notice telling the judge I had no objection to Jim’s request.

This time is totally different. Jim has spent nearly two years harassing me and retaliating against me for engaging in lawful, protected speech. He filed a complaint that contains multiple false statements.

If he tries to drop this case like he did last time, I will NOT agree to let him just walk away.

In 2022, the Arizona anti-SLAPP law did not apply to bar cases. That changed effective Sept. 24, 2022 (just days after Jim threw in the towel).

Under the new version of the anti-SLAPP law which applies here, I am entitled to fees and damages for Jim’s illegal attack on my constitutional rights. For that reason, I will not agree to any resolution of this case unless it includes a very large check from the AZ Bar payable to me.