Remember how I said I was leaving AZ? Well I have some good news and some bad news about this. Obviously which thing you believe is which is a matter of perspective, so I won’t apply any labels. Pick your own.
News Item #1 — my departure from AZ is on hold. This is NOT by my choice.
A couple of superseding events have occurred that pushed the clock back. One has to do with a family member’s health issue that I won’t disclose (it’s not me).
Also, I tried my best to leave sooner, but all the prep has taken a lot longer than expected. I’ve spent the last few months rushing to get my house cleared out and ready to sell. It’s a big house, and it’s full of a lifetime’s worth of tools, toys, tchotchkes. It also apparently needs a new roof, so that’s being done on March 9th.
That, and the second news item, has slowed me down to the point that leaving before summer is impossible. That means I realistically won’t be leaving until the fall (no one buys/sells houses in AZ during the summer unless they have a death wish).
News Item #2 — the Bar Guy, Jim, apparently saw the DUI bodycam footage and realized that case isn’t the slam dunk he thought it was. Undeterred in his quest to throw me back into the fires of Mount Doom, he’s gone back to the “bomb-sniffing dog” stuff as his next-best weapon.
So, on February 17, 2026, Jim finally pulled the trigger and filed his formal complaint. It’s actually smaller than expected. He dropped some stuff that was in an earlier draft (I made a video about this explaining that Woodnick apparently lied to the bar, but after I posted that video and offered my receipts, Jim Lee realized I was telling the truth and Woodnick was lying, so that claim was dropped).
The rules gave me 20 days to respond. I did it in 2 days. My response was so fast, the clerk actually stamped the wrong date on it…LOL.
Since then, it’s not gone well….for Jim. We had a housekeeping hearing last week with the bar judge. The judge said she believed Jim’s complaint violated a procedural rule. Because of this, Jim had to go back and submit an amended complaint.
In the mean time, I’m not sitting around crying. Oh no, brother. Anything but.
Instead, I have taken Jim’s gift and run with it. I mentioned this before, but I had the option of responding to the complaint with a motion to dismiss (either a normal 12(b)(6), or an anti-SLAPP). I could have won either way, and it would have made life easier.
Instead, I seized this golden opportunity and did something else — I immediately started issuing subpoenas. Under the rules, I have the power to subpoena anyone who might have relevant information. And boy, am I pleased to have that power.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct (which has concealed its records on Mata, Epstein-style) got the first one. I demanded they hand over every piece of paper they have on Mata, including any written response she submitted to my complaint. Their deadline to comply is March 9th. I’m not a jerk by giving them so little time to respond…the bar rules for discipline cases are almost laughably short (I have like 6 weeks to finish discovery), so every subpoena will have a similarly short compliance deadline.
Mata and her dad are next. The subpoena to Mata’s dad has been issued and he should have it today. His compliance date is also March 9th. I’m still waiting for the clerk to issue the one to Mata. She’ll probably get that Monday.
In addition to asking Mata for documents, I am going to take her deposition within a few weeks. I know JFC thinks this is impossible. Prepare for disappointment bigger than Hey Rob just got.
Maybe you didn’t notice this, but last week Bill Clinton was deposed in front of Congress. Donald Trump was deposed multiple times in the past. A person’s status in government does not entitle them to obstruct justice. Any person with information about a case or a claim is obligated to answer questions. Mata will be no exception. She is a key witness, so she will have to answer questions like any other witness.
BUT, the fact I can make her sit for a deposition doesn’t mean the truth is finally about to drop. Honestly, all I am seeking here is the truth, but you have to remember who we are dealing with. Mata has never offered any public response to my allegations in the nearly two years since I made them. Why not? If she had an innocent explanation, why not share it? Wouldn’t you?
She clearly has talked to Jim Lee, but he has not (yet) shared any of that information with me. Per the rules, he will be required to give me that info next week, but based on my past experience dealing with him, I won’t hold my breath.
My expectation is Mata will plead the fifth amendment and refuse to answer most of my questions. If I was her lawyer, that is exactly the advice I’d give her.
Here’s why — state court judges have NO immunity for federal crimes. A state court judge who commits a federal crime can be charged and convicted and sent to prison, just like anyone else. Just ask this lady: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/12/18/federal-obstruction-case-against-judge-hannah-dugan-goes-to-the-jury/
In this case, I have expressed my view that Judge Mata may have committed at least two federal crimes.
First is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 which makes it a crime for a person acting under “color of law” to violate someone else’s constitutional or federally-protected legal rights. This law applies to judges like Mata.
Don’t take my word for it. Let’s hear what Queen Jennifer’s boss says:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
[A]cts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Got that? As well as judges. Couldn’t be any clearer: state court judge + federal crime = federal prison.
In this case, I believe Judge Mata violated 18 U.S.C. § 242 in multiple ways. First, she violated Laura’s right to a fair trial before an impartial judge. Yes, I understand the Court of Appeals rejected that argument, but it did so because it claimed I lacked proof to back up that allegation. Well guess what? Jim Lee just gave me the power to get the proof I need. And like the bombs Trump just dropped on Iran, I am laser fucking focused on my target.
SIDE NOTE – if I get the proof I need, there will probably also be a motion filed in the family court asking the new judge to vacate Mata’s judgment in favor of Clayton. That motion, if granted, would moot much of Queen Jennifer’s work, but that’s a convo for another day.
Second, I believe Judge Mata violated 18 U.S.C. § 242 by refusing to enforce the California DVRO. Both Arizona law and federal law said she was required to enforce the DVRO. Laura had a legal right under VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act) to require law enforcement in all 50 states to honor the DVRO. That is exactly what VAWA says. Not only did Mata refuse to enforce the order herself, she actively stopped law enforcement from enforcing the law by telling them NOT to do what the law said they were required to do.
Mata’s conduct willfully deprived Laura of a right she had under the laws of the United States (the right granted by both the Full Faith and Credit clause, and the right under VAWA to have interstate DVROs enforced in all 50 states). This could also arguably constitute other federal crimes like obstruction of justice, obstruction of a court order (18 U.S.C. § 1509), and obstruction of a criminal investigation (18 U.S.C. § 1510).
I also believe Judge Mata committed a federal crime by retaliating against me for reporting this stuff to law enforcement. That’s a separate crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) which says:
Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1513
Now, let’s be clear — is Mata about to trade her black robe for 10 years in an orange jumpsuit? Of course not.
Federal charges can only be filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. At the moment, the DOJ is firmly in MAGA control. As we know, MAGA doesn’t prosecute MAGA. I don’t know Judge Mata’s personal politics, but she was appointed by a MAGA governor, so…..draw your own conclusions.
But here’s the thing — Donald Trump can’t run for a third term. He will probably suffer death-by-cholesterol long before then.
If the next POTUS is a Democrat (looking at you, Gavin), all the MAGA-infested DOJ folks will be gone soon, long before the statute of limitations expires on the crimes I believe Mata committed. If we have a new Democratic administration in 2028, Judge Mata could easily face prosecution for any federal crimes she committed.
That may sound crazy now in this sad Trumpian moment we’re having, but it’s not crazy. It literally just happened to a judge in Wisconsin. It could happen here.
For that reason, I am guessing the only question Mata will answer is her name. When Donald Trump was deposed a few years ago, he pleaded the fifth hundreds of times. I won’t make her waste that much time.
Assuming Mata pleads the fifth, as a practical matter that will end that part of the case. The state bar bears the burden of proving I said something false about Mata (and that I knew it was false at the time). But if Mata invokes the fifth, she won’t be allowed to testify at the hearing. Without her testimony, the bar won’t have any witness available to meet their burden for that part of the case.
But who knows? Maybe I am wrong. Certainly wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong. Maybe Mata has non-incriminating answers to all these concerns. I’d love to hear them. I’ve been patiently waiting for years. So have you.
Anyway, I’m going to be pretty busy ferreting out the truth over the next few weeks, so watch this space for updates. The truth always wants out, and we’ve all waited far too long for this part.
Oh, and before you ask — Jim Lee asked the bar judge to seal the complaint. She granted that request, so I can’t share it even if I wanted to. Sorry.
For now, there is no protective order prohibiting me from sharing other information like evidence obtained via subpoena, so when I finally get those CJC records, I’ll probably share them. Bianca Buono, you still with us? (Oh shit, apparently not).
Get your popcorn ready. Sounds like this summer is going to be a real scorcher….🔥🔥🔥
P.S. If the case isn’t tossed out early and if it ends up going to a trial, my star witness will be Woodnick, but I’ll talk more about that later.
