Walter Burien_ Jr

Document Sample
Walter Burien_ Jr Powered By Docstoc
					 1   Walter Burien, Jr.
 2   P.O. Box 11444
 3   Prescott, AZ 86304
 4                                                     In Superior Court
 5                                  in Yavapai county, for the state of Arizona Inc.

 7   Private Citizen Walter J. Burien, Jr.         ]     Case No. Do. 95-0538
 8   Plaintiff,                                    ]     Response and Objection to Court Order
 9           vs.                                   ]      and Minutes Dated March 27th, 1997
10   Robin Jill Arrowwood, et al.,                 ]
11   Respondents,                                  ]      The Honorable Judge - Raymond Weaver
12   ___________________________                   ]      Div. 4

14           COMES NOW, Private Arizona Citizen Walter J. Burien, Jr., TO Respond and Object to the court order
15   and court reporter minutes dated March 27th, 1997.
16           Comments made by the court, Judge Robert Brutinel, within the court reporter minutes of March 27th,
17   1997 are defamatory, an abuse of office by the court, outright fabricated lies contrived by misconstrued hearsay
18   being intentionally orchestrated by the court, Judge Robert Brutinel, in an attempt to defame this Petitioner’s good
19   character through hearsay contrary to written character testimony given in this case pertaining to Petitioner,
20   Walter Burien, by individuals, ”Bob Locket-6 years” “Peggy Cameron-6 years” ”Vicki Tisch-10 years” “David
21   D’Addabbo-4 years” who were familiar, over an extensive period of time, with petitioner as to his exemplary
22   character. This being done, as evidence was and is intentionally ignored or blocked within this case by the court,
23   Judge Robert Brutinel, as to Respondent’s, Robin Arrowwood’s, deep rooted criminal nature, drug abuse and
24   dealing activities, choice of lifestyle, unstable/dangerous mental state and documented psychopathic lying, this
25   being contrary to written character testimony given in this case by individuals, “Rita & Terry Winstel-4 years”
26   Harold Dunning-5 years” familiar, over an extensive period of time, with Respondent as to her pervasive and
27   pestilent character.
28           The court to date has not acted upon or mentioned Petitioner’s requests with tape recorded exhibit (A), as
29   submitted to the court on March 24th, 1997. Exhibit (A) contained therein was not hearsay but recorded evidence
30   which clearly established there was no threat being made by Petitioner towards the court or Respondent or to
31   violate existing custody/visitation court orders as stated by the court and passed on by Sgt. Reed via hearsay at the
32   instruction of the city attorney’s office. In fact what was evidenced in the recording was the concern of this
33   Petitioner for his daughter’s well being and his concern towards the lack of father and daughter involvement to

                               DO. 95-0538 - Response and objection to court order and minutes of - 03/27/97 - Page     1
 1   date. Additionally was the clear showing of Petitioner’s intent to legally and diligently continue his involvement
 2   in the future to pursue legal remedy towards accountability in an effort to protect his daughter. It is noted by this
 3   Petitioner that within both conversations contained within the referenced exhibit (A) Petitioner states that he is
 4   working on a recall Petition for Judge Robert Brutinel. No threat is made by this Petitioner towards the court but
 5   in the alternative a clear statement is made for accountability towards the court’s actions, Judge Robert Brutinel,
 6   for ethical violations, obstruction of justice and abuse of office leading to the reckless endangerment of my child as
 7   well as the personal/professional damage inflicted towards this Petitioner to date, is promised by this Petitioner.
 8           Within the court reporter minutes of March 27th, 1997 it references twice threats were made to the court.
 9   Petitioner to date has thoroughly investigated both references. The results of this investigation are as follows:

11   1. A statement was made to Officer Alibrando on March 19th, 1997 at approximately 6:30 p.m. on a recorded
12   Police line from Petitioner at one point within an approximate 15 minute conversation that Petitioner wished that
13   CPS would intervene and take his child into protective custody, of which CPS had not done up until that time
14   contrary to complaints received from numerous individuals over an extended period of time as to Robin
15   Arrowwood being an unfit mother and a danger to her children. Petitioner stated, under duress, as fact “that if he
16   were to put his child into protective custody, the only thing that would happen would be that a S.W.A.T. team
17   would be sent to take him out” this was not an option that Petitioner was contemplating to protect his child but a
18   inevitability if Petitioner was to break the law of which this Petitioner has diligently applied his efforts to be in
19   compliance with.
20           Officer Alibrando mentioned to other officers the following day as to his concerns regarding my genuine
21   concerns for my daughter and my obvious duress contained within my statements and passed on the comment
22   regarding S.W.A.T.
23           No threat or statement was made within the conversation between myself and Officer Alibrando towards
24   the court or towards not returning my child from scheduled visitation.. As the police recorded conversation, which
25   was never retrieved and reviewed for confirmation by Sgt. Reed, attests to. Unconfirmed hearsay was then acted
26   upon through and at the instructions of the office of John Mofitt, City Attorney to Sgt. Reed to call Respondent,
27   CPS and the Court on Friday, March 21, 1997. It is evident from the conversation of March 21, 1997 at
28   approximately 10 a.m. between Sgt. Reed and Petitioner, the only conversation that took place on that day between
29   both parties and in 1997, that there was no concern or questions expressed by Sgt. Reed to Petitioner within this
30   conversation as to threats against the court or not returning petitioner’s child from visitation, but in fact Sgt. Reed
31   after hearing no threat within the conversation or making any inquirery to Petitioner regarding a threat or intent to
32   not return the child from visitation then preceded to pass on hearsay comments without verifying said hearsay

                                DO. 95-0538 - Response and objection to court order and minutes of - 03/27/97 - Page         2
 1   comments from the available and recorded conversation contained on the police recorded tape of the conversation
 2   in question held between officer Alibrando and Petitioner.
 3           On Sunday, March 23, 1997, Upon Petitioner talking to Officer Alibrando and at the request of Petitioner,
 4   Officer Alibrando at approximately 10:45 a.m. went to the holiday lodge, Rm. 15 to investigate the possible
 5   violation of court ordered visitation by Robin Arrowwood on March 22nd & 23rd, 1997 and was prepared to file a
 6   complaint with the Prescott City Prosecutor if Respondent could not show a court order contrary to the standing
 7   ordered visitation. Respondent showed Officer Alibrando a motion to cancel visitation she had filed with the court
 8   in the late afternoon of Friday, March 21st, 1997 of which she said was granted by Judge Brutinel that same
 9   afternoon. She then had Officer Alibrando listen to a message left on an answering machine by Judge Brutinel’s
10   bailiff stating that her motion was granted by Judge Brutinel canceling visitation.
11           In reality Officer Alibrando, if the opportunity was presented to him by Respondent, would have brought
12   my child to me for visitation, being confident with all factors being considered, that the child would have been
13   returned on time to Respondent.
14           2. Petitioner for the last year and a half has requested for the court to review Robin Arrowwood’s entire
15   CPS file which extends back seven [7] years from Cottonwood, AZ to Prescott, AZ, to Tempe, AZ, back to
16   Prescott.   Max Bell, supervisor CPS, Prescott, AZ told this Petitioner that Judge Robert Brutinel requested from
17   his office the CPS records of Robin Arrowwood covering a recent Period of approximately three [3] weeks. Within
18   the record of this brief period, Max Bell noted several comments made by this Petitioner regarding the Militia.
19   Said comments were “ what will it take to protect my daughter, myself organizing 350 militia men to start a war to
20   protect my daughter”. The comment was made by myself and noted by Max Bell as a passing concern of his and
21   not a serious concern determined to be an intended threat.
22           Max Bell has also confirmed to me that Judge Brutinel’s statements in open court as well as in the court
23   reporter that “he has reviewed the entire CPS file of Robin Arrowwood” is false and not a true statement coming
24   from Judge Robert Brutinel. It is evident to this Petitioner that Judge Brutinel’s request of CPS for record review
25   was not an attempt to review Robin Arrowwood’s extensive CPS file out of concern for Petitioner’s child but an
26   effort on his part to secure and make mention, out of context, the comments noted by Max Bell regarding
27   Petitioner’s militia comments.

29           Petitioner makes special note that several individuals in the higher-archy of Yavapai County Politics have
30   confirmed to Federal Law Enforcement in the course of ongoing investigations that Judge Robert Brutinel has
31   networked against this Petitioner making specific statements/promises/threats that “Walter will never succeed in
32   any business in Yavapai County”, “Walter will never get anything accomplished towards his custody case in
33   Yavapai County under any circumstances”, “ that he has the cooperation of John Mofitt the city attorney and

                               DO. 95-0538 - Response and objection to court order and minutes of - 03/27/97 - Page     3
 1   Richard Feldmier the County Supervisor to make sure Walter will never succeed in business or get anything
 2   accomplished on his custody case in Yavapai County”, “that Walter is the bad guy and needs to be taken care of
 3   and that the mother does not do drugs or have a criminal background” and that “ Walter will be taken care of out of
 4   court”......

 6            THEREFORE Petitioner requests that the Presiding Judge of the Yavapai Superior Court, The Honorable
 7   Judge Raymond Weaver expediently consider and act upon Petitioner’s requests as filed on March 24th, 1997 with
 8   the court as well as setting a hearing within ten days to review and modify orders enacted by Judge Robert
 9   Brutinel, Div. 2, representing the Yavapai Superior Court regarding custody and visitation in the interests of and
10   for the safety of Petitioner’s daughter.
11   RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of April, 1997


13                                                                                    .

14          Walter J. Burien, Jr. Individually and for his daughter (Brenda) Allyson Arrowwood (Burien)
16   Original Hand Delivered at 4:55 p.m. this 1st day of April, 1997 to the Clerk of the Yavapai Superior Court
17   and a copy to presiding Judge Raymond Weaver at 5:00 p.m..
19   Copies were mailed or hand delivered this 1st day of April, 1997 To:
21   Robin Arrowwood                  Max Bell                     Sgt. Reed and Officer Alibrando
22   1141 E. Gurley St. #15           CPS                           Prescott Police
23   Prescott, AZ 86301               Prescott, AZ                 Prescott, AZ

                                 DO. 95-0538 - Response and objection to court order and minutes of - 03/27/97 - Page   4