CASE NO. CV-95-118 p 89-91

PLAINTIFFS: Kenneth Haywood, Anne Marie Haywood, Flagstaff Christian Fellowship et al vs: DEFENDANTS: Steven Schoner, David Diver, Lou Muccitelli, Mark Workman, David Otteman, Mark Freeman et. al in open court.

David Palmer (attorney for Kenneth Haywood, and CFM in Prescott) in direct examination of Kenneth Haywood: (my remarks and additions of the names of questioners and respondent are in bold )

PALMER> Q. Does your church that you established here-- is it part of any larger church?

HAYWOOD> A. No it is not, It's solely independent.

THE COURT (Judge Flournoy): Were you ever a member of the Victory Chapel?

THE WITNESS (Kenneth Haywood): No, I wasn't

Q. BY MR. PALMER: So you'd never seen any of the defendants prior to August the 27th?

HAYWOOD> A. I'd seen them picketing the bible conferences in Prescott.

PALMER> Q. You'd attend some bible conferences in Prescott?

HAYWOOD> A. Right.

PALMER> Q. Did you ever have any involvement whatsoever with any of the defendants' churches in Flagstaff?

HAYWOOD> A. No, I did not.

PALMER> Have any of the defendants ever been a member of your congregation?

HAYWOOD> A. No they have not.

PALMER> Q. Have they ever attended-- so they would have no way of knowing what your congregation is about?

HAYWOOD> A. No they would not.

PALMER> Q. Are you an incorporated entity?

HAYWOOD> A. We're an unincorporated association.

PALMER> Q. Are you part of any unincorporated (sic incorporated) association?

HAYWOOD> A. No, we're not. We have a separate tax ID number, and we are a separate entity from anyone else.

PALMER> Q. Are you strictly responsible for, you know what goes on at your church?

HAYWOOD> A. Absolutely.

PALMER> Q. There's no one else that tells you what to do?

HAYWOOD> A. No, there's not.

THE COURT (Flournoy): Are you connected with any other church?

THE WITNESS (Haywood): We have a fellowship that we share speakers with, go to bible conferences and that kind of thing. It's Christian Fellowship Ministries, but no affiliation. (italics for emphasis)

Haywood made this false statement, one of several denials of a relationship with Potters House, aka Victory Chapel, with the words "but no affiliation" completely poker faced

So there it is, under direct examination by his own attorney,(David Palmer, attorney for CFM in Prescott, AZ) and by the Court as well. Mr Haywood denied his affiliation to the Potters House in Prescott, and Wayman Mitchell, by saying with regards to his church "It's solely independent" and "no affiliation" And these statements would later prove to be problematic for him.

Now for more, with my recollection of his demeanor in bold between the lines:

Pages 136-141, from the aforementioned TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, on June 6th, 1995 in open court.

CROSS-EXAMINATION of Mr. Haywood by Jim Ledbetter, attorney for the defendants.

LEDBETTER>: Q. What was the name of the church in California?

HAYWOOD>. A. The Potters House

LEDBETTER> Q. It was a Potters House in California?


LEDBETTER> Q. Isn't it true that you were asked [by] Wayman Mitchell, the man you mentioned a moment a go, to leave California and come to Flagstaff?

{ Haywood, turned beet red, realizing that he had been caught in a lie in previous testimony. He waffles and the court intervenes.}

HAYWOOD> A. I transferred here with my job.

THE COURT (Flournoy) Just answer the question. Are you willing to repeat the question? Just answer the question the best you can.

HAYWOOD> Q. Okay. The question was: Wasn't it true that I was asked to come here?

LEDBETTER> A. Correct.

HAYWOOD> A. Not initially.

{ As I remember, Mr. Haywood was squirming and looked very upset-- he was evasive. His perjury was being exposed, for how could there be "no affiliation" if Mitchell had asked him to go to Flagstaff?}

LEDBETTER> Q. In fact, Wayman Mitchell asked you to be the pastor of this church, hasn't he?

HAYWOOD> A. After I came here he asked me if I'd be interested.

LEDBETTER> Q. Correct. And when would that-- when was that?

HAYWOOD> A. July of last year.

LEDBETTER> Q. July of 1994?

HAYWOOD> A. Right.

LEDBETTER> Q. Wayman Mitchell is the gentleman that heads The Potters House movement in Prescott, Arizona; isn't that also true?

{At this point Haywood was red, sweating and upset. Having said previously that there was "no affilition" he had lied and knew it. David Palmer, his and Mitchell's attorney intervened to interrupt the proceedings}

MR. PALMER> Your Honor, I'm gong to object to this line of questioning. I don't have a problem with questions relating to the parties and what, you know-- you know, what churches they belong to, but if this is going to devolve into a long attack--

THE COURT (Flournoy) I don't know where it's going, but I'm going to overrule your objection to get on with it. Next question.

MR. LEDBETTER> Thank you.

LEDBETTER> Q. So, you began a Potters House church here in Flagstaff, didn't you?

HAYWOOD> A. No, I did not. I began a Door here.

(His answer is a blatant evasion of the question. Potters House and The Door are the same.)

LEDBETTER> Q. A Door, which is--- many Potter's House churches are currently going by the name Door, aren't they?

HAYWOOD> A. There is no affiliation involved.

{Again Haywood lies saying that there is "no affiliation" and the Court seeing that he is waffling intervenes}

THE COURT (Flournoy) Just answer his question. Are they going by The Door?

Q. BY LEDBETTER> Isn't that true?

HAYWOOD> A. Many churches of the Door, yes {reluctantly, Haywood coughed it out}

LEDBETTER> With respect to a parent church, isn't it true that your congregation has a parent church?

THE COURT (Flournoy) A parent"?

MR LEDBETTER>: Yes, sir. A parent. P-a-r-e-n-t {Ledbetter spelling it out}

HAYWOOD> A. Explain your question, please {again waffling}

THE COURT: (Flournoy) Hang on. You're not questioning the attorney. The attorney's questions you.


A. Yeah. We--- I was once a member of the Prescott congregation.

Q. BY MR. LEDBETTER: The Prescott church is your parent church, isn't it?

HAYWOOD> A. Yes, it is.

LEDBETTER> And part of a component of Potterism, if you will, is that 10 percent of a churches income goes back to its parent church: isn't that true?

MR PALMER Object your honor, there's no issue of church finance before the court. This is clearly protected by the First Amendment. I would direct your attention to the memo submitted to---

{this is an amazing objection-- as many of our picket signs focused on "church finance" and had done so from the very start. Also the line of questioning would further reveal the affiliation that Haywood denied.}

THE COURT (Flournoy) I've read your memo. Overruled. You may answer.

HAYWOOD> A.. No. It's strictly voluntary, sir.

Q. BY MR. LEDBETTER: That's what the church asks for, isn't it?

HAYWOOD> A.. Well, itĘs a biblical principle. It's not what the church asks for.

LEDBETTER> Q> And the biblical principle that you're talking about now is a planted church sends 10 percent of its income back up to the parent church, fair?

HAYWOOD> A. May I explain?

LEDBETTER> Q. Isn't that true, sir?

{Realizing that he is snared by his previous false testimony, Haywood is becoming non responsive. The issue of 10% to the top was argued hotly during the pickets and further demonstrates affiliation.}

THE COURT (Flournoy) Just answer his question.

HAYWOOD> A. Yes, it is.

Q. BY MR. LEDBETTER> Thank you. Where were you ordained, sir"?

HAYWOOD> A. Prescott, Arizona.

LEDBETTER> Q. By Wayman Mitchell?


LEDBETTER> Q. You have no ordination in any other church organization or affiliation; isn't that true?

[notice that Ledbetter uses the word "affiliation."-- He emphasized this term strongly in the question]

HAYWOOD> A. That is true.

{Haywood is now facing a contradiction to what he had previously said twice with the words "no affiliation" He realizes that his affiliation is clearly implied in his ordination.}

LEDBETTER> Q> You are ordained as a Potters's House minister, correct?

HAYWOOD> A. No. I'm ordained as a pastor in the Christian Fellowship Ministries.

{sensing the trap of affiliation by ordination, he evades the question}

LEDBETTER> Q. Which is a name coming from Prescott, fair?

HAYWOOD> A. Fair. (he replies reluctantly)

LEDBETTER> Q. Now. I've seen the logo on your church before. That same logo of the earth with flames coming out of it, that's on the Prescott church, isn't it?

{Visibly upset,. Haywood senses where this question is leading him)

HAYWOOD> A. Yes, it is.

LEDBETTER> Q. And it's on this church here, too? Your one here in Flagstaff on Rose?

HAYWOOD> A. Right.

{Having got what he wanted, Ledbetter then went off into a different line of questioning. But in this first court hearing, and there would be many more to follow, Mr. Haywood committed perjury and our attorneys exposed it. Haywood lied about other things as well, and we would have exposed it in deposition of him and his wife-- But they refused to be deposed. This example dealing with his denial of "affiliation" with the Prescott Church sheds serious doubt about his credibility regarding his slanderous, and libelous claims against me and my friends in what was, and always has been -- peaceful picketing. And none-- not a single one of the police reports that he filed that led up to this court action supports any of his charges-- and I have them all in my files


At this early stage in the case, June of '95, no one was sure which way Judge Flournoy would go. And we all expected it to go to trial. But then things began to happen, mysterious things, such as a tape that was vital to my defense and in the hands of the court being erased, after and over our objections, the court gave it to the Haywoods.

And around the time of the start of our case very serious allegations regarding Judge J. Michael Flournoy's competency as a Judge began to surface. He was later charged with court record tampering, agreements outside of court, and other violations. And this led to an 18 month suspension from the bench. He should have been canned-- but this I am sure would have created a legal nightmare for Coconino County-- thousands of cases could have been challenged.

I have compiled a site dealing with charges against him. Be sure to use your "BACK" button to return to this page. IT IS A MUST SEE at:


I have set up that site for information purposes for those interested in Coconino Co. judicial elections. We must take greater responisibiliy for those we put on the bench.

A general internet search on Judge J. Michael Flournoy will produce the same results.

It is too bad that I and my friends were trapped in his court. For had we known this man's temperament and changed judges at an early stage, things I am sure would have come out differently.

But as it was, it was a nightmare for me, and my friends. Slandered and libeled in a court of law, by a mobster organization bent on destroying us with their virtually unlimited legal resources, we were on the ropes.

And though the ACLU might have defended us, the fact was that they could not because they had represented the Potters House in a case that they leveled against the Prescott School district a year or so before. (Legal conflict of interest) And the reason that the Haywood's suit wound up in court at all was because Flagstaff has a archaic anti-sedition law relic from the WWII era that outlaws picketing {Flagstaff City Ord 6-1-19}. And this Potters House used as a basis to get their case started. The ACLU had in 1989 threatened to sue the City of Flagstaff on my behalf when the Potters House tried to use it against me then, and the ACLU's Louis Rhodes said as was reported in the AZ Daily Sun that this city ord "was the most draconian un-constitutional anti-picketing law that he had ever encountered." This law is still on the books in Flagstaff, and is problematic for anyone that dares to picket for any reason, and is challenged by the target of the picket. (Its definition of "intimidation and harassment" are too broad, and all inclusive)

The fact is that later in the case, in the discovery process, in June of '96, the Haywoods refused to be deposed, and their case stalled. Flournoy forced us into a settlement, threatening that he would throw the case out if the Haywoods did not depose, giving us the impression that he might act fairly. Over the next six months our attorneys argued with Palmer over the terms of settlement. We admitted no guilt, and left the issue of attorney fees to the Judge, with the expectation that he would rule fairly, but instead he slapped us with a harsh judgement without basis of fact, and Haywood's attorney fees as if we were guilty.

Judge Flournoy should have thrown the case out the very instant that the plaintiffs refused to be deposed, especially after the perjury show in this hearing, after putting us through 2 days of deposition-- and getting nothing to incriminate us. Had this case gone to trial, and we should have insisted on it, the jury would have seen the perjury of the plaintiffs and ruled against them, perhaps even sactioning them with some jail time-- of this I am certain.

My advice to anyone sued by Potter House over First Amendment issues-- Go to trial, and DO NOT SETTLE UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY ON YOUR TERMS.

Steve Schoner, Life After Potters House.}