TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS; JUNE 6, 1995;

(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 problematic for him and his attorney.

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 6^th, 1995 in open court.)

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

(Squirming, and upset, Mr. Haywood was evasive. His perjury was being exposed, for how could there be "no affiliation" if Mitchell had asked him to go to Flagstaff?)

(Haywood was red, sweating and even more 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)

(This answer is a blatant evasion of Ledbetter's question, for Potters House and The Door are the same.)

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

(This is an amazing objection-- as 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)

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

(Notice that Ledbetter uses the word "affiliation."-- He emphasized this term strongly in the question)

(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.)

(Sensing the trap of affiliation by ordination, Haywood evades the question.)

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

COMMENTARY:

 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 of Municipal Court proceedings that was vital to my defense and in the hands of the court being ERASED--- AFTER, and over OUR objections, the court having given it to the Haywoods. This tape was essential to our defense, and for that reason should not have been given 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:

This site was established for information purposes for those interested in Coconino Co. judicial elections, for we must take greater responisibiliy for those we put on a judicial bench.

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

It is too bad that we were trapped in this corrupt Judge's 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 Ord. 6-1-19 against me. 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. (The ordinance definition of "intimidation and harassment" is 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. It went to appeal, but because we "settled" the higher court affirmed Judge Flournoy's ruling. Before this, Mr. Haywood, on his own authority, as a title officer put a ONE MILLION DOLLAR lien against me, and my property. He did this without any authority from the court or his attorney. When he realized that this was a mistake, he took the action off my record. But the fact that it was done is still there on my record.

Judge Flournoy, after having gotten our depositions to the plaintiffs (putting us through 2 days of deposition-- and getting nothing to incriminate us) should have thrown the case out the very instant that the plaintiffs refused to be deposed, especially after their perjury shown in the abore stated hearing, and many times later. And when it was our turn to depose them, using their previous perjury, they refused?

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 sanctioning 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.