TO ALABAMA ETHICS COMMISSION FROM STEVEN MARK HAYDEN
RESPONDENTS:
Lyn Stuart ,Michael F Bolin, Thomas Francis Parker,
James Gregory Shaw
FORMAL COMPLAINT THAT STUART BOLIN PARKER SHAW USED THEIR OFFICE TO FOR PERSONAL GAIN IN VIOLATION § 36-25-5
- 36-25-5. Personal use of office
(a) No public official or public employee shall use or cause to be used his or her official position or office to obtain personal gain for himself or herself, or family member of the public employee or family member of the public official, or any business with which the person is associated unless the use and gain are otherwise specifically authorized by law. Personal gain is achieved when the public official, public employee, or a family member thereof receives, obtains, exerts control over, or otherwise converts to personal use the object constituting such personal gain.
(c) No public official or public employee shall use or cause to be used equipment, facilities, time, materials, human labor, or other public property under his or her discretion or control for the private benefit or business benefit of the public official, public employee, any other person, or principal campaign committee as defined in Section 17-22A-2, which would materially affect his or her financial interest, except as otherwise provided by law or as provided pursuant to a lawful employment agreement regulated by agency policy.
FACTS Individuals Lyn Stuart Michael Frank Bolin Thomas Francis Parker and James Gregory Shaw are State of Alabama Public employees.
These justices were listed as individual defendants in Steven Mark Hayden v. Commercial Litigation Docket et al. ATTACHED
A copy of the complaint of filed complaint includes the following on page 2.
“12. Defendant Gregory Shaw is a residents or does business in Montgomery county.
- Defendant Lyn Stuart is a residents or does business in Montgomery county.
- Defendant Thomas Francis Parker is a residents or does business in Montgomery county.
- Defendant Michael F Bolin is a residents or does business in Montgomery county.
These Individuals were sued in individual capacity. The demand for relief was twenty million dollars.
It was dismissed before these defendants were personally served. However a dismissal operates to
dismiss even the defendants that were listed but not served.
CV 29-15-900266 which was transferred from Elmore Circuit Court to Jefferson County Court by Michael
Graffeo without the payment of Jefferson County Docketing fees for contempt proceedings.
The Dismissal of case Hayden v Commercial Litigation et al was appealed and became Civil appeal case
2150229 and was transferred to Ala Supreme Court as case 1151308
A copy of the Supreme Court order affirming the dismissal of Hayden v. Commercial Litigation Docket
et al shows respondents Stuart Bolin Parker Shaw affirming the dismissal of case in which
they are listed as defendants of the complaint.
On 4/21/2017 Justices Main Wise and Bryan who were also defendants recused themselves.
On 4/21/2017 Justice Stuart Bolin Parker Shaw affirmed the dismissal of HAYDEN v
Commercial Litigation Docket et Al which had listed Justices Stuart Bolin Parker and Shaw as
defendants. see attached .
The Jefferson County Circuit Court lacked all jurisdiction for indirect contempt proceedings including the
transfer and dismissal of Justices from Hayden v Commercial Litigation Docket.
Cashion the plaintiff had NOT PAID HIS CIRCUIT COURT FILING FEE FOR NEW CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
CASE 2012 -209 was dismissed with prejudice and disposed in 2013 TWO years before Hayden v
Commercial Litigation Docket et al was filed. Without payment of new circuit court filing fees the
Jefferson County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction and the Supreme Court had no authority to confirm
Jefferson County dismissal of Elmore County case which listed these Justices as defendants.
The JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HAD NO DOCKET FILING FEE PAID NO AUTHORITY AND HAD NO AUTHORITY; BECAUSE THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HAD NO AUTHORITY THE SUPREME COURT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO AFFIRM VOID ORDERS
The word “case” has been defined as a “`state of facts which furnishes occasion for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of justice.'” State v. Montevallo Coal Mining Co., 29 Ala.App. 318, 322, 197 So. 82, 85 (1940) (quoting appellee’s brief (emphasis omitted)); page 3
A case for indirect contempt requires for facts outside of courts presence and record and therefor requires grounds for a new filing fee for new case . Even the CIRCUIT CIVIL COVER SHEET includes a box for contempt proceedings which require new payment.
“A proceeding for indirect or constructive contempt is a separate and independent proceeding”. Opinion of the Clerk, No. 3, May 4, 1977, Ala., 345 So.2d 1338; No. 17, October 3, 1978, Ala., 363 So.2d 97; No. 21, September 27, 1979, Ala., 375 So.2d 1066.
“It is the general rule of this Circuit that the filing of a timely and sufficient notice of appeal acts to divest the trial court of jurisdiction over matters at issue in the appeal, except to the extent that the trial court must act in aid of the appeal. United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 69 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc).
Cashion accused Hayden of indirect or constructive contempt but Cashion failed to file proper
fee . Judge Robert Vance Clerk Anne Marie Adams and Judge Michael Graffeo all
used void contempt proceedings to retaliate against Haydens for their litigation. Johnson v.
Hetzel•100 So.3d 1056, 1057 (Ala. 2012) It is well established that “ ‘[t]he payment of a filing
fee or the filing of a court-approved verified statement of substantial hardship is a jurisdictional
prerequisite to the commencement of an action.’ ” Odom v. Odom, 89 So.3d 121,
122 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (quoting Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556, 559 (Ala.Civ.App.2008), citing
in turn De–Gas, Inc. v. Midland Res., 470 So.2d 1218, 1222 (Ala.1985)).
“Holding that the failure to satisfy a jurisdictional prerequisite renders a judgment void” Russell
- Fuqua ,176 So. 3d 1224 (Ala 2015) “When Circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
all orders and judgments entered in the case, except an order of dismissal, are void ab initio.” Redtop Market, Inc. v. State, 66 So.3d 204 (Ala.2010).
CONCLUSION
Therefore Hayden files this Ethics complaint against Stuart Bolin Parker and Shaw who AFFIRMED dismissal of ALL DEFENDANTS INCLUDING THEMSELVES from Hayden v. Commercial Litigation Docket. This constitutes violation ALA 36-25-5(a) . Justices Stuart Bolin Parker Murdock Shaw Violated 36-25-5(c):the respondents STUART BOLIN PARKER SHAW used or cause to be used equipment, facilities, time, materials, human labor, or other public property under his or her discretion or control for the private benefit or business benefit of the public official, public employee, which included the affirmation of void Jefferson Circuit court dismissal of Hayden v. Commercial Litigation Docket which included the dismissal of these individuals . Because of the lack of filing docket fees no new case number was assigned in Jefferson County. The transfer of the case affirmed by these self serving Stuart Bolin Parker Shaw is void as is the dismissal. These individuals affirmed their own dismissal with void affirmation using Supreme Court resources without authority.