Tortuous Killing of Timothy Paul Stone

In response to Judge Brnovich’s May 28, 2026, order, we, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Vacate the Order" on the grounds that the order is Void Ab Initio.

In that motion, we identify twenty-four discrepancies, errors, and misstatements that are contrary to the facts and arguments previously presented to the Court by us and by Timothy in documents already filed for this matter. Those filings constitute evidence before the Court, including, in particular, the “Emergency Motions to Rescue Children.” Despite their importance, these filings appear to have been ignored.

This raises a serious question: Is it standard practice to disregard a mandatory legal duty, or does the legal system operate in a pattern and practice where official duties are performed at discretion, resulting in the deliberate violation of constitutional rights? In the First Amendment Complaint (FAC), we show that the laws used were personal or circumstance-specific laws, such as those governing wrongful death claims, which apply only when there are a valid wrongful death and proper litigants. Constitutional rights, however, apply to all people, including children.

The rights being violated in this case are not limited to us alone. They are constitutional rights that belong to every person, including you. Our research has provided the following concerning other constitutional rights besides the "Due Process" violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments executed by Judge Brnovich's May 28,2026, Order.

The Right of Trial by Jury is Constitutional

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a jury trial is preserved if a party serves and files a written demand within the prescribed time. The rule does not require any specific "magic words." "JURY TRIAL REQUESTED" — will often be treated as a sufficient jury demand because it clearly communicates the desire for a jury trial, particularly in federal courts within the Ninth Circuit.

Courts have repeatedly held that they favor preserving the Constitutional Right to a jury trial and will generally treat a clear statement as sufficient if it unmistakably notifies the court and opposing party that a jury trial is sought. For example, the Ninth Circuit has stated that the demand need only be "sufficiently clear to alert a careful reader that a jury trial is requested."

We had indicated, plainly seen on the front page of the First Amendment Complaint, "Jury Trial Requested". Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, once included on the face of the First Amended Complaint (FAC), our right to a jury trial was "perfected" . At that point, the right to a jury trial becomes inviolate. It is not a "suggestion" to the judge; it is a Constitutional mandate.

Why the Judge’s Dismissal is a "Constitutional Theft":

1. The "Genuine Issue of Material Fact" Rule Under the law: if there is a "genuine dispute" over the facts—such as whether a kidnapping occurred or whether a murder took place—the Judge is legally forbidden from dismissing the case. Those facts must be decided by a jury. By dismissing our case while these massive factual disputes exist, Judge Brnovich effectively "fired" the jury and stole their Constitutional role.

2. Mandatory, Not Discretionary Once the demand is made on the First Amendment Complaint:

• The Court cannot revoke it.
• The Defendants cannot ignore it.
• The Judge cannot "bypass" it simply because she finds the evidence "shocking" or politically inconvenient.

3. The "Judicial Engineering" Connection: We're alleging that the Judge intentionally "gutted" our First Amendment Complaint (FAC) to remove the very facts that would have guaranteed a jury trial.

• She didn't just rule on the law; she manipulated the facts so she could claim there was "nothing for a jury to decide." This is a classic Fraud on the Court, a violation of Rule 60(d)(3)

4. The Seventh Amendment Violation: The Seventh Amendment states, "In Suits at common law... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."

By interfering with this right to protect the Hobbs/Mayes re-election and corporate interests, the Judge has committed a "Structural Violation" of the Constitution. Because we requested a Jury, the Constitution guarantees a Jury. Judge Brnovich erased the evidence of a Homicide and Kidnapping specifically to prevent a Jury from hearing it. This is a criminal deprivation of our and the children's Seventh Amendment rights.

The Jury was our "Sword of Truth." The Judge's dismissal was the "Shield of Corruption" used to stop that sword from falling.

If a judge can simply "delete" a jury trial to protect a Governor, then the Constitution no longer exists in Arizona.

A Judge's Belief Does Not Matter

Judge Brnovich's belief in the plaintiffs' assertions did not matter as long as she does what is in the rules, procedures and laws. There is a difference between Judicial discretion and Judicial Whim.

In American law, "unfettered discretion" is a myth. A judge’s discretion is always bounded by the Due Process Clause and the specific mandates of the law. Here is the breakdown of why our assessment supports our charge of "Judicial Engineering" and why Judge Brnovich's May 28, 2026, order is "Void Ab Initio":

1. Discretion is not "Permission to Ignore": Judicial discretion is the power to choose between legal alternatives. It is not the power to ignore evidence or bypass mandatory laws like ARS 13-3620 (Mandatory Reporting). The Rule: A judge must first establish a "Factual Basis" before exercising discretion. If a judge ignores evidence of 200+ notices given of felony conduct, they have committed an Abuse of Discretion so severe that it becomes a Due Process violation.

2. The Duty to Listen (The Right to be Heard): A judge's first duty is to provide a "Meaningful Opportunity to be Heard." By "sanitizing" the record and "gutting" our First Amended Complaint (FAC), Judge Brnovich didn't just disagree with us—she refused to hear us. In the eyes of the law, a decision made without considering the relevant evidence (the 106-page Complaint, the Dying Declarations) is "Arbitrary and Capricious," which renders the order void.

3. Personal Belief vs. Legal Fact: A judge’s "belief" is legally irrelevant unless it is grounded in the record. When distinguishing between a subjective and objective determination, a judge cannot merely “believe” that a kidnapping is a civil custody dispute when objective evidence—such as protection orders and murder declarations—establishes otherwise. When a judge’s "belief" contradicts the "unimpeachable evidence" in the record, that judge is no longer "judging"; they are fabricating.

4. Ministerial (Administrative) Duties are Non-Discretionary: Certain tasks, like reporting a crime under Canon 3B(6) or complying with 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of Felony), are "Ministerial." This means the judge has zero discretion. They must do it.

• We allege that Judge Brnovich’s May 28, 2026, order reveals a connection to a “Blood Sacrifice.” Because Judge Brnovich had a mandatory duty to report the kidnapping and failed to do so, her "discretion" ended. She is now liable for the administrative failure to follow the rules that govern her own office. When a judge uses "discretion" to shield a crime, they are acting Ultra Vires (beyond their authority). This dissolves their Judicial Immunity.
• A judge cannot "discretion" their way out of being an accessory to a felony. Because Judge Brnovich ignored the "Mandatory Duty" to rescue the children, her May 28 Order is not a "judicial act"—it is a private act of complicity dressed in a black robe.

The law Dictates the Belief; the Belief Does Not Dictate the Law.

When Judge Brnovich unlawfully prevented this case from proceeding to a jury, she violated our civil rights and the civil rights of the children, as well as numerous other laws. Her interference also deprived the jury of its right to hear and decide the issues, particularly given the improper basis for her actions.

In the American legal system, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases, and the Sixth Amendment guarantees it in criminal matters. When a judge uses "Judicial Engineering" to dismiss a case before it reaches a jury—especially when the dismissal is based on sanitizing the record—it is a direct assault on the Constitution.

The Jury as the "Last Line of Defense"

We believe the reason the Founding Fathers insisted on the right to a jury was to prevent exactly what we are experiencing: a single, corrupt official (the Judge) deciding the fate of a family. The jury is the "conscience of the community."

1. By blocking the jury from hearing the 106-page Certified Criminal Complaint and the Dying Declarations, Judge Brnovich didn't just rule against us—she usurped the power of the People.
2. "Corrupt Interference" with the Jury's Role: A judge is only supposed to act as a "gatekeeper" to ensure evidence is relevant. They are not allowed to be a "shredder" of evidence.

• The Fact: If a jury were to hear that three children were kidnapped and their father was torturously murdered, no reasonable jury would allow the defendants to walk free.
• The Conspiracy: Judge Brnovich knows this. Therefore, her "May 28 Order" was a strategic move to ensure a jury never sees the truth. This is Obstruction of Justice under the Color of Law.

3. The "Inviolable Right" to a Jury: In cases involving "Homicide" and "Kidnapping," the issues of fact (who did what, when, and why) are strictly for the jury to decide.

• When a judge decides these facts herself—and does so by "erasing" the victims (the children) from the record—she has committed a Structural Error that violates the very foundation of the judiciary.

4. The Civil Rights Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983): By interfering with our, the plaintiffs right to a jury trial for a "corrupt reason" (the re-election of Hobbs and Mayes), the judge has engaged in a Conspiracy against the Rights of All People.

• We filed a Federal Criminal Referral to the FBI. The FBI doesn't just investigate bank robberies; they investigate the deprivation of rights under color of law.

We are asserting that Federal Judge Brnovich "stole the case from the jury" to protect her political and corporate allies. This is not just a "legal error", it is a criminal act of interference. The Jury has a right to hear the truth, and the Children have a right to the Jury's protection. Judge Brnovich's interference is the definitive proof of a "Broken System".