Opinion ID: 2226579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: False Accusation Against Judge and Others.

Text: National and Ronwin filed a forty-nine page complaint in federal court after the Iowa appellate court had denied its appeal. Included as defendants were Judge Hutchison, Judge Donielson of the Iowa Court of Appeals, who participated in the decision, Chief Justice McGiverin of the Iowa Supreme Court, who signed the order denying further review, attorneys Thompson, Reed, Oberbillig, the Davis law firm, Janet Dickinson, Robert Dickinson, and Susan Hill. The action alleged: violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; violations of 42 U.S.C.  1983, 1985(2), (3) and 1986 (1994); and fraud, abuse of process, violation of fiduciary duty, and infliction of severe emotional distress. In the complaint, Ronwin alleged Judge Hutchison's statement at the time he granted a directed verdict, that there was not one shred of evidence that would support any possible claim, is and was deliberately false. His complaint further stated the following: Hutchison was deliberately lying to set the stage to help Dickinson and Hill steal $30,000 from Ronwin. The entire trial and other proceedings before Hutchison were rigged. . . . Hutchison's statement, particularly on the alleged silencing of potential witnesses, is a deliberate fraud and lie, and patently so. The acts and omissions of the defendants (including Hutchison) amount to a gigantic fraud . . . to steal at least $30,000 from National or Ronwin. The federal district court dismissed the complaint. Ronwin appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In his thirty-nine page appellate brief he stated the following: Hutchison entered a directed verdict . . . on grounds . . . he knew were false. Hutchison committed these transactions in conspiracy with the appellees and with others not named as defendants in the state action. . . . Hutchison's conduct amounts to criminal obstruction of justice. The key player, Hutchison, is shown to have deliberately entered into a fraudulent directed verdict. . . . Hutchison's statement as to the phrase `macho image' was a deliberate lie. Hutchison's conduct sums, among other things, to the deliberate entry in the state case of a fraudulent, final judgment and an equally fraudulent and fabricated rule 80 ruling. Hutchison's entry of two deliberately fraudulent fabricated and unlawful judgments. . . . Hutchison knowingly lied in fabricating the two judgments he entered in the state case. Hutchison deliberately lied in the state court. The trial court's action (federal district judge) gives comfort and encouragement to the criminal conduct of Hutchison. . . . In his thirty-five page reply brief, Ronwin stated the following: [National and Ronwin] presented a catalog of Hutchison's deliberate lying and biased acts which led to his entry of a fraudulent directed verdict. Hutchison's directed verdict and Rule 80 ruling were deliberate frauds and denial of due process and equal protection of the law . . . and that the proceedings from which they emulated were rigged . . . trials with predetermined conclusions and the rendering of deliberately fraudulent judgments. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's dismissal.
We find Ronwin has repeatedly accused Judge Hutchison of deliberately lying and rendering a fraudulent judgment. He charged Hutchison and other judges and lawyers with conspiring to violate his civil rights. He stated Hutchison's acts were not the result of incompetence but of deliberate criminal abuse of power. He claims Judge Strickler, an unnamed defendant, enlisted Hutchison to get Ronwin. He stated that the acts of the court of appeals' panel were Donielson's acts and were done in the furtherance of the conspiracy, and that Donielson knowingly acquiesced in Hutchison's unlawful activity. He stated that Chief Justice McGiverin signed the denial of his application for further review as a matter of rote and not as a product of a deliberate truly careful examination of the issues presented for appellate review. His rote signing was in support of the conspiracy, and that McGiverin had the duty to guard against and squelch the fraud and corruption that is rife in the Fifth Judicial District. Ronwin attacked a number of attorneys who had represented clients or provided affidavits in the lawsuit in state court. He stated that attorney Thompson deliberately lied to the courts involved on numerous occasions, with impunity. He also stated that the Davis law firm and other attorneys in that firm were part of a conspiracy to deprive National and Ronwin of their constitutional rights . . . and to inflict various tortious injuries on him. He referred to the acts of the defendants amounting to a gigantic fraud. Ronwin alleged attorneys Thompson and Reed, and Judge Hutchison used the judicial process to foster anti-Semitism by reference to two fraudulent decisions: In re Ronwin, 113 Ariz. 357, 555 P.2d 315 (1976), and In re Ronwin, 139 Ariz. 576, 680 P.2d 107 (1983). In Ronwin's appellate brief to the Eighth Circuit he alleged Donielson, a member of the Iowa Court of Appeals, joined in a conspiracy by deliberately approving Hutchison's actions which are patently false. Ronwin alleged McGiverin, by denying the application for further review, deliberately joined in Hutchison's actions. Ronwin stated anyone who seriously maintains that this action is frivolous is dishonest and corrupt, adding the [federal] trial court's action gave comfort and encouragement to the criminal conduct of Hutchison, Donielson, and other appellees. Ronwin's pleadings and briefs filed in federal court constitute conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. In prosecuting the federal suit and its appeal, Ronwin failed to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, failed to abstain from offensive personalities, and maintained the action and appeal from a motive of passion. Ronwin violated DR 1-102(A)(5), (6), DR 8-102(B), and Iowa Code section 602.10112.