Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
legal malpractice attorney - A client can sue his or her attorney for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and for breach of contract. The following are some common grounds for which you may sue your attorney. If your situation falls into any of these guidelines you may have a case.
Letter from Attorney Keith French to Jasper when he took over the Juvenile cases and the divorce case to get him up to speed? here. Most noted is W. Dean Millions involvement against me filing child endangerment charges and Chris Miller after I wrote a letter to him asking him to recuse himself off of Chuck's criminal case after I wrote him a letter because of Paul Daniel Hogg's non payment of child support and Chris saying he did not have resources or manpower to collect it. Motion to quash by Chuck's attorney here.
Judge John Howard Shock was Cindy's attorney on case # 36V050100325-01 (PDF of docket sheet here)
child endangerment charges: Docket Memorandum Judge Shock knowingly willfully (hearing on Dec 7, 2016 where Chuck's mom admitted she was careless and GAL knew it, GAL took my girls because of this hearing (Karl Reed was a witness to this hearing). No findings of fact given. No statutory hotline made because of allegations of educational neglect.
The following identified offense, contains 29 counts in case #13RI-CV00554 alone; I know that Shock was also involved as judge in perhaps the juvenile cases; in which case there should be other separate paragraphs on each of those cases.
That is if you think so.
In the year 1993, John Hudson Shock was admitted to the Missouri bar (ISLN: 914437848; and practice #41869) after acquiring a Juris Doctorate (abbreviated J.D. or JD) degree the same year. A Juris Doctorate is a doctorate of jurisprudence, which is a professional law degree that is required in almost all
states (California also as a law office study option) to be admitted into the Bar and practice law. Before most states began requiring law degrees in the 1950s, lawyers generally qualified for law licenses by working as an apprentice first. J.D. programs generally require an undergraduate degree as a prerequisite
and take three full-time years to complete.
Upon obtaining his Bar license and prior to the election of John Hudson Shock to the bench / court; Shock worked as an attorney at his own law firm in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, to wit the firm known as John H. Shock, Attorney at Law Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
Shock's first (and present) election to the bench / court took place on November 4, 2014. At that time Shock was elected for a four-year term, commencing on January 1, 2015, and expiring on December 31, 2018; as an associate judge for the 36th Judicial Circuit Court in Missouri.
John Hudson Shock, having served as a judge since January of 2015, and having been a member of the Missouri bar practicing law as an attorney in Poplar Bluff, Missouri since 1993, is, no doubt, with personal knowledge of the laws of this State, and of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, on July ____, 2017 when notified that he had a serious conflict of interest in case #13RI-CV00554, 17RI-JU00011, 17RI-JU00012, 17RI-JU00033 because of case no. CV501-325DR of recusing himself as a Judge in case #15AK-FC00104,
False impersonation--penalties.
RSMo 575.120
1. A person commits the offense of false impersonation if such person:
(1) Falsely represents himself or herself to be a public servant with the purpose to
induce another to submit to his or her pretended official authority or to rely upon
his or her pretended official acts; and
(a) Performs an act in that pretended capacity; or
(b) Causes another to act in reliance upon his or her pretended official authority;
...
5. The offense of false impersonation is a class B misdemeanor unless the person represents himself or herself to be a law enforcement officer in which case it is a class A misdemeanor.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2004 H.B. 916, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491) Effective 1-01-17
Twenty-nine Counts of False Impersonation. John Hudson shock did commit the essential elements of twenty-nine counts of the offense of False Impersonation, a class A misdemeanor punishable under the provisions of RSMo: §557.021.3(2)(b), §557.011, §558.011 (by imprisonment up to one year); 18 U.S.C. §242 (above); RSMo §561.016 and §561.021 (forfeiture of office); in that on twenty nine (29) separate occasions / dates: 01/26/2015; 03/31/2015; 05/11/2015; 06/08/2015; 06/16/2015; 06/22/2015; 06/24/2015; 08/10/2015; 10/02/2015; 11/06/2015; 12/16/2015; 01/20/2016; 02/19/2016; 02/16/2016; 05/06/2016; 07/06/2016; 09/09/2016; 10/24/2016; 11/09/2016; 12/07/2016; 12/19/2016; 01/03/2017; 01/13/2017; 01/18/2017; 02/03/2017; 03/31/2017; 04/21/2017; 06/21/2017; and 07/19/2017 and 12/29/2017, Shock, with knowledge that he had previously represented Cynthia Kay Hogg as her attorney in case #36V050100325 (In re the marriage of Cynthia Kay Hogg and Paul Daniel Hogg; Cynthia Kay Hogg V Paul Daniel Hogg) did on January 26th, 2015 and in every date above identified in case #13RI-CV00554 falsely represent himself to be a Judge, doing so inviolation of Rule 2-2.11 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and with the purpose to induce Cynthia Kay (Hogg) Haynes and others to submit themselves to the pretended official authority as a Judge and to rely upon his pretended official acts as a Judge; and Shock did indeed act in that pretended capacity; and as such caused Cynthia Kay (Hogg) Haynes and others to act in reliance upon his pretended official authority; doing the same also in violation of Cynthia's right to an impartial decision maker as secured by the Constitution of this State of Missouri and provisions of the previous precedents set by the Superior Courts of this State of Missouri.
In Jones the United States Supreme Court confirmed that "Courts do not tolerate the entry of a
judgment without proper notice in cases involving money or property. [and] It is unconscionable to
tolerate the lack of basic process when parental rights hang in the balance.." (see opinion SC91141,
issued January 25, 2011); see also Rule 2-2 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules, including but not
limited to the mandates of Rule 2-2.6, particularly entitled "Ensuring the Right to Be Heard", expressly
declares that:
"(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that
person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute
but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.
Comment
[1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice.
Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be
heard are observed.
[2] The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of disputes, but should be
careful that efforts to further settlement do not undermine any party’s right to be heard
according to law. The judge should keep in mind the effect that the judge’s participation in
settlement discussions may have, not only on the judge’s own views of the case, but also on the
perceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains with the judge after settlement
efforts are unsuccessful. Among the factors that a judge should consider when deciding upon an
appropriate settlement practice for a case are: (1) whether the parties have requested or
voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge in settlement discussions, (2)
whether the parties and their counsel are relatively sophisticated in legal matters, (3) whether the
case will be tried by the judge or a jury, (4) whether the parties participate with their counsel in
settlement discussions, (5) whether any parties are unrepresented by counsel, and (6) whether the
matter is civil or criminal.
[3] Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have, not only on their
objectivity and impartiality, but also on the appearance of their objectivity and impartiality.
Despite a judge’s best efforts, there may be instances when information obtained during
settlement discussions could influence a judge’s decision making during trial, and, in such
instances, the judge should consider whether recusal may be appropriate. See Rule 2-2.11(A)(1)."
19) Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judges, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.
WHEREFORE, Cynthia K. (Hogg) Haynes prays this Honorable Court to enter an Order against John Hudson Shock:
(a) For the enforcement of this lien against the parties herein for the compensation of the child support arrears owed to Cynthia, in the amount of $163,355.71 (Missouri child support case number case # 50985239, (Phone number 1-866-313-9160), Child Support office, 3417 Division Dr., Suite 3 West Plains, MO 65775), plus the appropriate amount of interest; health insurance (192 months at $350 dollars a month for health insurance for both girls) in the amount of $67,200.00; and ½ of dental costs ($3,600.00) and Social Security Administration payments of $580.00-$630.00 a month x 36 months equals $21,680.00 (which were canceled and would be “unjust” if not in addition to child support (See Exhibit E and Paragraph 4 above) and payable and due to Cynthia because of Mr. Hogg’s defrauding the Social Security Administration (See Exhibit G and Exhibit H) and per CV501-325DR order would be unjust if this were credited to Mr. Hogg’s child support (See Exhibit E and Exhibit F); and additionally punitive damages in the amount of $500,000.00;
(b) A judgment against Marissa (wife and guardian) and or the estate / property (See Exhibit of Paul D. Hogg for the amount of the unpaid taxes which Paul D. Hogg owes the State of Missouri Federal taxes for the years 2002 and 2001 which Paul D. Hogg willfully and with malice aforethought did not hold Cynthia harmless from as ordered by the 36th District Court in case number (CV501-325DR) “SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND PROPERTY SETTLEMENT” page 8 stated: “Husband agrees to be responsible and pay for, and further agrees to hold Wife harmless (See Exhibit N and Exhibit O) on the following debts to-wit”.....“2. Income tax or other taxes associated w/the operation of The Medicine Program and Hogg Construction owed by the parties to the Internal Revenue Service and the State of Missouri for the tax years 2002 and 2001 in the approximate amount of $1,000,000.00. Husband and Wife shall each be responsible for paying their respective tax obligation for the year 2003 and shall hold the other harmless therefrom”; and
(c) for any and all other relief which this court deems just, proper and equitable in the premises; and
Respectfully submitted, petitioned and requested, by the undersigned Aggrieved, I am,
_________________________________
Cynthia Kay (Hogg) Haynes: Aggrieved
RR 3 Box 7833
Doniphan, Missouri 63935
Phone: (573) 996-6401
VERIFICATION
ON THIS ______th day of ____________, 2018, before me, a Notary Public within and for the State of Florida, personally appeared Cynthia Kay (Hogg) Haynes, to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument in writing and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ___________________________________
____________________________ Notary Public
Judge Shock refuses an order of protection and even denies a hearing for Melissa Hogg on 12-21-16 here.
Melissa Hogg’s preliminary hearing on April 3, 2014, transcript here.
Melissa Hogg’s Forensic Interview on December 1, 2013, report.
Craig Cory Troop B Highway Patrol report. Incident # 130758453 Mo Highway Patrol troom B (Macon, MO)
Date Officer Craig took pictures off of Melissa's phone: December 19, 2013
Related report # 13336079000
County Code: 001
Defendant: Charles Haynes
Total: 4 compact disks:
1 SD card - copied to 1 disk
2 Disks from Iphone
1 32 gig disk - copied to disk
Picture of Chuck's hand in Melissa's shirt is what we were looking for on Melissa's old phone - that we no longer have ...and Officer Craig said he found it.
Melissa Hogg’s Feb 9, 2017 deposition by Ted Lewinsky here
Section 24. 1. There shall be a commission on retirement, removal, and discipline, composed of two citizens who are not members of the bar, appointed by the governor, two lawyers appointed by the board of governors of The Missouri Bar, one judge of the court of appeals to be selected by a majority of the judges of the court of appeals, and one judge of the circuit courts to be selected by a majority of the circuit judges of this state. The commission shall receive and investigate all requests and suggestions for retirement for disability, and all complaints concerning misconduct of all judges, members of the judicial commissions, and of this commission. No member of the commission shall participate in any matter in which he has a personal interest. If a member is disqualified to participate in any matter before the commission, the respective selecting authority shall select a substitute to sit during such disqualification. Of the members first appointed, each of the citizen members shall be appointed for a term of two years and each of the lawyer members for a term of four years, and each of the judge members for a term of six years; and thereafter members shall be appointed for a term of six years.
2. Upon recommendation by an affirmative vote of at least four members of the commission, the supreme court en banc shall retire from office any judge or any member of any judicial commission or any member of this commission who is found to be unable to discharge the duties of his office with efficiency because of permanent sickness or physical or mental infirmity. A judge, except a municipal judge so retired shall receive one-half of his regular compensation during the remainder of his term of office. Where a judge subject to retirement under other provisions of law, has been retired under the provisions of this section, the time during which he was retired for disability under this section shall count as time served for purposes of retirement under other provisions of this constitution or of law.
3. Upon recommendation by an affirmative vote of at least four members of the commission, the supreme court en banc, upon concurring with such recommendation, shall remove, suspend, discipline or reprimand any judge of any court or any member of any judicial commission or of this commission, for the commission of a crime, or for misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency or any offense involving moral turpitude, or oppression in office. No action taken under this section shall be a bar to or prevent any other action authorized by law.
4. A judge is disqualified from acting as a judicial officer while there is pending an indictment or information charging him in any court in the United States with a crime punishable as a felony under the laws of Missouri or the United States, or a recommendation to the supreme court by the commission for his removal, or retirement, or after articles of impeachment have been voted by the house of representatives. A judge so disqualified shall continue to receive his salary.
5. On recommendation of the commission, the supreme court shall suspend a judge from office without salary when in any court in the United States he pleads guilty or no contest to, or is found guilty of, an offense punishable as a felony under the laws of Missouri or the United States, or of any other offense that involves moral turpitude. If he is suspended and his conviction becomes final the supreme court shall remove him from office. If his conviction is reversed and he is discharged from that charge by order of court or of the prosecuting officer, whether without further trial or after further trial and a finding of not guilty, his suspension terminates and he shall be paid his salary for the period of suspension.
6. Recommendations to the supreme court by the commission shall be made only after notice and hearing. Rules for the administration of this section and for the procedures thereunder shall be prescribed by supreme court rule unless otherwise provided by law.
7. Members of the commission shall be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.
8. Additional duties shall not be imposed by law or supreme court rule upon the commission on retirement, removal and discipline.
Source: Const. of 1945.
(Amended August 3, 1976)