OUTLINE OF COMPLAINT AGAINST TUCSON ATTORNEY ERIC MANCH

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On December 13, 2010, subsequent to the relocation of my then court appointed attorney Kimberly Hunley to Cochise County, the Tucson City Court appointed Eric Manch to represent me in CR 9006068, a misdemeanor criminal action in Tucson City Court, and to file a Special Action in Pima County Superior Court on my behalf. CR 9006068, alleging interference with a judicial proceeding, arose out of my violation of a transparently invalid order of the Tucson Municipal Court, which, by the issuance of a nonappealable order of release, suspended my rights secured by the First Amendment. During our initial meeting I informed Mr. Manch of several apprehensions, including, statements made by previously appointed counsel who had informed me, in sum and substance, they feared retaliation, and fewer court appointments, if they aggressively challenged the rectitude of official judicial conduct, and the issuance of unconstitutional conditions of release, which was the basis of my defense. However; Mr. Manch went to some length to dismiss my fears and assure me he was only concerned with aggressively protecting my rights. In spite of his enthusiastic assurances, Mr. Manch was very casual and dilatory in advancing my case; in fact he took more than three months to obtain the case file from previous counsel, Kimberly Hunley. Moreover; in spite of several promptings and a final deadline set by the Tucson City Trial Court, Mr. Manch did not file his opening brief in Pima County Superior Court until July 27, 2011. However; the brief was stricken for legal deficiencies. Subsequent to refilling, oral argument was heard in Pima County Superior Court before Judge Godoy. However I was dismayed by Mr. Manchs poor performance and his inability to address several relevant legal and factual questions posed by the Court.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Moreover; during oral argument Mr. Manch failed to present the Court with a coherent statement of facts, including the citation of numerous other instances where the Tucson City Court had issued non-appealable orders suspending my First Amendment rights, so the Court would have an accurate factual basis on which to apply the law and render a just decision. Judge Godoy denied jurisdiction on November 28, 2011.

9.

10. On January 31, 2012 I sent a letter to Mr. Manch expressing my concerns and asking him, for the third time, to obtain court documents relevant to my case so that he could prepare an accurate statement of facts for a Special Action to Division II of the Arizona Appellate Court. (Exhibit 1) 11. However; rather than comply with my request, Mr. Manch responded by filing a Motion to Withdraw, citing an irreconcilable conflict. 12. During subsequent oral argument before Judge Berning on April 09, 2012, Mr. Manch intentionally misled the Court by stating, in sum and substance, that he, an attorney, and I, at best a partially informed layman, each had a different legal theory on how best to proceed. Mr. Warden should be allowed to proceed, on his own, in whatever direction he thinks best. 13. Subsequently; Judge Berning granted Mr. Manchs Motion and directed Mr. Manch to file a Motion for Extension of Time so that I would have an adequate time to research the law and to prepare my Opening Brief. 14. On April 13, 2012, in compliance with Judge Bernings Order, Mr. Manch filed his second Motion to Extend Time with Division II of the Arizona Appellate Court. 15. On April 18, 2012 the State filed the States Response to Appellants Second Motion for Extension of Time, objecting to the granting of an additional time extension, citing the numerous delays in the progress of the case occasioned by Mr. Manchs poor performance as justification for denying the Motion. (Exhibit 2) 16. Subsequently; Division II of the Arizona Appellate Court issued an Order (1) directing Mr. Manch to provide me with the case file, (2) denying me a significant time extension within which to research the law and to prepare my brief, and (3) directed me to file my opening brief by May 07, 2012.

17. On or about April 27, 2012 I received the case file from Mr. Manch. However; the file lacked many important documents, including the police report of the underlying incident, and as far as I can tell, any of the paperwork, notes or motions filed by other attorneys on my behalf. 18. Subsequently; based on a reasonable belief that my cause before Division II of the Arizona Appellate Court had already been prejudiced by Mr. Manch, I filed a Notice to Withdraw my Petition on May 07, 2012, which the Court granted.

Application of the Rules of Professional Conduct

I believe Mr. Manchs failure to adequately research the facts and present the serious constitutional issues underlying my case, in a timely manner, has (1) eroded my confidence in the Arizona Bar; (2) limited me in the free exercise of my constitutional right to speech and assembly; (3) caused me unnecessary anxiety; and (4) prejudiced my case before the Arizona Appellate Court. Moreover; I believe Mr. Manch violated the following sections of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, as set forth below: ER 1.1. Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Thoroughness and Preparation [5] Competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate preparation. The required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence. An agreement between the lawyer and the client regarding the scope of the representation may limit the matters for which the lawyer is responsible. See ER 1.2(c). ER 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer

(a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by ER 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer [1] Paragraph (a) confers upon the client the ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law and the lawyer's professional obligations. ER 1.3. Diligence

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Comment [1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client. [3] Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination. A client's interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions; in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations, the client's legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client's interests are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer's trustworthiness. A lawyer's duty to act with reasonable promptness, however, does not preclude the lawyer from agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement that will not prejudice the lawyer's client.

____________________ Under penalty of perjury, I, Roy Warden, do herein declare, swear and affirm that the facts set forth in the above document entitled Outline of Complaint Against Attorney Eric Manch are true to the best of my recollection. _________________ Date ______________________ Roy Warden

State of Arizona County of _____________ On this ____day of ____________________, 2012, before me the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Roy Warden, known to me to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed. My Commission Expires:_____________ ___________________ Notary