{ "id": 1872599, "name": "William P. CLARK v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. State", "decision_date": "1987-03-09", "docket_number": "CR 86-142", "first_page": "405", "last_page": "441", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "291 Ark. 405" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "725 S.W.2d 550" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "381 U.S. 131", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167089 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "136" }, { "page": "131" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/381/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 U.S. 148", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6161452 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/356/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 U.S. 367", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157728 ], "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "376" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/331/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 U.S. 553", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6175982 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "555-556" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/404/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 S.W.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "269" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Ark. 1058", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1428273 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1064" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/188/1058-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 S.W. 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1925, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 Ark. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1376969 ], "year": 1925, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/167/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "697 S.W.2d 895", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1876567 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "898" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/287/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 Ark. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1721, "char_count": 65727, "ocr_confidence": 0.914, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.327532577264242e-08, "percentile": 0.48039518906314616 }, "sha256": "6bdf5441ab6d2bfdd1c3f914aa6917e4a819ae1ec30dbdd1edb1ad1896f56959", "simhash": "1:e62e84a1bf92281a", "word_count": 11792 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:32.108459+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hickman, Dudley, and Glaze, JJ., dissent.", "Dudley and Glaze, JJ., join in the dissent." ], "parties": [ "William P. CLARK v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe appellant was charged with terroristic threatening. Without the knowledge of his counsel and without bringing it to the attention of the judge, Honorable Floyd Lofton, the appellant filed a motion asking Judge Lofton to recuse. In the motion the appellant accused Judge Lofton of criminal misconduct. Upon learning of the motion and its contents, Judge Lofton ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The appellant was convicted of criminal contempt, and we reversed, holding Judge Lofton should have recused from the contempt proceeding because he was obviously embroiled in a personal dispute with the appellant. Clark v. State, 287 Ark. 281, 697 S.W.2d 895 (1985). We remanded the case for a hearing before a different judge. In our first opinion we said:\nThe appellant\u2019s final argument is that the mere filing of the motion to recuse was not contempt. While this situation could fit within the perimeters of our definition of criminal con tempt, see Ex parte Stroud, 167 Ark. 331, 268 S.W. 13 (1925), the underlying factual question will have to be resolved by the trial court upon remand.\n[287 Ark. at 227, 697 S.W.2d at 898.]\nA hearing was held before Judge Jack Lessenberry, who found the appellant guilty of criminal contempt. We reverse and dismiss because the facts found in the second hearing are not sufficient to form the basis of the contempt conviction.\nThe motion which formed the basis of the contempt charge accused Judge Lofton of a number of things including illegally incarcerating the appellant, conspiring with a doctor and deputy prosecutor to have the appellant adjudged mentally incompetent for the purpose of harassment and intimidation, depriving the appellant of the right to defend himself by appointing a public defender, sending public defenders to tell the appellant the judge would put him in a mental institution unless he allowed the public defenders to represent him, unprofessionally slandering the appellant by accusing him of \u201cnot playing with a full deck\u201d and being \u201cthick skulled,\u201d committing witness bribery as defined by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2608(1 )(a)(iii), making false statements, and intimidating witnesses.\nIn Judge Lessenberry\u2019s hearing the record of which is before us, no evidence showed that the motion was in any way published by the appellant or presented in such a way as to be disruptive of proceedings before the court or in such a way as to incite disruption or disrespect for the court by others. The motion contained no profanity and was phrased in flat, mostly legalistic language. The motion concluded by saying the appellant planned, as soon as reasonably possible, to have attorneys of his choice present the evidence to the prosecutor \u201cin the proper legal manner\u201d so that charges would be brought against Judge Lofton.\nAlthough Ex Parte Stroud, supra, discussed the subject of a contempt citation brought about by repetitious motions designed to vex the court or delay proceedings, we have no Arkansas case dealing with the question whether the filing of a motion like the one in this case may be the basis of contempt. In Freeman v. State, 188 Ark. 1058, 69 S.W.2d 267 (1934), we were confronted with, in another context, the question whether written words constituted criminal contempt. There, the Pine Bluff Commercial could have been interpreted as interfering in a matter before the court. We found it was also susceptible of being a mere criticism of the law being applied. We held the editor and publisher were purged of the contempt by their affidavits disclaiming any intention to interfere with or degrade the court. A published newspaper article is, of course, vastly different from a motion, stated in legal terms, filed with the court.\nThere is, however, this language in Freeman v. State, supra:\nIn order to preserve the dignity and efficiency of courts, it is essential, among other things, that no conduct be permitted which is either a direct or a consequential contempt \u2014 a direct contempt which openly insults the court or infringes on its power committed in the presence of the presiding judges, or consequential, which, without open insult or direct opposition, plainly tends to create an universal disregard of their authority. In the latter class are included any speaking or writing contemptuously of the court or judges acting in their judicial capacity; or by printing false accounts of causes then pending before the court; or printing articles with respect thereto which would be calculated to influence, intimidate, impede, embarrass or obstruct the courts in the due administration of justice. [188 Ark. at 1064; 69 S.W.2d at 269.]\nFrom the perspective of this opinion the most troublesome words are, \u201c. . . any speaking or writing contemptuously of the court or judges acting in their judicial capacity . . .\u201d By using the word \u201ccontemptuously,\u201d we seemed to be saying that \u201ccontempt is .contempt.\u201d If we meant \u201cany speaking or writing derogatory of the court or judges acting in their judicial capacity,\u201d we surely must have meant that such conduct be held to be contempt when the speaking or writing was published in such a manner as to \u201cinfluence, intimidate, impede, embarrass, or obstruct the courts.\u201d\nIn Re Larry Little, 404 U.S. 553 (1972), is a per curiam opinion in which the Supreme Court eloquently stated the law of criminal contempt. The case was one in which the petitioner, charged in a North Carolina state court with a crime, appeared and moved for a continuance to a date when his retained counsel would be available. The motion was denied, and the trial was held. In his summation before the trial judge, the petitioner accused the judge in open court of bias and prejudice, and he said he was being held a \u201cpolitical prisoner.\u201d He was held in contempt. Reversing the conviction the Supreme Court said:\nThere is no indication, and the State does not argue, that petitioner\u2019s statements were uttered in a boisterous tone or in any wise actually disrupted the court proceeding. Therefore, \u201cThe vehemence of the language used is not alone the measure of the power to punish for contempt. The fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice. The danger must not be remote or even probable; it must immediately imperil. . . . [T]he law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.\u201d Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947). \u201cTrial courts. . .must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.\u2019\u2019 Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 153 (1958).\nThe reversal of this conviction is necessarily required under our holding in Holt v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 131 (1965). There attorneys filed motions that the trial judge recuse himself and for a change of venue, alleging that the judge was biased. The motion for change of venue alleged that the judge intimidated and harassed the attorneys\u2019 client. The court adjudged the attorneys in contempt for filing these motions. We reversed for reasons also applicable here:\n\u201cIt is not charged that petitioners here disobeyed any valid court order, talked loudly, acted boisterously, or attempted to prevent the judge or any other officer of the court from carrying on his court duties. Their convictions rest on nothing whatever except allegations made in motions for change of venue and disqualification of Judge Holladay because of alleged bias on his part.\u201d Id., at 136. [404 U.S. at 555-556]\nIn Holt v. Virginia, the motion which accused the judge of intimidation and harassment was not only filed, but read to the judge in open court. In addition to the language quoted above, Mr. Justice Black noted that a litigant must be allowed to file motions which present claims and raise relevant issues. \u201c[T]he words used in the motions were plain English, in no way offensive in themselves, and wholly appropriate to charge bias ... of the presiding judge.\u201d 381 U.S. at 131.\nThe only distinguishing factor which might remove the case before us now from the rule of Holt v. Virginia, supra, is that Judge Lofton was charged by the appellant with criminal misconduct. All of those charges were, however, relevant to the appellant\u2019s contention that Judge Lofton was biased in his case.\nThe division of our court over this case is indicative of its difficulty and the empathy we feel with a trial judge confronted with the situation the appellant created. Members of this court must, however, sometimes subdue even their strongest feelings in the interest of deciding cases not for the moment but for the long run. The dissenting opinion shows that the appellant was, before he filed the motion at issue here, twice found to be in contempt in the tortured course of the proceedings before Judge Lofton. Those rulings and the facts surrounding them are not, however, what is on appeal now. The dissenting opinion also misconstrues this opinion as holding the motion was \u201clegitimate.\u201d We take no position on its \u201clegitimacy;\u201d we say only that it was not contemptuous.\nThe members of the majority for whom this opinion speaks do not take lightly or suffer gladly allegations of criminal misconduct directed at a judge. Chances are this conviction would have been affirmed had there been any disruption or open insult or degrading comment whatsoever accompanying the filing of the motion. On the other hand, we see the criminal contempt power as an awesome weapon in the court\u2019s arsenal. Even, and perhaps especially, in cases where the allegations are made by a person the judge has concluded to be mentally unbalanced, the contempt power must not be used to immunize judges from allegations of criminal misconduct which are not presented in a manner constituting a disruption of the court\u2019s proceedings or an open affront and imminent peril to the institution or its dignity. It must never be used to place judges above the law. The vital public respect for and faith in judicial institutions will, we believe, be enhanced by the extent to which we are able to solve our problems with patience as opposed to pique, holding our power in reserve.\nReversed and dismissed.\nHickman, Dudley, and Glaze, JJ., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "David Newbern, Justice." }, { "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice,\ndissenting. This is the second time we have reviewed the criminal contempt of William P. Clark. Before, we found Circuit Judge Floyd Lofton should not have heard the matter because he was too close to the problem. So it was remanded for a different judge to determine the underlying facts.\nThis time we do not like the underlying facts the judge found. We also do not like the law we cited, so different law and different cases are cited as justification to find Clark not guilty of contempt. In so doing the majority has viewed every consideration in favor of Clark and every inference against the state, casually dismissing or ignoring any facts that were before the court, disregarding all the testimony of the witnesses, including that of Judge Lofton and Clark; and most importantly, the majority does not review two transcripts of the trials which led to this contempt citation. They demonstrate without question that Clark, from the beginning, deliberately and intentionally sought to defy, ignore, frustrate, and completely disrupt the judicial process and malign the trial judge and the circuit court.\nThe pleading or document filed by Clark is defended by the majority as a legitimate legal motion; two United States Supreme Court decisions are relied upon which hold no criminal contempt could be found when legitimate pleadings are filed. If this case is reviewed, as it should be, and a review is made of what happened, what the facts are, and what the trial court found, the majority\u2019s decision can only be kindly characterized as wrong.\nFirst, this so-called motion is styled \u201cDEFENDANT, WILLIAM P. CLARK, IN PROPRIA PERSONA, HEREBY DEMANDS JUDGE FLOYD J. LOFTON, RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, ALL UNCONTESTED FACTS.\u201d There follows a litany of criminal charges, 12 in number, against Judge Lofton, including witness bribery, false material statements, and intimidating a witness. This motion was admittedly not filed to ask Judge Lofton to recuse, it was filed without Clark\u2019s counsel\u2019s knowledge, and only discovered by Lofton after Clark\u2019s trial for terroristic threatening. (He was found guilty.) It was filed by Clark to make criminal charges against Lofton to impugn his and the court\u2019s integrity. If Judge Lofton was guilty of such conduct, he should be impeached; if not, Clark should be found guilty of contempt and punished. Lofton had to call Clark\u2019s hand \u2014 the criminal charges could not be ignored. They were a direct intentional act of contempt of the judge and the court. The state is the other party to this suit, not Lofton or his court.\nClark\u2019s testimony about this document reads: \u201c. . .1 won\u2019t apologize for this. Because I\u2019m not sorry. Judge Lofton finds my motion offensive. And to him it probably is because it questions his integrity. But, as far as I am concerned that\u2019s the reason that I filed the motion because he doesn\u2019t have any integrity.\u201d\nWhen Judge Lessenberry questioned Clark at one point, Clark responded: \u201cWell, you\u2019re just like Judge Lofton, you intimidate . . .\u201d He goes on to explain his version of what happened in his two trials:\nBut no where in the testimony will you find that I got mad, accused him of not playing with a full deck or anything like that. Or cursed him. I always conducted myself as a gentleman in a court of law. Even though I am not a lawyer. And I feel like that\u2019s the way to get justice. You will eventually if you run across a personality conflict with a Judge like Judge Lofton and I have, you will eventually get somebody [to] appeal it. And I have appealed the cases.\nCompare this statement by Clark with the one he made at the second hearing on the terroristic threatening charge held on January 3, 1985. It begins with Judge Lofton saying:\nWhat\u2019s the status of other cases?\nClark [acting pro se]: Oh, I thought I had delivered the appeal to you, Judge. [Referring to his other case.]\nJudge Lofton: You may have. I don\u2019t read those. And you can keep it. I don\u2019t read it.\nClark: Well, you\u2019ve got to keep it. You\u2019ve got to keep a copy according to \u2014 You know, you can shitcan it or whatever you want to do.\nBut I\u2019m getting ahead of myself. This matter evidently began as a divorce case. That personal matter spilled over into criminal court. Two separate criminal charges were involved: Clark\u2019s failure to support his children and threatening to kill a lawyer acting on behalf of his children in the divorce case. Lofton first met Clark when Clark appealed his criminal conviction for non-support of his children to circuit court. It began on October 12, 1983, with criminal case No. 83-1986, State versus Clark:\nJudge Lofton: And who are you, sir?\nClark: I\u2019m William P. Clark.\nJudge Lofton: You are Mr. Clark. What are we doing with some more of these Chancery things?\nMr. Douglass: This is an appeal from Little Rock Municipal Court.\nJudge Lofton: Are you an attorney as well?\nClark: No, I am not, your Honor, I\u2019m representing myself pro se. I\u2019ve done this several times in Municipal Court and in Chancery Court.\nJudge Lofton: You know what you\u2019re charged with, don\u2019t you?\nClark: Yes, I do, your Honor.\n* * *\nClark: I am pleading not guilty and request a jury trial.\nJudge Lofton: Six man or twelve man?\nClark: Twelve.\n* * *\nJudge Lofton: Okay. I don\u2019t know anything about this thing, Mr. Clark, but just by way \u2014 I\u2019ll have an omnibus hearing and I\u2019ll want to hear what your defense is. Why don\u2019t you tell me what your defense is now.\nClark: Your Honor, I intend to prove bribery, perjury and fraud against Lee Munson, Judith Rogers, two attorneys, Winton McGinnis and Robert Newcomb. I have been deprived of all my assets. I have been harassed continually for almost three years now. I have been illegally incarcerated in the County Jail twice and in the State Mental Institution once.\nJudge Lofton: What was the deal out at the State Hospital?\nClark: Well, Lee said that \u2014 What happened, my children have run away from home seventeen times during this period of time. They are now ten and six.\nJudge Lofton: But what did the State Hospital say when you were out there?\nClark:. . .so, when I de-committed myself from the State Hospital having proven that there was nothing mentally wrong with me, Lee was mad and that\u2019s the problem. He was mad because I told him I intended to appeal and file charges.\n* * *\nClark: If I had not been deprived of everything that I had earned over the past twenty years, your Honor, I could afford an attorney.\nJudge Lofton: Well, I will appoint you one if you can\u2019t afford one. You\u2019re entitled to one because, if you\u2019re guilty of this, you may go to jail.\nClark: Well, your Honor, I understand that I may go to jail.\nJudge Lofton: I will appoint you one and it won\u2019t cost you a dime.\nClark: I can appreciate that, your Honor, but I \u2014 Well, you may appoint one but I may or may not use him.\nJudge Lofton: Do you want one? You\u2019re going to need one. If you don\u2019t want one, it doesn\u2019t make any difference to me. . . .If you want one, you let me know. . . .Now, I\u2019m going to put down here that you\u2019re going to represent yourself and you\u2019re on notice of all the difficulties you\u2019ve got. But one is available and I\u2019ll appoint him and it won\u2019t cost you a dime. You let me know.\nClark: You can go ahead and appoint him.\nJudge Lofton: . . . Bill [a lawyer], Mr. Clark wants to represent himself and I\u2019m going to let him do that as far as he can. You heard some of what he wants. He\u2019s got an uphill battle. Just make yourself available to him.\nClark: Thank you, your honor.\nOn November 22,1983, the second hearing was held before Judge Lofton. Deputy Public Defender Tom O\u2019Hearn filed a motion to be relieved as Clark\u2019s counsel:\nJudge Lofton: So, you want to proceed on your own?\nClark: I would like to, your Honor.\nJudge Lofton: Well, you\u2019re foolish but let me tell you something. I\u2019m going to let you do it but it\u2019s going to be almost impossible for me to appear to be fair because every time you get up and open your mouth he\u2019s going to object. And every time it\u2019s going to be proper and I\u2019m going to have to sustain it because you don\u2019t know how to ask questions and because you\u2019ll ask them improperly and because in asking questions you will have a tendency to testify and, in so doing, you will open up things that he can\u2019t talk about unless you open them up and you will open them up. So, while it\u2019s extremely foolish \u2014 . . . . I will let you do this but I want to warn you you are extremely foolish. It doesn\u2019t make any difference to me. I don\u2019t care whether you get a year or a Thousand Dollars or get acquitted. It doesn\u2019t make any difference to me. The only thing I\u2019m concerned about is it is extremely difficult for me to appear fair.\nClark: I understand what you\u2019re saying, your Honor. . . . Before we go any further, the reason that I would like to represent myself, quite frankly, is that I intend to call approximately twenty-eight witnesses to prove that the entire divorce decree and the child support that results from it is a direct result of bribery, perjury, fraud, filing of false legal documents by attorneys, which they have already admitted in Court that they have done this.\nClark asked Judge Lofton to recuse because he would not let Clark present his case the way he wanted.\nJudge Lofton: That will be denied because I\u2019m going to follow the law and there\u2019s not a judge in the State that\u2019s going to follow the law that would do any different than I do.\nJudge Lofton inquired why the case was not in chancery court. Clark had been convicted in municipal court by Judge Dishongh of non-support offering no defense. When asked what his defense would be, he responded:\nClark: That the entire divorce decree and the child support that went with it is in fact a fraud.\nJudge Lofton: Did you appeal that down there?\nClark: Your Honor, I have attempted to appeal on numerous occasions. However, I was for the longest period of time, almost three years, unable to get a divorce decree.\nJudge Lofton: Why? * * *\nClark: You know, I \u2014 He [Judge Munson] was supposed to state the findings and facts \u2014 findings of fact and conclusions of law as to what grounds for divorce, what were the grounds for divorce, which did not exist. And he has admitted out of Court \u2014 And I can prove it, that he stated after the hearing was over that there were no grounds for divorce. * * *\nJudge Lofton: Well, why didn\u2019t you appeal it when filed it? [sic] He\u2019s granted a divorce now.\nClark: Your Honor \u2014 Yes, he granted a divorce technically.\n* * *\nClark: It is under appeal, your Honor. The entire matter is under appeal and I intend to see that Lee Munson goes to the Federal Pen if I can, if it takes me until I\u2019m ninety-five years old. * * *\nJudge Lofton: It\u2019s so foolish, you know. If you would just take your lawyer, he could have corrected all of that. If what you say is true, he could have corrected it in ninety days.\nClark: Your Honor, I assure we attempted to correct it. Thus far, I have been illegally incarcerated in the State Mental Institution.\nJudge Lofton: Well, I\u2019ve got questions about the illegality of that.\nClark: Well, I assure you there was no hearing on it. Everybody admits.\nJudge Lofton: You know, you\u2019re not showing very good judgment today. Now, I\u2019m not saying you\u2019re crazy but the fact that you don\u2019t take that lawyer shows that you\u2019re not playing with a full deck.\nClark: Well, your Honor, in that case I\u2019d like for you to recuse yourself.\nJudge Lofton: Why? Why?\nClark: Because of the statement you just made.\nJudge Lofton: I\u2019m not going to find you guilty of being crazy or not crazy. I\u2019m just saying that because you don\u2019t accept a lawyer that\u2019s appointed for you you\u2019re not playing with a full deck.\nClark: Well, your Honor, thus far, I\u2019ve done reasonably well representing myself . . .\n* * *\nThe third hearing was held December 16,1983, an omnibus hearing before the trial.\nClark: I assure you, your Honor, that I\u2019m not trying to be a problem child. I\u2019m trying to get some relief for my children and myself.\nState\u2019s attorney: That\u2019s the problem\u2014\nJudge Lofton: I can\u2019t buy that, Bill, I cannot buy that because you\u2019re going at it in an entirely improper way.\nClark: I have no alternative.\nJudge Lofton: And you have refused all the help that this Court has offered you to do that. So, I don\u2019t buy that. But that\u2019s all right. If you want to be a problem child, you know, it doesn\u2019t bother me. I get paid the same whether it\u2019s a problem child or not. So, it doesn\u2019t bother me. I just don\u2019t believe you.\nClark: I understand.\nJudge Lofton explained exactly what Clark was to do for the next hearing on February 9, 1984.\nJudge Lofton: Now, if you\u2019ve got a problem with it and you want a subpoena duces tecum, which is a subpoena for records or something like that, then you must type that and present it in form and present it to me for my approval. And I will discuss what you want and why you want it and so on and so forth. I may or may not do it. I may ask you to put in form and show me some law of why you want it before I rule on it. But on the 9th of February that is your day and you may present to me at that time any and all information and/or witnesses and you may have them here at 9:30 and we will have a reporter and you may call them as witnesses and you may ask them whatever you want to ask them at trial. And, if there are no objections, then fine. We\u2019ll go right along. If there are objections, I\u2019ll rule on them and we\u2019ll get that out of the way. Now, if you want a copy of the transcript down there, as far as I know, you can pay for it and get it. If you can\u2019t pay for it and can\u2019t afford to pay for it, that\u2019s another matter I\u2019ll have to discuss with you and you will have to file the appropriate document showing that you\u2019re an indigent and affidavits and such and so on and so forth and get a subpoena duces tecum for the production of that as an indigent and show me some law that what is in there is relevant and material to this proceeding. And, if you can do it, fine. If you can\u2019t, sorry about that.\nClark: I understand.\n* * *\nJudge Lofton: If I order that transcript down there and they can\u2019t get it out, then I\u2019ll have to pass this case to get it done. But I want it, you know, started immediately because if there\u2019s any way, shape, form or fashion this can be done on the 9th of February, I intend to do it.\nAt the fourth hearing on February 7,1984, the following colloquy occurred:\nJudge Lofton: What are we here for?\nClark: Your Honor, I\u2019m here. I received a letter from the Court to appear. * * *\nCourt Reporter: You were advised by the Clerk or somebody that he had issued subpoenas only for Friday and not for the omnibus hearing Thursday. * * *\nState\u2019s attorney: If the Court will recall, Mr. Clark is representing himself pro se. At a previous omnibus hearing, when you inquired as to the nature of his defense, he indicated that he was going to attempt to collaterally attack the validity of the divorce decree and child custody order. We had some discussion on that, that was probably inadmissible material.\nThe Court instructed Mr. Clark and set on the docket and set out a notice that we were to have a proffer date of February the 9th at 1:30 for him, since he was representing himself pro se, to subpoena these witnesses to proffer their testimony so that the Court could determine both the relevancy and the materiality of their testimony.\nI\u2019ve been monitoring the Circuit Court\u2019s file. He has issued in excess of twenty subpoenas, all of them for the tenth, none of them for the ninth. He\u2019s in a position now that any subpoenas issued for the ninth are not valid because of the three day rule. So, he cannot get his witnesses here to proffer them.\nHe also has violated 43-2002, that to exceed six witnesses on a misdemeanor case, he shall first make a \u2014 file a verified application to the Court. This application shall contain a statement of the facts which the party expects to prove by each of the witnesses. And it has to be a fact that could not already have been proved by one of the witnesses within the first six.\nThe Court then has to grant him the authority to issue the other subpoenas. He\u2019s not done that.\nHe also has issued subpoenas for his minor children. Those subpoenas have not been properly served. They\u2019ve been served on an adult who is not a guardian of the children. Mr. Robert Newcomb is here. He is attorney for the children and represents them as\u2014 * * *\nJudge Lofton: Okay. You understood that I ordered you to have them subpoenaed for the ninth for a pre-trial hearing, a pre-trial trial.\nClark: Well, your Honor, it is my\u2014\nJudge Lofton: Did you understand that?\nClark: It is my intention not to present the evidence at an omnibus hearing. I believe I have the right to either present or not present certain defenses. Am I correct?\nJudge Lofton: No. That\u2019s not so. So, you are violating the Court\u2019s order. * * * And I told you expressly to get them here. Y ou are telling me now that you have elected not to do that. And that\u2019s fine. You may do that. But you shouldn\u2019t have.\nClark was found in contempt and the court observed:\nMr. Clark, I have been trying to get you to accept an attorney and I have been trying to do everything that is humanly possible for you in this case since I got it. You have ignored it. You have rejected it. You have refused it. You have been obstinate. You have been arrogant. You have been impudent. And you have done nothing but to try to obstruct the trial of this case.\nNotwithstanding that fact, I am still bound and I am going to do everything that I can to help you. And you can refuse it. You can ignore it. You can do whatever you want to but I am going to try this case. And I am going to do everything humanly possible to protect your rights and see to it that you have your day in Court.\nThen, when I\u2019ve done that, whatever the pronouncement is, I have done all I can do.\nAnd, if you don\u2019t want to abide by the rules of this Court, if you don\u2019t want to accept the offer of help and assistance of this Court, that\u2019s your problem. That\u2019s your privilege. You have that right. But you\u2019re going to be in jail while you\u2019re exercising that right.\nNow, Mr. Simpson, I am going to appoint you to represent this man. He does not want you. And that\u2019s fine.\nAnd what I want you to do, I want you to do this: I want you and the Prosecutor to see if you all can get in touch with these people by phone and that if there is any way humanly possible that we can get them here for Thursday. And it will be by their grace because we obviously can\u2019t order them here in this short notice.\nIf they can, I want them to consider this: This Court has set aside this time to try this case. And, if there\u2019s any way humanly possible, I intend to try this case Thursday and Friday and get rid of it.\nAnd, if they will accommodate me, I will accommodate them. Otherwise, it\u2019s going to be more time that they\u2019re going to waste on down the road because we\u2019re going to have to pass it off and keep him in jail and resubpoena and reset the trial and he\u2019s going to be in jail out there sixty or ninety days because it\u2019s going to be that long before I can put it back on the docket. And I\u2019m prepared to keep him there but I don\u2019t want to. I want to get rid of this case.\nClark\u2019s appointed attorney: Judge, we have been previously appointed on this case and I had assigned it to Mr. O\u2019Hearn of our office. He\u2019s done quite a bit of work on the case. I think he\u2019s talked with Mr. Clark. And what I would like to do, with the Court\u2019s permission, is let Mr. O\u2019Hearn handle this case. * * * Judge, one more point we have. When we first \u2014 Now he\u2019s offered his witness list. I think he had subpoenaed some U.S. Senators. I\u2019m not sure all.\nBut\u2014\nClark: Beg your pardon.\nState\u2019s attorney: There\u2019s some Chancellors.\nClark\u2019s appointed attorney: There\u2019s some Chancellors. I\u2019m not sure who all was subpoenaed. There\u2019s list of about forty, I think.\nJudge Lofton: Gentlemen, I\u2019m reading the Brethern and you can subpoena the President. I didn\u2019t know that.\nClark\u2019s appointed attorney: At that time, we didn\u2019t understand why some of these people were being subpoenaed.\nJudge Lofton: Well, nobody does, you see. And all I want you to do is just try to find out, you know. And he may not tell you. He may tell you. Are you going to talk to this lawyer?\nClark: Your Honor, I\u2019ll just have to determine that at a later time.\nJudge Lofton: Well, it\u2019s getting pretty late, you know.\nClark: Well, I understand.\nJudge Lofton: We\u2019re getting ready to go to trial Mr. Clark, and it\u2019s time you started making some basic, fundamental decisions. But you don\u2019t have to, you know. All you have to do is be here and we can try the case. * * *\nThe fifth hearing began on February 9, 1984.\nMr. Clark: Your Honor, may I make a statement, please?\nJudge Lofton: I suppose so.\nClark: Your Honor, I do not wish to have anyone defend me except myself. I refuse the assistance of the Public Defender.\nJudge Lofton: I understand that, Mr. Clark, and respect that. And I\u2019m just going to have them stand by and available to you and to be aware of the issues in the case and the legalities in case you need them and in case the Court needs them. You\u2019re your lawyer and they\u2019re just available to help you and to help me get through this.\nClark: I understand. Very good. * * *\nState\u2019s attorney: I think at this time it would be appropriate for the Court to hear testimony about Mr. Clark. I have some questions as to whether he is fit to proceed at this point or not or whether he can effectively assist in his own defense. The actions he\u2019s taken indicate that he is either not in grasp with reality or refuses to accept that.\nClark: Your Honor, I object strenuously. Before any testimony is given as to whether or not I am fit to represent myself, I\u2019m sure that I\u2019m due psychological testing and to bring in witnesses on my behalf to state that I am in fact competent and capable enough to handle this defense myself. * * * I would like to have the record presented from the State Hospital, which in fact I did subpoena.\nJudge Lofton: We\u2019ll get it. Is it here today?\nClark: It will be here tomorrow, your Honor, and it will state beyond a question of a doubt that I have three separate physicians who state there\u2019s absolutely nothing wrong with me. * * * Let me say that, number one, I have paid a portion of the child support for which I am now being charged that I have not paid, that I paid during that time\u2014\nAfter lengthy arguments and testimony, the following occurred:\nState\u2019s attorney, continuing: Mr. Clark, let me ask you just one very simple question. Why is it that you will not go out and hire an attorney to assist you in this case? I understand you got that right. Just one little simple question. Why will you not go out and hire an attorney?\nClark: I don\u2019t have any money right now.\nJudge Lofton: He doesn\u2019t have any money. Is that what he said?\nState\u2019s attorney: That\u2019s what he said.\nClark: I don\u2019t have the money right now.\nJudge Lofton: Would you accept one if one were provided?\nClark: No, I would not, your Honor.\nJudge Lofton: So, the money doesn\u2019t have anything to do with it.\nClark: Well, in this case, if I had an opportunity to hire an attorney that I had confidence in, yes, I probably would hire him.\nJudge Lofton: Do you have any attorney in mind that you have confidence in?\nClark: I have one.\nJudge Lofton: Who? * * *\nClark: Is it mandatory that I answer that question?\nJudge Lofton: No, I\u2019d just like to know.\nClark: Well, I would prefer not to answer at this time.\n* * *\nJudge Lofton: I might get him for you, at a fee that you could afford. If you will just tell me who it is, I\u2019ll see if I can accommodate you.\nClark: Harold Craig.\nJudge Lofton: Harold Craig. John, Call Harold Craig. And somebody look in the courthouse and see if Harold Craig\u2019s here and ask him to come up here. * * * Mr. Clark, one thing I\u2019d like to ask. Mr. King testified you told him that the conspiracy had widened to include this Court and him. Do you think this Court\u2019s involved in any conspiracy against you?\nClark: Your Honor, I don\u2019t recall ever having said that to Mr. King.\nJudge Lofton: So, you deny it?\nClark: Yes, I deny that. * * * Your Honor, it is my opinion that you are doing it the way you usually do it. It is your Court and you have a right to run it the way you see fit.\nJudge Lofton: Gee whiz. There\u2019s some dispute about that. But go ahead.\n* * *\nClark: I really don\u2019t think I will be convicted. It depends on what evidence you will allow me to present.\nJudge Lofton: Therein lies the problem, Mr. Clark.\nClark: I realize that you are going to do what you think is right.\nJudge Lofton: That\u2019s charitable of you.\n* * *\nJudge Lee Munson testified:\nJudge Lofton: Judge, was he able to adequately deal with the intricacies of his legal issues?\nJudge Munson: Not really. He didn\u2019t understand the consequences. He didn\u2019t like the law and he was going to do it his way.\nCross-examination by Clark:\nQ. You stated, Judge Munson, that I made bizarre statements in Court. Can you tell me what bizarre statements those were?\nA. Well, you said that Judge Rogers had taken bribes, that I was on the take, that we were all conspiring against you, that sort of thing.\nQ. I see.\nA. There was no base of foundation for that. That\u2019s a bizarre statement to me without foundation.\n* * *\nMr. Harold Craig, a lawyer, was found:\nJudge Lofton: . . . Mr. Clark, I have found Mr. Craig here. He was in the courthouse.\nMr. Craig, Mr. Clark does not have an attorney and will not accept the Public Defender or anyone that the Court might appoint to him. There are some allegations about a wide conspiracy. And there is only one lawyer in all of Pulaski County that he would even consider. * * * I can\u2019t pay you but I am deeply concerned about Mr. Clark. And I\u2019m not concerned about the legal issues. I\u2019m concerned about his welfare.\nAs an officer of this Court, would you talk to Mr. Clark?\nCraig: Yes, I would.\nJudge Lofton: Notwithstanding the fact that I can\u2019t pay you.\nCraig: I understand that.\nJudge Lofton: And you\u2019re under no obligation to me or anybody but Mr. Clark. Also, Mr. Craig, the Prosecutor has asked Dr. Rosendale to be here today and he has witnessed this and I would like to make Dr. Rosendale available to you.\nCraig: Very well.\nJudge Lofton: And I would like to give you and Mr. Clark and Dr. Rosendale some time to talk. And will you report back to this Court?\nCraig: Certainly.\nJudge Lofton: Do you have any objections to that, Mr. Clark?\nClark: No, I don\u2019t, your honor.\nJudge Lofton: Clark, would you take them back and put them in the jury room or wherever back there. Dr. Rosendale, do you mind?\nRosendale: No, sir.\nJudge Lofton: Thank you. I appreciate it. I\u2019ll wait until I hear from you all.\n(Thereupon, the Court continued with its docket; then the following proceedings occurred:)\nDr. Rosendale: I\u2019ve told him what I\u2019ve recommended. I\u2019ve told him that he absolutely needs counsel. And I\u2019ve told him that if he tries to represent himself and he brings in all this non-material and his allegations that he\u2019s made in the past I think he\u2019s just going to hurt himself, that only the instant case, just the non-support, this is the only issue before the Court, as I understand. And Mr. Craig agreed with me. So, if he will accept counsel, he can handle himself.\nJudge Lofton: Okay. Does that mean inpatient counseling?\nDr. Rosendale: No. I mean if he will accept counsel in the courtroom.\nJudge Lofton: Okay. But, otherwise, he can\u2019t?\nDr. Rosendale: He cannot handle himself as his own attorney.\nJudge Lofton: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.\nDr. Rosendale: That\u2019s my recommendation to the defendant as well as to the defense lawyer.\nJudge Lofton: . . . Mr. Craig, have you had a chance to visit with Mr. Clark?\nCraig: Yes, I have, your Honor. . . . It\u2019s my opinion, your Honor, that Mr. Clark will need to be represented by counsel. As I\u2019ve explained to him, he has a right to appear and represent himself. . . . If he\u2019s competent to do so. My opinion is that he would do himself and his case much more damage without representation by an attorney. I have not discussed with him in any detail the facts of the case. I\u2019m not familiar with it at all. From my visit with him, yes, I think he needs to be represented.\nJudge Lofton: Mr. Clark, what\u2019s your position on Mr. Craig\u2019s position?\nClark: If he will represent me, your Honor, I will take him as counsel.\nJudge Lofton: Mr. Craig, can you accept it?\nCraig: I can, your Honor. The only thing I\u2019d like publicly for Mr. Clark to be aware that your Honor and I practiced together for a short few weeks many years ago. We were not partners. We were in the same building.\nJudge Lofton: That\u2019s true. And I\u2019ve never held that against you.\nCraig: But I hate for Mr. Clark to think there was any collusion.\nJudge Lofton: Well, he said I\u2019m not colluding. And I think I\u2019ve demonstrated that I\u2019m trying to help this man.\nCraig: But I would be happy to represent him.\nJudge Lofton: Is that satisfactory to you, Mr. Clark?\nClark: Very satisfactory.\nJudge Lofton: Now, we\u2019re set for trial tomorrow.\nThe court recessed and reconvened at 2 p.m.\nJudge Lofton: What does your man want to do?\nCraig: Dismiss his appeal. . . Remand it to lower court, get out of jail, go to work and pay us a lot of money.\nJudge Lofton: This is the State of Arkansas versus Bill Clark, 83-1986, and the charge is non-support. And this is a misdemeanor appeal from Little Rock Municipal Court, where you were found guilty of non-support and fined Nine Hundred Dollars plus Fifty Dollars and Twenty-five Cents costs. And you appealed that. And you\u2019ve been up here in this Court for some time. In fact, it was filed up here on September the 14th. Then on October the 12th we arraigned you and we\u2019ve been fooling around, I don\u2019t mean to be short cutting it or facetious. We have been dealing with your problem since then. We\u2019re set for a jury trial tomorrow. So, we had a hearing this morning about it and, without going into all that \u2014 that record is there \u2014 you indicated that you might consider talking to Mr. Craig about representing you and the Court got Mr. Craig. He was in the courthouse and he came up and talked to you, spent some time talking with you today. And we also had Dr. Rosendale here talking to you today. And you\u2019ve had some time to consult with Mr. Craig and various things.\nMr. Craig advises me that you have reached an agreement that\u2019s in your best interest with Mr. Craig, your attorney, and that is that you want to dismiss this appeal and remand it back to the lower court and go on about your business.\nClark: That is true.\nJudge Lofton: Now, you understand what that means?\nClark: I think I do.\nJudge Lofton: He\u2019s explained it to you. Mr. Craig and Mr. Adametz both have explained it to you.\nClark: Well, I understand from him enough that if I misunderstood anything that\u2019s my problem, not theirs.\nJudge Lofton: Okay. So, you\u2019re just not going to litigate this here. I\u2019m going to send it back down there and, whatever that is, that\u2019s fine. You understand that and this case is dismissed.\nClark: I understand that.\nJudge Lofton: And that\u2019s what you want to do? * * * And all I\u2019m going to do is I\u2019m going to dismiss your appeal on your motion and I\u2019m going to remand it back to them and you can argue with them and fuss with them and do whatever you want to do down there and solve it and settle it. You know, whatever. But I\u2019m through with it and that\u2019s on your motion. You understand that?\nClark: I understand that.\nJudge Lofton: And you are satisfied with Mr. Craig?\nClark: Yes.\nJudge Lofton: You think he\u2019s done you a good job today?\nClark: Yes, I do.\nAfter Clark agreed to dismiss the appeal on advice of counsel, he reappeared in Lofton\u2019s court. This is March 6, the sixth hearing.\nJudge Lofton: All right, Mr. Clark, this is your petition to reinstate your appeal. Right?\nClark: That\u2019s correct your Honor.\n* * *\nJudge Lofton: Mr. Clark, number one, that will be denied because I\u2019ve tried for six weeks, two months, now, to get you to have a lawyer. And I have not taken it upon my responsibility to advise you about anything except that you need a lawyer.\nClark presented a notice of demand for rights sua sponte.\nJudge Lofton: * * * I\u2019ve done everything that I know to do within the rules of law, procedures and regulations to protect your rights and you\u2019ve avoided them, you\u2019ve ignored them, you\u2019ve refused them. And, now, then we have an understanding or had an understanding, Mr. Clark, that you were going to represent yourself, no holds barred and let the chips fall where they may. That\u2019s what you did and I gave you a lawyer and you didn\u2019t like him. So, those will be denied. You are the attorney of record unless you accept counsel appointed by the Court.\nClark: All right. I would prefer to be the attorney of record.\n* * *\nCraig was called by Clark:\nQ. But you really and fully believe that I did of my own knowledge and volition dismiss my appeal that day?\nA. Sure.\nKing was called by Clark:\nQ. Was it your intent, Mr. King, on that day to get me to accept counsel? [Harold Craig.]\nJudge Lofton: That doesn\u2019t have anything to do with it. He didn\u2019t have anything to do with it. He didn\u2019t interject himself into it. You were the one that said that you would accept Harold Craig and I was the one that sent and got him. Lloyd King didn\u2019t enter into it at all, I don\u2019t think. If I asked him, I didn\u2019t intend to.\nA. Do I understand you\u2019re waiving the attorney/client privilege?\nQ. Yea.\n* * *\nCraig again testifying:\nMr. Clark, you. expressed to me, first of all, that you had testified that you had sufficient income to pay your child support. You acknowledged the child support had come due. You acknowledged that you had not paid it. You continually and repeatedly asserted your desire to nail all these people who you are convinced have conspired against you. And that was your purpose in demanding a jury trial, to try all these other people for conspiracy. And, yes, I told you that the evidence you intended to offer was not material and was not relevant. I was trying to keep you from making a complete and utter fool of yourself.\nClark continuing:\nQ. I see, Well. . . I mean you and I were talking. Were you watching anything else that transpired in the room?\nA. I don\u2019t recall whether I was or not.\nQ. Then, if a highly sensitive tape recorder was placed in that room and in fact that conversation was taped, you wouldn\u2019t know it one way or another, would you?\nA. I certainly wouldn\u2019t.\nQ. Okay. Now\u2014\nJudge Lofton: Was there one? * * *\nClark: With all due respect, your Honor, I don\u2019t know that I have \u2014 Excuse me. Before I say something and go back to jail, may I think about that question a moment? Under sua sponte\u2014\nJudge Lofton: Sua sponte is not going to go with you. * * *\nWell, I\u2019m asking you, though. Was one put in there?\nClark: And I\u2019m saying I\u2019m not going to say.\nJudge Lofton: Okay.\nClark: Your Honor, the Defendant would like to state at this time, with all due respect to the Court, that it\u2019s Defendant\u2019s opinion that the denial of the Court to allow the Defendant to prove his points of conspiracy that are in fact pertinent to this case. And I would like to at this point state that I would like to enter into the record as a matter of record the definition of conspiracy and conspire out of Black\u2019s Law Dictionary as a matter of record.\n* 4c *\nI would like to state that it is the opinion of this Defendant, certainly not maliciously to state to this Court or with intent of contempt of this Court, but that this Court and Deputy Prosecutor Lloyd King, Deputy Prosecutor Richard Callaway, two Public Defenders, Thomas Hearn (sic) and William R. \u201cBill\u201d Simpson, have conspired \u2014 Have conspired to deprive this Defendant of due process, to deprive this Defendant of a jury trial, to intimidate and to coerce this Defendant, continuously that they have called illegal hearings and unlawful hearings, namely on February the 9th, when Defendant was supposed to come in supposedly for an omnibus hearing he finds himself two days after the two Public Defenders attempted to intimidate the Defendant in the jail cell into stating that this Court could in fact find Defendant insane. * * * If I\u2019m not mistaken, this Judge did, too, in Chambers.\nJudge Lofton: No. I just said you weren\u2019t playing with a full deck.\nClark: That is correct. I believe that was the statement. I believe the Defendant asked the Court to recuse himself at that time and the Court refused to do so.\nJudge Lofton: Yeah. And I said I wasn\u2019t trying you for not playing a full deck. I was just trying you for not paying child support.\nFinally, after six hearings, the appeal was dismissed.\nNext, we examine what happened in the case of terroristic threatening which was ultimately tried to a jury which found Clark guilty. On the 19th of February, 1985, Clark\u2019s trial began for charges of terroristic threatening to kill Robert Newcomb, the attorney ad litem appointed for his children and his former wife\u2019s attorney. The first hearing was held on August 31.\nJudge Lofton: Good morning, Mr. Clark. I didn\u2019t know who that was when I saw the name. You\u2019re charged with one count of terroristic threatening. Are you going to represent yourself in this case.\nClark: Yes, I am, your Honor.\nJudge Lofton: You know what you\u2019re charged with, don\u2019t yoii?\nClark: Yes, I do.\nJudge Lofton: Jury trial?\nClark: Yes. Twelve.\nOn January 3, 1985, the second hearing.\nJudge Lofton: Mr. Clark. What\u2019s the status of your other case?\nClark: Oh, I thought I had delivered the appeal to you, Judge. [Appeal from Municipal Court]\nJudge Lofton: You may have. I don\u2019t read those. And you can keep it. I don\u2019t read it.\nClark: Well, you\u2019ve got to keep it. You\u2019ve got to keep a copy according to \u2014 You know, you can shitcan it or whatever you want to do.\nJudge Lofton: What\u2019s the status? Has it been submitted yet? * * * Have you filed any motions?\nClark: I filed one just a few minutes ago. It will be the second time I\u2019ve asked you to recuse yourself.\nJudge Lofton: Well, it\u2019s not timely filed and I\u2019m not going to do it. * * * Why? For what \u2014 Just because I said you weren\u2019t playing with a full deck?\nClark: Well, you\u2019re biased. There\u2019s no question about it. I think I know it and you know it and everybody else in the courthouse knows it.\nJudge Lofton: So, your reason you want me to recuse is because I\u2019m biased?\nClark: Because you\u2019re prejudiced and biased against this defendant.\nJanuary 30, the trial date.\nJudge Lofton: Mr. Clark, is there anybody going to be with you at the counsel table?\nClark: No, your Honor.\nJudge Lofton: Okay. I have an attorney available. Will you accept appointment of a public defender to help you?\nClark: I will not.\nJudge Lofton: Okay. Mr. Allen, I\u2019d ask you to sit at the rail, at that bench right behind the counsel table and just make yourself available. This is Mr. Art Allen. He\u2019s available if you need to ask him anything. He won\u2019t sit there with you but, if you need to know something, he\u2019s available. Okay. Now, then, is there anything I need to know about this case before we get started?\nState\u2019s attorney: I just hate to see him having a field day at everybody\u2019s expense with him not having to pay anything for it.\nJudge Lofton: Well, I don\u2019t know\u2014\nClark: I have to pay for you.\nJudge Lofton: Now, listen. Mr. Clark, we\u2019re not going to put up with that now. I\u2019m going to do everything I can to keep you from prejudicing your case today. I probably will have my hands full. But I\u2019m not going to have a bunch of arguing, fussing, fighting out there. This is a court of law. If the State can prove you guilty and convict you, fine. If they can\u2019t, they\u2019re not going to. But you\u2019re going to be held to the same standards, as you know, as any other lawyer. I\u2019m not going to put up with all that bickering because it\u2019s not going to help your case and I\u2019m going to do everything I can to help you.\nClark: I understand.\nJudge Lofton: But, now, I\u2019m going to rule just like I would and I expect you to obey those rules. And we\u2019re going to go right through this trial just like you had a real lawyer.\nAfter considerable testimony, with the judge admonishing Clark not to bring up irrelevant material, the judge stated:\nThere\u2019s a lawyer over there. He might be able to help you.\nClark: This defendant is not foolish to believe that this Court is interested in protecting this defendant\u2019s rights at all.\nWhen Clark persisted in arguing with the court\u2019s admonitions and rulings, the judge firmly said:\nBe quiet a minute. You be quiet. You go over and talk to that man. He\u2019s going to give you some legal advice. [The attorney appointed for Clark] Art, I am going to hold him in contempt of Court and put him in jail until he agrees to abide by the rulings of the Court or, if he will agree to conduct this trial in a manner that is in his best interests, I will continue to do so but I\u2019m not going to put up with anymore. Now, you go talk to Mr. Allen over there and let him give you some legal advice and then you all tell me what you want to do. Talk to him.\nClark: Your Honor\u2014\nJudge Lofton: Are you refusing to talk to Mr. Allen?\nClark: Your Honor, I have a right to defend myself. The Supreme Court has stated that I have a right to defend myself.\nThe judge dismissed the jury and noted:\nMr. Allen, you are hereby appointed to stand by as lawyer for Mr. Clark. He is going to be committed to the Pulaski County Jail until such time as he agrees to abide by the rulings of the Court and/or let you try the case in his best interest, whichever. Take him to jail. He\u2019s to be held in contempt of Court until he purges himself by complying with the Court\u2019s orders.\nOn the 4th of February, the court reconvened. This time attorney Jim Tripcony appeared for Clark.\nJudge Lofton: Mr. Clark, you\u2019ve refused steadfastly to get a lawyer but have you hired Mr. Tripcony?\nClark: I have, your Honor.\nJudge Lofton: And you\u2019re satisfied with him?\nClark: I am.\nJudge Lofton: And you.want him to represent you?\nClark: I do.\nJudge Lofton: And you\u2019re going to follow his advice?\nClark: To the best of my ability.\nThe judge, concerned about the way the case was going, called Douglas Stevens.\nJudge Lofton: . . . Now, I\u2019m concerned about \u2014 The State\u2019s trying to put him in the penitentiary for up to six years. And I\u2019m concerned about he will not or up to this point has not agreed to employ counsel, he does not or is not. He\u2019ll change his mind about that before it\u2019s over with. But I\u2019m concerned about your position on whether he can represent himself and, two, about the safety of myself, the court personnel. I\u2019m not worried about Robert Newcomb because the case will take care of that. But Mr. Clark and I have had several run-ins and we\u2019re going to continue to have run-ins because I\u2019m going to run this court the way I want it to run and he\u2019s not going to change that. And he knows that. So, talk to me.\nDr. Stevens: Okay. I would agree and I have agreed for a long time that Mr. Clark is not in a position to represent himself because he\u2019s too emotionally involved and anyone in that situation it\u2019s impossible. Furthermore, he\u2019s a much more task oriented individual and stubborn as he and I have talked about. He\u2019s the sort of fellow that if he came along the road and there was a boulder that had fallen in the middle of the road and he could get around it he wouldn\u2019t. He\u2019d stop, get out a sledge hammer and break up the rock rather than attempt to go around it. And this characteristic is fine in many situations. In business it stands him in good stead. In the court it doesn\u2019t do him any good at all. He\u2019s needed counsel and he and I have talked about that and finally he agreed to do so. And I do think that he will continue to let Mr. Tripcony represent him at this point. I think he sees that he can go no further in the direction that he\u2019s been going without causing himself increasing levels of grief.\n* * *\nJudge Lofton to Clark: Well, now what are you willing to do if I give you a new jury? No question about it. You tainted that one so bad that, you know, they\u2019re so mad at you and you got so much stuff in there. But, anyway, it wouldn\u2019t be to your advantage. But, you know, you haven\u2019t followed my advice yet. What are you willing to do if I give you a new jury ? Are you willing to spend some more time in jail for contempt? That cost Six Hundred bucks that you insisted upon.\nClark: Well, your Honor, I\u2019d have to confer with my counsel.\nJudge Lofton: Well, that\u2019s what you\u2019ve got him for. Now, I want to solve your problems today. And I\u2019m just getting started with the requirements. Let me put another little piece in the pie, Jim. He has subpoenaed people from all over the country, his ex-in-laws, and they have got plans. They were here and they\u2019ve gone to California. Now, if he wants them back \u2014 I\u2019m not going to put this case off. I can try it Friday, the fifteenth. If you can get ready by Friday the fifteenth and if he can get all his witnesses back here \u2014 He\u2019s going to have to re-subpoena them, Judge Rogers. I don\u2019t know what in the world Judge Rogers would testify to. You know, I just don\u2019t know.\nA mistrial was granted on the motion of the defendant. A third hearing began in this case February 12, 1985.\nThe pretrial hearing occurred February 15, 1985, and the new trial began that day and continued without incident. The jury found Clark guilty and sentenced him to a $10,000 fine. That brings us to the beginning of the case before us, when it was discovered the document in question was filed without being brought to the attention of the court.\nThe contempt proceeding in regard to the motion consists of 268 pages. Mr. Tripcony was there as counsel. Mr. Clark was not present. At the first hearing on February 19, the following occurred:\nTripcony: Thank you. Although I have stated to the Court that tomorrow would be ten days notice to me, my client informs me that would not be ten days notice to him and I think . . .\nJudge Lofton: Does he know of any way he would be prejudiced by going ahead tomorrow? Is there anything he can do in that other three or four days that he hasn\u2019t done already? Incidentally, while we\u2019re talking Mr. Tripcony, did you not advise Mr. Clark that he was supposed to be here that Tuesday morning after the trial?\nTripcony: That\u2019s correct.\nJudge Lofton: And he didn\u2019t show up, did he?\nTripcony: That\u2019s correct, your Honor.\nJudge Lofton: He knew that there was an order for him to appear?\nTripcony: Yes, your Honor. . . . And my understanding was \u2014 I stand to be rebutted. My understanding was that it was Mr. Harrill\u2019s desire to represent Mr. Clark and Mr. Clark\u2019s desire to have Mr. Harrill represent him rather than have me represent him for the fee I quoted for appeal.\nHarrill: Your Honor, I\u2019ve never been fired. I was forced to withdraw from the domestic matter because Mr. Clark could not pay the fees that had amounted up at that time.\nJudge Lofton: Your motion to be relieved will be denied. And you may both represent Mr. Clark and anybody else he wants to marshal. You know, the more the merrier. We\u2019re going to finally wind up with one lawyer, I hope. It may be you, Jim, but we\u2019re not going to fire and hire day in and day out.\nThe second hearing on the contempt was held March 1, 1985. During the hearing Lofton said he was \u201cthick skulled.\u201d During Clark\u2019s testimony the judge remarked:\nWell, Mr. Clark, you and I have had a long continuing dispute about what was relevant and material in your cases and you\u2019ve never been in agreement with me. And it\u2019s my job to decide what is relevant and material and you\u2019ve never agreed to that. So, the only thing I\u2019ve ever told you was that you needed a lawyer. And everybody that\u2019s ever represented you has said you needed one but you won\u2019t listen to them. So, the only dispute we\u2019ve had about that is you want to relitigate your custody and divorce and it\u2019s not relevant to most of the issues up here. So, that\u2019s the only dispute we\u2019ve had. But I\u2019ve never made you lie about it, I don\u2019t think. * * * I will certainly admit that his mental welfare has been a great concern to me, ever since he\u2019s been up here. And I have on every opportunity had competent psychiatric and psychological people, even his, tell me that he was sane and he didn\u2019t need to be committed. And I\u2019ve never committed him. And, as recently as yesterday, his two psychologists told me that he was competent. Everything I\u2019ve done I think the record will show that I had certain questions about him. But everything I\u2019ve done has shown that he is competent.\nIn conclusion the judge found:\nMr. Clark, the Court is going to find you in contempt of Court, criminal contempt of Court. The evidence that you have presented today is that you accused this Court of bribery, you accused this Court of intimidation of witnesses and you have accused the Court of false statements. Not only have you not produced any evidence of that, but in cross-examination you admit that it wasn\u2019t even in this case that is before me that you filed this pleading in but it was in another case that this Court had, but that you filed it in this one because it was the only one available. And, Mr. Clark, I frankly wish that I could be fortunate enough and lucky enough to not draw any more of your litigation. But you have intimidated Judge Munson. You have intimidated Judge Judith Rogers. You have run all of the Chancellors off and it became necessary to get a judge from out of Pulaski County to try your domestic relations case, Judge Rogers from Stuttgart. And, now, you\u2019ve filed similar allegations about him being in a conspiracy. And you\u2019ve told me yourself that Judge Judith Rogers and Judge Munson were in a conspiracy to you \u2014 with you. You accused me of the same thing. You\u2019ve accused me of these things, bribery, but not in this case but in another case that\u2019s on appeal before the Court of Appeals that you\u2019ve raised that, supposedly, you say. * * * And I will state for the record that if you are. not paranoid you are without a doubt the most stubborn man I have ever seen in my life. But I\u2019m not going to punish you for that. I\u2019m not going to punish you for being stubborn.\nThat judgment was reversed in Clark v. State, supra, which brings us to the fifth volume of this record. The hearing on this matter was conducted by Judge Lessenberry. The record consists of 208 pages. Judge Lofton and Clark testified extensively. Clark was questioned by his counsel Harrill on every allegation in the document. All the records I have mentioned were before the court. Some of the testimony is relevant:\nJudge Lofton: Yes, it took up additional time on the docket to hear it. The contempt.\nHarrill: What I am talking about it did not interfere with your orderly handling of your other cases?\nJudge Lofton: Yes, I think so. * * * Yes, is that definitive of anything, Mr. Harrill? Yes, my cases got tried. But extra hours, extra work, extra time. Yes.\nHarrill: In terms of dealing with him?\nJudge Lofton: It took time to hear his case, yes.\nHarrill: Okay.\nJudge Lofton: That I could have used otherwise.\nHarrill: But this was not any particular threat to the way you run your court, was it?\nJudge Lofton: Yes.\nHarrill: Are you telling this Court here that it interferred with your handling of the other cases?\nJudge Lofton: Yes. The obstinance and arrogance of this man interferred with my docket substantially.\nJudge Lessenberry recited his findings:\nWell, I\u2019ve had an opportunity to look at State\u2019s Exhibit 1 and it is certainly my feeling that pleadings of that nature have an effect upon the Court and its orderly handling of business. It subjects the Court to ridicule, disrespect. It\u2019s particularly offensive. And at any time that anybody is confronted with something of that nature making those kind of accusations, I think it offends the Court and creates a hardship on the litigants and all those involved. * * * And by the ruling I am about to announce I don\u2019t find that specific instances or allegations in the motion are contemptuous. But I find that other specific areas and in them in total the motion is contemptuous. * * * If there is to be any confidence in our judicial system and the people who have made it a practice to learn about that sort of thing tell us that there.is a substantial number of the public who don\u2019t have confidence in the judicial system. That Judges are honest. That Judges try to do justice. And even appear to try to do justice, then we are in a lot of trouble. And were someone like yourself who has been in the public\u2019s eye, who\u2019s bright person, sophisticated, makes allegations as you did of criminal conduct on the part of the Court, then not just Judge Lofton is injured, but indeed the justice system is injured. And I find that there is no basis whatsoever, no logical, reasonable basis for making some of these allegations. That the most casual kind of inquiry on your part would have disclosed that Judge Lofton had no mental \u2014 Criminal intent or involvement with these kind of acts. That there was a total disregard by you in the use of the kind of language in the choice of your words in accusing Judge Lofton of these kinds of acts. * * * Your recited reasons of getting this in the open, I don\u2019t think that the filing of this motion emphasized anything that wasn\u2019t already of record. I think it was used by you as a vehicle, that you yourself could justify to yourself alone as a means of degrading Judge Lofton specifically and the Courts in general. Having so recited those matters I find you in contempt of court.\nI apologize for the length of this dissent. But the question is plain. Do the courts or do people like Clark, bent on disrupting and destroying the legal system, prevail? Can the courts be insulted, criminally libeled and powerless to punish the criminal behavior? The majority not only find the document not contemptuous but also not disruptive. It was not a motion \u2014 it was an indictment. The respondent in this case is not Judge Lofton, it is the State of Arkansas. Judge Lofton represents the people. There is no end to Mr. Clark. He has carried his personal bitterness from his divorce case to the point of lawlessness. Judge Lofton could not ignore these criminal charges \u2014 to do so would be to condone criminal contempt for the law, the courts and the legal system. Actually, Judge Lofton showed considerable patience with this obsessed defendant.\nOur entire system of law rests on the integrity of the judges and the respect the public has for the judges and the law. Those who can defy the courts and disrupt can destroy the system. This was no ordinary proceeding \u2014 this was no ordinary defendant. He went through three chancellors in his terroristic dispute and two separate criminal trials. Now he has been twice before us. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it deliberately. Just as he filed this pleading with no intention except to defame the judge and the court. These are the facts. Judge Lessenberry found them sufficient to support a finding of contempt and to not uphold that finding is wrong.\nI respectfully dissent.\nDudley and Glaze, JJ., join in the dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Raymond Harrill, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William P. CLARK v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 86-142\n725 S.W.2d 550\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 9, 1987\nRaymond Harrill, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0405-01", "first_page_order": 433, "last_page_order": 469 }