Investigation Reveals Serious Violations by Judge David H. McCormick
Investigative Report of Judge David H. McCormick, 15th Judicial Circuit, Division 2, Scott County, Arkansas. Potter V. Holmes
An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.
Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.
The Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for the ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates. It is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges and judicial candidates, who are governed in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical standards as well as by the Code. The Code is intended, however, to provide guidance and assist judges in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct, and to provide a basis for regulating their conduct through disciplinary agencies.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission uses an investigative technique know as “Statistical Evidence” which shows patterns of illegal discrimination and/or harassment.
In reviewing the cases that Judge McCormick has ruled in, along with conducting interviews with litigants, the same methodology and investigative techniques used by the EEOC was also incorporated.
Furthermore, observation, research and interviews were included investigative techniques.
Whereas, the findings of the investigation makes formal charges that Judge David H. McCormick, 15th Judicial Circuit, Division 2, did and is willfully in violation of Cannon Code of Ethics and the Arkansas Judicial Code of Conduct as herein stated.
I. Extortion and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion
In the case of Potter V. Holmes the timing of court orders gave suspicion and prompt further investigation. The attorneys for Fred Potter had filed for and appeal. The appellate court had rendered an opinion that the “New Trust” that Fred Potter had set up was in fact his. The appellate court had also gave the opinion that the opposing side were untruthful.
After the appellate court rendered their opinion Judge McCormick ruled that Fred Potter was in contempt of court due to the failure to return all items on the list of items to be returned. All items on the list were returned with the exception of items that he does not have and can not possibly return. The result of Judge McCormick’s ruling was incarceration in jail until he is in compliance with the court order or post a $25,000.00 bond.
The court had frozen all of Fred Potter’s assets rendering him unable to pay the bond and subsequently had to go to jail.
Due to his serious health and age the sheriff had made the dicision to release him from jail and then informed the judge. The judge during a hearing the following Monday took the credit of releasing Fred Potter. The judge then order Fred Potter under house arrest preventing him from attending the “Veterans Walk in Solidarity” held in Waldron, Arkansas June 3, 2018 in honor of Fred Potter.
During a court hearing, June 4, 2018, Judge McCormick ruled that Fred Potter is fined $1,000.00 PER DAY until he is in compliance with the court order. The judge made the statement in open court: “the way that I see it, it will take about three and a half years to deplete your trust fund”.
The refusal of the judge to except expert testimony that Cassaundra Holmes did forge an original document in the setting up of the trust account and testimony of an expert witness that the likelihood of Fred Potter ever owning a Stradivarius Violin is in violation of Fred Potter’s rights to a fair hearing, and would change the direction of this case.
The judge’s ruling of a $1,000.00 a day knowingly in knowledge that he had also ruled that Fred Potter’s assets be frozen has in it’s self created a judicial extortion scheme. This is also evident with the judges open court statements concerning how long it would take to deplete the trust.
II. Scheme for Operating a Modern Day Debtor’s Prison.
Operating a “debtor’s prison” in violation of constitutional civil rights, Supreme Court rulings, and Federal Law.
In the United States, debtors’ prisons were banned under federal law in 1833. A century and a half later, in 1983, the Supreme Court affirmed that incarcerating indigent debtors was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
Judge McCormick had deem that Fred Potter is “willfully” not complying with the court order to return a Stradivarius Violin and Gold Bullion which does not exist, the judge then ordered the arrest of Fred Potter on a charge of “contempt of court.” He is then held in jail until he posts bond in a process known as “pay or stay.”
In the case of Potter V. Holmes, Judge McCormick had found Fred Potter to be in “Willful Disobedience” of court order for him to return a Stradivarius Violin and gold bullion which does not exist and has never exist. Because this items are to be included in the court’s order for those items to be sold at auction they become of value and therefore a “debt”.
III. Violation of Cannon Code of Ethics
A. Canon 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
B. Canon 2
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
IV. Violations of Arkansas Judicial Code of Conduct.
A. Rule 1.1 – Compliance With The Law
A judge shall comply with the law, including the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct.
B. Rule 1.2 – Promoting Confidence In The Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
COMMENT: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.  A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.
Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.  Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code.
The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
C. Rule 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
A judge may make reasonable accommodations, consistent with the law and court rules, to facilitate the ability of all litigants to be fairly heard.
COMMENT: To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
D. Rule 2.6 Ensuring The Right To Be Heard
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.
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.
E. Rule 2.9 Ex-Parte Communications
A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter.
F. Rule- 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.
COMMENT: A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.
Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics.
Judge McCormick has used threats and intimidations against Fred Potter by threatening jail and perjury in regards to Fred Potter’s rightful inclusion of evidence that Cassaundra Holmes did forge his name to documents.
G. Rule 1.3 Avoiding Abuse of The Prestige of Judicial Office
A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
It is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his or her position to gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind.
V. Fraud Upon The Court
Judge McCormick is aware that there is a federal investigation for fraud. This investigation includes the FBI and the US Attorney’s office. A forensic audit has been ordered by the US Attorney. The audit can take up to a year to complete.
Judge McCormick’s knowledge of the federal investigation and his refusal for the evidence to be fairly heard in his court gives rise of fraud upon the court. Knowing that there is evidence of forgery and fraud that would change the dynamics of the courts previous rulings and failure to judicially act upon the evidence furthers the fraud upon the court.
Deputy Administrative Director of Investigations
VeteransMarch.org is the exclusive owner of JusticeForFredPotter.com. Veterans March and it's network is solely responsible for the content, and does maintain intellectual property control of said content therein found in JusticeForFredPotter.com.
Nothing is to suggest or make claim(s) that the Justice For Fred Potter website, and social media sites are maintained, and owned, by any parties thereof connected to the case of Potter V. Holmes.