Posted By


June 8, 2018 | 1 Comment

Prepared by Thomas Hudson, herein known as “preparer” and in the behalf of VeteransMarch.org,

completed June 8, 2018

The preparer of this report had overserved the motion hearing for contempt of court, June 4, 2018, in the herein stated court with the herein stated parties.



  1. CASE NO. 64CV-13-54



Judge David H. McCormick

Judge David H. McCormick



2 Town Square St, Greenwood, AR 72936     Sebastian County

PO Box 1225, Greenwood, AR 72936-1225

Contact Jack Skinner, (479) 996-6167

Law Firm Affiliation, Skinner Law Firm


502 Garrison Avenue, Fort Smith, AR 72901   Sebastian County

Contact Kevin Hickey, Phone: (479) 434-2414

Law Firm Affiliation, Kevin Hickey Law Partners

The ambiance of the court room appeared to be in a fairly new building with a clean court room with the capacity of sitting for approximately 300 people.

To add character to the court observation the preparer will first give you an insight of the demeanor and judicial oversight of Judge David H. McCormick by describing a case heard in his courtroom just prior to hearing the Fred Potter case.

The case was an alleged domestic violence case.  Two parents who had a history of drug addiction had lost child custody to the maternal grandmother.  The case involves allegations of the father committing physical harm to his ten-year-old son.

The attorney for the father had requested that the court room be closed to the public during the son’s testimony.  Judge David H. McCormick had denied the request and subsequently the 10-year-old son had to testify in from of a filled court room primarily made up by Fred Potter supporters and news media.

Having noticed that a Department of Human Services investigator had departed the room, the preparer had exit the court room to interview the investigator.  The investigator had acknowledged and agreed that the rule regarding the closing of the court room during the testimony of a juvenile should have been invoked.

With the total disregard by the judge of a juvenile and the traumatic injury inflicted the expectations of the court’s treatment of a 88 year old veteran is determined to be severe and grave.

Jack Merle Skinner, Attorney for the neice, Cassaundra Holmes

Jack Merle Skinner, Attorney for the neice, Cassaundra Holmes

In the case concerning Fred Potter and his niece, Cassaundra Holmes, the judge was noticeably loquacious and seemed to be directing his calculated comments to the audience and to the news media.  The judge repletely addressed the court with remarks of rehashing the history of the case in it’s totality given rise to the preparer making the conclusion that the judge’s remarks were designed to be ostentatious before the audience and the news media.  The conclusion of the preparer was the remarks were misleading to the audience and the public.

The judge, along with the attorney for the defendant, had engaged with what is known as court room tagging.  That means that the judge and the defendant’s attorney went back and forwards to overpower the attorney for the defendant.  This is a court room tactic designed to intimidate the opposing side and is clearly against reasonable interpretation of the Canyon Code of Ethics.  It was clearly visible that the attorney for the plantiff was over powered, intimidated and was not in command of the representation of his client.

The judge had offered statements in open court that the preparer took notice that were misleading and/or factually not accurate as pertaining to the merits of the case.

  • The judge gave opening statements taking the credit of releasing Fred Potter from Jail. The preparer had investigated with several knowledgeable and confidential sources that the sheriff’s department was concerned due to the health issues of a 88 year old veteran.  The sheriff of Scott County had released Fred Potter from jail on Sunday, May 27, 2018.  The concern of the preparer in consideration of the Paris Hilton case in California; could the judge hold the sheriff in contempt of court for releasing Fred Potter from jail.  In Arkansas the sheriff does have the authority to release a prisoner due to health issues with the prisoner given seven days to return with a letter from the doctor.  The judge was notified, while on a weekend vacation, that the release was being done by the sheriff.
  • The judge did not address the attorney and/or previous attorneys in his remarks but repeatedly addressed Fred Potter as the faulted party missing appeal deadlines over the course of this case. These cumulative statements, offered to those not knowledgeable of this case, gave the impression that Fred Potter is the sole perpetrator and without mentioning the accountability of attorney representation.  The attorney for the defendant, with his court room demeanor, and the presiding judge was noticeablely bias and blinded to the fact that Fred Potter is 88 years old and in very fragile health.
  • The judge made statements offered as conclusions of facts that the niece, Cassaundra Holmes, had pictorial evidence of a Stradivarius violin. FACT: there is no pictures offered in this case of a actual Stradivarius violin.  The pictures in the case is only of where the niece, Cassaundra Holmes, states that the violin has been seen. Should the judge have done his research into the rarity of a Stradivarius violin and the statisical probability that Fred Potter does not have a Stradivarius violin then the court could have taken juducual notice of discovered research.  (Reference)


The preparer had taken notice that the judge held Fred Potter in contempt of court and subsequently incarcerating Fred Potter in the Scott County jail until he returns items that he does not have and never proven that items ever existed.

The court has three options available when held in contempt.

  • Order law enforcement to search and return any items missing as so stated by the court.
  • Levy a court fine, and/or
  • Order the county sheriff to take custody of the party that has been determined to be in violation of the court’s order.

The question to the court would be if you fined Fred Potter in the beginning and then release him because of the judge’s concern for his health and levy unreasonable fines four days later then why did the judge not levy the finds in the first place?  It is undisputed that the health of a 88 year old veteran, Fred Potter, is grave and dangerously impearl.  The court has direct knowledge of his health.

Why did the court sign a court order placing Fred Potter on a harsh house arrest, Thursday, May 29, 2018, without any provision of visitation and pastoral visitation then resend the order on Monday, June 4, 2018?  It is overwhelming to the preparer that this tactic by the court was designed to prevent Fred Potter from attending and visiting with his fellow Veterans, friends, and supporters after the judge had taken notice of the Veterans Walk in Solidarity and its magnitude.

According to the American Bar Association, judicial temperament means that a judge exhibits “compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice.”  Where is the concept of judicial temperament in the circuit court of Scott County, Arkansas?

In this case, the preparer took notice that the defendant, Cassaundra Holmes, does not have to prove that the items therein ordered to be return, does exist.  The burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff that they do not exist.  How does one prove a negative?

Justice For Fred Potter


Because of the judicial misconduct the case has become a complex and difficult situation with no easy solutions.  The quagmire is the direct result of ineffective legal misrepresentation, judicial misconduct and an attorney for the defendant along with the defendants therein a party thereof who displays a total distain and disregard to the rule of law and moral conscientious.

The preparer, after careful consideration, interviews, and investigation offers the follow conclusion worthy of further investigation and attention by state and federal officials.  Please note that some information obtained by the preparer is confidential in nature therefore not published for public dissemination.

This case has many elements that rises to different levels of concern.  Due to the age and health of Fred Potter, the case is clearly defined under any state’s reasonable guidelines and common law as elder abuse.

With the conduct and judicial over-step along with the disregard of judicial temperament and the signing of unreasonable court orders it is apparent that the court is being use for the purpose of monetary extortion of a senior citizen.

*** NOTE:  The preparer had offered to take statements from and in behalf of the defendant.  The preparer additionally made an attempt to greet the attorney for the defendant starting with a handshake but the attorney had refused to acknowledge the preparer.

Comment (1)

Lynda June 10, 2018 at 11:43 am

Good observation of court proceedings on June 4, 2018. I vacated the room while the children in the previous case were questioned. Too sad. Also, agree that Mr Potter’s age and his being unable to hear anything being said about him is so unfair. He has about 10% hearing if that, so was unaware of any statements or any accusations being said about his contempt, or what he should do to resolve it, or what he was expected to do in the first place. He had to solely rely on his legal defense and the judge. Therefore in the last two hearings he was totally unaware of the proceedings, just that he was “in trouble”. Kind of like a small child at school. So very sad.
Makes me wish I had studied to be a lawyer.
He is definitely being treated unfairly and this case is sorely out of hand.

Veterans March is the exclusive owner of Justice For Fred Potter. Meterans March and it's network is solely responsible for the contents, and maintains intellectual property control of said content therein found in JusticeForFredPotter.comVeteransMarch.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.