Intentional Malice by Apache County Arizona and Round Valley Justice Court Against Joseph Lathus

In an alarming case of judicial misconduct and legal malfeasance, Joseph Lathus has been subjected to a series of actions that raise serious concerns about the integrity of the justice system. At the center of this controversy is Bryce Patterson, the attorney appointed to Mr. Lathus by Justice of the Peace Butch Gunnels, whose actions have not only been detrimental to Mr. Lathus’s defense but also suggest a calculated effort to undermine his legal rights.

**Detrimental Actions by Bryce Patterson**

1. **Conflict of Interest**: Bryce Patterson was appointed to represent Mr. Lathus despite a known conflict of interest. Patterson’s close association with Carey Dobson, Ferrin Crosby and Michael Whiting and other key figures involved in Mr. Lathus’s section 1983 case suggests that his appointment was far from coincidental. An attorney with such a conflict of interest is undeniably incapable of providing unbiased and effective representation.

2. **Failure to Defend**: Patterson’s actions have been nothing short of neglectful and harmful. He has failed to advocate for necessary accommodations for Mr. Lathus, who, due to severe medical conditions following mouth cancer surgery, requires specific communication aids. Patterson has not filed critical motions nor adequately prepared for the case, severely impairing Mr. Lathus’s right to effective counsel.

3. **Compromised Advocacy**: Patterson’s inactions align suspiciously with those who have violated Mr. Lathus’s due process rights. His conduct suggests an intentional undermining of Mr. Lathus’s defense, raising questions about his true motives and the integrity of the judicial process.

**Seriousness and Intentionality**

1. **Due Process Violations**: The assignment of a biased attorney like Bryce Patterson, who only exacerbates the difficulties faced by Mr. Lathus, is a clear violation of his due process rights. The right to effective counsel is fundamental, and any breach of this right is a grave matter. The deliberate appointment of an attorney with known conflicts compromises the fairness of the trial.

2. **Judicial Responsibility**: The role of Justice of the Peace Butch Gunnels in assigning an attorney with a blatant conflict of interest highlights a systemic issue within the court. This action raises serious questions about the impartiality and fairness of the judicial process, suggesting that Mr. Lathus's case has been handled with a prejudicial bias from the start.

3. **Intentional Harm**: Evidence below suggests that the judge and other court officials were aware of Patterson’s conflict of interest and still proceeded with the assignment. This indicates an intentional effort to undermine Mr. Lathus’s defense, pointing to a broader pattern of judicial misconduct and collusion.

**Implications for Mr. Lathus**

- **Impaired Defense**: The appointment of an ineffective and biased defense attorney has severely impaired Mr. Lathus’s ability to challenge the charges and present a robust defense. This has left him vulnerable and disadvantaged in a legal system that should protect his rights.
- **Prolonged Detention**: The continuation of the trial beyond the statutory period without just cause has contributed to prolonged detention, causing undue stress and prejudice to Mr. Lathus. This delay further infringes on his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
- **Legal Remedies**: Given the provable issues of conflict of interest, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and intentional harm, Mr. Lathus has strong grounds for seeking legal relief. This includes the potential dismissal of charges due to violations of his constitutional rights.

The case of Joseph Lathus underscores a troubling reality within the judicial system, where biases and conflicts of interest can significantly undermine justice. The actions of Bryce Patterson and Justice of the Peace Butch Gunnels demand serious scrutiny and corrective measures to restore faith in the legal process. Mr. Lathus’s plight is a call to action for the Arizona Attorney General's Office, the FBI Phoenix Division, the United States Department of Justice, and local government officials to intervene and ensure that justice is served.