1

Cite as: 001 N. M. ____ (2011)

Opinion of the Court
Notice: The opinions of the Womens Court of Public Opinion for the State of New Mexico
are subject to the review and revision of the Women of New Mexico. This court hears cases
of grave concern to the Women of New Mexico and their daughters. We are not a physical
court. We do not practice law and we are not backed by the power of the state. The courts
power comes from the women voters of this state. At no time and under no circumstances
does this court attempt to practice law within the state of New Mexico. Ours is nothing more
than a public opinion of public and or political officials.

WOMENS COURT OF PUBLIC OPINON FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Nos. 99-1
NEW MEXICO WOMEN, PETITIONER
V.
JUDGE ALBERT PAT MURDOCH ET AL.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI
[July 22, 2011]
CHIEF JUSTICE MARY A FEMALE NEW MEXICAN delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case, we consider the issue of whether Second District Court Judge Albert Pat
Murdoch being a highly respected public official at the time and place of these incidents
did knowingly and willing violent the public trust of the Women of New Mexico. The
remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violations of this type is social displease,
loss of female companionship, and a significant future lack of support from the female
voters of the State of New Mexico.
I
It has come to our attention through comprehensive local media coverage that Judge
Albert Pat Murdoch did knowingly and with forethought employee the services of a
known prostitute under the control of a pimp on eight separate occasions. He did in fact
pay said prostitute $200 for each instant of service for acts of a sexual nature. The
female in question was 23 years of age at the time of her illegal employment and under
the control of a male pimp. Judge Murdoch at the time of these acts was 57 years of
age, which made him a consenting adult male in a position of significant political power
given to him by the votes of the women who resided in the State of New Mexico during
the last election for his current public office.

II
A prostitute is a person, typically a woman, who engages in sex for payment. A pimp,
typically a male, is a pander who arranges sexual partners for women who practice
prostitution. It is common knowledge that pimps force their prostitutes by means of both
physical and mental abuse to work for their financial benefit. It is our belief that such a
woman under the control of a pimp has no ability to freely consent to any act of a sexual
nature. It is therefore the courts opinion that any sex performed by a prostitute under
the control of a pimp should not be considered free enterprise; but in fact, it should be
considered nothing more than a clear case of rape by the John who pays for the
services. Due to the abuse both of a physical and mental nature inflicted on a prostitute
by a pimp we view women prostitutes as victims of crimes committed by their pimps and
the Johns who employee their services. We see this type of relationship as nothing
more than an open example of mind control on behave of the pimp. Therefore, the
prostitute has no mental ability to freely consent to any commercial contract for
services.
III
We now address the defense of men who are either older, physical handicapped, busy
because of a demanding job, or physical unattractive should be allowed to engage the
services of a prostitute due to their conditions. We fail to find these defenses convincing
in nature. We find that men who engage prostitutes simply lack the desire or social
ability to pursue a real meaningful relationship with woman of equal standing. These
men are unwilling to effect the changes needed or to take the risk required to develop a
real equal relationship with a woman. The fact remains that there are plenty of single
women, in this country, that would be more than willing if asked to date men of these
descriptions and even to engage in sexual activities with these men at no charge. Men
who employee prostitutes often objectify women. It is our view that man who hire
prostitutes show little to no respect for any women in their areas of control. These men
harm the social standing and safety of all women not just prostitutes when they engage
in the activity of hiring prostitutes as substitutes for real companionship therefore
violating the public trust of all women.
IIII
Now as to the standard of conduct expected of male public officials in office. Male public
officials are in fact held to a higher standard of private ethics and behaviors than merely
average Joes are. No man going into public service or working in public service
currently should expect to be treated any different from any other public official when it
comes to these standards. They should expect the public to scrutinize them on all levels
of conduct and not just job performance. We have had many examples as of late, on
how women react to inappropriate and antisocial behaviors of powerful political public
figures in the last decade. (Women of the United State v. John Edwards)

It should have come as no surprise to Judge Murdoch that if he was found guilty of
hiring a prostitute that the voting women in this state would react strongly to his
unacceptable behavior. That he acknowledges the facts of these events even before
being found guilty in a court of law only provides more proof of his misconduct. The fact
that he has shown no public remorse for his unacceptable and antisocial behavior only
adds to the anger and outrage felt by the Women of New Mexico.
Iv
It is therefore the ruling of this court that Judge Albert Pat Murdoch did in fact violate
the public trust of the Women of New Mexico. As a direct result, of those violations we
find that he should for a limited time of no greater than one year be deprive of female
companionship during which time he should summit himself for the testing of
communicable diseases. He should at his own expense seek out counseling. Further,
he should be deprived of social accepts for a period of no greater than one year. In
addition, he should loss the rather significant support of the women voters in this state
until he can publicly prove that he has taking responsible for his actions. In addition, he
must exhibit a willingness to confine his behaviors to socially acceptable standards in
the area of interaction with the Women of New Mexico both publicly and privately.
Since the issue of general prostitution has not been brought before this court in the
action of a case we express no views at this point in time on any conduct or contract of
services provided by an independent prostitute who freely and willing provides her
services to the public and retains all income from such services.
Let it be known that the Womens Court of Public Opinion for the State of New Mexico
welcomes any and all either concurring or dissenting opinions on this very grave issue
from the Women of New Mexico.