Getting Raped? Fight, Scream, Kick, Get Loud!
Two good things I got from the ex:
- My kids, of course.
- The advice that I’m passing on to you now, my friend.
I don’t care if the rapist wears a black robe or has “Esq.” tagged to his name.
Fight.
If you are being forced into a van, scream! Not just “Help!”
Be specific.
Scream “White male, 6 foot two, scar left cheek.”
True story. I was waiting in an empty and stationary train in Baden Baden, Switzerland at 2 a.m.
A man walked through, looking this way and that, like maintenance checking before the early run.
Just in case, I stood up and nonchalantly walked the other direction.
He came back and I thought I better act casual and answer his questions. Heart speeding up. He asked me where I was going.
“Zermatt.”
With a Swiss accent, he says “why would you go to Zermatt? It is so cold in the mountains.”
Then he pushed me up toward a wall and came in like he was going to kiss me.
I bit his cheek. (This was before COVID and even before AIDS.)
The man left me alone.
I got off the train to find an authority. There was another woman also looking for the police.
She told me she was on another train with her baby. She saw the same man walk in. He had blood on his cheek. The woman said she told the would be rapist, (in a charming accent), “Fuck off or I’ll scream!”
He left her alone.
You might be out gunned, slower, and doomed. Fight back anyways.
If you don’t, you are still doomed. If you do, you might win.
And then…what a story you can tell.
Big Business, Big Bullies
My friends, here is a sample of a letter I sent to a debt collection company’s attorney today.
It will probably not change their behavior, but it was cathartic for me.
[The attorney responded with a denial that he called “and/or” a “conjunctive”. Please read his response at the end.]
November 17, 2021
VIA EMAIL ONLY AT Jed.Komisin@Troutman.com; James.Trefil@Troutman.com; Miranda.James@Troutman.com; and DMitchell@RoseLawFirm.com
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Troutman Pepper Building, 1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Counsel,
Mr. Komisin and Ms. James had a conversation with me by telephone today. Ms. James remained silent except to say a greeting.
The conversation was supposed to be a good faith effort to meet and confer about our differences of opinion about my first set of responses to requests for admissions, requests for production of documents and interrogatories propounded by Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. (“PRA”)
The conversation struck me as another charade by PRA.
PRA allotted one hour to go through the motions of trying to resolve our differences without court intervention.
We did not achieve much and are therefore destined to use the valuable resource of the Court’s time.
PRA demanded that I make my supplemented responses to it by November 24, 2021.
At first PRA was going to extend the time to December 1, 2021, but only if I agreed to extend PRA’s time to respond to the first set of requests I propounded until December 10, 2021.
I explained that I have literally given PRA 100 times the responses and disclosures than it has given to me. I am still waiting on a decision from the Court as to whether or not to compel PRA to supplement its initial disclosures.
PRA can afford to pay attorneys to do its work. I am an individual, not an attorney and PRA is abusing the process to demand a burdensome amount of work.
My main concerns:
PRA continues to make statements that I owe a debt to PRA. For example, on page 6 of the letter sent by Mr. Komisin on November 8, 2021, Mr. Komisin wrote: “As you owed a debt to PRA, this legal theory is factually untrue.”
Mr. Komisin said his client will not retract this statement.
As laid out in the proposed second amended and supplemented complaint, PRA already admitted it concluded its investigation and the amount of debt owed by me to PRA is “$0.00”.
These litigation declarations falsely accusing me of debt are a direct violation of the FDCPA.
Second, PRA used a common but meaningless term in several of its requests. “And/or” is not a word.
Mr. Komisin explained that using “and/or” is a way to ask a “conjunctive” question without using two questions.
Conjunctive questions and requests are disallowed in discovery.
Also, PRA uses the word “communications” to include “attempted communications”. This ambiguation creates confusion.
Many of the requests and interrogatories that used the words “all” and “any” were overbroad and meant to oppress and harass. In the letter, the words “all” and “any” were removed from the interrogatories.
I am asking PRA to remove the words “all” and “any” from the discovery propounded unless there is a likelihood of a finite response. For example, it is appropriate to ask for “all written communications received by Plaintiff from PRA.” It is not appropriate to ask for a list of all people with any information about anything averred to in the complaint.
It is disturbing that PRA is asking for the contact information for two of Plaintiff’s former significant others. Especially since PRA submitted an exhibit that is an appellate court decision affirming a restraining order obtained by one of the men based on Hammett sending an email to three of his girlfriends that asked for information about the custody battle that was being waged against Hammett.
Considering that Hammett divorced [name retracted] two decades ago, before the alleged debt to Capital One Bank was incurred in 2001, it is unlikely [name retracted] can add any facts of probative value regarding collection activities in 2020 and the effect of those collection activities on Laura Hammett’s mental health.
I am asking PRA to limit contacts to people who can add facts of probative value, and where the witness will not lose time in excess of the value their testimony adds.
I am asking PRA to retract any allegation of a debt, past or present, from Plaintiff to PRA.
I am asking PRA to remove “and/or” from any discovery requests.
I am asking that PRA make its responses to the discovery requests I propounded before or on the same day as I make any further responses, excepting the following:
I will make supplements of requests that do not violate the foregoing concerns by November 24, 2021.
I will bring the documents I agreed to produce that are likely to have probative value to Rose Law Firm for copying and allow PRA to pick up boxes of mostly litigation documents that I doubt PRA will even look at, with the understanding that a copy service will pick up and return the documents within a reasonable time. We did not agree to a time on the phone, but I consider one week long enough for a copy service to do the job. This production will occur by November 24, 2021.
In closing, it was upsetting to have a man bully me and continue to insist I owe money to PRA, and to threaten to ask for sanctions if I refuse to comply with absurd requests that would take years of full time work to comply with.
Very Truly Yours,
/s/ Laura Hammett
*************************************************
“Ms. Hammett,
While the majority of your letter and email do not require a response, I did want to make clear that I did not ‘explain that using “and/or” is a way to ask a “conjunctive” question without using two questions.’ I stated using ‘and/or’ is clear and appropriate as one request. And that breaking up the request is possible, but unnecessary, and creates needless repetition.
Regards,
Jed”
*********************************************
That reminds me of a joke I made up many years ago:
“Do you know what a ‘Freudian Slip’ is?”
Answer:
“A Freudian Slip is when you are at Thanksgiving dinner and you mean to say to your oldest sister ‘please pass the salt’, and accidentally say ‘thanks for ruining my life you bitch’ instead.”
I distinctly heard the word “conjunctive”. There was a follow-up sentence that did not use fancy lawyer language. My take away was as I wrote.
Regardless, “and/or” is not a word.
For example, what would a response to this interrogatory be?
Identify any facts that support our contention that you are anxious and/or have problems with anger.
So, now if you say “I take Clonazepam”, does that mean you take Clonazepam for anxiety, anxiety and problems with anger or only problems with anger?
In defense of Jed, he does not use “and/or” often. Writing “and/or” is a tic for some attorneys, like William Z. White.
The common usage of “and/or” in the legal profession is a sad indication of the demise of literacy.
Kleptocracy Denies Justice
Judge Susan K. Weaver is not a judicial officer in a third world country. She just acts like one.
Shockingly, there does not seem to be anyone with any power who cares.
This writer filed a civil rights complaint against Judge Weaver. The claim is that Judge Weaver conspired with an attorney named William Zac White and a court reporter to create a fiction of what was said in a hearing.
The lawsuit was dismissed. Supposedly, the state court presided over by Susan Weaver can correct the judge and there is no harm done. The fox can smack itself on the nose, and that will somehow put feathers back on the chickens.
The Federal District Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson said he was dismissing the 42 USC 1983 case because Judge Weaver, Court Reporter Jana Perry and even attorney William White all have immunity.
If citizens don’t stand up against tyranny, those who land in positions of power are free and will continue to make decisions that enrich their friends and themselves.
The courts, rather than being a last line of defense against greed will be used to transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to sleazy but rich attorneys and judges.
Altering Business Records No Big Deal to The Court?
Advantage Service Company out of North Little Rock gave me one set of invoices, then altered the invoices and sent the altered set to me in response to a lawsuit I filed against Advantage and three Goodman entities that manufactured and marketed a faulty HVAC system.
Now Advantage Service Company is claiming the invoices were not altered. But, even if they were altered, so what?
Here is a copy of an “adoption” of a motion to dismiss filed by Advantage Service Company of Arkansas.
COMES Defendant, Advantage Service Holdings, LLC d/b/a Advantage Service
Company (“Advantage”), by and through its attorneys, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Notice
of Adoption of the Motion to Dismiss filed herein by Separate Defendants, Goodman
Manufacturing Company, L.P., Goodman Global, Inc., and Goodman Company, L.P.
(collectively referred to herein as “Goodman”), stating:
- Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. Rule 10, Advantage adopts all pertinent portions
of the Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed on or about
October 22, 2021, and the Amended Motion to Dismiss filed on or about October 28, 2021. - Upon review of Goodman’s arguments raised in their brief, the arguments
equally apply to the Hammetts’ claims against Advantage. The Hammetts discuss at
great length what she believes was invoices altered by Advantage. See Plaintiff’s First
Am. Compl., pp. 38-45, ¶¶ 183-230. Advantage denies that any invoice was altered, but
this denial is immaterial when addressing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Accepting the Hammetts’ allegations in the First Amended Complaint as true, the
Hammetts fail to state a claim for fraud pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Arkansas Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Hammetts fail to state that a misrepresentation was made by
Advantage, that there was any act by Advantage to induce any action from the
Hammetts, and how the altered invoices damaged the Hammetts. Advantage is unaware
and the Hammetts do not state how, assuming the facts in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint as true, the altered invoices damaged the Hammetts. - The same analysis applies to the Hammetts’ claim for violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act because there is no statement or
misrepresentation alleged in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint causing the Hammetts
harm or allegation as to how the Hammetts were damaged by such statement or
misrepresentation. Thus, for the reasons stated in Goodman’s brief and those stated
herein, the Hammetts’ Complaints against Advantage for fraud should be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the claim for
violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act should be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. - Finally, Advantage joins Goodman in its argument that the Hammetts’
claims are judicially estopped because they have already received the compensation they
seek in their Complaints.
WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant, Advantage Service Holdings, LLC d/b/a
Advantage Service Company, prays the original and Amended Complaints of the
Plaintiffs, Laura Hammett and James Hammett, be dismissed; for her attorneys’ fees and
costs expended herein; for a trial by jury on all issues of fact arising herein; and for all
other just and proper relief to which she may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3483
Phone: 501-372-6175; Facsimile: 888-412-3288
A. Cale Block, ABN 07149
D. Reece Owens, ABN 2017183
cblock@barberlawfirm.com
rowens@barberlawfirm.com
Help Stop Court Corruption in Arkansas
Judges and Court Reporters can conspire together to create an inaccurate transcript, and the person harmed by the fiction is not allowed to sue for damages.
This writer alleged that Judge Susan K. Weaver conspired with opposing counsel William Zac White to delete unprofessional and unethical comments made by each in a hearing on August 4, 2021. They also concocted dialogue in which Judge Weaver supposedly granted an oral motion to extend time to issue and serve a summons. According to the conspirators’ version of events, this writer did not object to the clear violation of rule 4(i)(2) that requires such motions to be written. Court reporter Jana Perry went along with the plan.
This writer believes that a purposefully inaccurate record is a denial of the fundamental right to due process.
Federal District Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson disagrees.
Judge Wilson decided that my complaint was merely “criticizing how her state court case is proceeding.” He dismissed the civil rights litigation against the judge et al “for reasons including, but not limited to, failure to state a claim, Rooker-Feldman, and immunity”.
So, the only way to correct the inaccurate transcript is to ask Judge Weaver (which I did to no avail), ask the court reporter board to investigate (which I did to no avail) or wait for the entire case to run its course and ask the state appellate court. The best option is to ask the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to remand the 42 USC 1983 case back to the District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Had Judge Susan Weaver required the motion for extension of time to serve summons to be in writing and allowed me to respond in writing, she still could have and probably would have made an erroneous ruling anyhow. But there would be an accurate record. I think an accurate record is the foundation of due process.
If you can help, either by providing free or cheap legal representation or help with the filing fees for the court of appeals, please contact me at (760) 966-6000.
A Higher Law 