She did this before in the Gawenis case.

This is not legal advice. I am not an attorney. I am the victim of a corrupt judge.

Judge Weaver allowed a convicted felon to commit perjury in front of her, knowing the convicted felon had obtained property from me by fraud. She made threatening comments to me that if I tried to give testimony contradicting the fraudster, I would be committing a crime, the unauthorized practice of law.

Based on only the fraudster’s testimony and the testimony and arguments made by his attorney, William Zac White, Judge Weaver transferred title from a trust to which I was a beneficiary to the fraudster and then to a special needs trust for the fraudster.

This is the order Judge Weaver wrote, with my commentary bold and underlined. (You can download the court copy below.)

In general, I suggest that you do not buy real estate in Arkansas or bring any assets to the state. The judiciary is inbred and hell-bent on transferring “outsiders” wealth to themselves and their attorney supporters. The “good” attorneys are not willing to take cases where they know the judge has a predetermined outcome, for fear of losing all their cases. More than one attorney told me this.

If there is one brave attorney in Arkansas, I hope he or she takes this matter on contingency.

************************************************

This matter came before the Court on March 17, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. within the Searcy
County Circuit Courthouse located in Marshall, Arkansas. Micheal Pietrczak (hereafter referred
to as “Pietrczak”) appeared in person with his attorney, William Z. White. Laura Lynn Hammett
(hereafter referred to as “Hammett”) appeared in her individual pro-se capacity. The Rural
Revival Trust was not present (though the trustee, Laura Lynn Hammett was present), and no attorney appeared on its behalf. I told Judge Weaver that no attorney would take the case because of her appearance of bias. She said that claim was “unfounded” and went on to hold kangaroo court. Based upon the pleadings filed of record herein, statements of counsel, parties (except that Laura Lynn Hammett as an individual was not permitted to argue, testify or cross-examine the plaintiff), and/or witness(es), and all other matters before the Court, the Court finds as follows:

1. This Court granted Pietrczak’s Motion for Default Judgment on March 2, 2022,
   against the Rural Reviving Living Trust. The Court found that:
   a. Service was perfected, in the presence of the court, upon the Rural Revival
   Living Trust on October 7, 2021 after a Motion Hearing in the above case was
   held. (The affidavit of summons said that Chief Deputy Sheriff Ezra Pierce served summons on October 12, 2021. But, so far, that misstatement has not been used to support some other lie.)
   b. Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 55(a), when a party against whom a judgment for
   affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided
   by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, judgement by default may be
   entered. “May” not “should” or “must”. Judge Weaver had already read my counterclaim and the letter written by Pietrczak that explains how he would use money he defrauded from me to pay Willy White to sue me and the trust for six times what I agreed to pay, plus attorney fees.
   
   c. The Rural Revival Living Trust failed to plead or otherwise appear in this
   action and therefore defaulted.
2. The Court ordered that a damages hearing be held on March 17, 2022. The
   purpose of the hearing was specifically limited to the Pietrzcak’s presentation of damages
   against the Rural Revival Living Trust. How convenient.
3. During the hearing, Hammett attempted to make objections and statements in
   response to Plaintiff’s presentation of statements to the court, admission of exhibits, and/or
   witness testimony. The Court, several times, explained to Hammett that she is not a licenses (sic)
   attorney and could not make statements or arguments on behalf of the Rural Revival Living
   Trust. I told Judge Weaver I wanted to make statements in protection of my own individual rights, and she refused to allow me to speak. Later you will see that she made findings against me as an individual, even after dismissing me on the merits.
4. Hammett prepared a purported “Marriage Contract” (attached as exhibit 3 to
   Pietrczak’s Complaint). The contract was prepared and signed by Pietrczak and Hammett, jointly. On October 14, 2021, based upon Hammett’s announced agreement and
   consent the Court found that the contract was void ab initio and deemed to have no legal effect as
   if it never existed. There was no hearing on October 14, 2021. There was a hearing on October 7, 2021. At that hearing, I said that the “marriage contract” was not meant to be a legal state endorsed marriage. We specifically wrote “married in the eyes of God”. By the contract, I agreed to split our combined assets 50/50, even though all the assets were rightly mine. But, since Pietrczak wanted to litigate, I would agree to voiding the agreement and recovering all the money Pietrczak defrauded from me, which was hundreds of thousands of dollars more than was used to purchase the Lick Fork property.
5. Hammett prepared an Affidavit (attached as Exhibit 4 to Pietrczak’s Complaint)
   and filed it of record with the Searcy County Clerk on March 13, 2015, at 3:35 p.m. with BK:
   MISC 175; PG: 150-151. The Affidavit claims Hammett is entitled to possession of 9985 Lick
   Fork Road, Witts Springs, Arkansas (hereafter referred to as “Lick Fork Property”), along with
   the owner of title, Micheal Pietrczak. Further, Hammett gives “actual notice to the world that
   my possession is as a 50% undivided interest…”. Hammett’s purported claims to the Lick Fork
   Property were based upon the purported “Marriage Contract’ discussed in the preceding
   paragraph and are therefore deemed to have no legal effect as if it never existed. Judge Weaver refused to let me argue, testify or cross-examine Pietrczak about this issue. The Affidavit I filed was based on what the Court dubbed the “marriage contract”. That contract was only one of many times Pietrczak agreed to split our combined property 50/50 if we broke up.
6. On or about March 22, 2016, Hammett prepared a Mortgage Agreement (attached
   as Exhibit 5 to Pietrczak’s Complaint) on behalf of the Rural Revival Living Trust guarantying
   the repayment of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100
   ($150,000.00) from the Rural Revival Living Trust to Pietrczak. Judge Weaver would not let me speak about this document on March 17, 2022. But she allowed me to speak about it on October 7, 2021. I said and wrote in filed documents that the mortgage was a form found online and Pietrczak told me what to write in the blanks. I was merely the scribe who filled in blanks in a mortgage.
7. The Mortgage Agreement was filed of record with the Searcy County Clerk on
   March 23, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. within Book: MORT 203; PG: 427-436. On March 22, 2016, the
   purported Mortgage Agreement was only executed by Hammett, not a licensed attorney, as the
   trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust rendering the Mortgage Agreement invalid. Therefore,
   the Mortgage Agreement is void ab initio and deemed to have no legal effect as if it never
   existed. I agree. The Mortgage Agreement was void ab initio. So, why is Judge Weaver giving Pietrczak an award based on a void mortgage? (Hint: She wants to.)
8. On or about March 22, 2016, Hammett prepared a Warranty Deed (attached as
   Exhibit 6 to Pietrczak’s Complaint) on behalf of the Rural Revival Living Trust purportedly
   transferring the Lick Fork Property from Pietrczak to the Rural Revival Living Trust. Again, Pietrczak told me what to write. My spelling is far superior to his, and I was his secretary often during our six years together. Only Pietrczak signed the deed. There was no space on the form we copied for the transferee to sign. Putting title into a trust was Pietrczak’s demand, and one of his cohorts wrote that I “slipped up” when I agreed to let Pietrczak deed to a trust instead of me as an individual.
9. The Warranty Deed was filed of record with the Searcy County Clerk on March
   23, 2016, at 11:13 a.m. within Book: Deed 200; PG: 606-609. Hammett is not a licensed
   attorney. Therefore, the Warranty Deed is void ab initio and deemed to have no legal effect as if
   it never existed. Pietrczak is the only person who signed the warranty deed. It was prepared under his direction. Judge Weaver should not call it void ab initio.
10. The Rural Revival Living Trust knew or should have known that Hammett is not
    a licensed attorney and that she is prevented from preparing legal documents on behalf of
    Pietrczak and/or the Rural Revival Living Trust. So, Judge Weaver finds that the Rural Revival Living Trust cannot represent itself, because it is not an attorney, but that the Rural Revival Living Trust should know an obscure interpretation of the law that forbids a non-attorney to represent another entity. The interpretation applies the law to the trustee of a trust. Several attorneys I spoke with did not know this interpretation of the law. Pietrczak demanded the property that should have been put in Hammett’s name as an individual be put into a trust.
11. The Rural Revival Living Trust slandered the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork
    Property by intentionally acting with malice, express or implied, in making slanderous
    statements regarding the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-
    37-226(a) anyone who suffers loss or damages as a result of conduct the prohibited conduct and
    who must bring civil action to remove any cloud from his or her title or interest in the real
    property or to clear his or her title or interest in the real property is entitled to three (3) times
    actual damages, punitive damages, and costs, including any reasonable attorney’s fees or other
    costs of litigation reasonably incurred. See Ark. Code Ann. §5-37-226(c). Payday for Willy White and his helpers. Of course Judge Weaver ignored the email I presented as an exhibit on August 2, 2021 that said I was willing to pay off the entire mortgage for the trust, if half the money, which was “a tithe”, went into a special needs trust for Pietrczak. I was not speaking on behalf of the trust, but I am the trustee of the trust, so it is unfair to call the trust “malicious”.
12. Due to Rural Revival Living Trust’s slandering of Pietrczak’s title, Pietrczak has
    been unable to enjoy the Lick Fork Property freely and quietly, and likewise, has been unable to
    otherwise sell or lease the Lick Fork Property to others.
13. The Rural Revival Living Trust filed the unauthentic and fraudulent, Mortgage
    Agreement and Warranty Deed into the records of the Searcy County Recorder with Pietrczak standing there, and who signed the documents in front of a notary who remembers Pietrczak was sober and had no gun to his head to cloud Pietrczak’s title to the Lick Fork Property and to adversely affect, impair, or discredit the title of Pietrczak’s interest in the Lick Fork Property. This has prevented Pietrczak from disposing, transferring, or granting any interest of the Lick Fork Property to anyone.
14. The purported “Marriage Contract”, Affidavit of Laura Lynn, Mortgage
    Agreement, and Warranty Deed described further herein are canceled, held null, and void and of
    no legal effect as if they had never existed. The affidavit does not mention the trust. The trust did not exist at the time. So, Judge Weaver denied my individual right to present evidence in my favor on March 17, 2022, dismissed me on the merits on March 28, 2022, then found against me as an individual on April 7, 2022.
15. Any and all clouds on the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property is removed. Again, Judge Weaver over reaches. She said the hearing of March 17, 2022 was only on the trust issues, and did not let the non-defaulting defendant testify or have a jury. “Any and all” clouds on title includes my personal rights to the property.
16. The Court renders judgment in Pietrczak’s favor and grants recovery of the
    possession of the Lick Fork Property and grants the recovery of the costs incurred by Pietrczak
    for the necessitation of this action as set forth within Ark. Code Ann. §18-60-207, 209.
17. The Court shall issue a Writ of Possession commanding the officer to whom it is
    directed to deliver to Pietrczak or his agent possession of the Lick Fork Property pursuant to Ark.
    Code Ann. §18-60-208.
18. At the conclusion of this matter Pietrczak may petition and be awarded his costs
    pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-401 including the treble damages provisions of Ark. Code
    Ann. § 16-60-102.
19. The Rural Revival Living Trust entered upon and/or unlawfully detained
    Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property without right or claim to title. See Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-
    303(1).
20. The Rural Revival Living Trust forcibly entered the premises and caused the
    locks of Pietrczak’s residence located on the Lick Fork Property to be changed to prevent
    Pietrczak or the attorney-in-fact from gaining access to Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Real Property.
    See. Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-303(2).
21. This Court shall issue a Writ of Possession pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-
    309.
22. This Court hereby declares that Pietrczak is the true and rightful owner of the
    Lick Fork Property pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 57 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-101 et seq.
23. This Court permanently enjoins the Rule Reviving Living Trust from further
    slandering, clouding, and entering upon Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property pursuant to Ark. R. Civ.
    P. 65.
24. Pietrczak may be awarded actual monetary damages, upon a proper motion and
    hearing, against the Rural Revival Living Trust for the costs of replacing and repairing the
    property to its former condition, when Pietrczak last possessed it, once he has been allowed to
    inventory, apprise the damages, and file a verified damages report with this Court.
25. Michael Pietrczak is the true and rightful owner of the property located in Searcy,
    County, Arkansas that has been the subject of this matter and who’s legal description is as
    follows:
26. The cloud on the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property is removed and is not
    subject to any lien, mortgage, other encumbrances. Judge Weaver is not allowed to remove liens and other encumbrances that belong to me as an individual without a case filed, summons served and any further action against me would be res judicata because I was already dismissed with prejudice.
27. The Court Orders title to the Lick Fork Property be placed into the Micheal A.
    Pietrczak Special Needs Trust as previously considered and ruled upon by the Court. If
    necessary, the Court will issue the appropriate conveyance documents (if necessary) to effectuate
    the transfer.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

HONORABLE SUSAN WEAVER

---

Judge Weaver stamped the order but did not date it. It was filed on April 7, 2022

Only a licensed attorney can represent a trust. But we each have the right to express ourselves regarding the decisions judges and juries make. Do you think OJ was guilty? Do you think Kyle Rittenhouse was innocent? The whole country expresses its opinions on legal issues, even though some of the people are not licensed attorneys.

Do you think Judge Weaver conspired with William Zac White to transfer property from a trust to a man who committed fraud on the beneficiary of that trust? If you do, please contact the JDDC and let them know you lost trust in the integrity of our legal system. If you are an attorney and want to represent the trust on appeal, contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. You can take the maximum contingency fee allowed from the trust case and any case you advocate on my individual behalf for malicious prosecution and fraud against any of the actors.