Clever Willy Files Another Summonsless Suit
[UPDATE, October 20, 2022: This blog was posted on September 29, 2022. On October 12, 2022, Attorney William Zac White issued three summonses in the case. Gold star for Willy. (I was down with COVID until a few days ago and am trying to catch up with my own cases.) Now we can wait with bated breath to see if the attorney serves the summonses before the final hearing on the case.]
You should catch up by reading how Arkansas Attorney William Zac White and Judge Susan Kaye Weaver transfer properties from trusts to his clients, each time failing to serve a summons on the defendants.
The out-of-control attorney filed another suit today. Named a trust. Check. Issued no summons. Check.
This case is against great-grandparents Harold and Patsy Land of Lawrence County Arkansas.
If any reader knows the Lands, give them a heads up.
The suit is based on a real estate sale “contract” that Mr. White claims was oral.
I am not an attorney, but I was a real estate broker for three decades. I heard about this thing called the statute of frauds. I bet most attorneys have heard of it too.
Here is a statute cut and pasted from a Justia, that looks to my non-attorney self to be the statute of frauds.
Instruments
Chapter 59 – Fraud
Subchapter 1 – Statute of Frauds
§ 4-59-101 – Contracts, agreements, or promises required to be in writing.
4-59-101. Contracts, agreements, or promises required to be in writing.
(a) Unless the agreement, promise, or contract, or some memorandum or note thereof, upon which an action is brought is made in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or signed by some other person properly authorized by the person sought to be charged, no action shall be brought to charge any:
(4) Person upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them;
Slick Willy forgot to issue a summons, but he remembered to file a lis pendens. He wrote in the complaint that the Lands have a sale pending. That lis pendens may block the sale. If Mr. White doesn’t serve summons on the elderly couple or the trust they set up, they will have a rude surprise in escrow. Mr. White will have leverage to extort some sort of settlement. Knowing Mr. White’s record, a judge may give default judgment to his client without a summons being issued.
Is this another way for Mr. White to grab property from the elderly for his clients and his “fee”?
I’d have to guess YES!
Searcy County Arkansas Sheriff’s Email Hacked: Deputy Dopey Not Too Concerned
I received an email that appeared to be from Searcy County Sheriff, Kenney Cassell today.
It said he was sharing a Dropbox file with me. Just click here.
I am sick with COVID and still under the influence of medications. It is difficult to sit. It is difficult to breath. Sorry William White, Susan Weaver and Portfolio Recovery Associates; I am not going to die from this. It is just slowing me down.
I foolishly clicked on the box and entered my email address and password, as instructed.
When there was no file presented to me, I quickly changed my email password.
I called the sheriff. Deputy Devon answered. (You can listen to the call below.)
He put me on hold a couple minutes to investigate. Then he said “We see an email. It was not meant to be sent to you. We are not sure exactly what this email is so you can disregard it. It’s not anything.”
Me: It’s very strange.
Deputy “Dopey” Devon: We didn’t send this email somehow.
Me: What do you mean you didn’t send it?
Deputy Dopey: We didn’t send this out this morning. We may have been hacked so…
Me: You may have been hacked?
Deputy Dopey: Disregard it. Delete it.
I gave him a long explanation of why I wanted more specific information about who hacked their system. I was concerned it might be Judge Susan Weaver or Attorney William White.
Finally, Deputy Dopey said “It was sent to a couple hundred people, so it wasn’t specifically targeted to you.”
So, the Sheriff of Searcy County Arkansas was hacked and its email is used to help the hacker convince old ladies who are on medication to enter their email and password. Many hours later, the sheriff still has not sent an email blast warning folks not to click on the “Dropbox” link.
A concerned citizen who is now likely to have further fraud committed against her by the hackers called and the Sheriff did not want to investigate. They made no effort to discover anything like IP addresses or anything that might be helpful to a computer forensics expert.
I’m glad Sheriff Kenney Cassell, who has a pleasant demeanor, has no brain. If he did, it would get lonely being the only one in the sheriff station.
There is an intermission when D.D. investigates. Grab a bite to eat or fast forward to 6:01.
Good Job, Young Simpson: Attorney W.Z. White Loses Again
Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver transferred property from a trust I was settlor, trustee and beneficiary of, by default. She used the excuse that I could not present evidence or arguments that would apply equally to the trust as to myself. I was named in the suit as a Common Defense Doctrine defendant. I was dismissed with prejudice. At that moment, Judge Weaver was obligated to dismiss the non-appearing trust.
The case began when attorney William Z. White of Heber Springs filed the suit and issued only one summons, the summons on me as an individual (misnaming me, but that is the general gist). Mr. White did not serve the one summons. I learned why later.
I found out about the case when I looked my own name up on Court Connect.
I recommend everyone in Arkansas monitor Court Connect to protect yourself against default judgments granted without service of summons.
You see, that is the devious plan that it appears was hatched by Mr. White and Judge Weaver. They previously were involved with a case filed by Richard Gawenis. There too, a trust was named but not served summons. Judge Weaver revoked the trust and Gawenis was going to grab the property.
But an attorney got involved. He filed a motion to set aside the order in the first case. Then he opened a second case. Judge Weaver presided on that case also.
It seems like Judge Weaver is a tad smarter than Willy White. (That is not a big accomplishment.) With an attorney involved, Judge Weaver made the right call. The trust got its property back and Mr. White’s client lost his rights as a beneficiary because of a no-contest clause.
Mr. White appealed.
He lost on appeal.
FUN Free Law Student Challenge
Here is the entire record of a case fought in Grisham country.
See how many legal errors you can find.
Abuse of discretion?
Use the comments to let everyone know how incompetent and unethical Judge Susan Kaye Weaver and attorney William Zac White are.
Feeling Funky, But Want to KIT
Sorry my posts are few and far between. Is this what the elder years are like? One ailment after another?
My current malady is COVID. The doctor diagnosing me did not seem too concerned. COVID is not the Russian Roulette it was in 2020 or when the delta variant hit.
There were moments in the past few days when I would rather be dead than handle the pain, but modern medicine is wonderous. Pop a pill and drift off into a comfortable sleep.
Unfortunately, law has not kept up with medicine. Judges usually hold non-attorney, self-represented litigants to the same standards as a team of high paid lawyers. I remember feeling like I do now, and Judge Susan K. Weaver of Searcy County Circuit Court denied my request to postpone an in-person hearing that entailed three hours of driving for me.
Funky as I feel, I finished a petition for writ of mandate today to cause Judge Weaver to play the recording of court hearings that were deliberately falsified in the transcripts.
Here it is.
Do You Play With Cheaters?
I finally have a good excuse to write about my passion: Poker.
What does poker have to do with court corruption?
Simple. Sometimes players cheat at poker. Sometimes litigants cheat at litigation.
Sadly, sometimes “the house” (the court) is complicit.
For instance, an attorney named William Z. White maliciously filed a lawsuit against me to benefit my former romantic and business partner, Micheal “Mike” Pietrczak. (Micheal is the correct spelling of his name, though even the Federal Court got it wrong when he was convicted of using a false i.d. at the U.S.-Mexico border.)
Mike was committing fraud on me. Mr. White had a suicide note written by Mike to his father that described the fraud. He proceeded against me anyhow, claiming I was defrauding Mike.
Eventually the suit against me was dismissed twice. The second dismissal was voluntary, instigated by Mr. White after the suicide note was sent to me in a production of documents. The big box of documents looked like someone peed and pooped on some papers, then shuffled them together. I put on gloves and looked through each page.
Still, I had a common defense doctrine co-defendant, a trust. I was trustee and beneficiary of that trust. I was not allowed to advocate for the trust because I am not licensed to practice law.
Judge Susan Kaye Weaver granted default judgment against the trust. She transferred all the assets I intended to use for retirement to a brand-new trust that will fund Mike Pietrczak’s drug and alcohol abuse and the trauma’s he causes to his own body. He was paralyzed in one of his accidents, after I broke up with him. (Mike told me his medical bills cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. His lawsuit probably cost the taxpayers quite a bit more.)
Early in the second case Mr. White filed in the Searcy County Arkansas Circuit Court, 65-CV-21-20, the Court Reporter Jana Perry deliberately falsified what was said in a hearing. Even though I threw a tizzy, filing motions to settle, civil rights lawsuits and complaints to administrative agencies, Ms. Perry repeated her dishonest services by falsifying a second hearing transcript.
You may notice that I am not using my usual cautionary words, such as “allegedly”. That is because truth is a defense against defamation, and I know what I am saying is true. If any of the conspirators who cheated at court sues me for defamation, the tape of the hearing will be exculpatory evidence and Ms. Perry will be required to play it in open court with a copy of the transcript on a screen for all to see. (Unless that court cheats, too.)
I have begged Judge Weaver and the Justices at the Court of Appeals to play the tape, with no success.
My 1983 suit in Federal District Court against Ms. Perry, Judge Weaver and Mr. White was dismissed without reaching discovery by Judge Billy Roy Wilson. (I call him “Billy Bob”.)
I was going to use the tape as evidence in an FDCPA case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. But Judge Rudofsky is leaning towards ending that case before allowing Ms. Perry to comply with my subpoena.
Judge Weaver and her good ol’ peeps are definitely cheating.
Judge Rudofsky, if he is cheating, is much smarter and more subtle. He allows for Portfolio Recovery to file everything it wants under seal, even forms it has published to the public numerous times in other cases, with just different data. They are able to avoid scrutiny.
This is where law feels like a poker game. There is collusion going on. meaning two or more people at the table are working together. Collusion is a form of cheating.
For instance, I have watched a couple sitting next to each other. The woman was on the man’s right. Every time she played a hand, so did he. This is called “protection”. It is subtle and may happen unintentionally, as well.
I know that when I am at a table with my son, I am more likely to call a hand he is in. I know that if I lose, the money will probably go to him. He wins more hands than he loses. I would give him all my money and my right arm if he needed it. So, what’s an extra ten bucks? I should learn from the experience, because every time I play at a table with my son, I come out ahead. I should probably loosen up even when my son is not at the table.
The difference between how I play when my son is there and how the couple was playing is that I don’t play my crap hands when my son is next to me. I fold 7-2 off suit. I noticed the couple’s gambit when all other players folded and both had to expose their hands for the show down. They both had Jack-shit. (Not literally a jack and a shitty kicker. That is a colloquialism for “nothing” that was taken from poker, because a jack with a low off suit kicker is not likely to be a winning hand.) The woman had a good opening hand, but the flop made it unplayable. The man had nothing to start and nothing to finish. They both bluffed the other players out together. After that hand I paid close attention to their pattern. It defied statistical probability, so I got up and found other kids to play with.
I do not play with cheaters. Collusion is cheating.
My son, on the other hand, will. He once told me there were cheaters at the game he played the night before. I asked why he continued to play. He said “if they have to cheat to win, they are not good players. They might win a few hands against me, but I will win more. Eventually I will leave with their money.”
I don’t think my son’s theory works at law.
I took the case Billy Bob presided over to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and those Justices dismissed my appeal summarily. That means they did not allow me to write a brief. I didn’t know the appellate court could do that. Maybe I should have brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I made two bids on a case in California to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both petitions for writ of cert were denied. That is not unusual. A miniscule percentage of petitions are granted for discretionary review by SCOTUS.
On the California case I was able to have a judge admonished for his unethical behavior. That was a slap on the wrist. I believe the presiding family law judge took early retirement in part because of my complaints about her. But there was no dramatic improvement in the court.
It is too easy for judges to show a bias toward favored litigants or to outright cheat for them. They can easily collude.
Unlike at a poker game, the players are not allowed to just get up and leave without leaving all their money on the table.
Since the unethical judges will eventually transfer all the marks’ money to the opponent, is it wiser for the mark to hand her money over? I don’t think so.
Because unlike at poker, the opponent is allowed to force the mark to bring more money to the table, by filing another bullshit lawsuit or getting an impermissible order for attorney fees. Portfolio Recovery Associates and the William Zac Whites of the world make billions of dollars a year doing just that.
Punctuation Matters. Period. End of Story.
If this conduct by Goliath debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and Trump appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was not so evil, it would be humorous.
So, I’ll start with one of my dearly departed father, Dr. Norman H. Kramer’s favorite jokes.
He wrote words on a piece of paper exactly like this:
Sex Sex Sex
Worry Worry Worry
Then he told his audience to punctuate the words correctly.
You try.
Sex Sex Sex
Worry Worry Worry
Should I help you?
Sex. Sex. Sex
Worry Worry Worry
Speak the punctuation outloud.
Sex, period, Sex, period, Sex, no period. Worry Worry Worry. lol
Seriously, the placement of a single period or comma can change the meaning of a sentence completely.
For example, there is a case Portfolio Recovery loves called Facebook, Inc. v Duguid. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that dialing systems like those used by Portfolio Recovery are not an “auto dialer” subjecting their obnoxious calls to the TCPA. The decision is 13 pages long, focused primarily on the placement of a comma in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act statute.
“When interpreting a statute, a qualifying phrase separated from antecedents by a comma is evidence that the qualifier is supposed to apply to all the antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one.” Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 209 L. Ed. 2d 272, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021)
If you don’t fear death by boredom, read this entire paragraph: “(a) This case turns on whether the clause ‘using a random or sequential number generator’ in § 227(a)(1)(A) modifies both of the two verbs that precede it (‘store’ and ‘produce’), as Facebook contends, or only the closest one (‘produce’), as maintained by Duguid. The most natural reading of the text and other aspects of § 227(a)(1)(A) confirm Facebook’s view. First, in an ordinary case, the ‘series-qualifier canon’ instructs that a modifier at the end of a series of nouns or verbs applies to the entire series. Here, that canon indicates that the modifying phrase ‘using a random or sequential number generator’ qualifies both antecedent verbs, ‘store’ and ‘produce.’ Second, the modifying phrase immediately follows a concise, integrated clause (‘store or produce telephone numbers to be called’), which uses the word ‘or’ to connect two verbs that share a common direct object (‘telephone numbers to be called’). Given this structure, it would be odd to apply the modifier to just one part of the cohesive clause. Third, the comma in § 227(a)(1)(A) separating the modifying phrase from the antecedents suggests that the qualifier applies to all of the antecedents, instead of just the nearest one. Pp. 1168 – 1170.” Ok, WAKE UP!
Judge Rudofsky created a “fact” in my litigation against Portfolio Recovery Associates by claiming that I admitted to owing a debt to PRA. He based that “fact” in major part on a sentence he claimed I wrote.
“I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on
a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001.” – see footnote 463 on the consolidated order granting PRA’s motion for summary judgment.
The actual sentence I wrote: “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001, as I used any credit card to purchase household items, food and other consumer items.”
I could have said “I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001, as I had not borrowed money for business prior to 2013 when PRA allegedly bought the alleged debt.” Still, Judge Rudofsky would still truncate the sentence without indicating the clause removed.
I explained this in a later document, my opposition to PRA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment. I accidentally attributed the misquotation to the defendant instead of the judge. It is so difficult to remember who said something when the judge is creating arguments for a favored litigant.
Yesterday, PRA filed an opposition to my motion for reconsideration or alternatively to compel production of the credit card agreement that was necessary to create an obligation to pay. PRA admitted there is no record of an agreement, written or oral.
Unbelievable as it may seem, PRA repeated Judge Rudofsky’s misquotation of the sentence. But, like a child who looks around furtively and then interjects another lie to try to cover-up for its previous lie, PRA added two characters around the period. “[.]” Here is PRA’s version of the sentence:
“I am a consumer in respect to any debt incurred by me on a credit card issued by Capital One Bank (USA) in or about 2001[.]”
OOOOhhh… Lawyers James Trefil of Troutman Pepper and David Mitchell of Rose Law Firm were trying to not lie. The straight parentheses mean something was changed. They changed the comma to a period. But a person filing documents is subject to Rule 11, that they reasonably believe what they write is accurate. The change PRA made by straight parentheses is not accurate.
For instance, if quoting case law that says “Facebook, inc. is right” the filer writes “[Duguid] is right”, the filer has made a statement he knows is false. Otherwise, lawyers would riddle their points and authorities with straight parentheses that change the meaning of the caselaw completely. Don’t like caselaw? Just change “shall” to “[may]”.
Clever, clever children.
If you had a period after the last “sex”, you might not need the worry, worry, worry, either.
A Higher Law 