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.