Arkansas Judge Susan Kaye Weaver Up to Her Old Tricks

For the sterile filed version of this motion scroll down to the downloadable version of what I filed today in Faulkner County Circuit Court.

I just made this a bit more readable by changing it to first person and changing a few words, such as calling Judge Weaver “Judge Weaver” instead of “the Court”. I had to refrain from calling her something else a little more colorful.

Judge Susan Weaver is not allowed to dismiss my case against Shelter Insurance and its agent, Jeff Jennings Insurance Agency, Inc for the following reasons:

Judge Weaver notified me that she intended to dismiss my case for lack of prosecution on March 20, 2023, but her notification went to my spam folder, so I learned about it later than intended.

I was able to respond timely, anyhow.

Judge Weaver’s plan to dismiss for lack of prosecution is bizarre.

First, it is the unethical judge who has failed to promptly dispose of the matters before her. I waited patiently for her to decide the Motion for Recusal filed September 27, 2021 and the Motions to Dismiss filed October 20, 2021 and October 28, 2021.

Second, there is a related case, Pietrczak v. Laura Lynn and Rural Revival Living Trust, 65-CV-21-20, that is on appeal, which addresses common issues with this case that should be decided consistently. Judge Weaver appears to have delayed and is now evading deciding the pending motions on the merits because she intends to make contradictory orders against me on the two cases.

The Motion for Recusal was brought in major part because Judge Susan Kaye Weaver presiding “conspire[ed] [with Court Reporter Jana Perry and Pietrczak attorney William “Zac” White] to make an inaccurate transcription of the hearing of August 4, 2021 [in Pietrczak].” Motion for Recusal ¶ 1.

I filed a lawsuit for Judge Weaver’s violation of my civil rights under the color of law under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Judge Weaver, Jana Perry and Pietrczak attorney William “Zac” White, Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas case no. 4:21-CV-857-BRW. The 1983 case was dismissed (erroneously) based on absolute judicial immunity and Rooker-Feldman. I appealed. The appeal was denied summarily before briefing.

I had an acute case of Hashimoto’s Disease which caused me to be too fatigued to take the 1983 case further at that time. (I am trying to recover by following a strict dietary protocol and using stress management techniques. The Court’s misconduct is a major stressor which exacerbates Hashimoto’s Disease and I intend to file a second 1983 case because of the subsequent falsification of the transcript of the Pietrczak hearing held March 17, 2022.) There is a “Catch 22”, as legal work that addresses debilitating stress causes more stress.

By relying on Rooker-Feldman for her defense in the 1983 suit, Judge Weaver should make a concerted effort to resolve the issue of whether falsification of the transcripts in one case concerning Hammett shows bias against Hammett by the conspirator judge.

I listed each entry on Court Connect that showed that the motion for recusal and defendants’ motions to dismiss my Second Amended Complaint were fully briefed by November 17, 2021, well within the time allowed by rules of civil procedure.

Judge Weaver failed to issue an order on the Motion for Recusal and the MTDs. There was no further activity since November 17, 2021.

On September 21, 2021 the Court issued an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The Court required Plaintiff to add “Rural Revival Living Trust” as a necessary party pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 19 [despite my repeated efforts to educate the airheaded judge as to the requirement to name a trustee, rather than a trust as a party].

I added the Trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust as a defendant, because I personally paid the premium for the trustee after Shelter required the trustee to be named on the policy.

In the Brief supporting the Jennings MTD, Jennings argues that [the principal that] Plaintiff naming the trust as a defendant [is not allowed] is “axiomatic as suing oneself in any capacity raises the following questions — and many others.” [Dictionary.com defines “axiomatic” as an adjective meaning “pertaining to or of the nature of an axiom; self-evident; obvious.”

In Pietrczak, Judge Susan Weaver dismissed me as a defendant, but then proceeded to find against the Rural Revival Living Trust by default. This is one issue on appeal, labeled the Common Defense Doctrine.

It is a clear error and appearance of bias for the Court to agree I as an individual and the trust are “oneself” in this case but treat me as an individual and the trust as separate defendants with non-aligned interests in Pietrczak. The Court denied my motion to intervene in Pietrczak. It is probable that Judge Weaver neglected to rule on pending motions in this case to evade providing me with more reason to overturn the order in Pietrczak which basically stole my property and gave it to a man who gave a hand-written letter describing the fraud he was committing on me to his attorney William “Zac” White.

Also, the appearance of bias of Judge Susan Weaver and her refusal to settle the record by playing the audio recording of the falsified hearings in open court is an issue on appeal in Pietrczak that should affect the outcome of this case.

Brief

     ARCP Rule 41 “Section (b) also marks a significant variation from FRCP 41(b). Under this rule, the trial court has the right to dismiss on its own motion a claim for failure to prosecute the action or failure to comply with these rules or any order of the court. Under the Federal Rule, such dismissal must be on motion of the defendant or other party affected.” Reporter’s notes to Rule 41. Judge Susan Weaver is abusing her power by calling her own failure to decide the matters assigned to the judge as required by Judicial Code of Conduct Rule 2.7 a failure of the litigant to prosecute.

     “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the [] impartiality of the judiciary [].” Judicial Code of Conduct 1.2. Deciding two cases involving the same litigant and the same issues differently is a clear indication of bias. Refusal of this Court to issue the contrary ruling on this case until after the appeal of the related case and taking it a step further by dismissing this case on false grounds violates the Rules of Judicial Conduct and the Plaintiff’s fundamental Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

     Wherefore, Plaintiff asks this Court to continue the proceedings on its calendar, and to issue a reasoned order on the two pending motions, considering the orders made in Pietrczak in the interim.