Judge Susan Weaver Considers it Threatening to Say You Will “File Stuff” Complaining About Her Job Performance
(Transcribed from a recording between pro se litigant Betty Figueroa and Faulkner County judicial clerk “Emma”) The Arkansas state police contacted Mrs. Figueroa and threatened to arrest her if she attended an Arkansas Bar Association function. Mrs. Figueroa is a member. Judge Susan Weaver did not want Mrs. Figueroa to attend.
Betty: She filed a report on me.
Emma: The last few times I’ve talked to you, you’ve said that if she doesn’t file a response, you’re going to take it to the Supreme Court, and that is a threat.
Betty said she was tape recording all their phone conversations.
Emma: Ok, well that’s great.
Emma, later: You threatening to file stuff against Judge Weaver is a threat.
So, if you need to appeal decisions made by the unethical judge, or report her to the JDDC, it seems prudent to just do it. No warning.
Unless you want the Arkansas SWAT to arrest you for peaceful assembly.
Another Stupid Attorney (and Corrupt Judge) Trick to Play on Pro Se Litigants
Pro se litigants, people who can’t afford attorney representation and file their case on their own, often get the sneaky suspicion that the court is teaming up with the opposing parties’ attorneys.
Are there brief cases full of cash exchanging hands? I haven’t seen any with my own eyes.
Are there lavish gifts or invites to shin-digs being given to the judges? Think Justice Clarence Thomas.
Is there a natural tendency to favor someone who belongs to the same club? Absolutely!
The document above is from a case that had judges and clerks allegedly colluding with six law firms and the defendants that included two more law firms against me.
But, you know me. As much as they cheated, I responded with logic, facts and law. My appellate brief was jam packed with valid reasons to overturn the vast majority of district court orders. If the Ninth Circuit refused justice, this was going to the Supremes.
Five years into the proceedings, the Ninth Circuit pointed out a Supreme Court case from 1990, authored by Justice Scalia and followed in every circuit, that says the federal courts did not have jurisdiction over my case. The proceedings are void. The orders must be vacated. It is a do-over.
This is very good for me! I basically won on appeal and get to start over in state court.
But what if I won the case against all odds? The defendants would all of a sudden remember the rule that destroyed jurisdiction and I would still need to start over.
The rule: One situation that allows federal court jurisdiction is when each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than each defendant. The tricky part is that an LLC, partnership or other unincorporated association is a citizen of each state of which each member is a citizen. I sued a limited liability company organized in California with all its business in California, and said it was a citizen of California. I am a citizen of Arkansas. Looked to me like we had diversity. But no! The LLC was also a citizen of Arkansas.
I am thrilled that all merit-based orders in the case must be vacated. (The federal courts can still police the participants for bad behavior, like direct contempt.) I would be more thrilled if the court did not waste five years of a bunch of people’s energy and other resources playing stupid games.
The judges on my case were well aware of the caselaw that told them they lacked jurisdiction. I found a few relevant cases they presided over on Westlaw.
The Attorney Defendants argued that I should still have to pay the bullshit attorney fee order the corrupt judges made and upheld, based on an anti-SLAPP motion. Here is an outtake of an order written by Judge Todd W. Robinson, one of the judge gang.
“Although the California Supreme Court has recently advised that a court may award attorneys’ fees and costs to the defendant pursuant to Section 425.16 where the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it did not hold that an award of fees is mandatory. See Barry v. State Bar of Cal., 2 Cal. 5th 318, 320–21, 329, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 386 P.3d 788 (2017). Consequently, federal courts have denied—and continue to deny after Barry—as moot anti-SLAPP motions when the court has dismissed the underlying action on jurisdictional grounds. See, e.g., Newport Inv. Grp., LLC v. Cliett, No. SACV 18-01597-JVS(DFMx), 2019 WL 2424109, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) (declining to reach anti-SLAPP motion after concluding that dismissal was warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2)); Williby v. Hearst Corp., No. 5:15-cv-02538-EJD, 2017 WL 1210036, at *1, *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) ( ); Sikhs for Justice, Inf. v. Facebook, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1097 (2015) (denying as moot anti-SLAPP motion after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims); Fortinos v. Sills, No. C 12-3828 MEJ, 2012 WL 5870681, at 5 & n.9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2012) (same); Ravet v. Solomon, Ward, Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP, No. 07 CV 0031 JM, 2007 WL 2088381, at *7 S.D. Cal. July 17, 2007 (same).” Williams v. Kula, Case No.: 20-CV-1120, ECF No. 76, TWR (AHG)(Signed 12/29/2020)
“Despite having a meritorious personal jurisdiction defense, Defendants filed duplicative—and voluminous—anti-SLAPP motions. Having prevailed on their Rule 12(b)(2) motions, Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions have ‘not achieve[d] any practical benefit’ aside from burdening the Court (and Plaintiffs) and menacing Plaintiffs with the specter of attorneys’ fees.” (Williams)
Judge Robinson ignored the jurisdictional issue on my case and upheld the bad order on the anti-SLAPP. The order was wrong for other reasons than the lack of jurisdiction. The difference between the two cases?
Guess first. Ok?
The defendants that Robinson chewed out were pro se. The defendants on my case were attorneys represented by attorneys. Robinson said those defendants were spot on. The plaintiffs that Robinson favored were represented by attorneys. I was a pro se plaintiff and the judge showed no concern whatsoever for the unethical legal strategies used against me, even though more egregious than in the Williams case.
Real Debate. Bobbie Kennedy is certainly the most intelligent and specific of the three presidential candidates who have a chance of winning.
First, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had less time to speak than Biden and Trump. For some inexplicable reason, he was not given the rebuttal minute. I think that because of his neurological disability that makes speech difficult, he should have received more time, not less. (My experience is that when a person’s language center in his brain malfunctions it does not mean that person has impaired reasoning.)
My enthusiasm for RFK is dampened by perhaps petty annoyances. For instance, once I gave my telephone number to his campaign, it was difficult to get them to stop contacting me incessantly. Not nearly as hard as it was to get Portfolio Recovery Associates to stop calling me – I didn’t even threaten a lawsuit on RFK. I blocked one number and the campaign texts stopped. Whereas PRA had an endless number of lines to call from and blocking one number just made another number pop up.
It was not fair for Kennedy to have a live studio audience cheering for him, when the other two candidates did not get to use that cheap device for persuasion.
The meat of the issues though is which person has the best morality, intellect and health. Kennedy wins on all three.
RFK has fought for environmental protection and against big businesses. Biden is a career politician who has some shady deals going on with his son and billion-dollar foreign companies. Trump appointed Walmart counsel Lee P. Rudofsky to a lifetime position on the judiciary. Rudofsky apparently is using his position to encourage the nation’s second largest debt buyer, a customer of Walmart’s, to ignore its obligation to validate or verify the accuracy of the non-performing loans it buys before making collection calls.
RFK is an avid outdoorsman. Trump and Biden argued over who had the best golf skills. Golf is an elitist game reserved for people who can spend as much on a round as the rest of us spend for a week of groceries. We need public access to open spaces – not exclusive golf clubs.
If I was the judge of which of the three candidates is truly a man of faith, I would decide RFK. Is he without sin? No! Am I certain that he is running for office to fulfil God’s will for him? I am skeptical. I am 100% certain that the motivations driving Trump and Biden are ego, money and power.
RFK gave some real solutions for three problems closest to my heart. Trump and Biden made broad claims of superiority and slung invective epithets at each other.
On substance abusers, Kennedy intends to build free rural rehabilitation facilities. (I named my trust that Judge Susan Weaver pillaged “the Rural Revival Living Trust”. The property in the trust was meant to be used as a retreat for people who were having trouble coping in the city – and were willing to change.)
On childcare, Kennedy proposes using half the military budget to fund affordable options. He also endorses school choice, such as charter schools.
On corruption in government, presumably meaning the courts as well, RFK expressed zero tolerance for lying officials. Under Kennedy’s proposal, Lee P. Rudofsky would be fired. (See the unfinished series on this blog about Lee P. Rudofsky’s web of deceit.)
We should not base our vote on a person’s physical appearance, or even prowess. But dementia is a physiological ailment. Biden exhibits extreme signs of cognitive degeneration. My personal experience is that my “brain fog” was lifted by a drastic change in my diet and diligence in pursuit of better health. Biden is losing it. He has the finest free health care in the world, and the physicians have not had any success in reversing or even stopping the degenerative disease that seems to afflict our current head of state.
Hopefully Robert F. Kennedy is sincere. If he is, he is by far the best viable option for President.
It is worth your time to listen to the “Real Debate”.
A Higher Law 