Juries Love Video and So Do the Public At Large
I’ll get the hang of this video editing. It really paints ten thousand words.
It took three more days to get an unwilling patient out of ICU without being shot by UAMS state police.
Here is the claim filed, and the answer filed late. It appears that UAMS will spend several million dollars to defend against the claim that asked for $275,000.
Here is Senior Associate General Counsel Sherri L. Robinson’s lame excuse for filing the answer late without asking for an extension of time.
Sherri Robinson, UAMS’s defense attorney, claims she’s been “distracted” lately, helping her mother after a broken wrist. But what if Sherri’s mother had gone to UAMS and been held there for two weeks—tied to a cot, drugged, exposed, and unable to use a toilet because the staff feared she might “elope”? Imagine Sherri’s state of mind if she had to wipe away remnants of feces from her own mother’s anus and vagina because UAMS refused to let their patient-prisoner use a toilet.
But this isn’t Sherri’s mother; it’s someone else’s loved one. And UAMS claims they “destroyed” the surveillance videos, so it’s as if it never even happened. This is the conduct Sherri Robinson is defending.
Pro Se Litigants Take on UAMS and State Police
Imagine your loved one, injured and vulnerable, restrained and unable to leave a hospital despite wanting nothing more than to go home. This was my reality at UAMS.
For two weeks, UAMS confined my son, even physically restraining him with force multiple times and using date rape drugs to incapacitate him.
UAMS claims they destroyed all surveillance videos of what happened. I was pressured into limiting my own recordings, leaving us without the full evidence we should have had. See our claim, filed in the Arkansas Claims Commission, for the full details.
Here is the late filed answer from UAMS.
Here is the UAMS attorney’s excuse why she was late. She doesn’t explain why she didn’t ask for an extension before the statutory time expired.
As I balance caring for my husband, who has stage IV cancer, and navigating the fallout of my son’s mistreatment, I’m adding new videos to show what happened at UAMS. Watch and decide for yourself: Was Sean held against his will? I had no choice but to stay in the hospital—without a bed, a refrigerator, or basic support—or leave my son behind, knowing he was subjected to unnecessary restraints, psychotropic drugs, forced catheterization and denial of use of a toilet to defecate.
Despite our willingness to meet UAMS’s legal team for a settlement, they’d rather drain taxpayer dollars on depositions and salaries than make an offer to resolve this in good faith.
Shockingly, state police declined to investigate possible criminal charges, even telling me to stop emailing them evidence.
Good Cause to Continue Case Against Shelter Insurance: Judge Susan Weaver is an evil, lying, conniving judge that needs to recuse.
Comes now separate and only Plaintiff, Laura Lynn Hammett, an individual, (called herein “Plaintiff” or the “Individual”) in pro se, and for her application to continue this case on the court’s calendar for good cause states as follows:
- The Court issued a notice dated October 15, 2024 that the case will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41, Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, for want of prosecution, unless application to continue and showing of good cause is made within 2 weeks of the date of notice.
- Plaintiff is filing this application timely.
- Good cause exists to continue the case on the court’s calendar.
- A similar notice was issued and responded to in 2023. The same reasons apply, but there is further evidence that it is a violation of Hammett’s due process to allow Judge Susan Weaver to make any decisions on this case, or any case involving Hammett.
- It is the Court who has failed to promptly dispose of the matters before her. Plaintiff has waited patiently for the Court to decide the Motion for Recusal filed September 27, 2021 and the Motions to Dismiss filed October 20, 2021 and October 28, 2021.
- More importantly, 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. The Court appears to have delayed and is now evading deciding the pending motions on the merits because the Court intends to make contradictory orders against Hammett 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.
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit 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. Plaintiff appealed. The appeal was denied summarily before briefing.
- Plaintiff had an acute case of Hashimoto’s Disease which caused Plaintiff to be too fatigued to take the 1983 case further at that time. (Plaintiff is 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 Plaintiff intends 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.
- As shown on Court Connect, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, (“Shelter”), filed an opposition to the Motion for Recusal on October 1, 2021.
- Jennings Insurance, Inc., (“Jennings”), filed an opposition to the Motion for Recusal on October 4, 2021.
- Plaintiff replied to the opposition to the Motion for Recusal on October 4, 2021.
- Shelter filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on October 20, 2021.
- Jennings filed a MTD to the SAC which adopted Shelter’s MTD at ¶ 5 on October 28, 2021.
- Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Shelter MTD on October 21, 2021 and an opposition to the combined Jennings MTD on November 9, 2021.
- Shelter filed a reply to the MTD on October 26, 2021.
- Shelter and Jennings each filed an answer to the SAC on October 21, 2021.
- Jennings filed a reply to the MTD on November 17, 2021.
- The Court 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.
- Plaintiff added the Trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust as a defendant, because Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff naming the trust as a defendant is “axiomatic as suing oneself in any capacity raises the following questions — and many others.”
- In Pietrczak, Judge Susan Weaver dismissed Laura Lynn [Hammett] 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 Hammett as an individual and the trust are “oneself” in this case but treat Hammett as an individual and the trust as separate defendants with non-aligned interests in Pietrczak. The Court denied Hammett’s motion to intervene in Pietrczak. It is probable that Judge Weaver neglected to rule on pending motions in this case to evade providing Hammett with more reason to overturn the order in Pietrczak which transferred Hammett’s individual interest in the subject property to a man who gave a hand-written letter describing the fraud he was committing on Hammett 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.
- The Pietrczak order that transferred Hammett’s individual rights in the property to the defrauding party was issued on April 7, 2022.
- The April 7, 2022 order was not final, technically. Neither was an April 14, 2022 order that simply denied any and all motions in the case. Because there was no notice of the Court’s motion to modify earlier orders, there was no modification of those orders. That includes the April 7, 2022 order.
- Laura said the order of April 14, 2022 was “confusing” in an “objection” filed April 16, 2022 and the notice of appeal filed April 18, 2022. Laura expressed that she thought the April 7, 2022 order was the judgment. “There are several post judgment motions that are allowed.” The court failed to clarify her meaning before the appeal was docketed.
- The court did not write “final order” or “judgment” on the April 14, 2022 order. The clerk, under direct supervision of Judge Weaver, failed to “close” the case on the docket and failed to file a disposition.
- A licensed attorney hired to represent the Rural Revival Living Trust on Pietrczak determined that the April 7, 2022 order was final.
- On June 10, 2022, Clerk Debbie Loggins allowed for execution of the April 7, 2022 order.
- On May 22, 2024, with no jurisdiction, Judge Weaver wrote that the case was still open and would be dismissed unless a party showed cause why not. Laura showed cause why the court should “Continue the Case on the Court’s Docket Pending Order on Appeal” on May 22, 2024. Laura said, “a final judgment was filed April 7, 2022” and that the case was docketed with the Court of Appeals. Docketing to the COA relieved Judge Weaver of jurisdiction.
- On June 7, 2024, the circuit court wrote: “A final order was entered April 14, 2022; a disposition sheet was never entered following the entry of the order. Due to no disposition sheet entered in the case, the case appeared to remain open.” (Filings entered after the record on appeal lodged.)
- Judge Weaver did not ask the appellate court, who had docketed the appeal almost 19 months earlier, for permission to make the clerical changes. The changes were not reflected in the record to the appellate court.
- The confusion and deception embodied in the orders written by Judge Weaver on Pietrczak show further evidence that Judge Weaver is not trying to deliver justice. She is delivering Hammett’s property rights to a represented party, who presumably transferred a significant portion of the proceeds from selling the property Hammett had a right to to a third party, to the attorney.
Brief
The June 7, 2024 order was entered “during the pendency of an appeal”, after the appeal was docketed, with no “prior notice to all parties” and no “leave of the appellate court”. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction. The June 7, 2024 order is of no effect. Rule 60 – Relief from Judgment, Decree or Order, Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
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.
Respectfully submitted, October 27, 2024
Laura Lynn Hammett
16 Gold Lake Club Road
Conway, Arkansas 72032
(760) 966-6000
Bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Attorney William Spiller Jr. Going for Lifetime Achievement of “Worst Attorney Ever”
The petition linked below is light on facts. Did he wave his gun or his weeny at you? Did he promise custody time in exchange for sexual favors? Or, did he do you like he did me? He had me removed from court where I was watching him in action. He told the judge I was a witness in the case. The truth was, that was the first day I ever laid eyes on his victim and was there as a journalist.
The reason this petition drew my attention is the sheer longevity of Spiller’s rein of terror on innocent children and their loving mothers. Complaints are still coming in on this guy who should have been involuntarily retired decades ago.
Chief Justice Karen Baker and Kwami Abdul-Bey. Hooray!
It was actually a pleasure voting today.
Naw…not for the President. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either of the big two. In Arkansas, a vote for Kamala would be a wasted vote anyways. So, since Trump is a foregone conclusion here, I voted Libertarian. I can’t tell you the candidate’s name. All I know about him is that he is Libertarian and he is gay.
The message I hope my one vote sent is for government to stay out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms.
There were some exciting issues. I voted Yes. No. Yes.
The courts are blocking the marijuana initiative, but it was still on the ballot. I’ve used marijuana and I’ve used Ambien, trazadone and a few other big pharma sleep aids. I’ll take weed any day over the synthetics. And why can Kraft, Wal Mart and Ronny Mac’s push hydrogenated, high fructose, alphabet soup full of chemicals called “food”, killing us slowly for profit? But we can’t grow a plant in our backyard and bake it into our brownies?
Spending some of the lottery profits on tech training seems like a great idea. We need more lawyers like we need a hole in the head. But everyone wants to have a stick-built house, electricity and a toilet that flushes.
No on 2 for two reasons. First, the people already voted for the casino in Russellville. If people want to throw their money away, let them. Who’s to say what entertainment is acceptable or not? Which brings me to second. I’m hoping they put in a poker room. (My kid knocked “Fossilman” Greg Raymer out of a tournament this week, for those of you that follow the sport.) I’m not able to play poker for real money right now, but when I have enough to throw some away, don’t say I cannot play. (I usually win, anyhow.)
It was a pleasure to vote for Kwami Abdul-Bey for House of Representatives, seat 69. This wasn’t the usual “I can’t possibly vote for the other guy” vote. In fact, I voted for David Ray last time. I liked his name.
But Mr. Ray sent out tacky postcards that tried to make Mr. Abdul-Bey look like a leftie lunatic. I read some of what Kwami had to say. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
He wants a revolution that doesn’t include guns and mobs. He wants a paradigm shift in the way we treat community. He wants love and gardens. Mom and Pop shops. Fresh wholesome food for all. Housing. Education. David Ray has those things for his picture postcard family. But has done worse than nothing to make it possible for the rest of us.
Karen Baker got my vote in the judicial race against Rhonda Wood. I have a case going to the Arkansas Supreme Court soon. I may change my mind about her then. But for now, I love what she wrote in the dissenting opinion about whether Asa Hutchinson III should be able to practice law while waiting for an adjudication of charges for speeding through town with cocaine and a gun in his car. What would have happened to you, if you got caught doing the same thing as the ex-Governor’s son?
Blogger Happy to Help: Content Creators, Contact Me for FREE Consultation About Court Corruption
This is old news. It was around 2012 that Los Angeles area news producer Dan Leighton contacted me. He said he was at a sushi bar waiting for his order and scrolling when he came across my blog. We had a few long talks about the corruption in Los Angeles family courts. Next thing I knew, I was invited to Fox Studio to film with a few of the other brave women willing to speak out.
I moved to Arkansas and was trying to retire. Then I ran into Grishamesque judges, like Susan Weaver, who are dumb as rocks, but evil and connected. And there was New York transplant Lee Rudofsky, the academically gifted Trump appointee federal judge who seems to be one of the dark money puppets on the other end of Leonard Leo’s strings. Was this God’s way of telling me my life’s work is not complete?
It would be fun to do some interviews for YouTube creators about my newer cases as a pro se litigant. Feel free to contact me by text or email if you are looking for content. (760) 966-6000 Bohemian_Books@yahoo.com
How Judge Rita Gruber, Cindy Thyer and Chief Judge Brandon Harrison are Wasting More of Your Taxpayer Dollars
This document was rejected for filing today. It is about 15 lines too long. I didn’t think the certificate of service counted in the page length. Ooops.
So, now instead of hanging out with my granddaughter (school’s out for fall break), I am making some changes to the brief. Blech.
So it wasn’t a total waste, I’m sharing the overlength brief with you. I might need to chop off my favorite paragraph. Not that I’m ego invested, but I wanted someone to see it…
This is a case of strangling substantive law with an incredibly thin strand of procedural nit-pickery, suffocating justice and deflecting attention from the serious issues that allow the law—and those who rely on it—to breathe free.
Maybe I need to keep my creativity on this blog and off of legal docs.
Listen in On a Chat with My new Best Friend, ChatGPT: What to do about judge Susan Weaver
http://www.chatGPT.com My questions, their answers.
A plaintiff committed fraud upon the court. The defendant suspected the fraud, but took a year to find evidence. The plaintiff slipped up and put a handwritten note describing the intended fraud, written before the case was filed, into a discovery production. When the defendant presented the evidence to the court in a motion for contempt, the court dismissed the defendant, but gave default judgment against a common defense doctrine defendant, and took rights to the property away from the dismissed with prejudice defendant. Is it still fraud upon the court if the court is complicit? What can the dismissed defendant do to rectify the situation?
This situation involves a complex set of legal issues, including fraud upon the court, the court’s potential complicity, and remedies available to the dismissed defendant. Let’s break it down:
1. Is it still fraud upon the court if the court is complicit?
Yes, it can still be considered fraud upon the court, even if the court appears complicit. “Fraud upon the court” refers to fraud that directly interferes with the administration of justice and affects the integrity of the judicial process. It typically involves egregious conduct, such as fabricating evidence, bribing a judge, or other deceit that taints the proceedings in a way that prevents the court from performing its impartial role.
If a party has engaged in deliberate misconduct, and the court is either unaware or knowingly allows it to proceed, the fraud itself remains. The court’s involvement or negligence doesn’t erase the fraudulent act; it may just complicate efforts to rectify it.
2. What can the dismissed defendant do to rectify the situation?
The dismissed defendant still has potential avenues to challenge the judgment, particularly if they believe fraud upon the court was involved:
- Motion to Vacate Judgment: Under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or similar state law), a party can file a motion to vacate the judgment if there was fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party. There is a one-year time limit from the judgment, but for fraud upon the court (which is a more serious offense), there is no time limit under Rule 60(d)(3).
- Appeal the Court’s Decision: If the defendant was dismissed, and the court made adverse rulings that affected their property rights, they may be able to appeal the dismissal or the court’s treatment of their rights. The appeal could argue that the court’s actions were improper based on the newly discovered evidence of fraud.
- Request an Investigation or File an Ethics Complaint: If the defendant believes the court acted improperly or was complicit in the fraud, they may also consider filing a judicial misconduct complaint. This would be a separate process from the case itself but could bring attention to any inappropriate actions by the court.
- Reopen the Case on Grounds of Fraud: If the defendant was dismissed with prejudice but their property rights were affected by the fraud, they could argue that the dismissal was based on a fraudulent proceeding. This could lead to reopening the case or filing a new case seeking relief.
3. Next Steps for the Dismissed Defendant
- Legal Strategy: The defendant should consult with a lawyer to develop a clear strategy to bring a Rule 60 motion, reopen the case, or file an appeal. The discovery of the handwritten note suggesting fraud could be key evidence.
- Timing: Since time is often a factor in these motions, especially under Rule 60(b), the defendant should act quickly if they are still within the allowable time frame.
- Fraud Upon the Court Arguments: The defendant could make strong arguments that the plaintiff’s behavior constituted fraud upon the court, which justifies setting aside the prior rulings or judgments. If successful, this could result in the reinstatement of the defendant’s rights or even a new trial.
Ultimately, if a court is truly complicit in the fraud, it makes the situation more difficult but not impossible to rectify. Higher courts or disciplinary bodies may provide the checks and balances necessary to correct the injustice.
What would You say to corrupt cops, courts and kin? Speech at Jamey Noel sentencing.
Ah, that I ever get a chance to speak directly to Judge Susan Kaye Weaver, the witch that gave my living trust property to a known fraudster, Mike Pietrczak and his attorney William Zac White.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, who used his academic gift and privilege to help out notorious debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
Jeff and Mary Sherman, no matter how much money they were given, it wasn’t enough.
James Trefil. He can’t even win a case against a pro se litigant unless a lower court judge throws it. So he makes up lies about his victims. (Yes, when you are a dishonest lawyer, they are your victims.)
Well, it does feel good to get that out.
Applause to the fine people who didn’t let politics and cronyism scare them away from the Jamey Noel case, who investigated, prosecuted and presided over the trial. Three cheers for Judge Larry Medlock!!!
A Higher Law 