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”.
We Need to Charge Every Public Servant Who Lies to Us
There must be honest, incorruptible people out there who are willing to take positions in government. We need an honest president, honest judges, honest police, honest administrators in public hospitals. And those that call themselves honest must stand up to the corrupt ones; allowing the corruption is dishonest.
I have serious issues with Donald Trump leading our country. But today, I want to share an interview with parents of a soldier who died under Biden’s watch. Biden lied straight faced to us during the presidential debate. He said no military personnel died while deployed on a mission.
I also have personal knowledge of voter fraud by democrats, not during the presidential election, but during an election right after. A childhood friend teaches film writing at UCLA. He grew up in California and his first home purchase was in California. He posted on Facebook that he signed up for absentee voting in Georgia. Almost 100 of his Facebook friends gave thumbs up and cheered. I told him this was dishonest. He unfriended me.
It comes from both sides of the aisle though. Republican appointed judge Lee P. Rudofsky acted worse than the Democratic party judge and prosecutors who were over the Trump trial. Rudofsky changed a pivotal sentence in one of my court documents by truncating a phrase that came after a comma. Then when I used this dishonesty as an example of the plethora of errors he made, the Harvard trained judge admitted the sentence was altered, but claimed the actual sentence was even worse for me. He did not explain how it was worse, because it wasn’t.
Speak the truth and the truth shall set you free.
Will the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Rehear Appeal to Benefit Pro Se Litigants?
Case No.: 23-2638, -3093, -3432
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC; DOES 1-99 Defendant-Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
No. 4:21-cv-00189-LPR
[] Lee P. Rudofsky, District Judge
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 35(b) Statement
The proceeding involves many questions of exceptional importance. (FRAP Rule 35(b)(1)(B)) This petition focuses on three.
- Whether pro se litigants with meritorious cases lose because of what appears to be a bias against them.
- Whether the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas discriminates systemically against litigants who can’t afford attorneys, by forbidding pro se litigants from filing electronically based solely upon class, instead of criteria that will allow everyone who is technically and ethically qualified access to this valuable tool.
- Whether the regulatory opinions resulting from civil investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are authoritative and may be used as evidence of the respondents’ practices.
The panel decision conflicts with the following decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions. (FRAP Rule 35(b)(1)(A))
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978), well settled.
“Common-law right of access to judicial records provides a measure of accountability to the public at large, which pays for the courts.”
- Whittington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 21 F.4th 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2021), well settled.
“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).”
- U.S. v. Melton, 738 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2013)
“The recusal statute sets forth an objective standard for assessing a judge’s duty to recuse: the question is whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows all the relevant facts of a case. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).”
- U.S.A. v. Taleb Jawher, No. 22-2844 (8th Cir. 2023)
A party’s fabrication of business records exemplifies knowledge that the authentic evidence is adverse to that party. Extrapolating, spoliation of evidence gives a reasonable inference that the spoiled evidence is adverse to the party that altered or destroyed it.
- Friedman v. Farmer, 788 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2015), well settled.
“A district court ‘should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).”
Single Page Summary of Case Verbatim from Appellant’s Opening Brief
Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates’ willful and wanton violation of the FDCPA and a Consent Order injured me. The Court shrugged.
No justice against PRA’s extortionist enterprise was attained. The Court failed. PRA intruded upon my seclusion, annoyed, and harassed me. Adverse verdicts and settlements against PRA total over $130,000,000 for similar conduct. PRA’s spoliation of evidence shows it knew its pattern and practice was unacceptable.
I sent its calls to voicemail, blocked them, begged these strangers to stop and finally, in November 2020, acquiesced to answering questions on a recorded line. It didn’t help. My only option was to pay an invalid debt or file a lawsuit. I filed.
PRA sent a letter saying it “has concluded its investigation of your dispute and is closing your account” with a balance of zero. Eight months later, for the first time, PRA said the debt had been “waived”. But PRA chose not to issue a form 1099-C.
PRA was allowed to subpoena my entire physical and mental health record, despite the irrelevance, and published false, defamatory accusations against me.
The Court granted summary judgment based on insufficient discovery, PRA’s inadmissible evidence, and disregard of my evidence. The grant of summary judgment is reserved for exceptional cases, emphasizing the court’s preference for full trials and thorough examination of evidence. Please grant me a jury trial.
If it pleases this Court, I will attend oral argument for rebuttal and questions.
Panel Activity
This case was originally “Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges”, called here “The Panel”. Unlike another case The Panel agreed should be heard en bank, this is the perfect vehicle for answering “momentous” questions. (Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339, 359 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (Sykes, J., dissenting), as cited by STRAS, Circuit Judge, with whom GRUENDER, ERICKSON, GRASZ and KOBES, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Dylan Brandt, et al v. Leslie Rutledge, et al, No. 21-2875 (8th Cir. 2022)). “In light of the importance of the issue[s], and recognizing the power of the full court to overrule earlier decisions and to bring [Circuit] law into conformity with the Supreme Court’s teachings, a majority of the judges in regular active service voted to rehear this case en banc.” (Hively).
The Panel failed to correct errors that denied Hammett equality and transparency in proceedings. In doing so, they slammed the doors of justice on those who can’t afford an attorney and helped the District Court take back what he called an “unconstitutional power grab” by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). (Br. 72)
The panel decision was notably imprecise and devoid of explanation.
The Panel gave a 225-word opinion. The “reasoning”, omitting citations, amounts to this: “After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal in the other matters, we agree with the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of Hammett’s claims; and we discern no error in the grant of costs. As to Hammett’s arguments challenging the district court’s rulings on a host of other issues, we find no basis for reversal.”
The Panel then disposed of motions to unseal the spoiled evidence prepared by PRA and recordings of hearings that were transcribed improperly on another Hammett pro se case thus: “We also deny her pending motions.”
Hammett intends to take this case, if not reversed, to the United States Supreme Court upon petition for writ of certiorari. They may have this to say:
“It is to be regretted, that the case referred to had not been more fully reported. As it is not preceded by any statement of facts, abstracts of the history and laws of this society, or the arguments of counsel, the insulated unexplained opinion of the Court, as it is printed, must be ever unintelligible to all descriptions of readers, except those whose professional duties lead them to the study of the novel and extensive institution whose interests are involved in it.” (Mutual Assur. Soc. V. Faxon, 19 U.S. 606, 1821 WL 2164, 5 L.Ed. 342, 6 Wheat. 606.)
The United States Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and reversed. “The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [decided] in a three-paragraph unpublished memorandum opinion. 389 Fed.Appx. 640 (2010). In so doing, the court did not discuss any specific facts or mention the reasoning of the other three courts that had rejected Jackson’s claim. Instead, after setting forth the basic background legal principles in the first two paragraphs, the Court of Appeals offered a one-sentence conclusory explanation for its decision:
‘The prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for peremptorily striking the two African–American jurors were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination in light of the fact that two out of three prospective African–American jurors were stricken, and the record reflected different treatment of comparably situated jurors.’ Id., at 641.
“That decision is as inexplicable as it is unexplained. It is reversed.” (Felkner v. Jackson, 562 U.S. 594, 131 S.Ct. 1305, 179 L.Ed.2d 374.)
This Eighth Circuit decision is stark in comparison. Especially because the Ninth Circuit could look back on lower appellate court review. Hammett detailed with specificity the errors made sua sponte by the District Court, which will be touched upon in the sections titled “Consistency” and “Fairness”. The Panel failed to find specific flaws in Hammett’s rebuttal of the orders.
The Panel did not address Hammett’s argument about why her NOA of the order on her post judgment motion to revive a subpoena was timely. (Br. 24)
“Kuntz v. Rodenburg LLP, 838 F.3d 923, 924 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review)”, on summary judgment. Hammett gave specific citations to evidence that raised a genuine dispute of material facts in her brief.
“Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414, 431 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review)”, costs. The Panels citation refers to 28 U.S.C.A. §1920. This code makes taxation of costs discretionary by use of the word “may”. It is an abuse of discretion to charge any costs to Hammett when PRA agreed that it only agreed to a zero balance “in light of the litigation”.
Ironically, the Court gave PRA an excuse to resume collection activity.
The point should be moot when summary judgment orders are reversed.
A decision by the full court can provide a more comprehensive and authoritative ruling.
Rehearing en banc is crucial for maintaining judicial consistency and fairness.
Consistency
The robust citation to authorities throughout Hammett’s opening brief point to the inconsistencies with Eighth Circuit cases as well as cases nationwide. Of particular note are the $82M Jury Verdict Mejia case, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Guadelupe Mejia, 2016 WL 3460177 (Mo.App. W.D.) Appeal No. WD79175 (Br. 28, 57, 64, 67, 88 and Reply Br. 17, 31, 38, 39) and another pro se case called Green, Mazie Green v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0144-22-3, February 20, 2024 (Reply Br. 18, 19).
The CFPB investigated PRA twice. The first resulted In the Matter of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 2015-CFPB-0023 [AKA Consent Order]. The CFPB found that the portfolios PRA bought before 2015, which might include the portfolio PRA claims it purchased from Capital One that purportedly had a line item for The Debt, were full of inaccuracies. PRA agreed to cease collections on debts like Hammett’s that lacked Old Account Level Documentation. (Br. 2)
Hammett filed her suit in early 2021, claiming that PRA violated the Consent Order by its conduct toward her.
In 2023, the CFPB filed a complaint against PRA that mimicked Hammett’s complaint, but said the bad conduct effected hundreds of thousands of consumers. (CFPB v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case 2:23-cv-00110, U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia [AKA CFPB Complaint and Stipulated Judgment]) (Br. 31, 63, 64, 70)
Pro se litigants are at a disadvantage. They do not have a formal legal education. Many are not gifted communicators.
The District Court noted that Hammett communicates well. She has a good lifetime record of staying out of court and prevailing when she is forced to resort to litigation pro se. Her case is a good vehicle to try to right some of the injustices that pro se litigants commonly suffer.
Hammett was denied the electronic filing tool by the Eastern District of Arkansas. It would make as much sense for the Court to demand Hammett brush off the typewriter she used in college and use it instead of a computer with a word processor. Or, like pro se inmates, hand write her documents.
Hammett was not allowed to hear the recording of a hearing she recalled quite differently than the transcript portrays it. It is common to allow attorneys to play back the recordings when they ask.
The Court participated in a cover-up of documentary evidence that is inconsistent. PRA clearly created a phone log that does not have all the calls on it, a communication log that has far fewer entries than the phone log and produced fewer recordings of calls than the number that were connected. Evidence used to make a summary judgment determination should be made public as if it was seen by a jury. Especially since the forms were produced in other cases.
The judge that was counsel to WalMart, who partners with Capital One on branded credit cards and who sells portfolios of debt to PRA, should have disclosed this relationship and recused himself.
Instead, the Court told numerous falsities, including truncating a sentence to bolster the lie that Hammett agreed she owed The Debt.
Petitioner-Appellant begs the Eighth Circuit to rehear this appeal, including two motions, en banc and to give a reasoned opinion as to why Hammett’s plethora of arguments presented in her briefs are wrong.
Respectfully submitted,
June 18, 2024 Laura Lynn Hammett
UPDATE (June 16, 2024) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals teaches Pro Se Litigant and the District Court Judges and $450 per Hour Attorneys: Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction – Order Must Be Vacated
In Hammett v. Sherman, et al, the court went to unprecedented lengths, sanctioning the unauthorized practice of law, to transfer assets from the pro se litigant to attorneys and their wealthy clients, also attorneys.
The case is on appeal in Federal Court. It is likely that the California State Courts would not allow this case to have proceeded. Allowing a derivative action advocated by a non-lawyer to proceed is tantamount to authorizing the advocate to practice law.
Here is a list of district court judges who insisted that the derivative case on behalf of Silver Strand Plaza, LLC proceed on the merits, even though it was filed by someone who is not an attorney.
Janis L. Sammartino, nominated by former President George W. Bush.
Todd W. Robinson, nominated by former President Donald Trump.
Linda Lopez, nominated by President Joseph Biden.
While researching for this blog post, I came across an interesting story about Judge Sammartino’s son, a convicted sex offender who had sex with his 17-year-old student while teaching at San Diego’s most prestigious private schools in 2020. It will be interesting to find more about how the 36-year-old judge’s son was treated by the court. Click here to read the story on the NYPost.
One “reason” the judge’s son gave for violating his young student was that he had a bike accident that caused a head injury. My son fell two stories onto his head, and though it caused brain damage to his speech center and hearing loss, his reasoning was not diminished at all, and was in fact improved. Of course, every injury is different, and each individual might respond differently, but I can just imagine Janis Sammartino and her lawyer friends sitting around coming up with this bullshit excuse. Why not attribute his bad conduct to seeing his unethical mother get away with her corruption and his resultant feeling of entitlement?
Also, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal brought a case to the attention of all litigants and asked for supplemental briefing.
Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990), a decades old SCOTUS case, decided that any entity other than a corporation, such as a limited partnership, is a citizen in each state where any member is a citizen. This includes even limited partners’ citizenship. That makes it impossible for the federal courts to take diversity jurisdiction. (I have not done all the research yet. My supplemental brief will be expounded upon.)
While digging into Carden, I realized that, without the derivative malpractice case against the attorney defendants, the remining damages against the attorney defendants fell far below the $75,000 minimum threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction. Those defendants should have been bifurcated out of the case six years ago, and the remaining conversion case sent to state court.
Jurisdictional problems should be brought up by the Court. Kudos to the Ninth Circuit for doing its job, even if they ignored the jurisdictional error for two previous bids at interlocutory appeal of the order for attorney fees on the anti-SLAPP motion brought by the attorney defendants and their $450 per hour attorneys.
Judge Sammartino, Judge Robinson, and Judge Lopez just wasted an insane amount of public and private resources by keeping the case active in the federal court system for over 300 documents. The Court of Appeals and a sickly old lady who is not an attorney had to school the team of highly paid attorneys and the team of corrupt judges.
Your tax dollars and your justice system at work.
Judge Susan Weaver Claims Expressing Intent to Appeal is a Criminal Threat on the Judge
This is unbelievable. But true. I’ve heard recordings that clearly substantiate the claims of pro se litigant and fellow Judge Weaver victim, Betty Figueroa.
Betty was terrorized. She says she was going to participate in a luncheon event given by the Arkansas Bar Association on Friday. Judge Weaver was slated to speak there.
According to the pro se litigant, Judge Weaver conveyed a message through the police department, that if Betty Figueroa attends the shindig, she will be arrested. Her alleged crime. Threatening the judge.
I heard a recording of Betty speaking to Judge Weaver’s clerk, Emma.
Betty: “She [Judge Susan Weaver] filed a report on me.”
Emma: “…the last few times I’ve talked to you you’ve said that if [Judge Weaver] doesn’t file a response [to a petition for writ of mandate Betty Figueroa filed in the circuit court] you’re going to take it to the Supreme Court, and that is a threat.”
Really? Inquiring if the petition for writ of mandamus to compel Judge Weaver to do her job at the circuit court needs to be filed in a higher court, or if Judge Weaver intends to agree to the requested conduct on her own is considered a “threat”? A threat worthy of arresting Mrs. Figueroa for, but only if she participates in a Bar Association event?
Yes, later in the conversation, Emma repeated quite clearly: “You threatening to file stuff against Judge Weaver is a threat.”
The ones who seem to be making criminal threats are Judge Susan Weaver and her goon patrol.
It gets more frustrating!
Mrs. Figueroa claims she reported the judge’s threats to the JDDC. Someone at the JDDC told her to report it to the prosecutor, according to Mrs. Figueroa. I heard the recording of Betty and the prosecutor’s discussion. The prosecutor told the alleged victim to report the threat to the police; the same police office that conveyed the threat for Judge Weaver.
I went to three different police departments to report Judge Weaver for colluding to fictionalize transcripts of hearings she presided over. I went to Searcy County, Faulkner County and Malvern. Each department refused to investigate. The Malvern officer told me that judges can do whatever they want, even lie in court.
Is there no one in the government who will stand up against this tyranny? Are there no lawyers willing to challenge Judge Weaver on appeal for her unethical and allegedly illegal conduct against pro se litigants?
What about you? What will you do?
Improved Questions for SCOTUS: Pro Se Fights Against the Lack of Transparency in Court
The lead case for this challenge to a common problem is Laura Lynn Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al.
Questions presented for review:
- Whether transparency, equal access to technology, and guarding the integrity of evidence in court proceedings is required to protect the due process rights of a class of people who are often denied equal protection because of their socio-economic class; Pro Se Litigants.
- Whether the regulatory opinions resulting from civil investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are authoritative and may be used as evidence of the respondents’ practices.
If court personnel, including clerks and judges, altered the record in a case in which you were an unrepresented litigant, you were denied permission to file electronically, or the judge ignored obvious incongruities in the represented parties’ evidence and you were self-represented, please post your case name, number and jurisdiction in the comments or contact me anonymously at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.
Your case may be included in a collection for an appendix to this petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States and if denied, the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations.
A Higher Law 