Archive by Author | LauraLynnHammett
October 14, 2021  

Helpful Hints of the Day

If you have been wronged by a big business or a government official and you can’t afford an attorney to help you…

heavy sigh…

get ready for years of abuse by the same system that is supposed to protect you.

There are good judges. There are even a few good lawyers.

Mostly, there are greedy people who want to keep the little guy down and protect the earning capacity of their fellow attorneys.

I have taken on some snakes in the system. But as my son, one of the victims of a bad family law judge said, “you can cut off the head of one snake and ten more will pop up.”

My intention was not to discourage you today. It was to bring you advice.

So, here are some important pointers that helped me to remove one bad guy from the bench and prevail in a civil suit facing five law firms.

  1. Read the rules. Read the rules of civil procedure for the “jurisdiction” your case is in.
  2. Read the rules II. Read the rules of evidence for the “jurisdiction” your case is in.
  3. Watch YouTube videos or similar. Search by key words, like “debt collector harassing me”. I listen to a video each day while I walk for exercise.
  4. Stay balanced. Play with your kids, the dog, your spouse. Eat right. Exercise.
  5. Document everything. Be professional in all you do. Be polite. Save the receipts, warranties, emails.
  6. If you are in a “single party consent” state, record every conversation you have with a company. It amazes me that so many people are willing to lie for their employer. When they hear that you taped the conversation (in a legal state or where they say “this conversation may be recorded”) they usually start offering to do what they were supposed to do in the first place.

It is up to you to decide if you will accept the right thing after whatever hell they put you through first. Or, if you are willing to stay the course and maybe get a jury verdict including punitive damages, enough to punish and deter the wrong-doer.

We’ll talk more another day. But for now, I’m going to take my own advice and go play.

October 3, 2021  

Will Judge Susan Weaver Force Me to Produce My Dreams and My Poop?

[SPOILER ALERT: She did, after this post was written, but allowed 10 days.]

The most absurd subpoena was issued in Searcy County Arkansas. It requires me to produce “Any and all tangible and/or intangible financial documents and/or other items pertaining to:
a. Laura Lynn (Hammett) and/or any other alias names utilized by Laura Lynn (Hammett)” for the past 12 years.

The demand, a court order, was to produce these items in 3 days. Or else…(I’ve been threatened by the attorney, William Zac White, with contempt and being jailed.)

So, this is not limited to items in my possession. Even so, it is going to be a heck of a task to collect every birthday and Christmas card, receipt, letter, facebook post, email, video I’ve watched, legal document I’ve written (yikes!) toilet paper used, food in my cupboard, “all other tangible items”.

How does one produce their intangible items? Hope, laughter, anxiety, dreams, farts (are they tangible or intangible?), ideas?

I filed two Motions to Quash the Subpoena with Judge Susan Weaver. The three days has come and gone, and the good ol’ judge hasn’t given me a pass.

Could it have something to do with my filing that civil rights lawsuit against her because I allege she and Mr. White conspired and caused the court reporter to report a hearing inaccurately?

Just a guess.

Here is the subpoena:

subpoena-issued-in-pietrczak-intangiblesDownload
September 29, 2021  

Licensed Attorney Zac White Jumps to the Head of the Line

The nerve! William Zac White of Heber Springs has had two and a half years since he filed a nuisance lawsuit against this writer in which to request production of documents pursuant to Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 34(a).

All of a sudden, the day after I filed a lawsuit against him and the presiding judge for allegedly conspiring with the court reporter to create an inaccurate transcript, big no-no, White asks the court to issue a subpoena. The subpoena asks for the same documents that are normally obtained through discovery. It give me 3 days to get together volumes of documents and videos. The normal procedure gives 30 days.

Even though Mr. White did not specify the reason for cutting to the front of the line, the court issued the subpoena after 7PM. White must have called them on the bat line and informed them of impending doom if his client didn’t get financial records from 2009 in the next 72 hours.

I lobbed a motion to quash subpoena back at em. Let’s see what Judge Susan Kaye Weaver decides.

subpoena-issued-3-day-all-discoveryDownload
motion-to-quash-subpoenaDownload
September 28, 2021  

Lawsuit Filed Against Judge Susan Weaver

This complaint filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas on September 28, 2021. Jury trial demanded. The formatting does not translate well, so the second section numbering became bullets. Sorry.

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, LAURA HAMMETT, who claims as follows:

  1.     The cause of action and relief sought is purposefully narrow in this complaint as to survive a motion to dismiss on judicial immunity and the preemption of 42 U.S.C. 1983 where statutorily created declaratory relief is available.
  2.     There is a fact section following, which shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full, to withstand a motion to dismiss based upon “Iqbal/Twombly”.
  3.     The fact section, while illustrative of the bad acts and motivations of the conspirators, does not raise causes of action on which this complaint is brought. Relief from those bad acts described must be obtained through the trial court in the underlying case or the appellate court.
  4.     The parties are: Plaintiff Laura Hammett (“Hammett” or “Plaintiff”), an individual residing in Faulkner County, Arkansas, which is in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Hammett was named “Laura Lynn” until she had a legal name change after marrying Mr. Hammett;
  5.     Susan Kaye Weaver (“Judge Weaver”), an individual residing in Van Buren County, Arkansas, which is in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Susan Kaye Weaver is a Judge of the Circuit Court of Searcy County;
  6.     Jana Perry (“Perry”), an individual Plaintiff believes lives in Greenbrier, Arkansas, which is in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Perry is a certified court reporter for the Circuit Court of Searcy County; and
  7.     William Z. White, aka “Zac” White, (“White”), an individual residing in Van Buren County, Arkansas who acted in concert with Judge Weaver and Perry under color of law. White is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas.
  8.      Plaintiff does not know the true names, legal capacities or exact nature of the involvement of the separate Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-99, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.
  9.     This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it is a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Also 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and (4), which give district courts jurisdiction over actions to secure civil rights extended by the United States government.
  10.      This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim of outrage pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
  11.      Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Arkansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the defendants each reside in the judicial district, and all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; and (b)(2) because it is a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
  12.      This Court has personal jurisdiction over all parties, as each is a citizen of the Great State of Arkansas.
  13.      Perry provided transcription of a Zoom hearing in state court on August 4, 2021, under color of state law, for the case Micheal Pietrczak v. Rural Revival Living Trust and Laura Lynn, 65CV-21-20 (“Pietrczak II”)[1]. (“The Hearing”)
  14.      Judge Weaver presided and White represented the plaintiff.
  15.      Perry purposefully reported inaccurately in order to remove several unprofessional and abusive comments by White, unflattering comments by Judge Weaver and to give credibility to a false claim of Judge Weaver and White.
  16.      The “False Claim” was that Judge Weaver granted orally an oral motion made by attorney White, allowing him an extension of time to serve summons on Rural Revival Living Trust (“The Trust”). Such an order violates Ark. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 4(i)(2), which makes a written motion mandatory. And it was not granted orally during the Hearing.
  17.       During the Hearing Weaver left the bench and returned some minutes later. Weaver said she spoke to the Administrative office of Courts and they told her the motion must be in writing and Hammett must have an opportunity to respond.
  18.      Hammett ordered a copy of the transcript on August 4, 2021, but Perry did not deliver it until August 24 at 11:42 PM (almost midnight).
  19.      On August 18, 2021, White filed a written motion to extend time in which he wrote “Michael Pietrczak made an oral Motion for Extension of Time to Perfect Service during the August 4, 2021, hearing, which was granted by the Court.”
  20.      White also filed a proposed order in which he claimed Hammett had dodged service.
  21.      On August 19th, before Hammett could file her opposition, Judge Weaver granted the proposed order after telling White to remove the paragraph about Hammett dodging service.
  22.      Hammett objected in writing on August 19th to the lack of opportunity to respond.
  23.      Judge Weaver wrote a letter dated August 19th and filed August 20, 2021 at 4:25 PM that said in part, “The motion to extend was an oral motion, made on August 4th, and the Defendant was present. It has been over 10 days since the oral motion was made and to date, Defendant failed to file any motion or response opposing the oral motion to extend.”
  24.      Perry left the instruction of the AOC in regards to rule 4(i)(2) out of the transcript and added several lines in which Weaver said “normally, I require it to be a motion in writing” – and then granted the oral motion.
  25.     Hammett will address the erroneous ruling on appeal.
  26.     Convincing the Court Reporter to do her administrative, non-discretionary job improperly is a personal offense against Hammett, the deprivation of her fundamental right under the United States Constitution, Amendment 5 and 14. It is not a discretionary act. It is administrative. And it is not the job of the Judge to tell the court reporter what was said in the hearing or what she wishes was said in the hearing.
  27.      The details surrounding the purposefully inaccurate transcript show that White and Judge Weaver were more likely than not communicating about the case without including Hammett in the discussion.
  28.      Judge Weaver’s only motivation to ask Perry to report inaccurately could be a deep seated disfavor of litigants who could not afford attorneys, or want to represent themselves, and an apparent favoritism toward White, trying to funnel money to White’s clients and White by way of attorney fees. (Pietrczak II is not the only case where Judge Weaver made blatant errors in White’s favor, like granting default judgment where no summons was served.
  29.     There were immediate and irreparable damages to Hammett. A violation of Constitutional rights carries an implied emotional distress, and in this case there was an actual emotional distress that caused Hammett to take medication, lose sleep and speak to her therapist.
  30.     Hammett had no personal relationship with Judge Weaver.
  31.     The lack of personal motivation and repeated derogatory comments by White that Hammett is pro se lead Hammett to believe she was singled out because of her class, one who cannot comfortably afford to hire an attorney.
  32.      Hammett is asking for compensation for the emotional distress caused by the deprivation of her Constitutional Rights and outrageous conduct by White when the defendants conspired to and in fact did cause an inaccurate transcription of a legal proceeding.
  33.     Hammett also asks for reasonable attorney fees, costs, punitive damages where available and any other relief a jury finds appropriate.

Some Supporting Facts

  •     This section is incorporated into the prior section and vice versa, as if set forth fully therein. It is for evidence that the above cause of action was done and done maliciously. It is not as a claim for relief for these particular acts. Hammett is only seeking damages for the purposefully inaccurate transcription.
  •    Perry has a reputation of being honest. But she probably feels Judge Weaver has power over her and her ability to continue with steady work.
  •     Judge Weaver has a reputation of “picking favorites”, so much so, that Hammett offered to pay five attorneys to represent her in the underlying case and none would take the work. One said it was because he has to go the fact it was said, not the truth of his statement.)
  •     White had his license suspended once and settled a malpractice suit against him. He also was convicted of a traffic violation in which the officer involved said White lied to him, saying it was another car making the illegal maneuver.
  •      If Perry claims she made the inaccurate transcription for fear of Judge Weaver, Hammett will believe her. But it was not accidental, and therefore the conduct was malicious, with disregard for the truth.
  •      Hammett has a bachelor’s degree in journalism and wrote about judges and lawyers in California. Though she was threatened several times, she was never sued for defamation, because she always wrote the truth to the best of her knowledge and belief, was not malicious and took good notes.
  •      Hammett was instrumental in removing more than one judge from the bench, she has powerful enemies who used the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department to investigate her thoroughly, yet she has never been arrested and has never been found in contempt of court.
  •      Hammett took good notes during the Hearing. Several words and phrases she put in quotations did not appear in the transcript, such as Judge Weaver saying “My court” and White saying Hammett was “running and hiding” from process servers.
  •      It is probable Perry missed some words unintentionally, but unlikely that every word she missed was something White and Judge Weaver should not have said.
  •      It is possible, though not likely, Judge Weaver made a verbal order granting the verbal motion for extension of time to serve summons on the Trust, and Hammett did not hear it because of a glich in the Zoom sound. But it is highly improbable that Hammett heard Judge Weaver say the AOC told her the motion must be in writing and Hammett must be given an opportunity to respond if that was not said.
  •      Even the inaccurate version of what was said has Judge Weaver admitting it is not “normally” allowed. (The appellate court should overturn her ruling.)
  •      The whole summons excuse for a continuance was part of a ruse. White did not have a summons issued on Hammett. Hammett just happened upon it. This was the second time White filed the same complaint against Hammett and it was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution the first time by a different judge. Hammett was checking to see if the statute of limitations had expired when she saw Pietrczak II.
  •     There was no summons issued for the Trust at all.
  •     A trust is not a proper party, but there was no summons issued for the trustee of the Trust either.
  •     As of this writing, there is still no summons issued for the Trust.
  •      In the State of Arkansas, a plaintiff does not need to serve the defendant in person.  A certified letter return receipt will do. There is no evidence that White sent certified mail that was refused.
  •     Hammett believes White did not prepare and ask the clerk to issue summons on the Trust and did not serve summons on Hammett because he intended to file for default judgment.
  •     White did this before in a case with Judge Weaver presiding. Judge Weaver granted default judgment without a summons served. (The trustee in that case had a lawyer get the judgment reversed.) 71PR-19-91, Zelda Harrell Walls.
  •     Also, there is caselaw that supports a dismissal of a malicious prosecution suit and an abuse of process suit if the summons was not served.
  •    White, on behalf of the plaintiff, never responded to the counterclaim. Hammett filed a motion for default judgment on July 13, 2021.
  •      On August 20, 2021, Judge Weaver made several orders, all against Hammett. One was a denial of the motion for default judgment and dismissal without prejudice of Hammett’s counterclaim, sua sponte and with no specific reason given. Judge Weaver wrote only: “In review of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim, it is evident is it not in compliance with Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8. Therefore, said motion is denied and Counter-Claim is dismissed without prejudice.”
  •      Judge Weaver granted a motion for default judgement in Zelda S. Walls Living Trust Dated July 25, 2019, Donna Bryant v. Richard Gawenis, case no. 71CV-20-119, in which White represented Gawenis, and the response to the complaint was filed untimely.
  •       Hammett made a motion for continuance on June 10, 2021, the same day she filed the Answer and Counterclaim.
  •       Judge Weaver did not grant or deny the motion before August 2nd.
  •       Hammett prepared for the jury trial that was set for August 4th. She gave copies of her exhibits to Perry 47 hours in advance of the hearing.
  •       On July 30th, White filed an opposition to the motion for continuance.
  •       The opposition did not get posted until August 2nd.
  •     Hammett immediately replied and said she withdrew her motion, because she was prepared for trial.
  •      White did not submit any exhibits to Perry.
  •      At the hearing, White asked for a continuance, to serve summons, because Hammett had “dodged service” and was “running and hiding”, words that did not make it into the transcript.
  •      Judge Weaver granted the continuance but not the extension of time to serve summons on the Trust.  There were still 17 days left to serve.
  •      This is just some of the oddities and errors that make it plausible that Judge Weaver is working with White to throw the case. Hammett hopes it is enough to get to discovery so the Zoom tape of the hearing can be played.
  •      Hammett filed a motion to settle the record and a motion for recusal in Pietrczak II. The motion for recusal was denied a day later, September 24, 2021. The motion to settle the record is pending. Eventually Hammett will ask the appellate court to settle the record.
  •     But even if the court reporter’s tape is played and has not been edited yet  and all the orders are overturned in Pietrczak II, Hammett will not be made whole.
  •     Perry, White and Judge Weaver conspired to and did deprive Hammett of her Constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law. Under color of law, the defendants maliciously impacted Hammett’s mental health, her finances (because she must hire an attorney to represent her – assuming she can find one brave enough to do so) and wasted so much of her time and energy that should have been spent on prosecuting her consumer protection cases.
  •     Judge Weaver presides on two of those cases. Hammett has no expectation of a fair adjudication on either.

Respectfully Submitted,

Laura Hammett

Bohemian_books@yahoo.com

Plaintiff in Pro Se

Dated September 27, 2021                                       _______________________

                                                                                Laura Hammett

VERIFICATION

I, Laura Hammett, swear under the laws of the United States of America and the Great State of Arkansas that the forgoing complaint is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. It is written in complete compliance with FRCP Rule 11.

Dated September 27, 2021                                   _______________________

                                                                            Laura Hammett

[1] “Micheal” was misspelled on the transcript and on most documents in Pietrczak. Micheal Pietrczak was born in Germany and the German government did not allow the spelling “Michael”, or so his father said.

September 25, 2021  

Licensed Attorney Files Against Pro Se Asking for Contract to be Declared “Void Ab Inition”

The motion with what I’d like to say in red.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SEARCY COUNTY ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION MICHEAL PIETRCZAK V. CASE NO. 65CV-21-20 RURAL REVIVAL LIVING TRUST; AND LAURAL YNN (HAMMETT) PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DECLARE CONTRACT VOID AB INITION lol FOR ILLEGALITY AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Comes now counsel for Michael Pietrczak who in support of this Motion to Declare Contract Void Ab Initio and Brief in support thereof, states and alleges as follows:

1. Laura Lynn (Hammett) is not a licensed attorney. How dare she file a lawsuit without ponying up a $300 per hour attorney.

2. Laura Lynn (Hammett) is a serial pro-se litigant with several current lawsuits pending both at the state and federal levels. Why do lawyers call other people who file lawsuits litigious? It is highly probably Good thing your client has a highly skilled wordsmith. Laura Lynn (Hammett) is representing her husband in several of those matters while he claims to be a “pro-se” litigant.

3. Laura Lynn (Hammett) has committed contempt of court by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law William Zac White has committed contempt of court by engaging in the authorized practice of law. He is the punch line to every lawyer joke.

4. Laura Lynn (Hammett) prepared a “contract” on behalf of herself and Michael Pietrczak purportedly creating a marriage between the two (2) proclaiming “We, Laura Lynn and Michael Pietrczak, consider ourselves to be husband and wife in the eyes of God, but do not believe the state has authority to control marriage”. See Attached Exhibit 1 – “Contract”.

5. Unfortunately for the parties the State of Arkansas DOES control the formation and validity of marriages within its borders. Here is where attorney Zac tries to force people who believe they have a Godly union to get licensed from the government, whether they want to or not.

6. Marriage is more than only a civil contract; it is a social and domestic relation subject to regulation under the state’s police power. Dodson v. State, 61 Ark. 57, 31 S.W. 977 (1895). 1895, that is the year of the case about marriage cited. Well negros were free already. Seems like an appropriate time to take our social norms from. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-101.

7. In 1868 the Arkansas Supreme Court stated within Tatum v. Kelley, 25 Ark. 209, 210-11 (1868) that: No principle is better settled than that contracts that contravene the law are void, and that courts will never lend [**2] their [*211] aid in enforcing them. Illegal contracts are not such only as stipulate for something that is unlawful; but, where the intention of one of the parties is to enable the other to violate the law, the contract is corrupted by such illegal intention, and is void. Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige Ch. 615; The Branch Bank at Montgomery v. Crocheron, et al., 5 Ala. 250; Beach v. Kezar, 1 N.H. 184; Steele v. Curle, 34 Ky. 381, 4 Dana 381; Armstrong v. Toler, 24 U.S. 258, 11 Wheat. 258, 6 L. Ed. 468; Giraday v. Richardson, 1 Esp. 13; Langton v. Hughes, 1 Maule & Selwgn, 593; Lightfoot, et al., v. Tenant, 1 Bos. & P. 551;Farmer v. Russell, et al., 1 Bos. & P. 295.

8. The attached “contract” presents prima facie evidence on its face that Laura Lynn (Hammett) attempted to circumvent Arkansas law regarding the formation of a valid marriage contained within Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-101. The contract that followed our declaration of faith and commitment said we would split our stuff 50/50 if we broke up.

9. Further, it is undeniable that by drafting the “contract”, Laura Lynn (Hammett) intended to enable Michael Pietrczak to violate Arkansas law regarding the formation of a valid marriage contained within Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-101. Forget that his client signed a contract that begins by saying he feels “married in the eyes of God” when he was actually just defrauding an older Christian lady.

10. As indicated herein, this clearly renders the “contract” in question void ab initio.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court determine that the “contract” attached hereto as exhibit 1 is void ab initio, grant the Plaintiff his costs (including a reasonable attorney’s fee), and award all other relief that the Plaintiff may be entitled whether specifically prayed for herein or not. Mr. White is asking for Mike Pietrczak, who is a felon that had $3.71 cents to his name, thousands of dollars in debt and lived in a half-way house when he met Laura, who was advertising to find an “18 to 21 year old petite blue-eyed blond” a month after signing the “contract”, to take $450,000 plus attorney fees from the relationship. Pretty good return on investment for pretending he was “married in the eyes of God”.

Attorney and Counselor at Law William Z. White (AR Bar No. 2007255) 706 W. Quitman Street (Physical) Heber Springs, AR 72543 (501) 365-3934 Office (501) 365-3935 Facsimile E-mail: wzwhite@wzwhite.com

September 24, 2021  

Response to Motion for Recusal of Judge Susan K. Weaver in Searcy County Arkansas

Attorney Zac White out of Heber Springs has responded to the vast majority of motions I filed after their due dates. But the response to my motion for recusal of this judge, this was made lickity split.

It is no wonder. At the hearing of August 4, 2021, if we were in person instead of on Zoom, I think Judge Susan Weaver would have climbed into attorney Zac White’s lap and given him a big ugly smooch.

Here is his response in black, with my comments in red. Of course I would never write anything like this in an official court document. It is just between us, my friends.

***************************************************

Comes now counsel for the Plaintiff who in support of this Motion for Order of Recusal,
and Brief in support thereof, states and alleges as follows:

  1. Laura Lynn (Hammett) is not a licensed attorney.·True. I taught myself law by reading and watching Youtube videos.
  2. Laura Lynn (Hammett) is a serial pro-se litigant and killer? with several current lawsuits
    pending both at the state and federal levels. It is highly probably yes, he wrote “highly probably” Individual Defendant Laura Lynn (Hammett) is representing her husband in several of those matters while he claims to be a “pro-se” litigant. Zac could highly probably have seen the other plaintiffs listed on my cases and noticed that in all but one, I was the lone plaintiff.
  3. The allegations contained within Laura Lynn’s (Hammett) Motion for Order of
    Recusal are non-sensical and are hereby denied. You can read the motion by clicking here.
  4. Pleading affirmatively, Laura Lynn (Hammett) is convinced that her rudimentary
    legal knowledge is somehow superior to and controlling upon the parties, counsels of record,
    administrative employees of the Court, and the Court itself. Pleading further, Laura Lynn
    (Hammett) is attempting to engage in forum shopping because she simply does no.t like the fact
    that the Court has issued rulings against her. Or that the transcript of our first hearing was substantially inaccurate, the Court ordered my counterclaim dismissed without any specific reason given, no motion to dismiss and obviously no opportunity to respond. Besides that this judge has granted a default judgment to William “Zac” White’s client on another case when no summons was served on the defendant. Coincidentally enough, Mr. White did not serve summons on me, either. I just happened to notice the complaint when I was doing research on another case.

    WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Laura Lynn’s
    (Hammett) Motion for Order of Recusal of Judge Susan K. Weaver, award the Plaintiffs fees
    and costs (including a reasonable attorney’s fee) for the necessitation of defending yet another
    frivolous pleading, and grant any and all relief that the Plaintiff may be entitled. Oh, and can you throw in her house and car…and an all expense paid trip to Cabo?
    Respectfully submitted on behalf of the
    Plaintiff, Michael Pietrczak – Walter Pietrczak
    Attorney-in-fact.
    LL———–
    William “Za White – Attorney & Counselor at Law
    William Z. White (AR Bar No. 2007255)
    706 W. Quitman Street (Physical)
    Heber Springs, AR 72543
    (501) 365-3934 Office
    (501) 365-3935 Facsimile
    E-mail: wzwhite@wzwhite.com
September 23, 2021  

Motion for Recusal Judge Susan K. Weaver

(Sorry, the formatting didn’t translate and so the paragraph numbering is not the same here as in the filed copy.)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SEARCY COUNTY,  ARKANSAS

CIVIL DIVISION

CASE No.  65CV-21-20                                                         

 MICHEAL PIETRCZAK                                                         PLAINTIFF

v.                                         

RURAL REVIVAL LIVING                                                                                                  TRUST; AND LAURA LYNN                                              DEFENDANTS

LAURA LYNN HAMMETT                                                COUNTER-

                                                                                                    CLAIMANT

v.

MICHEAL PIETRCZAK                                                  COUNTER-

                                                                                                  DEFENDANT

SEPARATE DEFENDANT LAURA LYNN AND COUNTERCLAIMANT LAURA LYNN HAMMETT’S MOTION FOR ORDER OF RECUSAL OF JUDGE SUSAN K. WEAVER

     Comes Separate Defendant Laura Lynn and Counterclaimant Laura Lynn Hammett (“Hammett”), in pro se, and for her Motion for Order of Recusal of Judge Susan K. Weaver, states as follows:

  1.      Judge Susan K. Weaver is assigned to three cases on which Laura Lynn Hammett (“Hammett”) is a litigant, including the above captioned case. This motion pertains equally to all the cases and Hammett requests the Court recuse from each case.
  2.      The cases are the above captioned case which will be called “Pietrczak”, Laura Hammett v. First American Home Warranty Corporation, et al, 23CV-20-631, called “Home Warranty” hereunder, and Laura Lynn Hammett v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, et al, 23CV-21-318, called “Insurance” hereunder.

General Facts

  •    Judge Weaver made numerous egregious legal errors on each case, which will need to be addressed by our appellate court. In each case, the error is against Hammett’s arguments.
  •    Judge Weaver allows opposing counsel to make derogatory and unprofessional comments about Hammett in hearing and by email.
  •    Many of the rude comments made in hearing were not transcribed by the Court Reporter, and it is likely Judge Weaver orchestrated the inept transcription.
  •     More material inaccuracies were made in the transcription. Even so, the purported comments by the Court admit bias, where the Court said she does not “normally” make the ruling she made against Hammett.
  •     Hammett was waiting to file the motion for recusal until after a hearing to settle the record, but the Court’s apparent bias is causing the 59-year-old pro se litigant extreme anxiety over her finances, believing Judge Weaver will use her position of power to transfer wealth Hammett needs to retire to Mr. White and other attorneys representing Hammett’s opposition.
  •      It is likely that Hammett will file a complaint under 42 USC 1983 against the court reporter and Judge Weaver, not subject to absolute judicial immunity because it is about an administrative act, the transcription of the record.
  •     Judge Weaver made an error against Hammett that she made on another case similarly, but she already corrected the other case by reversing the order.
  •     Judge Weaver dismissed Hammett’s counterclaim on Pietrczak sua sponte, with no specific reason given, but she did not dismiss the deficient complaint, even after Hammett filed a motion to dismiss.
  •     The appearance of bias is so bad that Hammett cannot find a local attorney who is willing to represent her on any case presided over by Judge Weaver.
  •      Attorney White has filed no less than eight documents in this case untimely, Hammett has been timely in each filing, yet the Court repeatedly admonishes Hammett to “follow the Rules”.

Specific Facts

  1.    In Pietrczak, one error involved the opposing party’s failure to serve summons on the defendants. Summons was not even issued for one necessary party, “Rural Revival Living Trust”.
  2.    Pietrczak attorney, William Z. White failed to serve summons on a necessary party in a different case presided over by Judge Susan K. Weaver, 71PR-19-91, Zelda Harrell Walls. In that guardianship case, Ms. Walls had settled a spendthrift trust for her son Richard Gawenis. Mr. Gawenis, represented by William Z. White, convinced Judge Weaver to terminate and revoke the trust on September 22, 2020, without notice to the successor trustee. (as described in Zelda S. Walls Living Trust Dated July 25, 2019, Donna Bryant v. Richard Gawenis, case no. 71CV-20-119, C20D01, paragraph 8) Judgement in favor of the plaintiff in 71CV-20-119 was granted by Judge Weaver on March 30, 2021, reinstating the trust.
  3.      Apparently Judge Weaver is now aware that a summons must be served on each defendant.
  4.      Mr. White asked Judge Weaver for a continuance of the hearing of August 4, 2021 (“the Hearing”), though he filed an opposition to the continuance on July 30, 2021.
  5.     The basis for the continuance was alleged to be the dodging of service of summons on the Rural Revival Living Trust by Hammett. Judge Weaver was aware that summons was not even issued to the trust and there was no evidence Hammett dodged service but granted the continuance anyhow.
  6.      The Court appeared to know ahead of time it was going to continue the hearing of August 4, 2021, yet engaged in a charade with Plaintiff’s counsel that Hammett might need to argue her case at a jury trial.
  7.      Evidence that the Court knew there would be no trial is that a jury pool was not arranged.
  8.      Hammett produced exhibits she would try to introduce into evidence. Mr. White produced none.
  9.      The Court abused its discretion to grant a continuance based upon Mr. White’s plea for more time to serve summons on the Rural Revival Living Trust, even though Mr. White had not caused a summons to issue yet, the claims in the complaint were time barred and the almost identical complaint filed in 2018 was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
  10.      Pietrczak had not responded to Hammett’s counterclaim and the time to respond was expired by almost a month. The Court did not grant default judgment as requested by Hammett.
  11.      Pietrczak asked for an extension of time to serve the summons on Rural Revival Living Trust past the statutory 120 days at the Hearing.
  12.      Judge Weaver granted the extension in writing, based on oral motion, in contradiction to ARCP Rule 4(i)(2) and her purported statement that she “normally” requires the motion to extend time to be written.
  13.      The oral motion for extension of time was denied during the hearing. Judge Weaver claims and the transcript of the hearing shows that Judge Weaver granted the oral motion during the hearing. This and pervasive inaccuracies in the transcript give the appearance of collusion between the Court, attorney White and, most unfortunately, the Court Reporter, a woman reputed to be honest. (Hammett moved the Court to settle the record and the motion is pending.)
  14.      An inaccurate transcription is an administrative error, not a judicial error, and thus, when Hammett files a suit under 42 USC 1983 against the Court Reporter and Judge Weaver, the suit should not be barred by absolute judicial immunity. Judge Weaver is a viable defendant in a suit by Hammett.
  15.       In the Home Warranty case, the defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. (That motion was eventually granted erroneously and may be appealed after the arbitrator’s ruling is reduced to judgment.) It took Judge Weaver 14 months to decide the motion to compel arbitration. This extremely long wait is especially prejudicial since the purpose for arbitration is to speed up the legal process.
  16.     In the Insurance case, Judge Weaver ordered Hammett to “add the ‘Rural Revival Living Trust”’ as a plaintiff. Trusts are not a proper party. Assuming the Court meant to add the trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust, Hammett made a diligent effort to find an attorney to represent the trustee. Three attorneys have refused the job, even if paid by fee. Hammett has reason to believe the refusal of the work is due to the apparent bias of Judge Weaver against Hammett. (One attorney sent a retainer agreement and said he was ready to help in early August, but when Hammett tried to hand him the retainer check in late August, after the crazy hearing and a slew of adverse rulings against Hammett, he refused it.)
  17.      Hammett has two appointments to speak with attorneys in counties where Judge Weaver does not preside. (One has appealed orders made by Judge Weaver in the past, but lost on appeal.) Still, the difficulty to get attorneys to take work non-contingent is glaring evidence of the appearance of bias by the Court.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT

  •      “Canon 2 of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a ‘judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.’ Rule 2.11(A)(1) of the Code provides that a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer.” Matter of Est. of Edens, 2018 Ark. App. 226, 19, 548 S.W.3d 179, 190–91 (2018)
  •      “The proper administration of the law requires not only that judges refrain from actual bias but also that they avoid all appearance of unfairness. Id. When a judge exhibits bias or the appearance of bias, the appellate court will reverse.” Id 191.
  •      “A clearly erroneous interpretation or application of a law or rule will constitute a manifest abuse of discretion. Id.” Id.   
  •     The Court then lied about granting an oral motion for extension of time to serve the summons. Even the lie was legal error, as ARCP Rule 4(i)(2) makes such a motion in writing mandatory.

WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant Laura Lynn and Counterclaimant Laura Lynn Hammett, prays that her Motion for Recusal of Judge Susan K. Weaver be granted, in this and all cases present and future.

This 23rd day of September, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Laura Lynn Hammett 

                                                                      Laura Lynn Hammett                          

                                                                      500 Amity Rd. Suite 5B #306

                                                                      Conway, Arkansas 72032

                                                                      (760) 966-6000

                                                                      Bohemian_books@yahoo.com

                                                                      Defendant and Counterclaimant, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I hereby certify that, on September 23, 2021 I electronically filed the Separate Defendant Laura Lynn and Counterclaimant Laura Lynn Hammett’s Motion for Recusal of Judge Susan K. Weaver and Brief in Support with the Clerk of the Court using the eFlex Electronic Filing System, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

September 23, 2021                                                  /S/ Laura Lynn Hammett 

                                                                      Laura Lynn Hammett                          

                                                                      500 Amity Rd. Suite 5B #306

                                                                      Conway, Arkansas 72032

                                                                      (760) 966-6000

                                                                      Bohemian_books@yahoo.com

                                                                      Defendant and Counterclaimant, pro se

September 22, 2021  

Justice Arkansas Style?

Judge Susan K. Weaver reminds me of my ex husband. I was asking “is she mean or just stupid?” Then the answer hit. She is both.

A few lawyers have told me they will not take cases where Judge Weaver will preside. Two lawyers told me they work in counties covered by Judge Susan Weaver, but they will not take my cases, not even for $300 per hour. The bad blood between Judge Weaver and me is obvious, and they fear losing their livelihoods.

I did not set out to fix the judiciary in Arkansas. I was living a quiet life. I had enough assets to retire modestly. That was before the COVID-Crash wiped out my stock portfolio.

When a couple big businesses tried to take advantage of me, and I saw they had a history of oppressing the average guy or gal, I filed lawsuits against them. The judge assigned was Susan Weaver.

Judge Weaver pretty much ignored me and the suits. One was against First American Home Warranty Corporation. Attorney Ryan Younger asked Judge Weaver for an order compelling arbitration and a stay of proceedings until the motion was granted or denied. That stay was in effect for 14 months. That means nothing happened for 14 months.

Then in April 2021 a lawyer named William “Zac” White refiled a suit against me. He filed the same complaint in 2018. An attorney handled the matter for me back then and the suit was dismissed without prejudice. It is a nuisance suit.

This was a suit on behalf of my former partner, Mike Pietrczak. I broke up with Mike after yet another drunken episode that left him bleeding from his ear and with a couple broken bones. He was screwing around on me and was burning through my income from an LLC.

Instead of leaving with half of the stuff we bought over the past six years, Zac White was trying to get all our assets times three for Mike. Since Mike had no income, I assume attorney White was going to take a big portion of the haul.

Zak White had this trick he did at least once before, where he sued a trustee of a trust and did not serve summons on her. Judge Susan Weaver granted the relief Mr. White asked for, even though there was no proof of service in the file.

In the Pietrczak case against me, the summons was also not served. In fact, the summons against my co-defendant, a trust, was not issued at all.

A Godincidence led me to look up the first Pietrczak case and I saw there was the refiling.

I answered and filed a counterclaim. I thought it was a slam dunk.

Mike was claiming I tricked him into signing an agreement that said if we break up everything is 50/50.

Most everyone in our small town knew Mike was an alcoholic. Most thought we were married or knew we called each other husband and wife, but did not get a marriage certificate. Most knew it tore me up to see Mike lose his sobriety, and that I tried and tried to help him.

I doubt anyone thought I should stay with him.

I doubt anyone would think Mike entitled to ownership of a house, 40 acres, a truck, an ATV and an extra $300,000 for punitive damages against me. I think the 50/50 agreement both Mike and I signed, while sober, with a notary, would look fair and even generous on my part. I entered the relationship with a million dollar net worth and Mike had $3.71 in his pocket, and thousands of dollars in debt.

Unfortunately for me, the judge who will frame the case for the jury is Judge Susan Kaye Weaver.

Come back for the next installment. And feel free to leave a comment or contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com.

September 25, 2020  

The Court is a Piggy Bank

Whether in family law, a civil dispute or a criminal case, you best be able to lawyer up or you will lose.

Read my personal stories and court documents for experiential accounts of how a person can be right, but be oppressed by the very person who is supposed to protect her, the Judge.

The Judge’s bias is not usually a matter of race. It is a matter of money and political clout. The Court hates to see a self represented litigant wipe the floor with a $425 per hour attorney. The Court won’t stand for it.

It seems the public policy that reigns supreme is making sure lawyers get paid, and paid well.

Those unable to pay need not play.

September 10, 2020  

Classism in the Courts

Judges who discriminate against self-represented litigants are closing the door to justice against predominately minorities and women in civil cases.

Here is a recently filed reply brief that calls for the disqualification of an elitist judge.

The judge was removed by transferring the case to Judge Todd W. Robinson, a new judge appointed by President Trump. So far, he is not much better than Judge Sammartino and it will be another fight to have the insane existing orders overturned or vacated.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Laura Lynn Hammett, Plaintiff, v. MARY E. SHERMAN, et.al.                                                  Defendants   Case No.:            19-CV-0605-JLS-AHG   PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO THE COMBINED OPPOSITIONS TO THE MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE HONORABLE JANIS L. SAMMARTINO

Date of Hearing: Vacated
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom D

Hon. Janis L. Sammartino presiding
Hon. Magistrate Allison H. Goddard

          Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett presents this brief reply to the combined oppositions to the Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino.

          The Sherman Defendants claim the motion is “little more than sour grapes”. (ECF No. 158, 1:22) Merriam-Webster defines “sour grapes” as “disparagement of something that has proven unattainable”. It is saying “I didn’t want those grapes anyhow because they are probably sour.”

          The analogy fails. Plaintiff wants justice. Plaintiff wants a court that has integrity. Plaintiff wants the sweet fruit of democracy. Those are unattainable with Judge Sammartino presiding, but they are not unattainable. That is why disqualification of the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino is imperative.

Plaintiff has not given up.  She continues to peacefully protest the bane of democracy, classism. That is what denying access to our courts to self-represented litigants is, classism. Plaintiff’s motion is in response to a reasonable distrust in Judge Sammartino’s integrity, an appearance of bias against those who can’t afford representation, and against a known champion of those people, Laura Lynn Hammett.

          Neither the McGarrigle Defendants nor SSP filed oppositions to the motion to disqualify. Any response from attorneys who had a duty to SSP at the time the derivative cause was active would be compounding their error. The Nominal Defendant SSP’s attorneys committed malpractice (again) by allowing a person not authorized to practice law to proceed on behalf of the LLC as the real party plaintiff. (See Patrick v. Alacer Corp., 167 Cal. App. 4th 995, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 (2008), as modified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 21, 2008) in general, especially at h.n.7.)

          “What [a party unauthorized to practice law] purported to do for [another party] in place of an attorney was a nullity, and that fact should have been known to the court and to opposing counsel.” (People By & Through Dep’t of Pub. Works v. Malone, 232 Cal. App. 2d 531, 537, 42 Cal. Rptr. 888, 892 (Ct. App. 1965))

          Opposing Counsel knew proceeding with Hammett advocating for the Real Party Plaintiff was wrong. They know the Court’s silence on the issue shows the Court wanted one party to have a manufactured advantage over another party, an actual bias.

          The Court knew the proceedings on which she based an outrageous award of attorney fees were void and that she must strike them. Excerpted here is a different case presided over by the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino.

     “…LLCs, which combine the features of a corporation and partnership, likewise require a licensed attorney to appear in court. See, e.g., Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007); Mut. Assignment & Indemnification Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2004); Kipp v. Royal & Sun Alliance Personal Ins. Co., 209 F. Supp. 2d 962, 963 (E.D. Wis. 2002); In re ICLNDS Notes Acquisition, LLC, 259 B.R. 289, 294 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Ohio 2001).

“On the basis of the authorities cited herein, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answers of the entity defendants.” (Lawrence v. Johnson, No. 05CV1259 JLS (WMC), 2007 WL 9776572, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2007))

That the Court allowed what she knew to be the illegal representation of the derivative real party plaintiff was a violation of Judicial Code of Conduct Canon 2(A), “A judge should respect and comply with the law[]”; and 3(A)(1), “A judge should be faithful to [] the law”. Further, she not only condoned, but encouraged the violation by denying Plaintiff’s motion for limited scope representation for a specified purpose of explaining derivative actions.

Violating the code of conduct is different than making erroneous rulings that can be challenged on appeal. It demonstrates a lack of integrity. It violates FRCP Rule 1 by increasing the time and expense of the litigation to all parties and wastes precious judicial resources. Disqualification will curtail further waste if the lack of integrity is not systemic.

Even if this District does not have a mechanism for limited scope representation, the Court should have allowed, even insisted on an authorized attorney to represent SSP’s interests. Its failure to do so denied Hammett of the competing interest of access to the courts required by the 5th and 14th amendment and the Federal equivalent of 18 USC 1983, the Bivens findings. Where “[plaintiff] alleged that [State] prison officials improperly denied him permission to telephone his attorney” he was allowed to proceed on a 1983 claim. (Fisher v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., 990 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1993))

Because of absolute judicial immunity, Hammett may not be able to prevail on a Bivens action against Judge Sammartino. “Judge will not be deprived of immunity because action [s]he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of [her] authority; rather, [s]he will be subject to liability only when [s]he has acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction.” (Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978))

Without forced disqualification, disciplinary action or criminal charges being brought against a judge who purposefully denies civil rights under color of law, there is no way for a litigant to deter further malicious rulings. If one of the three options is not applied, Plaintiff has no recourse but to challenge the Constitutionality of absolute judicial immunity.

          Linda R. Kramer, an individual purports to argue against the disqualification, but as the Court is well aware, when the order denying entry of clerk’s default is reversed on appeal, any arguments from the separate defendant are a nullity until a motion to set aside default is granted. (Kremen v. Cohen, 2008 WL 11508541 at 1 and 2, FRCP 55(a and c))

          The Responding Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged extrajudicial bias.

          Plaintiff did mention in Aff. ⁋65 that she surveyed over 100 cases presided over by the Court finding none where the self-represented prevailed. Of course, page limitations make it impossible to give a summary of each case or even name each. But the affidavit is supposed to be taken as true. To expand, Plaintiff surveyed the 675 cases that came up on Westlaw searching by “Janis L. Sammartino” and narrowed by “pro se” in California and related Federal cases, and found none that were favorable to the pro se litigant.

Even where the Court presided over an appeal of a case where the pro se litigant prevailed at the trial court and had counsel for the appeal, the Court reversed to rule against the pro se. (Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844)(9th Cir. 2012)

          It appears the Court’s bias is against litigants who can’t afford counsel in general. The Court may be even more harsh toward Hammett because Hammett is not as easy to oppress as, for example, an inmate such as Raul Arellano. Mr. Arellano filed suit in 2014, begging the Court for relief from an injury that allegedly occurred when the inmate was assigned to a top prison bunk, against doctor’s orders, and fell off during a seizure. Mr. Arellano has asked several times for assistance of counsel and the Court denied him each time. (Arellano v. Dean, No. 15-CV-2247 JLS (JLB), 2020 WL 1929022 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020)) The Court is making prosecuting a simple personal injury case more painful than the underlying injury. That is true in the case at bar as well.

          Not all the self-represented cases in the study involved inmates. For example Margaret Melinda Sprague, pro se, was a physician who lost her license. (Sprague v. Med. Bd. of California (MBC), 402 F. App’x 275 (9th Cir. 2010)). In that case the dismissal was affirmed at appeal. It is hard to believe though that out of hundreds of pro se litigants, not one had a meritorious case. It is extremely difficult to win on appeal, as evidenced by the higher fees charged by appellate attorneys.

          Dennis and the defendants joining her give an inaccurate list of Plaintiff’s reasons for moving for disqualification. (ECF No. 157, 2:24 to 3:5)

          Plaintiff’s citation of the denial of her motion for extension of time specified that the issue was the Court seemingly representing the Defendants with her sua sponte arguments against the Plaintiff and letting the Defendants, all represented by attorneys, to slide on their procedural defects and gross substantive defects. (Aff. ⁋12)

          The court “has a duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to ignorance of technical procedural requirements.” See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) 

          “Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing the referee. (See Guardianship of Simpson (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 914, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 389.) A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits. (Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348.) Judges should recognize that a pro per litigant may be prone to misunderstanding court requirements or orders—that happens enough with lawyers—and take at least some care to assure their orders are plain and understandable. Unfortunately, the careless use of jargon may have the effect, as in the case before us, of misleading a pro per litigant. The ultimate result is not only a miscarriage of justice, but the undermining of confidence in the judicial system.” (Gamet v. Blanchard, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1276, 1285, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439, 445–46 (2001)).

          The Court in this case used confusing language like in the order of March 23, 2020 that “terminated” and “closed” the case before leave to amend expired. The Attorney Defendants capitalized on the Court’s obvious bias by filing untimely motions for entry of judgment. Even though the motions were withdrawn, there was no admonishment from the Court that the Attorney Defendants could not refile at whim. (ECF Nos. 112 to 117 and 127)

          Defendants made dozens of mis-“quotations” of the FAC and introduced numerous extraneous facts in their MTDs. Plaintiff brought these violations of Rule 11 to the Court’s attention by an ex parte motion to strike, ECF No. 63. Plaintiff detailed about 100 misquotes and contested facts interjected by Defendants. Instead of striking the offending documents or ordering Defendants to file amended motions, the Court denied Plaintiff relief because there was, according to the Court, no exigent circumstance to file the motion to strike ex parte. (ECF No. 75) So, Defendants’ attorneys were permitted to violate FRCP Rule 11 blatantly and obnoxiously, but the pro se litigant was expected to wait until after her oppositions to the MTDs were due to have her motion heard.

          Plaintiff’s citation of the denial of her motion for limited scope representation specified that the Court was ignoring violation of a law and where an unauthorized person advocated for an LLC, the pleading was void. Further proceedings based on it were wasteful and a violation of FRCP Rule 11 by the attorneys who continued (and still continue) to pursue a judgment based on it. (Aff. ⁋10).

          Plaintiff cited the order granting the MTDs, not for the errors that would be the basis of an appeal. She cited them for examples of judicial misconduct. For example, the Court’s footnote cited in Aff. ⁋31 violated Canon 3(B)(4) and (6).

           “A judge should not retaliate against those who report misconduct. A judge should hold court personnel under the judge’s direction to similar standards.” Canon 3(B)(4).

           “A judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood that [] a judicial employee’s conduct contravened the code of conduct for judicial employees, or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.” Canon 3(B)(6).

          Again, the Court did not just make innocent legal error or have an honest difference of opinion. The Court appeared to hold a deep animosity toward the Plaintiff and there is nothing in the record that would cause an unbiased person to feel animus.

          In Dennis Opp., ECF No. 157, 4:2, she claims Plaintiff’s “assertions present only patent speculation.” This is wrong. Plaintiff speculated as to why the Court appears to have a bias; the appearance of bias is not speculative.

          It is like with the investigation of former Commissioner Alan H. Friedenthal. Even when the CJP issued the “severe” public admonishment against him, they did not say why the judicial officer held his apparent bias, just that he appeared to have a bias.

          It was only years later that Plaintiff discovered that Jeff Sherman was friendly with Mr. Friedenthal since childhood. Only then did Plaintiff realize the Shermans asked for a judicial favor to have Hammett’s parental rights terminated so they could convince Plaintiff’s wealthy parents to write Hammett’s sons out of their inheritance to “protect” the elders’ money from Plaintiff’s former spouse. The effect was millions more dollars for the Shermans.

          It is possible Plaintiff will discover the reason behind Judge Sammartino’s bias someday; but for the purpose of disqualification, it matters only that there is an appearance of bias. Plaintiff’s speculation was added to give context.

          Stern and Goldberg give a similar list to that of Dennis regarding the basis of Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 159, 4:21 to 5:8. It would be redundant to address each one again.

          Plaintiff notes #9 at 5:5-7. The Defendants wrote that the Court indicated “that if plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading, the action is closed without further order.” (emphasis added) This was not a quote. The Court used the words “shall remain closed”. (ECF No. 111, 54:8-10) Case closure usually results from entry of judgment. (Williams v. Phillips, No. 1:11-CV-00456-GBC PC, 2012 WL 1604874, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2012)) The altered wording downplays the confusion created by the Court.

          Stern and Goldberg Defendants claim the motion is untimely. (ECF No. 159, 2:21and starting at 3:2). The Defendants have filed only one round of MTDs. No discovery has been done. It took an exceedingly long time to get to this point because the Sherman Defendants and SSP dodged service for about four (4) months, the Court took five (5) months to decide the MTDs, then there was the Coronavirus pandemic and the Ninth Circuit needed time to clarify if the March 23, 2020 order was final, or merely terminated and closed.

          The litany of early erroneous orders that might be reversed on appeal don’t constitute the basis for this motion, as the defendants claim. Plaintiff did not discover the nullity issue and the Court did not make its improper threat of retaliation for reporting the Clerk’s crime until March 23, 2020. Then there was a stay and wait to see if the Ninth Circuit was taking jurisdiction.

          Plaintiff is reaching for something, but it is not sour grapes. Plaintiff wants equal protection under the law.

          This is attainable only by the disqualification of the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino and the appointment of a fresh judge.

          Respectfully Submitted,

Dated September 6, 2020                      s//Laura Lynn Hammett

                                                               Laura Lynn Hammett in pro se

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »