Archive | Uncategorized RSS for this section

A Universal Problem: World Courts Show More Concern for Procedure than Merits

Thank you to Jojy George Koduvath for his insightful WordPress blog IndianLawLive.net. Indian law is not precedential in the United States, but it is informative.

Also, the LAWPHiL Project for posting the following court document from which I quote. This caselaw puts my thoughts on the error of our courts in relying on procedure instead of merit so well.

“The court has [the] discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant’s appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty. The ‘discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case.’ Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court’s primary duty is to render or dispense justice. ‘A litigation is not a game of technicalities.’ ‘Law suits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts.’ Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. (Citations omitted)” 582 Phil. 600 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division] at 612-613.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/nov2017/gr_208224_2017.html#fnt56

Judge Susan Weaver’s Corruption: Will Supreme Court Justices Curtail Her Illegal Activity?

Please send this post to all your elderly friends in Arkansas, or thinking of retiring to Arkansas.

My reality is that Susan Weaver, Rita Gruber, Cindy Thyer and Brandon Harrison are typical elitists who think only lawyers and people with money to burn should be able to retire comfortably and have the ability to pass property on through a trust. Truth and justice do not matter to these reprehensible thugs.

I will use my last breath to expose the corruption in the judiciary and release the common person from the tyranny of officers of the court gone amuck.

Vote Your Conscience

I did not vote for Cornel West. My vote was “wasted” no matter for whom I voted. The electoral vote in Arkansas will go to Trump.

I voted Libertarian, just to make my small statement. Get out of our bank accounts. Get out of our bedrooms.

But Dr. Cornell West preaches something fierce. I am a Jew. My ancestors two generations before me were slaughtered in the USSR (now Ukraine). I am a Christian. My Lord loves all His children infinity plus two. That includes Palestinians, Mexicans, Chinese and fill in the blank. Genocide is genocide. It must stop.

Dr. West makes a great point about Kamala Harris being afraid of the big money people who run the party. Again, fill in the blank. Democratic. Republican.

It is obvious our courts are bought and paid for. Our police in Arkansas refuse to investigate the major employers or court employees who brazenly violate basic rights of the common citizen.

Grandma Clara watched as her brothers and sisters and mother were killed. She miraculously escaped and ran – on her legs – across the Ukraine to Poland. She made it to Germany and one step ahead of Hitler, crossed the Atlantic in steerage to Ellis Island. For what?

Vote your conscience. Live your conscience. A holocaust survivor once told me, “our minds are the only things they can’t take from us.” Use yours.

State’s Attorney Defends the Indefensible

University of Arkansas hospital, a state agency, is using your tax dollars to mount a defense against the allegedly illegal and unethical imprisonment, assault and battery of my son. They also claim they did not coerce me into staying at the hospital for two weeks instead of leaving them alone with my son, after they used physical and chemical restraints on him numerous times.

UAMS planned to charge my son $4,700 per day for an indefinite time. After they allowed him to leave “AMA”, they sent a bill for $46,000. That was supposedly the “discounted” rate.

This video shows Nurse Susan lying. At about 6:50 she said, “we don’t give benzo’s to TBIs.” Look at this page of the bill.

Nurse Susan said, “we need him to be with it 100% of the time so he can leave.” (See about 10:15. “Sometimes he makes sense and then he doesn’t make sense.” (10:53)

Ya, you dumb #$%$#!. When he makes sense, he says “I want to leave.” Then you force date rape drugs into him and tie him up. Presto! He sounds confused and agitated.

I know AI is not 100% accurate, but here is a discussion I had with ChatGPT about the drugs UAMS billed my son for on the day this video was taken. It is possible they held some of the drugs, which begs the questions: Why did they still bill for the drugs? And what happened to the drugs that were not returned to inventory or administered?

Me: If a TBI patient was administered the following drugs in a 24 hour period, what would be the likely result? Phenobarbital per 120 mg, Dexmedetomidine in 0.9% Nacl Soln X8, trazodone 50 mg tablet, Acetaminophen 325 mg tablet X4, Haloperidol Lactate per 5 mg X2, Lorazepam per 2 mg X2, Senna 8.6 mg tablet, Enoxaparin 60 Mg/0.6 MI Syng X2, Diazepam 5 Mg Tablet X2, Propranolol 20 MG tablet X2.

ChatGPT: Administering this combination of drugs to a traumatic brain injury (TBI) patient could lead to severe sedation, respiratory depression, hypotension, and a high risk of complications due to the overlapping effects of these medications on the central nervous system (CNS) and cardiovascular system. Let’s break down the effects based on the primary drug classes involved:

Likely Results and Risks

  1. Profound Sedation and CNS Depression
    • Phenobarbital, dexmedetomidine, trazodone, haloperidol, lorazepam, and diazepam are all CNS depressants. When combined, these drugs would likely cause excessive sedation, confusion, and, in severe cases, respiratory depression. For a TBI patient, this could obscure the assessment of neurological function, making it difficult to monitor for changes in consciousness or symptoms related to the brain injury.
  2. Risk of Respiratory Depression
    • Lorazepam, diazepam, and phenobarbital all carry a high risk of respiratory depression. When combined with dexmedetomidine, this risk increases, especially if the patient’s breathing is not closely monitored. This is especially concerning for TBI patients, as stable oxygen levels are crucial for brain recovery.
  3. Hypotension and Bradycardia
    • Dexmedetomidine and propranolol can lower heart rate and blood pressure. Combined, these drugs could lead to severe hypotension (low blood pressure) and bradycardia (slow heart rate), which could reduce blood flow to the brain. This would be dangerous for a TBI patient, as maintaining adequate blood pressure and brain perfusion is essential for recovery.
  4. Confusion and Agitation
    • Haloperidol, trazodone, lorazepam, phenobarbital, and diazepam all affect mental clarity and can cause confusion, especially in patients with TBI who may already be vulnerable to cognitive issues. This combination increases the risk of delirium, agitation, or paradoxical reactions where a sedative leads to hyperactivity or disorientation.
  5. Risk of Bleeding
    • Enoxaparin (a blood thinner) adds a significant bleeding risk. TBI patients are already at risk of brain bleeding, and additional blood thinners could worsen any intracranial hemorrhage or lead to other bleeding complications.
  6. Additional Considerations
    • Acetaminophen might be included for pain or fever, which is standard, but it adds a mild sedative effect.
    • Senna is a laxative and generally safe; however, in a highly sedated patient, it could lead to dehydration or electrolyte imbalance if there’s significant bowel movement without proper hydration.

Summary of Likely Outcomes

The combined effects of these drugs could likely lead to over-sedation, respiratory suppression, low blood pressure, and altered mental status. For a TBI patient, these effects can interfere with the ability to accurately assess neurological status and could result in a serious risk of respiratory arrest, cardiovascular instability, and worsened neurological outcomes.

Monitoring and Caution

This combination of medications would require intensive monitoring in a controlled setting, such as an ICU, with frequent checks on respiratory and cardiovascular status, oxygen saturation, and neurological assessments. In most cases, clinicians would avoid such a combination due to its high risk and would aim for alternatives with fewer overlapping CNS depressant effects.

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

It seems like a highly effective way to run up a bill: take a patient with aphasia, struggling to communicate but not requiring surgery or IV medication, and administer a drug cocktail potent enough to knock out a horse. Then, declare him incapable of making his own choices, and threaten to involve law enforcement if his next-of-kin dares to take him home. Conveniently, vanish the surveillance footage. Then send a $46,000 bill for the two-week confinement. Quite the business model.

Defending this conduct is yet another example of Big Government, Big Pharma, and Big Business siphoning taxpayer dollars into their own bank accounts—illegally, but with complete impunity.

It took three more days to get an unwilling patient out of ICU without being shot by UAMS state police.

Here is the claim filed, and the answer filed late. It appears that UAMS will spend several million dollars to defend against the claim that asked for $275,000.

Here is Senior Associate General Counsel Sherri L. Robinson’s lame excuse for filing the answer late without asking for an extension of time.

Sherri Robinson, UAMS’s defense attorney, claims she’s been “distracted” lately, helping her mother after a broken wrist. But what if Sherri’s mother had gone to UAMS and been held there for two weeks—tied to a cot, drugged, exposed, and unable to use a toilet because the staff feared she might “elope”? Imagine Sherri’s state of mind if she had to wipe away remnants of feces from her own mother’s anus and vagina because UAMS refused to let their patient-prisoner use a toilet.

But this isn’t Sherri’s mother; it’s someone else’s loved one. And UAMS claims they “destroyed” the surveillance videos, so it’s as if it never even happened. This is the conduct Sherri Robinson is defending.

Pro Se Litigants Take on UAMS and State Police

Imagine your loved one, injured and vulnerable, restrained and unable to leave a hospital despite wanting nothing more than to go home. This was my reality at UAMS.

For two weeks, UAMS confined my son, even physically restraining him with force multiple times and using date rape drugs to incapacitate him.

UAMS claims they destroyed all surveillance videos of what happened. I was pressured into limiting my own recordings, leaving us without the full evidence we should have had. See our claim, filed in the Arkansas Claims Commission, for the full details.

Here is the late filed answer from UAMS.

Here is the UAMS attorney’s excuse why she was late. She doesn’t explain why she didn’t ask for an extension before the statutory time expired.

As I balance caring for my husband, who has stage IV cancer, and navigating the fallout of my son’s mistreatment, I’m adding new videos to show what happened at UAMS. Watch and decide for yourself: Was Sean held against his will? I had no choice but to stay in the hospital—without a bed, a refrigerator, or basic support—or leave my son behind, knowing he was subjected to unnecessary restraints, psychotropic drugs, forced catheterization and denial of use of a toilet to defecate.

Despite our willingness to meet UAMS’s legal team for a settlement, they’d rather drain taxpayer dollars on depositions and salaries than make an offer to resolve this in good faith.

Shockingly, state police declined to investigate possible criminal charges, even telling me to stop emailing them evidence.

Good Cause to Continue Case Against Shelter Insurance: Judge Susan Weaver is an evil, lying, conniving judge that needs to recuse.

Comes now separate and only Plaintiff, Laura Lynn Hammett, an individual, (called herein “Plaintiff” or the “Individual”) in pro se, and for her application to continue this case on the court’s calendar for good cause states as follows:

  1. The Court issued a notice dated October 15, 2024 that the case will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41, Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, for want of prosecution, unless application to continue and showing of good cause is made within 2 weeks of the date of notice.
  2. Plaintiff is filing this application timely.
  3. Good cause exists to continue the case on the court’s calendar.
  4. A similar notice was issued and responded to in 2023. The same reasons apply, but there is further evidence that it is a violation of Hammett’s due process to allow Judge Susan Weaver to make any decisions on this case, or any case involving Hammett.
  5. It is the Court who has failed to promptly dispose of the matters before her. Plaintiff has waited patiently for the Court to decide the Motion for Recusal filed September 27, 2021 and the Motions to Dismiss filed October 20, 2021 and October 28, 2021.
  6. More importantly, there is a related case, Pietrczak v. Laura Lynn and Rural Revival Living Trust, 65-CV-21-20, that is on appeal, which addresses common issues with this case that should be decided consistently. The Court appears to have delayed and is now evading deciding the pending motions on the merits because the Court intends to make contradictory orders against Hammett on the two cases.
  7. The Motion for Recusal was brought in major part because Judge Susan Kaye Weaver presiding “conspire[ed] [with Court Reporter Jana Perry and Pietrczak attorney William “Zac” White] to make an inaccurate transcription of the hearing of August 4, 2021 [in Pietrczak].” Motion for Recusal ¶ 1.
  8. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Judge Weaver, Jana Perry and Pietrczak attorney William “Zac” White, Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas case no. 4:21-CV-857-BRW. The 1983 case was dismissed (erroneously) based on absolute judicial immunity and Rooker-Feldman. Plaintiff appealed. The appeal was denied summarily before briefing.
  9. Plaintiff had an acute case of Hashimoto’s Disease which caused Plaintiff to be too fatigued to take the 1983 case further at that time. (Plaintiff is trying to recover by following a strict dietary protocol and using stress management techniques. The Court’s misconduct is a major stressor which exacerbates Hashimoto’s Disease and Plaintiff intends to file a second 1983 case because of the subsequent falsification of the transcript of the Pietrczak hearing held March 17, 2022.) There is a “Catch 22”, as legal work that addresses debilitating stress causes more stress.
  10.  By relying on Rooker-Feldman for her defense in the 1983 suit, Judge Weaver should make a concerted effort to resolve the issue of whether falsification of the transcripts in one case concerning Hammett shows bias against Hammett by the conspirator judge.
  11.     As shown on Court Connect, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, (“Shelter”), filed an opposition to the Motion for Recusal on October 1, 2021.
  12.  Jennings Insurance, Inc., (“Jennings”), filed an opposition to the Motion for Recusal on October 4, 2021.
  13.  Plaintiff replied to the opposition to the Motion for Recusal on October 4, 2021.
  14.   Shelter filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on October 20, 2021.
  15.    Jennings filed a MTD to the SAC which adopted Shelter’s MTD at ¶ 5 on October 28, 2021.
  16.    Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Shelter MTD on October 21, 2021 and an opposition to the combined Jennings MTD on November 9, 2021.
  17.    Shelter filed a reply to the MTD on October 26, 2021.
  18.    Shelter and Jennings each filed an answer to the SAC on October 21, 2021.
  19.    Jennings filed a reply to the MTD on November 17, 2021.
  20.    The Court failed to issue an order on the Motion for Recusal and the MTDs. There was no further activity since November 17, 2021.
  21.    On September 21, 2021 the Court issued an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The Court required Plaintiff to add “Rural Revival Living Trust” as a necessary party pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 19.
  22.    Plaintiff added the Trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust as a defendant, because Plaintiff personally paid the premium for the trustee after Shelter required the trustee to be named on the policy.
  23.   In the Brief supporting the Jennings MTD, Jennings argues that Plaintiff naming the trust as a defendant is “axiomatic as suing oneself in any capacity raises the following questions — and many others.”
  24.    In Pietrczak, Judge Susan Weaver dismissed Laura Lynn [Hammett] as a defendant, but then proceeded to find against the Rural Revival Living Trust by default. This is one issue on appeal, labeled the Common Defense Doctrine.
  25.    It is a clear error and appearance of bias for the Court to agree Hammett as an individual and the trust are “oneself” in this case but treat Hammett as an individual and the trust as separate defendants with non-aligned interests in Pietrczak. The Court denied Hammett’s motion to intervene in Pietrczak. It is probable that Judge Weaver neglected to rule on pending motions in this case to evade providing Hammett with more reason to overturn the order in Pietrczak which transferred Hammett’s individual interest in the subject property to a man who gave a hand-written letter describing the fraud he was committing on Hammett to his attorney William “Zac” White.
  26.    Also, the appearance of bias of Judge Susan Weaver and her refusal to settle the record by playing the audio recording of the falsified hearings in open court is an issue on appeal in Pietrczak that should affect the outcome of this case.
  27.     The Pietrczak order that transferred Hammett’s individual rights in the property to the defrauding party was issued on April 7, 2022.
  28.    The April 7, 2022 order was not final, technically. Neither was an April 14, 2022 order that simply denied any and all motions in the case. Because there was no notice of the Court’s motion to modify earlier orders, there was no modification of those orders. That includes the April 7, 2022 order.
  29.       Laura said the order of April 14, 2022 was “confusing” in an “objection” filed April 16, 2022 and the notice of appeal filed April 18, 2022. Laura expressed that she thought the April 7, 2022 order was the judgment. “There are several post judgment motions that are allowed.” The court failed to clarify her meaning before the appeal was docketed.
  30.       The court did not write “final order” or “judgment” on the April 14, 2022 order. The clerk, under direct supervision of Judge Weaver, failed to “close” the case on the docket and failed to file a disposition.
  31.      A licensed attorney hired to represent the Rural Revival Living Trust on Pietrczak determined that the April 7, 2022 order was final.
  32.       On June 10, 2022, Clerk Debbie Loggins allowed for execution of the April 7, 2022 order.
  33.      On May 22, 2024, with no jurisdiction, Judge Weaver wrote that the case was still open and would be dismissed unless a party showed cause why not. Laura showed cause why the court should “Continue the Case on the Court’s Docket Pending Order on Appeal” on May 22, 2024. Laura said, “a final judgment was filed April 7, 2022” and that the case was docketed with the Court of Appeals. Docketing to the COA relieved Judge Weaver of jurisdiction.
  34.     On June 7, 2024, the circuit court wrote: “A final order was entered April 14, 2022; a disposition sheet was never entered following the entry of the order. Due to no disposition sheet entered in the case, the case appeared to remain open.” (Filings entered after the record on appeal lodged.)
  35.      Judge Weaver did not ask the appellate court, who had docketed the appeal almost 19 months earlier, for permission to make the clerical changes. The changes were not reflected in the record to the appellate court.
  36.      The confusion and deception embodied in the orders written by Judge Weaver on Pietrczak show further evidence that Judge Weaver is not trying to deliver justice. She is delivering Hammett’s property rights to a represented party, who presumably transferred a significant portion of the proceeds from selling the property Hammett had a right to to a third party, to the attorney.     

Brief

     The June 7, 2024 order was entered “during the pendency of an appeal”, after the appeal was docketed, with no “prior notice to all parties” and no “leave of the appellate court”. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction. The June 7, 2024 order is of no effect. Rule 60 – Relief from Judgment, Decree or Order, Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,                           October 27, 2024

Laura Lynn Hammett

16 Gold Lake Club Road

Conway, Arkansas 72032

(760) 966-6000

Bohemian_books@yahoo.com