Big Business, Big Bullies
My friends, here is a sample of a letter I sent to a debt collection company’s attorney today.
It will probably not change their behavior, but it was cathartic for me.
[The attorney responded with a denial that he called “and/or” a “conjunctive”. Please read his response at the end.]
November 17, 2021
VIA EMAIL ONLY AT Jed.Komisin@Troutman.com; James.Trefil@Troutman.com; Miranda.James@Troutman.com; and DMitchell@RoseLawFirm.com
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Troutman Pepper Building, 1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Counsel,
Mr. Komisin and Ms. James had a conversation with me by telephone today. Ms. James remained silent except to say a greeting.
The conversation was supposed to be a good faith effort to meet and confer about our differences of opinion about my first set of responses to requests for admissions, requests for production of documents and interrogatories propounded by Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. (“PRA”)
The conversation struck me as another charade by PRA.
PRA allotted one hour to go through the motions of trying to resolve our differences without court intervention.
We did not achieve much and are therefore destined to use the valuable resource of the Court’s time.
PRA demanded that I make my supplemented responses to it by November 24, 2021.
At first PRA was going to extend the time to December 1, 2021, but only if I agreed to extend PRA’s time to respond to the first set of requests I propounded until December 10, 2021.
I explained that I have literally given PRA 100 times the responses and disclosures than it has given to me. I am still waiting on a decision from the Court as to whether or not to compel PRA to supplement its initial disclosures.
PRA can afford to pay attorneys to do its work. I am an individual, not an attorney and PRA is abusing the process to demand a burdensome amount of work.
My main concerns:
PRA continues to make statements that I owe a debt to PRA. For example, on page 6 of the letter sent by Mr. Komisin on November 8, 2021, Mr. Komisin wrote: “As you owed a debt to PRA, this legal theory is factually untrue.”
Mr. Komisin said his client will not retract this statement.
As laid out in the proposed second amended and supplemented complaint, PRA already admitted it concluded its investigation and the amount of debt owed by me to PRA is “$0.00”.
These litigation declarations falsely accusing me of debt are a direct violation of the FDCPA.
Second, PRA used a common but meaningless term in several of its requests. “And/or” is not a word.
Mr. Komisin explained that using “and/or” is a way to ask a “conjunctive” question without using two questions.
Conjunctive questions and requests are disallowed in discovery.
Also, PRA uses the word “communications” to include “attempted communications”. This ambiguation creates confusion.
Many of the requests and interrogatories that used the words “all” and “any” were overbroad and meant to oppress and harass. In the letter, the words “all” and “any” were removed from the interrogatories.
I am asking PRA to remove the words “all” and “any” from the discovery propounded unless there is a likelihood of a finite response. For example, it is appropriate to ask for “all written communications received by Plaintiff from PRA.” It is not appropriate to ask for a list of all people with any information about anything averred to in the complaint.
It is disturbing that PRA is asking for the contact information for two of Plaintiff’s former significant others. Especially since PRA submitted an exhibit that is an appellate court decision affirming a restraining order obtained by one of the men based on Hammett sending an email to three of his girlfriends that asked for information about the custody battle that was being waged against Hammett.
Considering that Hammett divorced [name retracted] two decades ago, before the alleged debt to Capital One Bank was incurred in 2001, it is unlikely [name retracted] can add any facts of probative value regarding collection activities in 2020 and the effect of those collection activities on Laura Hammett’s mental health.
I am asking PRA to limit contacts to people who can add facts of probative value, and where the witness will not lose time in excess of the value their testimony adds.
I am asking PRA to retract any allegation of a debt, past or present, from Plaintiff to PRA.
I am asking PRA to remove “and/or” from any discovery requests.
I am asking that PRA make its responses to the discovery requests I propounded before or on the same day as I make any further responses, excepting the following:
I will make supplements of requests that do not violate the foregoing concerns by November 24, 2021.
I will bring the documents I agreed to produce that are likely to have probative value to Rose Law Firm for copying and allow PRA to pick up boxes of mostly litigation documents that I doubt PRA will even look at, with the understanding that a copy service will pick up and return the documents within a reasonable time. We did not agree to a time on the phone, but I consider one week long enough for a copy service to do the job. This production will occur by November 24, 2021.
In closing, it was upsetting to have a man bully me and continue to insist I owe money to PRA, and to threaten to ask for sanctions if I refuse to comply with absurd requests that would take years of full time work to comply with.
Very Truly Yours,
/s/ Laura Hammett
*************************************************
“Ms. Hammett,
While the majority of your letter and email do not require a response, I did want to make clear that I did not ‘explain that using “and/or” is a way to ask a “conjunctive” question without using two questions.’ I stated using ‘and/or’ is clear and appropriate as one request. And that breaking up the request is possible, but unnecessary, and creates needless repetition.
Regards,
Jed”
*********************************************
That reminds me of a joke I made up many years ago:
“Do you know what a ‘Freudian Slip’ is?”
Answer:
“A Freudian Slip is when you are at Thanksgiving dinner and you mean to say to your oldest sister ‘please pass the salt’, and accidentally say ‘thanks for ruining my life you bitch’ instead.”
I distinctly heard the word “conjunctive”. There was a follow-up sentence that did not use fancy lawyer language. My take away was as I wrote.
Regardless, “and/or” is not a word.
For example, what would a response to this interrogatory be?
Identify any facts that support our contention that you are anxious and/or have problems with anger.
So, now if you say “I take Clonazepam”, does that mean you take Clonazepam for anxiety, anxiety and problems with anger or only problems with anger?
In defense of Jed, he does not use “and/or” often. Writing “and/or” is a tic for some attorneys, like William Z. White.
The common usage of “and/or” in the legal profession is a sad indication of the demise of literacy.
Kleptocracy Denies Justice
Judge Susan K. Weaver is not a judicial officer in a third world country. She just acts like one.
Shockingly, there does not seem to be anyone with any power who cares.
This writer filed a civil rights complaint against Judge Weaver. The claim is that Judge Weaver conspired with an attorney named William Zac White and a court reporter to create a fiction of what was said in a hearing.
The lawsuit was dismissed. Supposedly, the state court presided over by Susan Weaver can correct the judge and there is no harm done. The fox can smack itself on the nose, and that will somehow put feathers back on the chickens.
The Federal District Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson said he was dismissing the 42 USC 1983 case because Judge Weaver, Court Reporter Jana Perry and even attorney William White all have immunity.
If citizens don’t stand up against tyranny, those who land in positions of power are free and will continue to make decisions that enrich their friends and themselves.
The courts, rather than being a last line of defense against greed will be used to transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to sleazy but rich attorneys and judges.
Altering Business Records No Big Deal to The Court?
Advantage Service Company out of North Little Rock gave me one set of invoices, then altered the invoices and sent the altered set to me in response to a lawsuit I filed against Advantage and three Goodman entities that manufactured and marketed a faulty HVAC system.
Now Advantage Service Company is claiming the invoices were not altered. But, even if they were altered, so what?
Here is a copy of an “adoption” of a motion to dismiss filed by Advantage Service Company of Arkansas.
COMES Defendant, Advantage Service Holdings, LLC d/b/a Advantage Service
Company (“Advantage”), by and through its attorneys, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Notice
of Adoption of the Motion to Dismiss filed herein by Separate Defendants, Goodman
Manufacturing Company, L.P., Goodman Global, Inc., and Goodman Company, L.P.
(collectively referred to herein as “Goodman”), stating:
- Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. Rule 10, Advantage adopts all pertinent portions
of the Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed on or about
October 22, 2021, and the Amended Motion to Dismiss filed on or about October 28, 2021. - Upon review of Goodman’s arguments raised in their brief, the arguments
equally apply to the Hammetts’ claims against Advantage. The Hammetts discuss at
great length what she believes was invoices altered by Advantage. See Plaintiff’s First
Am. Compl., pp. 38-45, ¶¶ 183-230. Advantage denies that any invoice was altered, but
this denial is immaterial when addressing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Accepting the Hammetts’ allegations in the First Amended Complaint as true, the
Hammetts fail to state a claim for fraud pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Arkansas Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Hammetts fail to state that a misrepresentation was made by
Advantage, that there was any act by Advantage to induce any action from the
Hammetts, and how the altered invoices damaged the Hammetts. Advantage is unaware
and the Hammetts do not state how, assuming the facts in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint as true, the altered invoices damaged the Hammetts. - The same analysis applies to the Hammetts’ claim for violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act because there is no statement or
misrepresentation alleged in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint causing the Hammetts
harm or allegation as to how the Hammetts were damaged by such statement or
misrepresentation. Thus, for the reasons stated in Goodman’s brief and those stated
herein, the Hammetts’ Complaints against Advantage for fraud should be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the claim for
violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act should be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. - Finally, Advantage joins Goodman in its argument that the Hammetts’
claims are judicially estopped because they have already received the compensation they
seek in their Complaints.
WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant, Advantage Service Holdings, LLC d/b/a
Advantage Service Company, prays the original and Amended Complaints of the
Plaintiffs, Laura Hammett and James Hammett, be dismissed; for her attorneys’ fees and
costs expended herein; for a trial by jury on all issues of fact arising herein; and for all
other just and proper relief to which she may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3483
Phone: 501-372-6175; Facsimile: 888-412-3288
A. Cale Block, ABN 07149
D. Reece Owens, ABN 2017183
cblock@barberlawfirm.com
rowens@barberlawfirm.com
Help Stop Court Corruption in Arkansas
Judges and Court Reporters can conspire together to create an inaccurate transcript, and the person harmed by the fiction is not allowed to sue for damages.
This writer alleged that Judge Susan K. Weaver conspired with opposing counsel William Zac White to delete unprofessional and unethical comments made by each in a hearing on August 4, 2021. They also concocted dialogue in which Judge Weaver supposedly granted an oral motion to extend time to issue and serve a summons. According to the conspirators’ version of events, this writer did not object to the clear violation of rule 4(i)(2) that requires such motions to be written. Court reporter Jana Perry went along with the plan.
This writer believes that a purposefully inaccurate record is a denial of the fundamental right to due process.
Federal District Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson disagrees.
Judge Wilson decided that my complaint was merely “criticizing how her state court case is proceeding.” He dismissed the civil rights litigation against the judge et al “for reasons including, but not limited to, failure to state a claim, Rooker-Feldman, and immunity”.
So, the only way to correct the inaccurate transcript is to ask Judge Weaver (which I did to no avail), ask the court reporter board to investigate (which I did to no avail) or wait for the entire case to run its course and ask the state appellate court. The best option is to ask the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to remand the 42 USC 1983 case back to the District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Had Judge Susan Weaver required the motion for extension of time to serve summons to be in writing and allowed me to respond in writing, she still could have and probably would have made an erroneous ruling anyhow. But there would be an accurate record. I think an accurate record is the foundation of due process.
If you can help, either by providing free or cheap legal representation or help with the filing fees for the court of appeals, please contact me at (760) 966-6000.
Judge Susan K. Weaver Appoints Attorney William Z. White KING OF THE COURT
Hear ye, Hear ye!
Searcy County Circuit Court Judge Susan Kaye Weaver has refrained from granting a motion to quash a ridiculous subpoena issued by Mr. White of Heber Springs. The subpoena demanded me to produce all tangible and intangible items that pertain to me or three trusts or my former partner since 2009.
I’m still scratching my head, trying to figure out how to produce an “intangible” and wondering how to print out all the blog posts, emails, receipts, contracts, letters, complaints and evidence, litigation documents and other items that were supposed to be produced in three days.
The effect of not ruling on my objection and motion to quash is that I am not required to produce the requested items. But it leaves it open. At any moment, Judge Weaver can deny my motion to quash. (She took 14 months to rule on a motion to compel arbitration, so the subpoena may become effective some time in 2032.)
On Friday afternoon, Mr. White decided to be obnoxious again. Here is part of his email to me:
“Also, please accept this as my only good faith attempt to resolve the production of the documentary evidence I have commanded you to produce via my subpoena. You have until 5:00 p.m. Monday October 25, 2021 to begin to produce the documents I have commanded you to produce. If you fail to begin producing the commanded documentation I will move forward with a petition for discovery sanctions and contempt charges seeking among other things your incarceration. I hope you have a good weekend.”
He has “commanded” that I produce the documents. Commanded.
Black’s Law Dictionary does contain the word “command”.
command n. (14c) 1. An order; a directive. 2. In legal positivism, the sovereign’s express desire that a person act or refrain from acting a certain way, combined with the threat of punishment for failure to comply.
Well, that makes Zac White the sovereign. I best bow down, genuflect and borrow a box truck to fill with items tangible and intangible.
Does anyone know where I put that dream I had on May 16, 2013?
Am I the Only One Who Notices Court Corruption?
In the last few months, Judge Weaver in Faulkner County and Searcy County has lied…flat out lied…she directed the Court Reporter to transcribe a hearing inaccurately and she has looked the other way while opposing counsel gets away with…not murder, but the unethical taking of a 40 acre property and threatening me, a 59 year old woman with incarceration.
Judge Charles Clawson in Faulkner County District Court had ex parte communications with an opposing party. He eventually recused from my case, but only after dooming it (barring one honest, just judge undoing the damage).
If they treat me this way, they must treat others like this. Please let me know your story. Send an email to bohemian_books@yahoo.com and let me know how much is confidential, or if something can be repeated but not attributed to you.
Thanks.
Arkansas Judge Allowed to Conspire With Court Reporter to Create Inaccurate Transcript
Judge Susan Weaver made up a lie. She said she made an oral order during a hearing on August 4, 2021. Then, 15 days later, she put the purported oral order into writing and claimed the adversely affected litigant had not made an opposition timely.
Five days later, the Court Reporter Jana Perry produced a transcript of the hearing. Lo and behold, the Judge was quoted as making the oral order and there was no objection from the adversely affected litigant, me.
I tried to obtain a copy of the recording of the August 4th hearing, both by a motion in the underlying case and by an independent FOIA request. (Freedom of Information Act)
Judge Weaver refused thus far to allow the recording to be played.
I filed a Federal claim under 42 USC 1983 for deprivation of my constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office defended the Judge and Court Reporter.
Deputy AG Michael Mosley filed a motion to dismiss.
Mr. Mosley misstated the complaint and attributed me with saying the court waited 10 days after the written motion to grant it. I clearly wrote that the written motion was granted one day after it was written.
Federal District Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson characterized the suit thus: “Plaintiff filed a complaint criticizing how her state-court case is proceeding.” He dismissed the complaint with no leave to amend.
I was not criticizing the proceedings in state court in general. I was criticizing that inaccurate transcripts are being created, purposefully, by a judge and a court reporter.
Apparently Judge Wilson and Attorney General Leslie Rutledge believe we have no constitutional right to an accurate record of court proceedings.
Eventually the recording of the August 4th hearing may be made public.
Or maybe not.
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge does not Agree to Meet with Plaintiff for Settlement Conference
This writer filed a civil rights action against three alleged conspirators. Two of the alleged conspirators are government employees named as individuals, so they get to be represented by the Attorney General’s office on the tax payer’s dollars.
It is alleged that Judge Susan Weaver and Court Reporter Jana Perry conspired with opposing counsel on the case of Micheal Pietrczak v. Rural Revival Living Trust, et al, to make an inaccurate transcript of a hearing on August 4, 2021.
The inaccuracies include (but are not limited to) inventing a lengthy dialogue in which Judge Weaver supposedly made an oral order on an oral motion to extend time to serve summons on the Trust defendant. Even in the fictional transcript, Judge Weaver admits she does not “normally” allow an oral motion for this. It is not normally done because it is not allowed, period. The Judge might try reading Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i)(2).
I reached out to Michael Mosley, Deputy AG representing the defendants.
There is a strong public policy to attempt to settle cases without court intervention. So I suggested a settlement conference.
Here is our email text:
On Oct 19, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Laura Lynn bohemian_books@yahoo.com
Dear Mr. Mosley,
Pursuant to Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I am suggesting we meet and confer to explore if early resolution of our dispute is possible.
Let me know the best day and time for you if you are agreeable.
Thank you,
Laura Hammett
Ms. Hammett, we decline your invitation. Have a nice day. Mike Mosley
Michael A. Mosley
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge
You can let Mr. Mosley and Attorney General Rutledge know that you think settlement is the best use of your money by writing to michael.mosley@arkansasag.gov
Or leave a comment. Thank you.
Is it OK for Judge Susan Weaver to Make Shit Up and Have the Court Reporter Add the Fiction to a Transcript?
This is what I believe happened in Searcy County Arkansas Circuit Court.
I am suing the judge for deprivation of my constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
Judge Weaver had a motion to dismiss filed, claiming that if what I claim is true, it is of no importance, because it is part of her judicial duties covered by absolute judicial immunity and I don’t have a constitutional right to an accurate transcript. I kid you not.
Here is my response:
Court Says “No Constitutional Right to Accurate Transcript”
This writer filed a civil rights suit, known by the code name 42 USC 1983, against an attorney, a court reporter and a judge.
The sole premise of the suit is that the three conspired together and fictionalized what was said during a hearing on August 4, 2021.
Judge Susan Weaver and Court Reporter Jana Perry are represented by Michael Mosley of Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office. It is normal for the government employees to receive taxpayer representation, even if as here they are named only in their individual capacities.
The Assistant Attorney General probably had the Motion to Dismiss at three clicks on his computer. It is normal for an attorney to use a template and fill in the blanks, like names and dates.
They did use a couple cases that had similar fact patterns that were from a different jurisdiction. Since there are plenty of cases with similar fact patterns within the jurisdiction, they were reaching.
Here is one of the preposterous quotes lifted from a case called Tedford v Hepting from the 3rd Circuit:
“Analysis properly begins with the observation that plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to a totally accurate transcript of his criminal trial.”
The Tedford court actually wrote that and petition for writ of cert to the US Supreme Court was denied. (That doesn’t mean the appeal was without merit. The Supremes can only hear a small percentage of cases brought to them.)
The reasoning in Tedford was that the appellant was convicted before the transcription was made, as the transcription was of the trial. The appellate court analyzed the evidence that was used to convict and found that the jury did not rely on the facts that were reported inaccurately.
My case is different and I may be able to have the MTD denied.
It is preposterous though to me that our Attorney General would propound the idea that purposefully reporting a court proceeding inaccurately does not deny the litigant’s right to due process and equal protection.
Go ahead court reporters and favored attorney’s; Let your imaginations run wild.
A Higher Law 