Firings, Foiled FOIA and Other Infighting at the Arkansas Supreme Court

 I don’t know what to make of it. This is what five of the six associate justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court think, in response to newly sworn Chief Justice Karen Baker purportedly firing ten AOC employees:

Pursuant to Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution, the court establishes
Administrative Order 24 to ensure the continued efficient administration of justice. The
court establishes the following procedures to clarify the employment status of persons
working for the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Supreme Court of Arkansas.


Certain events have recently transpired that require formal, written procedures for
when a court or AOC employee may be terminated. These rules will provide a transparent
process for employees and court members to follow in the event that termination is required.


Sunlight—in the form of a written policy—provides the best process.


The events giving rise to this order have been percolating but came to a head on January 2, 2025, when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas called the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (“Director”) and the Director of Emergency Preparedness and Chief of Supreme Court Police (“Police Chief”) into her office for a meeting. During the meeting, the Chief Justice confronted the Director and Police Chief about their responses to Freedom of Information Act requests involving her.


The Chief Justice noted that she had prepared letters of termination for the Director and Police Chief, but was unsure whether she would fire them.


The next day, January 3, the Chief Justice intercepted the Police Chief as he walked into the Justice Building and purported to fire him. The Chief Justice had also prepared determination letters for at least ten (10) other employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, including the Director. The Director, however, serves at the pleasure of the entire court, not the Chief Justice alone. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-102(a)(2).


Specifically, the Chief Justice attempted to terminate the following employees:

Director of Administrative Office of the Courts;

Director of Emergency Preparedness and Chief of Supreme Court Police;

Juvenile Justice Division Director;

Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs and Director of Judicial
Education;

Director of Finance and Administration;

Legal Services Division Director;

Court Information Systems Division Director;

Court Information Systems Division Deputy Director;

District Court Staff Attorney; and

Administrator of the Commission of Children, Youth, and Families.


If carried out, those terminations would disrupt the administration of justice across the state
of Arkansas.


The Chief Justice did not notify—let alone consult—the court before attempting to unilaterally fire these long-tenured court employees. After learning of the attempt to terminate these employees, a fellow justice asked the Chief Justice to meet with other members of the court to discuss her decisions. The Chief Justice refused. Four members of the court then renewed the request to discuss the attempted terminations, and the Chief Justice again declined. Yet when asked why these ten employees were being terminated, the Chief Justice stated that she had “millions of reasons.” Then, when asked about those
employees’ families and the fact that they were scared and fearful, the Chief Justice responded by saying that it was “good” for those employees to be scared. The Chief Justice then ended that discussion.


Not once did the Chief Justice articulate a specific reason for firing any of these employees, either to the full court or to the employees themselves. Some of these employees have pending human-resource complaints against the Chief Justice for recent incidents. And the Chief Justice has attempted to terminate the recipient of these complaints, the Director of Finance and Administration. These terminations therefore appear to be retaliatory. And given the uncertainty these terminations have created and the potential disruption of the administration of justice, the court hereby adopts the following Administrative Order.


This situation is unnecessary and unfortunate. The court thanks the employees targeted for termination for their service and offers its sincere apologies to their families for this situation. And the court appreciates their continued service to the people of the Natural State.


Administrative Order 24. Employment of Court Personnel


Absent express statutory authority to the contrary, the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts holds sole responsibility to hire and terminate the staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-10-102(a)(2) also provides that the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts is “subject to the approval of the Supreme Court and the Arkansas Judicial Council, Inc.” and “serves at the pleasure of the Supreme Court.” The Director therefore cannot be terminated without the express consent of at least four members of the Supreme Court.


As it relates to employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, no employee of the Supreme Court of Arkansas or the Administrative Office of the Courts shall process any termination letter, restrict access to physical space, restrict access to information technology services, cut off payroll, or otherwise restrict employment activity without the express approval of the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.


As it relates to the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, no employee of the Supreme Court of Arkansas or the Administrative Office of the Courts shall process any termination letter, restrict access to physical space, restrict access to information technology services, cut off payroll, or otherwise restrict employment activity without the express written approval of at least four members of the Supreme Court of Arkansas.


The Clerk of the Supreme Court and Reporter of Decisions also serve at the pleasure of the entire Supreme Court of Arkansas. Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 2(F). The Clerk and Reporter cannot be terminated without the express written approval of four members of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The Clerk and Reporter retain hiring and firing authority for members of their staff, subject to notice to the entire court.

Absent an emergency, any terminated employee may be reinstated within three days if at least four members of the Supreme Court have given express written notice.


Each justice has hiring and firing authority for his or her immediate chambers staff, which includes two law clerks and a judicial administrative assistant. No other Supreme Court of Arkansas employee or Bar of Arkansas employee may be terminated without the express written approval of four members of the Supreme Court of Arkansas.


Any terminations that have occurred on or after January 1, 2025, in contravention of this order are hereby rescinded, effective immediately.


The failure to abide by any provision of this order may result in a citation for contempt.


BAKER, C.J., and HUDSON, J., not participating.

I endorsed Justices Hudson and Baker when they ran for office. Unfortunately, I also voted for Evil Judge Susan Weaver who I now know should be in prison for honest services fraud; so, I get it wrong sometimes.

There was strife about then Associate Justice Baker entering AOC Director Marty Sullivan’s Office. There was also legal wrangling about emails between Justice Hudson and Lisa Ballard, former head of the AOC Office of Professional Conduct. Justice Hudson did not want the emails to be shared with the public.

I posted a story applauding Lisa Ballard once, but my mind is changing about her. She was ineffective. A complaint I filed years ago has still not been concluded.

Well, I need to get some rest and have a mountain of work to do. So, I don’t know when I can add more, and Federal Judge Lee P. Rudofsky may order this blog to be “taken down” as early as Monday morning.

We are living in strange times. It appears a few fascists decided to dismantle the perfect union that was the United States of America and replace it with a tyrannical oligarchy of greed.

Pray.

Here is a FREE Doc of the Day:

Court Corruption causes stress. Relax and let go by doing Yin Yoga with Matt.

At the end, Matt suggests I send a link to this video to my friends who can use it and tell them I love them. Christ suggests I do the same for my enemies as well, through another Matthew who memorialized the Sermon on the Mount in writing.

Matthew 5: 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

I love you, friends and foes. Happy New Years!

A Law License Is Not a Free Pass to Defame

James K. Trefil of the law firm Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP wrote a defamatory letter to the company that owns WordPress, this blog’s host. Mr. Trefil’s intent was to scare WordPress into deleting this blog. It was supposedly mailed on December 19, 2024, according to court documents filed by Mr. Trefil.

Thus far, and to the credit of WordPress and Automattic, Inc., you are still able to read my blog.

Here is a copy of the letter:

Here is a letter I just emailed to Mr. Trefil and will put in the mail when it stops raining.

ChatGPT is not an attorney. It is a tool that uses artificial intelligence. It is a good sounding board, that offers avenues to explore with more authoritative sources. Here is what ChatGPT had to say about the defamatory letter and whether an attorney could be found liable for damages caused by a defamatory letter to a non-governmental agency.

Yes, a lawyer can potentially be found guilty of defamation for statements made in a letter to a non-governmental agency, even if those statements are made on behalf of their client. However, whether the lawyer can be held liable depends on several factors:

Key Considerations:

  1. Privilege:
    • Absolute Privilege: Lawyers generally have absolute privilege for statements made in court filings, during litigation, or in other official judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This privilege does not extend to communications with non-governmental agencies unless those communications are part of such a proceeding.
    • Qualified Privilege: If the communication is related to a matter of mutual interest or made in good faith, a lawyer may have qualified privilege. However, this can be lost if the statement is made with malice or without a legitimate basis.
  2. Truth as a Defense: Defamation requires the statement to be false. If the statements made in the letter are true, the lawyer cannot be held liable for defamation, regardless of how damaging they are.
  3. Malice: If the lawyer makes statements with actual malice—knowing they are false or with reckless disregard for the truth—they could be held liable for defamation.
  4. Role and Intent:
    • If the lawyer is merely relaying information provided by the client, their liability could depend on whether they exercised reasonable care in verifying the claims before making them.
    • If the lawyer independently makes defamatory statements, they may face greater liability.
  5. Non-Privileged Contexts: Communications with non-governmental agencies, especially those unrelated to litigation, are less likely to be protected by absolute privilege. For instance, a letter to a private organization or regulatory body could expose the lawyer to liability if it contains defamatory remarks and lacks privilege or justification.

Stay tuned.

Judge Lee P. Rudofsky Might Take this Blog Down – Find Me Elsewhere

Dear Readers,

Portfolio Recovery Associates, part of PRA Group Inc, asked -or maybe “instructed”- Judge Lee P. Rudofsky to take this blog down.

I am going to the courthouse to file a response to PRA’s “Emergency” Christmas week motion.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Judge Rudofsky already has his order prepared and takes my blog down before I can get a truly emergency order from a higher court to stop him.

If he does take down this blog, find me on YouTube. @LauraLynnHammett https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pzkjWBLTRfU

I will also start a new blog. It will have a broader subject than corrupt courts. It will ride the wave started by Luigi Mangione to stop accepting the rule of the oligarchy. Of course, I only suggest using peaceful means to bring change.

Here are the documents I am filing today, without the exhibits.

Here are the dire emergency documents PRA filed:

I’ll miss y’all.

SCOTUS Missing Motion: Troutman & Pepper lie that the motion was not served on them.

What made me think the clerks in the Supreme Court of the United States would be honest?

Defense firm Troutman & Pepper is working for debt buyer Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, and apparently Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, trying to get this blog banned.

Make copies of everything you want to keep. My response to the motion to ban the blog is due on Friday December 27th. My experience with Lee Rudofsky foretells that he will grant the motion.

The basis of the motion is that PRA did not receive a copy of my motion to initially seal certain appendices to my petition for writ of certiorari served on October 7th, and then immediately unseal them. The idea to first ask to seal the documents came from Case Analyst Angela Jimenez. She wanted me to write two separate motions, but I combined them as one.

Good thing! The motion is not posted or linked on the docket. The bulk of the 10-page motion, discussing why the documents should be unsealed, was not mentioned. The date of filing was changed to October 7, 2024, more than two weeks before the motion was written and served.

Don’t believe me? Here is some proof.

Missing Motion

Letter from Case Manager Angela Jimenez dated December 10, 2024, envelope was postmarked December 12, 2024 and USPS informed delivery shows that it was upside down in the mail and did not get delivered until December 18th. Defense Team of Troutman & Pepper and Rose Law Firm filed their motion to ban my blog on December 20, 2024. I sent a request for a certified copy of the motion I filed with a check for fees on December 12, 2024. No word back.

I don’t know if I can get this letter in the mail today. I’ll try.

Motion to Ban this Blog: Rose Law Firm Fibs About Service

  1. Attorneys from Rose Law Firm and Troutman & Pepper waited 11 days to file an “emergency” motion for sanctions.
  2. David Mitchell certified that the motion was handed to me and mailed to me on December 20th.
  3. There was neither kind of service made until December 23rd.
  4. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky ordered me to file my response in the clerk’s office by close of business on the 27th.
  5. I’d rather be organizing my laundry room and pantry before Christmas, but working on this response will point me to some interesting evidence to share with you, my dear readers.
  6. Enjoy the video.
  7. May your Christmas be filled with peace and joy.

Sunday Funday: Comedian Josh Johnson on the Grounds of a Brewing Revolution

I am not and never have advocated for violence. Josh Johnson is not, either. We both are commentators to what we see happening in this country. Sticking our heads in the sand will not change what is happening up above.

An oligarchy of corporate kings and their puppet politicians and judges tried, and some say succeeded at enslaving the masses. There is no justice for the everyday person.

One example: Walmart and major credit card companies partner to create million entry portfolios of account numbers. If one of the accounts appears to be in default and the person associated with that account refuses to pay, whether for a legitimate reason or not, the account may be written off for a tax break to the corporations, then sold to a debt buyer like Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC.

An account associated with my name before I married, Laura Lynn, was one of the default accounts on a list generated by Capital One. (There is no indication that the Capital One account was a Walmart branded account. I mention Walmart, because the judge who was supposed to deliver justice on the matter, Lee P. Rudofsky, was general counsel to Walmart before his lifetime appointment to the federal bench.)

There was also an account sold to PRA that was associated with Laura Lyman. After I filed a lawsuit against Portfolio Recovery Asociates, LLC for violating the Fair Debt Consumer Protection Act (FDCPA) and my privacy, PRA sent a letter to Laura Lynn that said it completed the investigation into Laura Lyman’s dispute and set the balance of Laura Lyman’s account number to zero.

When pressed, PRA sent a letter to Laura Lynn saying her account was closed. When pressed again, the debt company sent a letter with the same language as the Laura Lyman letter, only with “Laura Lynn” and the account number associated with Laura Lynn. PRA and Judge Rudofsky maintain to this day that Laura Lynn owed $2,297.63 and admitted she owed the money. Total bullshit.

Judge Rudofsky and Portfolio Recovery kept me in court for years. Rudofsky lied about what I said. He lied by implication about the evidence that he allowed PRA to file under seal. The judge refused to allow a jury to hear and see the evidence.

Finally, PRA asked Judge Rudofsky to tax the costs of the goliath credit collector’s defense to me. In protest, I gave a copy of my tax return for the latest year and swore under penalty of perjury that my income is a pension that is under $650 per month. I said I qualify for Medicaid.

Judge Lee P. Rudofsky grumbled that I gave two different amounts, $630 and $639 off the top of my head, for my pension. (I didn’t realize I got a cost-of-living increase on the part of my pension that came from a QUADRO in a divorce filed in 1996.) He complained that I only gave one year of taxes. (President Trump, who nominated Rudofsky, wouldn’t show any of his tax returns to the public.)

The judge said something like “let her eat cake” and rubber stamped the order for costs to the company that buys debt from his past employer.

Josh Johnson got it right. It is looking like Versailles.