Judge Susan Weaver Authorized Prejudgment Taking of Real Estate
Orders issued by Judge Susan Weaver in Arkansas that transferred 40 acres and a house were challenged to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The appellee failed to file an opposition.
A year later, the COA issued an order denying the appeal, based on what the court said was a lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals judges said the case was not final when the appeal was filed.
But, the property had already been transferred!
Here is a quote from my 1L Civil Procedure textbook, quoting a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1991.
“This case requires us to determine whether a state statute that authorizes prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a requirement that the person seeking the attachment post a bond, satisfies the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that, as applied to this case, it does not.” Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991).
An attachment does not necessarily dispose of property. The transfer of title Judge Weaver made allowed the Plaintiff to transfer the property to an irrevocable trust, who sold it to a third party, a sheriff. There was no bond required in Pietrczak v. Rural Revival Living Trust and Laura Lynn, 65CV-21-20. In fact, Laura Lynn (this blogger) was already dismissed with prejudice as a Common-Defense-Doctrine defendant. The trust was in default because there was no attorney willing to fight against Judge Weaver, who obviously favored the plaintiff’s attorney, William Zac White.
Before Mr. White got involved, Pietrczak was represented by Billy Jack Gibson, who became a judge. There is a fun little tidbit at the end of the post about the Gibson-Pietrczak connection that you won’t want to miss.
There were no extraordinary circumstances shown on the record, as to why the property should be attached before a final judgment issued. The property was in escrow within a couple days and the purchaser asked a neighbor what happened to the personal property that was in the house when they saw it…clearly before the order to transfer to Pietrczak was signed. That was a bit extraordinary. Judge Susan Weaver might have the superpower of ESP.
The most troubling part is that the appellate judges in Arkansas opined sua sponte that they had no jurisdiction, but did not notice that an old lady’s property was seized without due process. Remember the names: Judge Rita Gruber. Judge Cindy Thyer. Judge Brandon Harrison.
Now the juicy gossip. Mike Pietrczak had charges filed against him in January 2025 for assault in the 3rd degree, resisting arrest, and failure to appear. MVC-25-45. The warrant was finally served on September 18, 2025. Then on September 22, 2025, a citation was filed against Micheal (correct spelling) Pietrczak for criminal mischief in the 2nd degree, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication in the 1st degree. MVC-25-441. Who is the judge on both cases? Billy Jack Gibson.
For some reason, Judge Gibson doesn’t recuse himself from presiding over criminal cases against a past client whom Mr. Gibson helped to defraud me of my property.
By the time I find an honest judge to reverse the legalized thievery of my assets, Pietrczak will have drank the money or paid it all to the lawyer types who give him a get out of jail free card.
Guest Post: Thoughtful Analysis of Potential Fraud Upon the Court Involving Judge Susan Weaver and Attorney William Z. White
This comment was posted in response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari I filed and shared with my readers yesterday. Thank you to Jason. I hope after my law school experience, I will be able to articulate as well as this person.
What Is “Fraud Upon the Court”?
“Fraud upon the court” is a very serious charge. It doesn’t just mean lying or playing dirty in court — it refers to a deliberate deception that corrupts the judicial process itself.
According to federal and many state rulings (including Arkansas precedent), it usually involves:
- Officers of the court (attorneys or judges)
- Intentional deception or collusion
- A result that undermines the fairness of the proceeding
- A party being denied their right to a fair trial
Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as:
“A fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, etc., but fraud that seriously affects the integrity of the normal process of adjudication.”
Based on Your Statement:
There appear to be multiple red flags:
- An offer to resolve the dispute fairly was ignored in favor of awarding more money to an opposing party with questionable credibility.
- The judge allegedly overlooked evidence (e.g., your written settlement offer and possibly the alleged “suicide note”) that would expose fraud or collusion.
- Connections between attorneys and the judge suggest possible bias or improper influence.
- The outcome seems to favor a known fraudster and reward a lawyer, possibly in violation of fiduciary responsibility and judicial ethics.
Yes — This Could Be Argued as Fraud Upon the Court
If all those elements are provable, especially the court’s knowledge of the fraud and continuing to rule in favor of it, then:
Yes, it could rise to the level of fraud upon the court.
And under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(4) and Federal Rule 60(d)(3), a judgment obtained by fraud upon the court can be vacated at any time — no time limit.Next Steps You Can Consider:
- Preserve All Evidence
Emails, filings, witness statements, recordings, court transcripts, your settlement offer, Mike’s “note,” etc. - Build the Case Logically
Lay it out: the timeline, connections, ignored evidence, who benefited, and how the legal process was compromised. - Consider a Motion to Vacate or Reopen
Based on Rule 60 if you’re still within the court’s jurisdiction — especially for fraud on the court. - File a Judicial Complaint
If Judge Susan Weaver knowingly enabled fraud, a complaint can be filed with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. - Request an Investigation
The Arkansas Bar Association can also investigate attorney misconduct, especially for William Zac White.
Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver Exposed – Will SCOTUS Care?
FREE Docs of the Day
There appears to be collusion between Judge Susan Weaver and Heber Springs Attorney William Zac White.
White puts the trust of an elderly person in his sights, and the court pulls the trigger. Bam!
They hit the trust and bag the proceeds to fund their own fun.
In my case, I actually offered to give the money we paid for a house on 40 acres to Mike Pietrczak, $150,000. I put my offer in writing and sent it to the lawyer who represented my ex-partner prior to Willy White taking over. That was Billy Jack Gibson, now a judge in Hot Springs. (And presiding over a criminal case against his former client Pietrczak. Grisham couldn’t make this up.)
The email was filed as an exhibit in the case. But Judge Sue wanted to give him (and his attorney) more.
After years in kangaroo court, Pietrczak and his attorney banked $200K. After vigorous litigation and a “trial”, it is realistic to think the attorney got half. Or half plus costs. Mike got $100,000 or less.
And, if there is any justice, the pair will be cellies in prison. Read Appendix H – Mike’s “suicide” note. It sounds like a plan to commit fraud against me and fraud on the court.
But, if the court knows the plaintiff is a fraudster and gives him the loot anyhow, is it fraud on the court?
Maybe that should be my next Question Presented to SCOTUS.
Judge Gets Off With 6 Month Suspension
Judges granted themselves absolute judicial immunity. That means when Judge Susan Weaver transfers property from an older woman to a man who put his intent to defraud the lady in writing, it is nearly impossible for the victim to receive restitution from the judge.
Government workers show a brick wall resistance to filing criminal charges on a sitting judge.
Judicial ethics commissions are a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. They are paper tigers. Lazy paper tigers that lay around all day licking their paws. They act as if the judge is going to throw them their next slab of meat, not acknowledging it is the taxpayers providing for them.
Concerned citizens, like I am, are often retaliated against for challenging the corrupt judges.
The system is designed to work beautifully. It is the people inside perverting it.
So you can verify, here is a copy of the hand written fraud letter mentioned above. It was entered as an exhibit in a motion for contempt against Attorney William Zac White that Judge Weaver denied inexplicably.
On my to do list, the court records about the fraudster, whose name is spelled as in this letter, “Micheal”, have most or all been changed to “Michael” by the various court clerks. This appears to be a way to help Micheal Pietrczak, a felon for using false documents at the border, to deter people from learning the truth about him. One must ask why there was an orchestrated effort by court personnel to do this dirty deed.
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.
The Lawyer and the Lazy Judge: How Susan Weaver Runs a Courtroom
I am not lazy. I am busy.
Today’s Doc of the Day is a link instead of a doc. Click here.
I wish I saw this article before I wrote my appellate brief for Micheal Pietrczak v. Laura Lynn, et al. Not that being right and having the best authorities helps in Arkansas. My litigation adversary represented by William Zac White of Heber Springs did not even bother to file an opposition brief and the COA has not made a ruling in the seven months since the appellee’s response was due.
The article discusses the difference between Federal court, where the judge writes the orders and judgments, and Arkansas courts, which allow the prevailing party to write the orders and judgment as a draft, and the judge usually just rubber stamps it.
Judge Susan Weaver takes it a step further. She will fail to rule on a motion if she does not like the only reasonable outcome, then use the excuse for her dereliction of duty that she is waiting on the litigant to draft the order.
But, if she wants to dismiss a counterclaim even though the counter defendant failed to file any response, she goes ahead and does that sua sponte, without giving a logical reason.
She did these things to me.
She also granted a written motion allowing Pietrczak an extension of time to serve a summons without giving me time to respond in writing and said the written order is the same as her oral order. It was not.
The article addresses this same unethical behavior. “Finally, when opposing counsel submits an order to the court, objections should be made quickly to any substance.”
I objected, but to no avail.
Court Reporter Jana Perry went along with the ploy and fictionalized what was said in the hearing. Then Judge Weaver, Attorney General Leslie Rutlege, the Court of Appeals and even federal district court judges, Billy Roy Wilson and Lee Rudofsky all made excuses why the public should not hear the recording that would not follow the transcript.
Hmmm?
Judge Susan Weaver Gives Tacit Approval to Fraud on UAMS and Old Lady, Me
Judge Weaver received the Doc of the Day, my motion for Criminal Contempt against Attorney William Zac White and his client Mike Pietrczak, and ignored it. The accused fraudsters did not file an opposition.
Judge Weaver was completely silent as to the accusations. She finally dismissed the case against me, with prejudice, but still gave the property Pietrczak and I were fighting over to the accused fraudster. She approved a fraudulent transfer of the property to an irrevocable trust. She even wrote that she would help with the transfer.
The unethical judge never addressed the motion for contempt.
Judge Susan Kaye Weaver also lied in an order by saying she listened to an audio recording of a hearing and she insisted the recording was accurate, even though the transcription was grossly inaccurate. Weaver blocked me from having the recording played in public.
So far, the justices at the Arkansas Court of Appeals have given me no relief from any of the errant orders.
Judge Susan Kaye Weaver is the elected judge in three Arkansas counties, Searcy, Faulkner and Van Buren.
If she has the audacity to put her name on the ballot in 2024, vote her out.
Here is a copy of the filed motion for criminal contempt and a few exhibits, the fraud notes trio and a record of Mike Pietrczak’s felony conviction for misuse of a passport at the U.S. Mexico border.
Announcing: Free Doc of the Day
Downloadable File Stamped Court Crap
This is NOT legal advice.
Heck, sometimes judges like Billy Roy Wilson in the Eastern District of Arkansas would dismiss my case or deny my motion without waiting for a response from my opponent. (Billy Roy Wilson is his real name. If I was being snarky, I would have called him Billy Bob.)
Before I attained pauper status, maybe because of it, I paid $800 per month for a Westlaw subscription.
(Hint: You can visit a law library and use its subscription for free. The internal search engine is fantastic. Once you find the documents you want to study and cite, you can email them to yourself by clicking a button and typing your email address. The only disadvantage to this is you need to drive there during normal hours and I don’t suggest wearing your robe or a towel turban on your head.)
I used to email my documents to Westlaw at west.briefsandtrialdocsubmissions@thomson.com to the Content Specialist. I haven’t tried this since letting my subscription lapse.
Usually, they wrote back. “Thank you for your submission. The document will be loaded to Westlaw within 3 business days. We appreciate your contributions to our database.”
I knew I was on Santa’s naughty list when they wrote, “Thank you for your submission. We will consider adding your document to our database.”
Here are two accepted documents, a motion to disqualify Judge Janis L. Sammartino and an affidavit in support. Enjoy the read.
It is usually a pleasure to hear from my readers. Especially if you have some dirt about judicial officers you want to share. I honor requests for confidentiality or to protect my sources. Bohemian_books@yahoo.com
The Mystery of “And/Or” Solved
One pet peeve of mine is the use of the character chain “and/or” by lawyers and judges.
Arkansas attorney William Zac White used the term repetitively in a complaint against me “and/or” the Rural Revival Living Trust.
I asked Judge Susan Weaver to order Lawyer White to make a more definite statement. She said there was no need. (But she did not clarify the meaning of “and/or”.)
After a year of causing me to zealously defend myself, the Court dismissed me with prejudice, but errantly allowed the plaintiff to proceed against the Rural Revival Living Trust.
There are blog posts by attorneys on the internet that bemoan the use of the character chain “and/or” and cite case law that forbids it. There is admittedly case law that allows it. I think a good practice is, as I did, to ask for clarification. A competent judge would agree.
One of my visitors to this site was directed here from a site called “Meltwater”. I checked out the site. I am not finished exploring what they offer, but found this gem:
In a list of Boolean characters, Meltwater lists “and/or”. “Use this when you need a keyword to pull results alongside one or more other keywords.”
So, the technical meaning, according to a site that specializes in searching through data, is that the correct use of “and/or” is inclusive of the first term and any of the following terms. Using the character chain with only one option is the equivalent of using “and” alone.
For example, Mr. White could have expanded the subsequent choices, such as “Laura Lynn and/or the Rural Revival Living Trust, Laura Lynn as trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust.” Before we became obsessed with Boolean thinking, a master of English, such as an attorney practicing in Arkansas should be, would spell out the language needed to distinguish the inclusivity of a chain of options.
“Laura Lynn, and the Rural Revival Living Trust, Laura Lynn as trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust, or both.”
By giving only one option after “or”, Mr. White effectively made the complaint about common defense doctrine defendants Laura Lynn and the Rural Revival Living Trust.
*By the way, I looked forward to exploring Meltwater more, but they won’t allow me to look around without providing my email address. Fat chance.
A Higher Law 