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.
Judge Susan Weaver Must Have Skipped Law School 101
Judge Susan Weaver was once quoted as saying she loved “every stinking minute” of law school.
But what was she doing those three years? It does not appear that she read a book.
Here I am, going into the second week of school… the first week of regular classes… and reading material that makes Judge Weaver’s violations of my rights clear.
For instance, optional reading for Real Property I includes this explanation of trespass:
“Trespass to real property involves intentional wrongful entrance onto or physical disturbance of a plaintiff’s land. The intent requirement, however, like the intent requirement for conversion, is a general intent requirement, and not a specific intent.” – Intro to Property Law, Foster.
Here are two examples given by Professor Foster to illustrate specific intent:
“Example: While walking in a wooded area behind his home, A wandered onto B’s property.
A did not intend to commit trespass, but A did intend to put his feet down in such a way that
he is now standing where he is. A has general but not specific intent, and A has committed
trespass.”
“Example: L and M kidnapped N and placed him in the trunk of their car. They tossed him out
onto O’s property and drove away. N not only did not intend to trespass, but he had no intent
to be in the specific place he is in when thrown from the vehicle. N has neither general nor
specific intent. N has not committed trespass. Have L and M? Answer: Yes.”
In a case over which Judge Weaver presided, I was a co-defendant for a cause of action for what the Plaintiff called “ejectment/trespass” on real estate brought by my former boyfriend, Mike Pietrczak. The other defendant was my living trust, for which I was sole non-contingent beneficiary, sole settlor and sole trustee.
Judge Weaver would not allow me to represent the trust, because I am not a licensed attorney, even though there were no other individuals involved in the trust.
I represented myself zealously and was dismissed with prejudice after a year. (The substantially identical action was filed previously and dismissed against both the trust and me without prejudice. I could retain an attorney at that time and there was a different judge.)
So, it was decided, by Judge Weaver, that I did not trespass on the land and there was no need to eject me. Pietrczak was clear in his complaint and in the evidence presented that he did not want me on the land. I was on the land during much of the time he complained about, or I gave permission to others to be on the land. I intended to be on the land. No one tied me to the bed and forced me to stay there. I intended to have tenants on the land. But I was not trespassing and there was no need for ejectment.
How then could my trust be trespassing on the same land? How does one even eject a trust? Ejectment entails removal. The trust is a fictitious person, to the extent a trust is a person at all. It is really a vessel to hold assets. Even if the trust is considered a separate “person” from me, so too was the tenant I rented the property to for a year and so too were my other invitees.
Inviting the use of the land by the tenants and the trust was a physical disturbance of the land. But Judge Susan Weaver opined that I was not liable for any trespass on the property.
Then Judge Weaver entered default judgment and damages against the trust. She inexplicably said any further inhabitation of the land by me would be considered trespass. She ordered the county recorder to void the record of title to the land passing to the trust. And she allowed Pietrczak to transfer title to the “person” of his choosing.
The Court of Appeals claimed it lacked jurisdiction to upset the lower court orders based on my unopposed appeal, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the COA decision. I petitioned the United States Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari. It is extraordinarily rare for such a petition from a pro se litigant to be granted. But I maintain hope.
Stop Laughing! There is Nothing Funny About Court Corruption or Judge Susan Weaver
Technology and I are in a love-hate relationship. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully you catch my drift.
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.
When Your Opponent’s Lawyer Becomes a Judge
The same lawyer who once tried to take my property on behalf of an abusive former partner is now a sitting judge—and he’s presiding over that same man’s criminal case.
Years ago, Billy Jack Gibson represented Micheal Pietrczak in a bitter property dispute against me. I had money at the time and was represented by counsel. Gibson’s goal was to get the entire property for Pietrczak. After my attorney intervened, Gibson backed off. He later told me that he no longer represented Pietrczak.
In 2017, Pietrczak wrote a suicide note to his father. In it, he gave specific instructions: once I paid him the $75,000 we had agreed to, his father was to contact William “Zac” White, a lawyer in Heber Springs, to file a lawsuit for the full property plus treble damages. That’s exactly what happened.
The lawsuit filed by Zac White has worked its way through years of litigation and is now the basis of my petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is still pending—but Pietrczak now has new legal troubles.
On January 21, 2025, criminal charges were filed against him in Hot Springs: third-degree assault, resisting arrest, and failure to appear.
The judge listed on the public docket? Just “Gibson.”
I checked with the court clerk. It is indeed Judge Billy Jack Gibson, the same man who once stood across from me as opposing counsel in the same property dispute that now defines my litigation.
When I looked at the electronic record, things got even more suspicious. The official citation from January 21, 2025 spells Micheal’s first name correctly—but the citation lists the wrong birth year: 1972 instead of 1973. Pietrczak’s prior rap sheet was altered to show his name as “Michael”. According to the district court clerk, this information comes straight from the DMV. What caused this? No one will tell me, but here is an educated guess:
- One driver’s license has the correct birthdate but misspells his name, and
- Another license has the correct spelling but the wrong birthdate.
Why It Matters
The Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A) requires judges to recuse themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Prior attorney-client relationships might fit into that category.
A judge who once fought to take my property for Pietrczak is now presiding over his criminal case. The fraud was successful up to the Supreme Court because the appeal was erroneously dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. No one at the higher courts addressed the merits, including the fraud.
Even if the new charges are unrelated, the history is real. The appearance of bias is inescapable. And once again, the system seems to bend quietly for those on the inside, while people like me have to shout just to be heard.
If you face a scheme like this, please contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com so I can help you get loud.
Dueling (Proposed) Orders: Will Judge Susan Weaver Demand Consumer Abide By A Non-Consensual Contract of Adhesion?
First American Home Warranty sold me a policy, paid through escrow, without ever letting me review the contract. When the contract came in the mail, it was too late to switch to another company. The forced air unit in the house I bought failed within days of moving in.
The two companies First American referred me to for my repair or replacement both show on the Arkansas Secretary of State website as status “revoked”.
The work was not completed by First American’s choices, and eventually I paid for the replacement of the unit myself.
Then I had the misfortune of Judge Susan Weaver presiding over the case I filed.
Judge Weaver acted like she has never heard of the elements of a contract, meeting of the minds, or rescission. She ordered me to use binding arbitration, because there was an arbitration clause in the contract that I did not consent to but attached to my complaint as an exhibit. If I had not attached the disturbing contract, it is likely Judge Weaver would dismiss my case for violation of the rule that requires attachment, Ark. R. Civ. Pro. 10(d).
“Required Exhibits. A copy of any written instrument or document upon which a claim or defense is based shall be attached as an exhibit to the pleading in which such claim or defense is averred unless good cause is shown for its absence in such pleading.” Rule 10 – Form of Pleadings, Ark. R. Civ. P. 10
As per the analysis of this language by ChatGPT: “Yes, even if you did not consent to the contract, Rule 10(d) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure still generally requires that a copy of the disputed contract be attached to the complaint if the claim is based on it. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that all parties and the court have access to the document at issue.
“However, your lack of consent to the contract could be a key argument in your case. If you are disputing the validity of the contract—for example, arguing that you never agreed to it, that it was fraudulent, or that it is otherwise unenforceable—you would still need to reference and challenge the contract within your pleadings. Attaching the contract does not concede its validity; rather, it allows the court to evaluate your objections to it.
“If you are the plaintiff challenging the contract’s validity, you may still need to attach it to show what you are disputing. If you are the defendant responding to a claim based on the contract, you are not required to attach it, but you can argue against its enforceability.”
I filed a motion to continue the case on the docket until the propriety of recusal of Judge Weaver is determined by a higher court. Alternatively, I am willing to use arbitration if it is non-binding and is not pursuant to the contractual limitations.
Here is my motion:
Here is the exhibit to the motion:
Here are the orders proposed by First American Home Warranty’s attorney and by me.
FREE Doc of the Day
Do you think consumers should be forced to adhere to contracts of adhesion that are not provided for the consumer’s review before paying for a home warranty? Judge Susan Weaver apparently does.
Write, Don’t Ruminate: Musings About the Motives of Corrupt Judges
I should be asleep.
Instead, I am wondering what makes Judge Susan K. Weaver in Arkansas make decisions that appear both irrational and cruel.
She probably didn’t wake up one morning and think, “It will be fun to take a sixty-year-old woman’s retirement away from her.”
But what happens when old connections come calling, reminding her of past favors, shared history, or mutual interests? In small legal circles, old friendships, old debts, and old ambitions tend to resurface at just the right time. Maybe it wasn’t a direct call from an old friend—maybe it was a favor for a friend of a friend, the kind of unspoken arrangement that keeps the system running smoothly.
And why would a court reporter, Jana Perry, risk her reputation and possible criminal charges by falsifying transcriptions of hearings, like she did on the Pietrczak case? Court reporters hold an extraordinary power—recording, preserving, and, at times, shaping history. When a transcript deviates from reality, one has to wonder: was it a mistake, or was there a reason for the alteration? It’s curious, to say the least, that Jana Perry’s name intersects with legal controversies involving Judge Weaver. Coincidence? Maybe. But in the world of law, coincidences are often just patterns we haven’t fully unraveled yet.
Most people don’t think they’re evil. Even the worst villains rationalize their choices. Corruption isn’t always about greed or malice—it’s often about convenience. It’s easier to go along with the system than to stand against it. It’s easier to help a friend than to do what’s right. And once that first compromise is made, the next one comes easier.
Until one day, you wake up and find yourself as Judge Susan Weaver.
So maybe that’s how it happens. It’s not one big choice, but a series of small ones. A favor here, a shortcut there. A whisper instead of a wager. And before long, you’re not just playing the game—you own the game.
And people like Judge Susan Weaver get to keep playing, while the rest of us pay the price.
Did Judge Susan Weaver Contribute to the Tragic Death of a 30-year-old man, Buddy Lynn? She doesn’t give a sh*t.
Susan Weaver transferred property and wrote that she would do whatever was necessary for the county recorder to carry out her order, before there was a final order in the case of Pietrczak v. Laura Lynn.
She gave the property to a man who used to get high with my son, the deceased, when he was 18.
Other corrupt judicial officers had cut off all communication between me and my son from the time he was 13 until his 18th birthday.
My ex-boyfriend, Mike Pietrczak, was sober for our first year together. I should have dumped his ass when he lost his sobriety, but I took our commitment to be “married in the eyes of God” seriously. Both Pietrczak and my son continued to abuse substances until Pietrczak lost the use of his limbs and my son lost his life. (Pietrczak might still be abusing, but you the taxpayers are paying millions for his prescription drugs and other care for the rest of his miserable life. If he was sober, he would probably abide by the agreement we had to split the property we used my capital and my labor to accumulate.)
I will always wonder if my son would have regained sobriety if he spent time at the property I called PTSD for Peace Tranquility Serenity Divinity that was taken out of the Rural Revival Living Trust.
Susan Weaver knew Mike Pietrczak and his Attorney William Zac White were committing fraud on the court when she transferred the property. Her motivation for making bad calls is the evidence that she hates truth and justice.
If there are “ghosts”, I hope Buddy’s haunts Judge Susan Weaver forever.
A Higher Law 