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.
If Judge Susan Weaver has the Audacity to Run for a Second Term, Vote NO!
Judge Weaver gave my house on 40 acres to a man who put his plan to defraud me with the help of the court in writing. Judge Weaver saw the letter.
Worse, I was dismissed with prejudice, meaning on the merits, and Judge Susan Weaver of Searcy County Arkansas said that my co-defendant, my living trust, lost by default.
One attorney told me Judge Weaver just doesn’t understand subtleties in civil law. But this is not the slightest bit hard to understand.
“Arkansas recognizes the ‘common-defense doctrine,’ which holds that if two are sued jointly, one of whom makes default, and the other appears and interposes a successful defense to the action, there can be no doubt but that the plea of the one appearing, will inure to the benefit of the other, and that he will also be entitled to his discharge, notwithstanding the interlocutory judgment by default.
“The test for determining under the common-defense doctrine if an answer will inure to a co-defendant’s benefit is whether the answer of the non-defaulting defendant states a defense that is common to both defendants, because then a successful plea operates as a discharge to all the defendants, but it is otherwise where the plea goes to the personal discharge of the party interposing it.” – Gunter v. Liberty Bank of Arkansas, 92 Ark. App. 163 (2005)
It is more likely that Judge Weaver has a plan to transfer properties out of little old lady’s trusts and into the pocket of her cronies like attorney William Zac White.
Add into the fact set that the transcripts of two hearings on my case were falsified and Judge Weaver won’t allow the recordings to be played in public. That looks like a cover-up.
The real problem is that the Court of Appeals justices, Judge Billy Roy Wilson and Judge Lee P. Rudofsky have each been informed of my allegations and none have done anything I asked for or anything else I am aware of to correct the injustice.
Susan Weaver is doing a lot of damage during her time on the bench. Her victims should be compensated by the government that failed to make a timely correction. That may never happen. But the citizens of this state are right to think there is no integrity in our judiciary.
My suggestion is to vote the elected judges out of office and make certain that the federal judges are not confirmed for any promotion.
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: The Arkansas Court of Appeal’s Speed of Molasses Deprives Me of Justice
Judge Susan Kaye Weaver gave a property worth over $200,000 from my living trust to an irrevocable trust created by Attorney William White specifically to hold the property on behalf of his client, Mike Pietrczak.
I was named in the same suit, but dismissed with prejudice after William Zac White’s helper gave me the original handwritten, signed letter by his client that admits to committing fraud against me.
I filed two maximum length briefs in the Arkansas Court of Appeals on November 23, 2022, arguing amongst other things the Common Defense Doctrine. One was written as an individual, the other as the sole settlor, trustee and beneficiary of the trust.
The Common Defense Doctrine is precedence that “…one whose liability is dependent on, or derived from, the liability of one who is exonerated in an earlier suit…on the same facts may take advantage of the bar of the prior judgment even though he was not a party to the earlier actions or in privity with the defendant therein. Ted Saum & Company v. Swaffar, 237 Ark. 971, 377 S.W.2d 606 (1964).”
Mr. White did not bother to respond to the brief. Why should he when Susan Weaver seems to be his lap dog?
While waiting for the COA to decide if my unopposed briefs were accurate, my bank account has dwindled to nothing and I am relying on a $600 per month pension, loans and gifts to eat. (I had a writing gig that helped me pay off my loans to zero, but now I am starting to feel the pinch again.)
And really, how long will the $199,000 the fraudsters got for selling the property last? Mike Pietrczak is a lifelong drug addict and alcoholic. The trustee, Walter Pietrczak, is a broke ass loser who was a conspirator in the fraud. Seems like the money will be gone before the justices can finish scratching their heads.
That is why I asked the appellate justices to refer the case to the proper prosecutorial agencies that would handle honest services fraud. Judge Weaver could have used her favorite excuse, (I don’t know nuthin’ about nuthin’), for her absurd orders. But she conspired with Court reporter Jana Perry to falsify what was said in a couple hearings, to try to make her rulings seem legit. Then she lied in a court document by saying she listened to the recordings and the transcripts were accurate.
Incarcerating Susan Weaver will not put food on my table, but it will provide me with a happy ending to the book about Arkansas Injustice that is in my writing queue. The residual income the book generates is not restitution in any way…it is derived from my own labor. There will be some poetic justice though, in that.
A Little Light Reading for Your Sunday Evening
Atheists call it “coincidence” or “kismet”. I call it a God thing.
God is good, all the time.
So, I was pulling up caselaw on Thursday at the Arkansas Supreme Court Library. They let patrons use their Westlaw subscription. There is an email function. This is a pro se litigant’s lifeblood.
Praise break: The staff at the library is great. Especially Ava. She and the rest of the crew go out of their way to help dig for the truth.
The wind finally calmed down this evening and I got a walk in. Then I sat down to read the emails from Thursday.
The first email from Westlaw was a case out of Massachusetts. The case discussed was the end of a line of dicta and persuasive law that I will use in my case against the greedy and obnoxious debt buyer, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
Once you learn the legal shorthand and style preferred by the courts, caselaw is so interesting. I may never read fiction again. (Though I am coming to find that much of what judges write is fiction also. Hint: Judge Susan Kaye Weaver, Judge Billy Roy Wilson, etc.)
I asked a therapist once if she thought I am litigious. She said no. She explained that because I had to protect important rights in court once, I learned about other rights and just try to protect them also. One case teaches me that I have another case.
Thus, I read a case to glean what I can about the Portfolio Recovery dispute, and it is as if this learned judge in Massachusetts is sitting with me, chatting about the Pietrczak and Shelter Insurance cases presided over by Judge Weaver. Here is what Judge Angel Kelley told me: (I did not make this up; her name really is Angel.)
“But Lotus Foods’ interests in this case are ‘aligned closely enough’ to Zhuang’s that the company’s interests elsewhere will be adequately protected by Zhuang’s positions here. Merrill Lynch, 11 F.4th at 17 (‘We have explained that where the interests of an absent party are aligned closely enough with the interests of an existing party, and where the existing party pursues those interests in the course of the litigation, the absent party is not required under Rule 19.’); see Pujol v. Shearson Am. Express, Inc., 877 F.2d 32, 135-36 (1st Cir. 1989) (‘The mere fact … that Party A, in a suit against Party B, intends to introduce evidence that will indicate that a non-party, C, behaved improperly does not, by itself, make C a necessary party.’). Although Zhuang bears the burden to show that Lotus Foods should be joined, he fails to demonstrate why his own defense—ostensibly, that he did not commit fraud, intentionally interfere with New Ming’s business relations, or convert New Ming’s funds—will not protect Lotus Foods’ interests as well. Roy v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 3:17-30116-KAR, 2020WL3799203, at*6-7(D. Mass. July 7,2020) (”'[A]n absent party’s interests cannot be harmed or impaired if they are identical to those of a present party.”‘ (quoting Bacardí, 719 F.3d at 11) (internal alternations omitted)). Presumably, the two would want to prove the same things. None of the cases defendant cites demonstrate that a corporate entity must be joined if one of its officers or directors issued individually for tortious conduct. Cf. Rivera Rojas v. Loewen Group Intern., Inc., 178 F.R.D.356,361-62(D.P.R. 1998) (finding subsidiary necessary party in contract dispute against parent company); Urquhart v. Wertheimer, 646 F. Supp. 2d 210, 213(D.Mass.2009) (finding partnership necessary and indispensable party where (i) plaintiff’s claims were derivative, and (ii) the general partner’s and the partnership’s interests were not aligned). Taking New Ming’s allegations as true, Lotus Foods is not necessary under Rule 19(a), and the court need not address Rule 19(b) at this time.”
Thank you, Judge Kelley. Can I pour you a glass of Moscato or do you prefer a cup of dandelion tea?
Judge Silly Sue Weaver demanded that I join my own living trust, of which I was sole trustee and non-contingent beneficiary, to a case against Shelter Insurance Company and Jeff Jennings Insurance. No attorney would represent the trust, because it would be professional suicide. The trust held no liquid assets, anyhow, so the trust would need to obtain funds for an attorney from me. I named the trust as a defendant, arguing that I paid for the insurance out of my individual funds, and will be harmed by the trust’s inability to retain counsel. I told the court that she was free to name the trust as an involuntary plaintiff.
While on another case Judge Silly Sue said I could not defend myself as an individual during a hearing to determine the amount of default damages awarded against the very same trust. After the kangaroo court hearing Judge Weaver dismissed me as an individual with prejudice. Then she went on to decide I personally did some illegal things. She gave the real property held in trust, my individual rights to use that property and my personal property that was on the real estate to a man who had sued me maliciously, twice, and had the case against me dismissed both times.
The Pietrczak case is on appeal and the Shelter insurance case will certainly need to be appealed, also. Hopefully, someday, an old lady or a modest means family that is fighting to keep the little they have will come across the writings of the Arkansas Court of Appeals on my cases and be able to say, “Praise God”. We can pray.
A Little Light Music for Your Listening Pleasure
When I finally obtain a copy of the audio recordings of the hearings Backwoods Judge Susan Kaye Weaver and side kick Court Reporter Jana Perry fictionalized in the transcripts of the hearings, I hope rap singer “Afroman” will collaborate with me on a song or two that will memorialize the corrupt court’s conduct.
Joseph Edgar Foreman, AKA Afroman, is being sued by some Adams County, Ohio sheriff deputies. Afroman used surveillance video of the sheriffs breaking down his door and searching his home to illustrate two music videos. I chuckled a few times while I watched the videos that already have millions of views on YouTube. Apparently, the police officers found no humor in the videos what-so-ever.
Watch the music videos Lemon Pound Cake and Will You Help Me Repair My Door here and here.
The invasion of privacy lawsuit would be humorous if there was not a good chance that corrupt judges would let it proceed and maybe even let the police officers prevail. That is the direction our legal system has taken. First judges gave themselves absolute judicial immunity from civil lawsuits. It takes an act of God to get the judicial ethics commissions and public integrity unit of the FBI to rein in the corrupt courts. Then just about every public employee, including cops, were extended “quasi-judicial” immunity.
Now these Adams County cops are demanding that video footage of them searching a man’s home and taking about $5,000 of his cash not be played for the public. (There was no illegal substances nor kidnapping victims found on the property, despite the police making claims that resulted in a search warrant.)
Here’s my music video concept. First an intro that says something like “Arkansas Injustice. Arkansas Injustice. Just listen and learn about Arkansas Injustice.”
Then we will use segments of the recording that Judge Weaver does not want the public to hear; but we will change the cadence when repeating certain phrases. “The motion for continuance must be in writing, must be in writing, must be in writing.”
We will use the read-along tool used in children’s videos, with a bouncing ball touching each word of the transcript in order. But the words spoken will not be the same as the written words, because they are not.
Where attorney William Zac White very loudly says “Bitch” and that was not captured on the transcript, the bouncing ball can land on red text alone on the screen that says “BLEEP”.
There will be an animated reenactment of the hearings interspersed with the lyrics. During this animation, the lip movement of the characters will be pronounced but inconsistent with the words spoken. It will be like watching a Japanese Karate movie dubbed poorly in English. The lip movement will be completely out of sync with what was said.
Citizens who have their Constitutional rights violated by rogue government officials usually cannot recover civil damages for the misconduct. Will the courts also try to limit our ability to create art and literature that exposes the bad behavior?
Stink Eye: Should Judge Weaver be allowed to dictate a litigant to keep a good pokerface?
“Lucky” was playing in a poker game with me last night; a 1/2 NLH at the Hard Rock in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Lucky is a tough looking young man, about the same age as my son. He is Hispanic, wears a full beard, dark shades and muff style headphones. He has a take no prisoners style of play.
I was dealt an AQ off-suit, which I consider to be a good playable hand. If I was leading off with the betting, I’d probably raise from the minimum $2 bet to $6. But Lucky got to bet before me. With a dramatic display of calculation, picking out a few chips, then pausing and adding a few more from a different color stack, he announced his bet as $23 dollars and strew the chips across the table with aplomb.
Any bet over $20 pre-flop at this table meant a premium hand (or a bluff). He probably had an AK, KK, or AA and dominated me. So, after glaring at him, I folded.
Lucky took off his headphones and addressed me personally for the first time since I joined the game. Really he was talking about me in the third person to the whole group, but he intended to engage me. I don’t remember his exact words. It was something to the effect of look at the way she stared at me. She was harsh.
The hand played out and Lucky took down a sizable pot when the last remaining caller folded after the river. Lucky showed us his pocket jacks. JJ against AQ is actually a coin toss. There was an Ace on the turn, so if I had not folded, I would have won the hand.
I acted contrary to my own rules and told the players what I folded. We had a good laugh together and I told the men about a comment that Judge Susan Weaver made to me. It was during the hearing where she trampled all over my rights to due process and announced her intention to give my personal property and real estate held in trust to a man who put his intention to defraud me of $75,000 in writing.
Judge Weaver said to stop giving her “stink eye”. At the time she said that, I had a credible fear that the judge also intended to find me in contempt of court and incarcerate me. Her stink eye comment sounded like a set-up to find me in direct contempt.
Judges have gotten away with throwing people in jail for less. They should not. They should not be allowed to tyrannize litigants who are merely expressing disapproval of the judges’ errant denial of civil rights through a non-disruptive facial expression.
It is not as if I called Judge Weaver a bitch. Opposing counsel William White called me “bitch” loudly in court that day and Judge Weaver pretended not to hear it. Judge Weaver’s longtime colleague Court Reporter Jana Perry pretended not to hear it either, when she fabricated what was said in the fictionalized transcript she created.
My look of righteous anger, though, that Judge Weaver found worth noting for the record.
Lucky made me realize just how evil Susan Kaye Weaver was to demand that I hide my dismay with her Draconian commands. Lucky noticed the intense look I gave him, also. And we were playing poker. The whole idea behind poker is to mask your emotions, because showing your emotions conveys information that can help your opponent make educated decisions on future hands. You’re not playing a hand, you’re playing a game.
When the unethical jurist abused her power by forbidding me from defending my own property rights, I was justifiably angry. There is nothing disruptive about me looking at the judge with an angry look on my face. Had she not commented, there would be no record of my disapproval until I filed my appeal.
Judge Susan Weaver wants to bully and bluff and for me to maintain my best poker face. I complied that day in court, for fear of having my 60-year-old body thrown in jail. If I had the energy, I would have protected my Constitutional right to a fair trial from being treated as a game. (Hopefully the Court of Appeals addresses the issue when ruling on my unopposed appellate brief.)
Judges Who Are Dumb Enough to Make Unethical Comments On The Record
There are a few good attorneys. Steve Lehto seems to be one of them.
He discusses crazy court decisions and stories that would be funny if they were not so serious. Click here to watch a video about a judge who made sexist and disturbing comments from the bench and actually was disciplined (lightly).
One of the points Mr. Lehto makes is that the man is too dumb to be a judge if he doesn’t realize there will be a record of his inappropriate comments. I agree.
Now retired and deceased California Commissioner Alan Friedenthal did the same thing while presiding over my case. He said he read my blog and went through a list of what he disagreed about. He eventually was disciplined with a figurative slap on the wrist for what he did to me and many others. Fox News covered the story and featured me in a segment called “Lost in the System: Imbalanced Justice”.
Al should have gone to Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver for advice. When Suzy says things she does not want the public to hear or lets her favored attorneys cuss at old ladies in court, the judge has her old friend and colleague Court Reporter Jana Perry make an inaccurate transcript. Then Judge Weaver refuses to make the actual recording of the hearing available to the public.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals and the Judicial Disciplinary and Disability Commission are aware of my allegations and have not taken any action to correct the wayward judge thus far.
Maybe they figure that Susan Weaver is smart enough to cover-up her bad behavior, so she is smart enough to be a judge.
A Higher Law 