Appeal
No. 02-16-00165-CV
County
Court Case No. 2015-002259-3
AMANDA LOLLAR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARY CUMMINS,
Defendant
Pro se
|
COUNTY COURT 3
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
|
DEFENDANT’S
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
Defendant, Mary Cummins, files this amended notice of appeal per the
Second Court of Appeal’s June 7, 2016 letter. Defendant, Mary Cummins desires
to appeal from the oral order by the Court on May 17, 2016 to the Second
District Court of Appeals of Texas. The oral order was a denial of the motion
to dismiss. As of today Judge Mike Hrabal who presides over Tarrant County
Court 3 refuses to write, sign, file an order on Motion to Dismiss[1] per Defamation Mitigation
Act, Citizen Participation Act, Forgery, Fraud, Perjury, Lack of Jurisdiction
and Statute of Limitations (Exhibit 1, Docket).
The current case is 2015-002259-3. It was originally filed as
2015-002259-2 until Judge Jennifer Rymell voluntarily recused herself after
hearing the Motion to Dismiss[2] and refusing to rule.
Judge Mike Hrabal was then assigned the case by Judge Evans.
The current case is copy/paste the 352-248169-10 case including claims
which were reversed on appeal. This case was instantly filed after this court
released their opinion in case 12-02-00185-CV April 2015. Randy Turner even included
all of the reversed claims including the breach of contract claim. This was
intentional to try to make the forum be Tarrant County, Texas per the void
contract instead of California court which is the proper jurisdiction and
venue. Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that Defendant allegedly defamed
Plaintiff only while in California. Defendant has never defamed Plaintiff.
In the original case Plaintiffs did not show elements of defamation or
even state which items they felt were defamatory. Second Court of Appeals ruled
that “defamation is assumed.” They also ruled that Defendant should have filed
a rare motion to force Plaintiffs to identify the defamatory items. The alleged
defamatory items were never identified in the trial or appeals court. The word
“defamation” is not in that trial court order. A list of the allegedly
defamatory comments was never made.
The Defamation Mitigation Act and Citizen Participation Act both passed
after Defendant was originally sued because of cases identical to Defendant’s. Plaintiff
now had to specifically identify the alleged defamation, send a cease and
desist letter then send proof that the items are indeed defamatory. Plaintiff
failed to do these things before filing the current case.
Because Defendant never defamed Plaintiff there was no evidence of
defamation. Plaintiff Amanda Lollar and Randy Turner then forged the evidence
in this case. Lollar added defamatory comments within the statute of
limitations period and signed Defendant’s name to the anonymous public posts.
The actual public articles with comments do not have a comment made by anyone
on that date and time. There are no comments by Defendant. All of the exhibits
were forged in the same manner. Here is but one of the forged exhibits. They
were all exactly like this. Amanda Lollar's forged Exhibit 5[3]. The actual Exhibit 5 in
my brief[4]. The actual Exhibit 5
online[5]. This is an Internet
defamation case. The exhibits must be viewed online to compensate for viewer’s
individual browser differences. There is no comment by “Mary Cummins” or anyone
on that date, time. All entries in that website are anonymous.
Plaintiff Amanda Lollar also forged an email from the head of the USDA
clearing her of all wrong doing. In actuality the USDA sent an email stating Lollar
was investigated and found guilty of causing “bats pain, suffering and death”
and Lollar “violated the Animal Welfare Act” (Exhibit 3). The definition of
“animal cruelty” is “pain, suffering and death.” Lollar’s USDA permit was then
cancelled. The forged emails are dated two years after Lollar lost her USDA
permit. There are actually three different versions of the forgery made and
posted by Lollar which Defendant included in the Motion to Dismiss[6]. One forgery was included
in the complaint in this case. Freedom of Information Act responses prove that
no such email exists. The USDA would not clear someone of wrong doing two years
after finding them guilty of wrong doing and cancelling their permit. In this
current case Plaintiff argues that the 2011 email in Exhibit 3 written by Dr
Laurie Gage of the USDA in Colorado is Defendant’s defamation. The claim and
argument is beyond bizarre. Defendant believes Plaintiff’s attorney Randy
Turner is not fit to practice law. Previously Turner filed a motion to strike
his own expert. In the motion Turner viciously trashes his own expert not
realizing it’s his own expert[7]. Defendant told Turner
that it was his own expert. Turner still set the motion for a hearing.
As Plaintiff Lollar and attorney Turner both wrote and signed sworn
affidavits and motions stating the exhibits, USDA email were authentic, they
committed perjury. Randy Turner needs to be disbarred. Both Turner and Lollar
should be charged with forgery, fraud and perjury. Defendant requests that this
court forward this document to authorities and the State Bar so action may be
taken.
In this case not only has Defendant never defamed Plaintiff but
Plaintiff Lollar and her attorney Randy Turner have defamed Defendant. Plaintiff’s
attorney Randy Turner has a 35 pg singled spaced ihatemary page in his business
website[8] independently confirmed by
the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Turner talks about the size of
Defendant’s breasts when she was 11 years old in this site. Turner also falsely
states that Defendant sued her grandmother, the bishop, is wanted by the law,
has committed crimes… all completely false.
Plaintiff Lollar has over 400 blogs devoted to defaming Defendant. Those
blogs also talk about Defendant’s “breasts,” “ass,” “vagina,” “vomit,” “poop”
and include child pornography using Defendant’s face. Here is but one post[9] certified by the Internet
Archive Wayback Machine. Defendant was forced to file police reports with the Fort
Worth Police Department. The FWPD actually identified the child pornography,
not Defendant.
Defendant requests that Justice Bonnie Sudderth not be on the panel for
this appeal. Justice Sudderth was the sitting judge for the previous identical
case and is biased. Justice Sudderth requested two vacations for one specific
injunction hearing and the trial. Both times then Judge Bonnie Sudderth
specifically requested Judge William Brigham to oversee the proceedings. Plaintiff’s
attorney Randy Turner bragged to Defendant in court “I’ve known this judge for
years. He’ll sign anything I put in front of him.” Defendant witnessed Judge
William Brigham sign an order written by Plaintiff’s attorney Randy Turner
without even reading it. Judge William Brigham did sign every order written by
Randy Turner without edits. Randy Turner even sent the final court order to
Judge Brigham’s personal residence. Judge Brigham never even signed an oath of
office after the assignments or before the hearing and trial. The judgment in
the original case is therefore void. Justice Bonnie Sudderth and 84 year old
retired Judge William Brigham clearly “gamed the system”[10] using their positions to
help their friend Randy Turner.
Plaintiff’s attorney Randy Turner also mentions Justice Bonnie Sudderth
personally in Plaintiff’s reply to motion to dismiss. Turner mentions a website
SudderthCoverup[11]
written years before Defendant ever went to Texas and tries to insinuate that
Defendant is involved in the website. That is false. The website most likely
written by one of the prosecuting attorneys also has nothing to do with this
case. The website is about Justice Bonnie Sudderth using her position as Judge
to speak as a character witness for her brother Sky Sudderth in his criminal
case for alleged child rape in 2007.
Defendant requests that the Justices on the panel for appeal of the
identical previous case 12-02-00285-CV[12] i.e. Justice Lee Ann
Dauphinot, Justice Bill Meier, Justice Lee Gabriel, not be on the panel for
this appeal as they are biased.
The Justices took 18 months to write an approximately 80 page opinion
stating that Defendant defamed Plaintiff with malice when Defendant has NEVER
defamed Plaintiff. Plaintiffs in that case NEVER stated what they felt was
allegedly defamatory. Justice Dauphinot stated that indigent out of state pro
se Defendant should have known to write a rare legal demand to request a list
of the defamatory statements. Justice Dauphinot then stated “defamation is
assumed” and “doesn’t have to be proven.” Justice Dauphinot repeatedly
misquoted the record even adding items which were never in any legal filing.
Justice Dauphinot even personally attacked Defendant in the opinion. Justice
Dauphinot mentions the amicus briefs[13],[14] filed by Paul Alan Levy
of Public Citizen who has been a freedom of speech lawyer for over 40 years and
David Casselman of Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary and ElephantsinCrisis.org then Justice
Dauphinot dismissed them. The amicus briefs supported Defendant’s own
arguments.
Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot stated in the opinion in that case that Defendant
did not argue damages in the case. Plaintiff Lollar in the trial admitted
Lollar had no proof of any damages or causation by Defendant. There were no
damages to argue! Pro se defendant was never advised of defendant’s right to
object to the Facts & Findings, Conclusions of Law which were written by
Plaintiff’s attorney Randy Turner and signed by Judge William Brigham unedited.
Not objecting did not mean Defendant agreed with the Facts & Findings,
Conclusion of law. Of course Defendant would never agree to a $6,176,000
judgement when there was not a penny of actual loss or damages, Defendant never
defamed Plaintiff and Defendant is penniless.
After the opinion was released Plaintiff’s attorney Randy Turner
continued to brag about his close relationships with the Judges and Justices in
the case. Randy Turner and his wife Patti Gearhart-Turner have been lawyers in
Fort Worth, Texas for over 30 years. They are on many panels, boards,
committees with these same Judges and Justices in this case and the previous
one. Randy Turner in his business websites brags about his communications with
the Justices.
In the previous case UCLA freedom of speech lawyer professor Eugene
Volokh even wrote an article about the opinion[15] stating the opinion was
clearly in the wrong in regard to protection for media defendants. Defendant
was and still is media. In the previous case Plaintiff Lollar bragged in court
many times that Lollar was a public figure in regard to bats and non-profits. Justice
Dauphinot merely stated Lollar was not a public figure, Defendant is not media so
defamation would not have to be proven. Justice Dauphinot even stated Defendant
never stated Defendant was indigent until after the trial. That is completely
false. For Justice Dauphinot to affirm $3,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$3,000,000 in exemplary damages when there were no damages whatsoever and
Defendant had a negative net worth is beyond surreal. As the claim was
allegedly with malice this is an unjust life long financial death sentence for
Defendant.
In Plaintiff’s reply to motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s attorney Randy
Turner for no reason includes information about Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot’s
son’s criminal record stating it’s not really his criminal record. Defendant
believes Turner did this to further defame Defendant to the Judges and Justices
in this case. Randy Turner has been having ex-parte communications with the
Judges, Justices in this case. For this reason Justice Dauphinot should not be
on the panel in this appeal.
For all these reasons the new case must be dismissed. The older
identical case must also be reversed as Plaintiff’s have unclean hands as they
forged the evidence, committed fraud and perjury. Defendant must appeal the Motion
to Dismiss which was denied by Judge Mike Hrabal in County Court 3. This notice of appeal is filed in County Court 3
and the Second Court of Appeals of Texas. Defendant requests a stay in the case
on appeal.
________________________________
Mary Cummins, Defendant Pro se
[1] Mary Cummins’ Motion to Dismiss per Defamation Mitigation Act, Citizen Participation Act, Forgery, Perjury, Fraud, Lack of Jurisdiction, Statute of Limitations (minus filed exhibits) http://animaladvocates.us/DEFENDANT_motion_dismiss.pdf
[2] Mary Cummins Motion to Dismiss w/o Exhibits http://animaladvocates.us/DEFENDANT_motion_dismiss.pdf
[7] Randy Turner files Motion to Strike his own Expert http://animaladvocates.us/batWorldLawsuit/motion_strike_expert.pdf
[8] Randy Turner’s ihatemary page in his business website http://web.archive.org/web/20141206181833/http:/www.randyturner.com/index.php/randys-cyber-stalker
[9] Amanda Lollar defamatory, bizarre blog post about Defendant http://web.archive.org/web/20150902095338/http://mary-cummins.co/2014/10/28/is-mary-cummins-obsessed-with-pedophilia/
[12] Mary Cummins v Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary 12-02-00285-CV http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=02-12-00285-CV&coa=coa02
[13] Paul Alan Levy, Public Citizen, amicus brief http://www.animaladvocates.us/cummins_amicus_brief.pdf
[14] David Casselman, ElephantsinCrisis.org, Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary http://www.animaladvocates.us/mary_cummins_v_bat_world_sanctuary_amicus_letter.pdf
[15] Eugene Volokh, Washington Post, ‘Nonmedia’ speakers don’t get full First Amendment protection, rules a Texas Court of Appeals panel https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/20/nonmedia-speakers-dont-get-full-first-amendment-protection-rules-the-texas-court-of-appeals/
No comments:
Post a Comment