Below is copy/paste of the .doc file of Defendant's objection to temporary injunction. When I copy/paste a doc file here it puts all the foot notes at the end for some reason. At the last second Plaintiff's attorney Randy Turner cancelled the hearing. I'm amazed that Judges do what Randy Turner tells them to do. You know you are incredibly corrupt when you brag about how corrupt you and the Judge are in the court room.
Cause
No. 2015-002259-3
|
AMANDA LOLLAR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARY CUMMINS,
Defendant
Pro se
|
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
|
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF LAW
NUMBER 3
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
|
DEFENDANT’S
AMENDED UNOPPOSED REPLY, OBJECTION TO HEARING ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION, INJUNCTION WHICH WAS NEVER FILED OR SERVED
TO
THE HONORABLE MIKE HRABAL,
COUNTY
COURT AT LAW NO. 3:
Defendant files this objection to the
injunction hearing scheduled for June 10, 2016 then rescheduled to June 14,
2016 without giving up Defendant’s right to appeal the May 17, 2016 Motion to
Dismiss. Defendant hearby gives this court notice that Defendant will appeal
any oral or written order on the motion for temporary injunction. Defendant
denies every claim in Plaintiff’s original complaint. Defendant already filed
notice of appeal of the Motion to Dismiss.
Cummins is a disabled indigent out of
state pro se Defendant. Cummins has already been declared disabled by the
Tarrant County courts. Cummins sent a letter in 2015 to the ADA representative
requesting telephonic appearances. Cummins has been granted telephonic
appearances by the Tarrant County court system. It’s included in the court
file.
Defendant requests that if there is a hearing
on the temporary injunction, Defendant be allowed to appear by phone as
Defendant has in all previous hearings. Defendant filed a Motion for Telephonic
hearing May 24, 2016 which was accepted by the Court.
Defendant filed a notice to the court and
fax to the court June 10, 2016 requesting again the telephonic appearance and
hearing. Defendant did not receive a reply.
Defendant has been declared indigent in
Texas case and appeal 352-248169-10, 02-12-00285-CV[1]. Defendant has been
declared indigent in California in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 by the Courts in
cases with same Plaintiff. Defendant does not have any money to travel to Texas
for a hearing. Defendant is not physically able to travel at all.
Defendant filed an Affidavit of Indigence.
A contest was filed and a hearing was scheduled and rescheduled. Plaintiff did
not request it to be heard by the court before the motion to dismiss.
Defendant’s indigence is therefore affirmed in this case.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant
incorporates everything in Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss in this filing.
May 17, 2016 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
inre Defamation Mitigation Act, Citizen Participation Act, Forgery, Fraud,
Perjury, Lack of Jurisdiction, Statute of Limitations Doc ID#26 was heard.
Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant stated Defendant would
appeal and requested the minutes in the hearing. No court order was signed.
Defendant appealed the motion to dismiss.
A Contest of indigence was supposed to
have been heard on that date but Plaintiff did not request it. Defendant is
therefore indigent in this case as no contest was heard before the motion to
dismiss.
Defendant requested the minutes of the
hearing and the audio recording from Shari Steen court reporter as an indigent.
Steen refused to write or deliver the minutes without payment of $125 made
before the transcription begins. Steen demanded a signed order on Defendant’s
indigence before starting transcription without pay.
Defendant sent a request for signed order
on indigence with a proposed order May 18, 2016 on a fee waiver. The Court
accepted then rejected the filing May 19, 2016 stating the $2 fee was not paid
and would not be waived without the signed order on indigence, Catch 22.
Defendant then tried to pay with one gift card which bounced the $2 fee.
Defendant found another and paid the $2 filing fee.
May 18, 2016 Plaintiff’s attorney Randy
Turner sent a fax giving Defendant notice that a hearing will be held on
temporary injunction. Plaintiff has not filed a motion for temporary injunction
or any evidence per the docket as of June 11, 2016. Plaintiff also included
directions on how to physically be present at the hearing in Texas knowing full
well that this is impossible for Defendant. Defendant is awaiting back surgery
and cannot travel. Plaintiff hopes to win by default as they have no case. DEFENDANT
HAS NEVER DEFAMED PLAINTIFF!
Defendant objects to the injunction
hearing as Plaintiff has not filed a motion for injunction. Defendant can’t
defend herself without the motion and exhibits. Plaintiff must file and serve
the motion with all exhibits at least 21 days before a hearing as per Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure. As Defendant can only appear by phone Defendant must
have all the documents ahead of the hearing. Previously Defendant gave notice
to Plaintiff to be sure to give all exhibits not already filed to be used in
any hearings along with arguments to Defendant a week before any hearing. Plaintiff
has also appeared by phone.
Plaintiff’s attorney Randy Turner has a long
history of abusing judges, courts and gaming the court system. This case is an
exact copy/paste of the previous 2010 case 352-248169-10. Plaintiff even
included the breach of contract claim which was reversed in the appeals court.
In the identical previous case 352-248169-10 Turner came up to Defendant in the
352nd courtroom May 4, 2011 for a hearing on temporary injunction and
stated “I’ve known this judge for years. He’ll sign anything I put in front of
him.” Turner had gamed the system by filing this exact cause with the false
breach of contract clause to get this case in his friend Judge Bonnie
Sudderth’s court. Turner further gamed the system[2]
by having Sudderth request vacation for the exact time of that hearing and the
trial date. Defendant did not even know there was a different judge that day.
The court gave no notice. Plaintiff did not even file or give Defendant a copy
of the motion, exhibits or proposed order before the hearing.
Defendant viewed the exhibits in court and
stated Defendant did not write or post the items. There was no proof provided
to show that Defendant wrote or posted the items or controlled the websites.
Defendant had not even seen those websites before the hearing.
Plaintiff did not show any of the elements
of defamation at the hearing. Plaintiff did not prove that (1) Defendant wrote,
posted the statements of fact in question, (2) the statements were false and
defamatory, (3) the statements were about Plaintiff, (4) the statements were
made without privilege, (5) Defendant acted negligently writing, posting the
statements or (6) physical evidence showing that Plaintiff was and will
continue to be damaged by the statements. Nonetheless Judge William Brigham a
visiting, retired Judge signed the six page single spaced court order written
by Randy Turner without even reading it directly in front of Defendant. That
order contained prior restraint which is unconstitutional. It was void as a
bond was not posted. It was void as Defendant did not post the items. Defendant
still obeyed the court order as best as possible.
The order stated Defendant must remove the
websites, posts, comments made by known and unknown third parties on websites
Defendant had not even seen and did not control. Some sites were in Chinese
which Defendant does not read or write. Some of the items were written by
Plaintiff, written by known others, written by unknown others, made by robots,
were copies of Defendant’s fair and privileged reports to authorities, were
legal documents with litigation privilege or were privileged videos, photos
taken with written and oral permission by Plaintiff.
After the hearing Plaintiff’s attorney
Turner ran after Defendant, cornered her and waved the court order in
Defendant’s face while angrily stating paraphrased “You better remove all these
links or I’ll find you in contempt, sanction you and throw you in jail!!!!”
Defendant replied “I don’t control those websites. I didn’t write or post all
those links. I can’t remove other people’s websites.” Turner replied “then
you’re going to jail, jail!!!!”
Plaintiff is again trying to abuse the
court and judge to get the same unjust temporary injunction over Defendant. The
Appeals court ruled the previous court order was void and unconstitutional. Any
proposed order would include unconstitutional prior restraint as Turner even
included it in the final court order after specifically stating he could not
and would not. Both the temporary and final orders were reversed as they were
unconstitutional.
Plaintiff’s attorney Randy Turner took the
previous temporary injunction and sent it to third parties demanding they
remove the items written by people other than Defendant on sites not controlled
by Defendant. ACLU-NC replied to one take down request by stating they do not
have to legally remove the items (Letter from ACLU attorney to Randy Turner)[3].
The court order is not against ACLU-NC or IndybayMedia. They did not remove the
item.
Randy Turner then illegally threatened to
sue Google if they did not remove the items from search engine results. Google
removed the items from search engine results. They can only be found using any
search engine except Google.
Defendant removed everything in the court
order even though Defendant knew it was void, unconstitutional and nothing was
defamatory. Defendant did not replace the items ever.
Even after the Appeals Court reversed the
order, Randy Turner took the void order and threatened to sue Google again if
they did not remove all of Defendant’s blogs which did not even include the
name of Plaintiff. Google removed the blogs. Defendant sent the opinion to
Google who then stated they would not remove the blogs again but were unable to
return the blogs. The blogs were eight years old and contained 1,100 articles and
none were about Plaintiff. They were educational or research articles besides
obituaries of people. Defendant did not have a copy of the blogs never thinking
blogs about wildlife and obituaries would ever be removed. Randy Turner
demanded them removed for harassment purposes only.
The purpose of the last and this
injunction is not to remove “defamation” as there is none. It is to remove
criminal evidence of Plaintiff’s commission of animal cruelty, animal abuse,
animal neglect, violations of the Animal Welfare Act, Texas Health Dept
regulations, Texas Parks & Wildlife, donor fraud, tax fraud and now
forgery, fraud and perjury. Randy Turner also used the void court order to
remove negative items written about himself by unrelated journalists and writers.
Randy Turner’s other purpose for the
injunction is to harass and harm Defendant as much as possible psychologically
and financially. Randy Turner ordered Google to remove a press release about
Defendant’s appeal[4]
from search engine results. That was not in any court order yet Randy Turner
threatened to sue Google if they did not remove it. You can only find it now
using Yahoo. That means $300 was wasted on the press release which no one can
find.
Randy Turner then took the
unconstitutional and void court order and demanded that Google remove parts of Defendant’s
business and ex-non-profit websites from search engine results. Entire
directories are now excluded. Defendant is positive that Randy Turner will
again abuse the court system to get a void and unconstitutional injunction with
prior restraint to continue to harm Defendant and others.
In this case the court NEVER stated which
items were defamatory. The opinion stated that Defendant should have requested
a list of the alleged defamatory items and didn’t. There was never a specific
list of items which were declared by the court as defamatory. It is not in the
trial court order. The word defamation is not even in the order. Plaintiffs
never stated at trial what they felt was defamatory. The final trial court
order was just a take down order. It included items written by Plaintiff,
government agencies, not about Plaintiff, made by others….
As no specific items have been declared
defamatory by the court, no injunction on any items can be made as they have
not been declared defamatory by the court.
Defendant objects to the hearing, the
unseen motion for injunction and any order on motion for temporary injunction.
Defendant knows Defendant has never defamed Plaintiff. Every item Defendant did
post is 100% the truth backed up by government documents, photos, videos,
witness statements and physical evidence. Defendant requests a continuation of
the hearing so Defendant can read the motion and investigate the exhibits. If
the hearing is not continued and Defendant is not allowed to appear by phone,
Defendant requests that Defendant can appear by this brief.
ARGUMENT
Defendant objects to any court order as to items which do not show ALL
of the elements of defamation against Defendant. Plaintiff must prove with
independent third party evidence that Defendant wrote, posted the items on
sites controlled by Defendant. Defendant objects to the removal of the 2011
USDA email written by Dr Laurie Gage in Colorado stating Plaintiff Lollar caused
bats “pain, suffering and death,” “violated the Animal Welfare Act.” Plaintiff
must prove the items are false and defamatory. Defendant objects to the removal
of deposition transcript in which Plaintiff Lollar admits she is uneducated. Plaintiff
must prove the items are about Plaintiff Lollar and no other. Bat World
Sanctuary is not a Plaintiff in this case. Items about Bat World Sanctuary,
other members of Bat World Sanctuary, items about Plaintiff’s attorney Randy
Turner can’t be included in an injunction.
Defendant objects to any order which does
not specifically identify the alleged defamatory items by specific words and
links. The order cannot be to remove all of Defendant’s blogs, websites and
pages. That would cause great damage to Defendant. Plaintiff Amanda Lollar is
not mentioned in any blog or Facebook page written or controlled by Defendant.
Defendant has not updated the litigation webpage since April 2013. The items
removed by the court order were never replaced. The entire directory is still
excluded by Google search engine.
Defendant objects to any item not first
written or posted within the one year statute of limitations for defamation in
Texas or which are identical to items which are not within the statute of
limitations. That would be items written, posted within one year of the April
2015 filing of this case i.e. April 2014. Items written or posted before April
2014 cannot be included in any injunction as they can never be defamation due
to statute of limitations. Most of the government complaints Defendant posted
about Plaintiff are over 15-20 years old.
Defendant objects to any court order
demanding the removal of privileged photos or videos taken with oral and
written consent by Plaintiff. This includes the video of Plaintiff trying to
perform an episiotomy on a bat and holding a rabid bat in Plaintiff’s bare
hand. In trial Plaintiff stated that no video or photos were defamatory.
Defendant objects to any order which would
include the removal of legal filings, documents, items from the filings in this
case. They are protected by litigation privilege and can never be defamation.
The legal filings are also footnoted in Defendant’s appeals and motions. Links
in Defendant’s legal filings are included as part of litigation privilege as
they are included in the legal filings.
Defendant objects to any order which would
include the removal of Defendant’s fair and privileged reports to authorities
or items from those reports. Privileged reports to authorities can never be
defamation. Plaintiff’s attorney Randy Turner admitted this in trial.
Defendant objects to any order with prior
restraint as it is unconstitutional. The Second Court of Appeals stated that
prior restraint in the court order was unconstitutional. Plaintiff’s attorney
Randy Turner admitted that prior restraint was unconstitutional and could not
be included in the order during closing arguments of the trial. Randy Turner
still included prior restraint in the court order he wrote and sent to the Judge.
Defendant objects to any court order
against third parties. Defendant Cummins is the only Defendant in this case.
There are no John Does or other Defendants. The court order cannot be against
Google, Blogger, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter or anyone other than Defendant.
Defendant demands that Plaintiff must show
actual independent third party proof that Plaintiff will be damaged if the
items are not removed.
Defendant demands that a $100,000 bond be
posted to cover damages caused by removal of items in any court order. A bond
is mandatory in temporary injunctions.
PRAYER
Defendant asks the court to deny the
injunction hearing and deny the injunction. In the alternative Defendant
requests to receive the motion for temporary injunction and all evidence to be
presented at the hearing at least 21 days before the hearing as per Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure. If Defendant is not allowed to view the documents before
the hearing, Defendant requests a 28 day continuance. If a continuance is not
given, Defendant requests to appear telephonically and by brief. In the
alternative Defendant requests to appear by this brief.
Respectfully
submitted,
Mary
Cummins, Defendant Pro se
645 W
9th St, #110-140
Los
Angeles, CA 90015-1640
Phone
310-877-4770
Email:
mmmaryinla@aol.com
Date
June 11, 2016
By:
________________________________
Mary
Cummins, Defendant Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
May 18, 2016 I filed a notice via eFileTexas.gov served
on Randy Turner stating I object to the hearing on motion for temporary
injunction as it was never filed. I received no reply or opposition.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary
Cummins, hereby certify that a TRUE COPY of the above DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED
OBJECTION TO HEARING ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WHICH WAS NEVER FILED
OR SERVED
was
served on the Plaintiffs’ Attorney of record by efiletexas.gov at
Randy
Turner
Law
Offices of Randall E. Turner, PLLC
4255 Bryant Irvin Rd. Suite 210
Fort Worth, TX 76109
Tel.: 817-420-9690
Fax: 817-887-5717
4255 Bryant Irvin Rd. Suite 210
Fort Worth, TX 76109
Tel.: 817-420-9690
Fax: 817-887-5717
randy@randyturner.com
this 11th
day of June 2016
________________________________
Mary
Cummins, Defendant Pro se
645 W 9th St, #110-140
Los
Angeles, CA 90015-1640
Phone
310-877-4770
Email: mmmaryinla@aol.com
-
DECLARATION OF
DEFENDANT MARY CUMMINS
I, MARY CUMMINS, declare as
follows:
I am Mary Cummins Plaintiff
in pro per. I make this declaration on
my personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.
This reply was written by me,
Mary Cummins, a pro se who is not an attorney.
Every statement in the motion is the absolute truth to the best of my
knowledge and can be verified with physical exhibits and evidence.
1.
Attached to DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO
INJUNCTION as Exhibits are true and correct copies of originals.
2.
Every footnote in this brief links
to the actual document listed in the brief. The linked files are included in
this reply.
3.
I suffered an injury at BWS in
Texas. I herniated, ruptured a disc in my back. I cannot travel, sit or stand
for more than a very few minutes at a time. I am awaiting surgery.
4.
I am indigent, do not have a job,
don’t own a home or car, have no assets, no bank accounts or income. I will
have to proceed as indigent in this case.
5.
I receive state aid for free medical
insurance Medi-Cal.
6.
I didn’t have money to get this
notarized. I can’t get to a notary even if I had money.
I, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California and Texas that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 11, 2016 at Los Angeles,
California.
By: MARY CUMMINS
[1] Amanda Lollar, Bat World
Sanctuary vs Mary Cummins – Appeal Second Court of Appeals http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=02-12-00285-CV&coa=coa02
[2] How Texas Lawyers Game the
Legal System http://web.archive.org/web/20110110030653/http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu2_4.htm
[3] ACLU tells Randy Turner
they will not remove the items. https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/asset_upload_file985_9987.pdf
Mary Cummins vs Amanda Lollar, Mary Cummins, Amanda Lollar, Bat World, Bat World Sanctuary, Randy Turner, Randall Turner, Randall E Turner, Randall Eugene Turner, attorney, lawyer, fort worth, texas, tarrant county, second court of appeals, 352-248169-10, 352nd District Court, Judge Bonnie Sudderth, Justice Bonnie Sudderth, Judge William Brigham, Justice William Brigham, 2015-002259-2, 2015-002259-3, 02-12-00285-CV, 02-16-00165-CV, county court 3, Judge Mike Hrabal, Mike Hrabal, Judge Jennifer Rymell, Jennifer Rymell, defamation, libel, slander, breach of contract, forgery, fraud, perjury, disbar, unethical, unprofessional, inappropriate
No comments:
Post a Comment