Our Lawsuit - Chronology of Events
(Again, I've made updates in 2015.)
If you haven't read any of the details regarding this lawsuit, you may want to
click on US Legal System and read what
led up to this before continuing here.
And by the way - my husband and I are not mean spirited, litigiously minded people. Although we have legitimate causes of action against the doctor, we probably would not have sued him. But now that Dr. Nichols has initiated a harassment lawsuit against us, we intend to have our day in court with several legitimate counter claims against him. (How naive we were.)
In giving the highlights of the chronology below, I will include links to some of the actual documents.
In reporting this chronology, I won't post some of the details until "after the fact," because in the event that opposing counsel reads my web pages, I don't want to alert him to any mistakes we might make in procedure (that he doesn't discover on his own); and most important, I don't want to alert him to mistakes he makes. I will note in red text the information that I have come back and entered after the fact.
July 31, 2002 - a process server knocked on our door at about 9:00 p.m. to serve notice that we are being sued. Read the plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED PETITION to see his charges. (Sorry, I no longer have this file, but later you'll see other filings with the legaleze gobble-de-gook.) (The First Amended Petition is almost identical to the original petition, except in the amended petition not only is Dr. Nichols suing us personally, he has added his corporation as a plaintiff. "They" are suing us for $491,238.00.)
After the original petition was served on us, we had to file an answer by the Monday following 20 days after service. If we didn't file an answer, we would lose by default. (The outcome ended up to be the same, but I'm grateful for the experience. It gave us an education of how the "justice system" in the US really works.)
At first we engaged an attorney, John Knobelsdorf. He filed a "general denial," which basically says "we deny everything" without going into details. (It's a basic answer, so I'm not going to post it here. ) (Instead, Mr. Knobelsdorf should have filed a "demurrer" stating that the allegations in the lawsuit were not legally sufficient for the plaintiff to sue us.)
My husband and I live in a different county than the plaintiff so, as John told us, we could have requested a change of venue. We chose not to, because it would take our Harris County attorney just as long to get to the courthouse in Brazoria County as it would the doctor's Harris County attorney--about an hour each way. (Time is money when you're dealing with a lawyer!)
After we decided to go pro se, we thought about asking for a change of venue--but then learned that the request has to be made in the original answer or not at all. Actually, I believe it turned out for the best anyway. The Harris County law library is right next door to the courthouse.
Right in the beginning, John suggested to the plaintiffs' attorney, Robert J. Killeen, Jr., that we find a way to settle this out of court. He alluded to the possibility that I might consider removing Dr. Nichols' name from my article on my web site. Mr. Killeen never responded to our lawyer's request. As we would soon learn, this was the first of many times that Mr. Killeen would be uncommunicative and uncooperative. And I think it's a safe assumption that Killeen and Nichols knew each other before the inception of this lawsuit, because their arrogant attitudes appear to be identical.
October 3, 2002 - Plaintiff's attorney served to our lawyer the "Plaintiffs' Request for Disclosure, Admission, and Production." They basically ask for evidence they may be able to use against us. The questions must be answered truthfully. (Ha, ha! They never were answered truthfully by Nichols, plus many of the documents we demanded were never produced--which is illegal.) We had 30 days to provide the answers/documents requested.
October 22, 2002 - We decided to go "pro se" and our lawyer submitted a motion to the court to withdraw as our counsel. Mr. Knobelsdorf wrote Mr. Killeen, explained the situation, and requested a short extension of time for us to furnish all our discovery. Mr. Killeen again completely ignored Mr. Knobelsdorf and refused to even respond to him. Second count of refusal to respond.
November 3, 2002 - I read that if the Admissions are not returned in time, the party automatically is deemed to "admit" all the questions. I sent our "Admissions" to Mr. Killeen by the due date and told him the other documents would be forthcoming shortly. In my fax to him, I suggested that we all consider mediation or arbitration to avoid the expense of a lawsuit and to avoid burdening the courts. Mr. Killeen never replied to me, one way or the other. Third count of refusal to respond.
November 22, 2002 - I sent the rest of the discovery to Mr. Killeen that he had requested of us; and I sent our own requests for Admissions, Discovery, and Production to be answered by the plaintiffs. These were due on December 26th. I marked it on my calendar. (For notice periods, add three extra days when sending the notice by mail or fax.)
December 16, 2002 - I filed our FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND ORIGINAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES with the court.
We have to send a copy of everything that we file with the court to opposing counsel. Accordingly, right after I filed it with the court, I faxed a copy of our First Amended Answer and Original Affirmative Defenses to Mr. Killeen. Within an hour, he faxed notice that he had scheduled depositions for my husband and me on December 24th. The depositions would be videotaped.
By custom and agreement, attorneys confer to arrange depositions at a time that is convenient for all parties. Mr. Killeen, without ever speaking to us and with only eight days' notice, arbitrarily scheduled our depositions for December 24th--a holiday. (According to the rules, besides being cooperative, attorneys also are to refrain from tactics of harassment.) (Yeah, right!)
I looked in my Texas Rules of Court, and I also did some research at the library. I saw that within 3 days of receiving notice, I could file an objection to the time and/or place of the depositions. But first, the rules say, I needed to contact Mr. Killeen and ask him to cooperate in scheduling a more convenient time. I faxed Mr. Killeen, and he still did not extend the courtesy of a reply. Fourth count of refusal to respond.
In my research, I read that when filing an objection to the time and place of depositions, you should include in the motion a time and place that is convenient. But I also read that if a Request for Summary Judgment was pending, I could ask the court to postpone our depositions until after the Summary Judgment motion was ruled on.
So, I began work to prepare a motion for Summary Judgment. I worked on it for about 13 hours, all night long, since I was on a deadline. As a pro se who has never done this before, it takes me longer because I have to research as I go along, even as to form. Lawyers already have the "boilerplate" on their computers.
I finished my motion about 8:30 a.m. on 12/19 (which was the third day after notice of the depositions) and I took it to the court to file. A Motion for Summary Judgment requires a 21-day notice to the other side, so my motion was scheduled to be submitted to the judge on January 13th. (I also included a Motion for Sanctions against the plaintiffs and the attorney.)
Then as soon as I got back home, I started work on our motion to delay depositions until after the Motion for Summary Judgment is decided. I filed it later the same day. Filing the motion "stays" the deposition until the judge decides the motion to delay depositions on 12/30. Per the rules, I faxed Mr. Killeen a copy of my motions. Woops! I checked at the courthouse to make sure my motion was on the docket. I was told that unless I also file a "Notice of Submission" with the motion, the motion won't be placed on the docket. "What's a 'notice of submission?' I asked. "We can't tell you" was the reply. (But they readily answer questions by attorneys.) The court's local rules don't mention the necessity of a "Notice of Submission." I scrambled and searched until I found out, and then filed the required "Notices of Submission.
Then, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I faxed Mr. Killeen and told him that my husband and I would not be attending depositions on December 24th. I also quoted some rules to him from "Guidelines for Professional Conduct" (for lawyers) regarding a lawyer's duty of courtesy and cooperation, etc. (Despite all this notice to him, we saw in our file that on 1/16/03, he filed a "Notice of Non-Appearance" with the court, saying that we didn't show up for depositions. (Typical of the jerk.)
December 26, 2002 - we were gone over Christmas and the Discovery we had requested from the plaintiffs was waiting for us in the mail. Some of it anyway but not nearly all. I had asked as part of the "production" that the doctor furnish his tax returns and various financial information for both him and his corporation because both are suing us. Since he is claiming that we damaged him financially by my web site, my request is a valid one. He refused to provide the financial information, claiming "harassment, invasion of privacy, etc., etc." - Killeen's normal attempt at obfuscation with a whole bunch of boilerplate language.
I had also asked for information that would enable us to contact "Christina," who was Dr. Nichols' secretary at the time I was trying to get him to clarify his medical records (March 2002). I don't know Christina's last name, and she will be a valuable witness for us. He refused to furnish that information as well.
I faxed Mr. Killeen and asked him to contact me. I explained why I had a valid right to the information requested. I said that if I didn't hear from him by the end of the day with his commitment of when he would furnish the information, I would have no choice but to file a Motion to Compel him to furnish it. I bet you can guess by now--I never heard from him. Fifth count of refusal to respond. (These are the times as of December that Mr. Killeen has refused to respond to communications by us. I will stop giving the count here, because there are many attempts at communications with him that I have not discussed on these pages. At the time I am coming back to note this (on 2/2/03), thus far there he has refused to respond at least 12 times. Let's put it this way--any time we have asked him for a response, he has ignored us.)
So I did file the Motion to Compel, and included another Motion for Sanctions. (Mr. Killeen later claimed that my fax was not an "attempt at conference" which is required prior to filing most motions. Still another in many attempts at obfuscation. There's no way we can have a "conference" when he never responds to any of my communications.) (And ALL of my valid Motions for Sanctions during this process were either denied or ignored by the judges.)
Judges don't like to deal with a bunch of motions, and I don't blame them. But when you have an opposing attorney who is uncooperative and uncommunicative, you have no other choice.
12/30/02 - I filed a supplement to our request for Summary Judgment and included the fact that while we have not been deposed, we have already furnished extensive Discovery to counsel for plaintiffs. I also filed amended responses to some of our responses to discovery requests because we just found some errors we made.
01/06/03 - My Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions were taken for submission today. Judge McCorkle signed my Motion to Compel Discovery, so that means Dr. Nichols will have to produce his tax returns and financial information to us, and also give us the information that will enable us to locate his former secretary, "Christina." (Update in 2015: Killeen NEVER DID produce the items the judge demanded him to produce, and Judge McCorkle did nothing about it. Later, Judge Katie Kennedy countermanded Judge McCorkle's ruling and ruled Nichols DID NOT have to produce the financial information.) Again, the corruption and illegality in the court system.) The judge denied my Motion for Sanctions, despite all the rules Killeen and crew had broken.
01/07/03 - Via certified mail, we received Mr. Killeen's response to our Motion for Summary Judgment. It was mostly a lot of vague rambling that again attempts to obfuscate the fact that they don't have a valid cause.
Mr. Killeen had sent his response via messenger to the courthouse on 1/6/03 and mailed the copy to me the same day. I got busy and prepared a Response to his Response, which I had to file 3 days before the hearing. I took it to the courthouse on Friday 1/10/03.
01/14/03 - I filed our COUNTERCLAIMS. All this time, the "other side" apparently thought they could bluster and bully and merely be concerned with their frivolous claims against us. As I said earlier, since Dr. Nichols originated this lawsuit, my husband and I intend to have our day in court concerning our legitimate claims against him, claims that we can prove. (Haha. Naive us. As you'll read later, Judge Katie Kennedy would not have allowed us to present ANYTHING in court that would have proven Nichols had no case.)
01/16/03 - The opposition was supposed to furnish tax returns and the information about "Christina" today. They didn't. (They were then in contempt of court.) Also, today we received in the mail notice that the judge denied our Motion for Summary Judgment. That's okay. Preparing it was good practice. And I would have been disappointed to have a Summary Judgment in our favor before I had the opportunity to file our counterclaims. (So I wrote back then! Naive me!)
1/15/03 - Mr. Killeen filed a Motion to Reconsider the judge's order to compel Dr. Nichols to furnish tax returns and information about "Christina." (Remember, as of 1/07/03, they were in contempt of court for refusing to furnish those records to us. (Did Judge McCorkle do anything about their contempt of court? Of course not.) They charge us with "business disparagement" due to our alleged "libel" and "slander," but don't want to give us any proof that the doctor has lost any business, never mind from what cause. They call our request for tax returns to be "harassing, annoying, and an invasion of privacy." And claim that our request for information about "Christina" is a "fishing expedition" and would "cause them to create a document." Not only do they violate the purpose and intent of the law, they violate case law and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure by refusing to provide Discovery that is rightfully due us.
1/17/03 - I filed a MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. I've posted it here without the attachments. In III, Pertinent Facts, I listed 12 instances for which Robert J. Killeen, Jr. should be sanctioned. (Did he ever even get a slap on the wrist? Of course not.) I don't see how anyone could fail to recognize the harassing and dilatory behavior directed against us from the beginning. I filed this Motion with the hope that the judge will take some action against them. Judge McCorkle will decide this issue on 1/27/03. (It turned out that he didn't; he just ignored our Motion, which is illegal.)
1/21/03 - I filed our RESPONSE to their Motion for the judge to reconsider his order for them to furnish tax returns and information about Christina. Judge McCorkle will decide this issue on 1/27/03. (He was supposed to, that is.)
1/24/03 - I filed a motion for SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. This motion asks the judge to order them to replead and correct their errors and multiple obscurities. For one thing, the doctor's "Professional Association," in addition to him personally, is suing us. But they listed the corporation as "Mark Lynn Nichols, M.D., P.A." I checked with the State of Texas, and it's actually "Mark L. Nichols, M.D., P.A." Not a big difference, but there is a legal distinction. One is a legal entity, the other is not. ((Just another instance of stupidity on the part of Killeen and Nichols. I should not have brought this to their attention; then a non-existent entity would have been suing us.) Basically, I asked that their entire complaint be repleaded with more particularity, because the original pleading doesn't give any specifics, just obscure generalities about what we are alleged to have done to "damage" Dr. Nichols, and general obscurities about the alleged "damage" itself. This issue will be decided by Judge McCorkle on 2/3/03.
1/24/03 - I filed another motion to COMPEL DISCOVERY. This time to ask for more information rightfully due us that the opposition has been stonewalling on. They are deliberately trying to delay and delay, so that we will run out of time for the discovery period without getting the information they are lawfully required to furnish us in order to defend ourselves. This issue will be decided by Judge McCorkle on 2/3/03. (I then filed an AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, which includes even more details in a concise manner.)
1/27/03, afternoon - In looking at our file at the courthouse, I discovered that Judge McCorkle hasn't signed anything regarding our Motions to Compel Discovery OR our Motion for Sanctions. Turned out that Judge McCorkle ignored both of them, despite Killeen having been in contempt of court since 1/7/03 for failure to provide tax returns, etc. (It turned out that Judge McCorkle did not even RULE on our Motions; he just ignored them, which is illegal.)
1/29/03 - Mr. Killeen finally sent an amended response to our discovery questions and included what is supposedly "Christina's" last name, address, and phone number. (But no tax returns of Nichols.) The address and phone number are inaccurate, and at this point we have valid reason to suspect that the last name given us, "Medina," is inaccurate as well. They are really afraid of us being able to talk to "Christina" and are determined to keep the information from us.
1/30/03 - My husband and I went for depositions today.
Note about our courtesy to the team of lawyers: We had discussed this date for depositions with one of the team of lawyers on the opposing side, but they had neglected to send us formal notice. One of the lawyers called us yesterday, saying "there was some confusion in the office about whether they had noticed us." I told him they had not, but because we behave with integrity, we would be at their office as previously discussed. He very quickly faxed us notice. A notice on January 29th for depositions to take place on January 30th would in no way be considered "ample" notice. If we had been playing the same of kind of harassment game as the other side, we had every right to fail to show up.
We had never been deposed and didn't know what to expect. My husband was to be questioned first. The court reporter and videographer were set up. A guy breezed into the room and started, not at all politely, to question Harry, without bothering to say "good morning" or even to introduce himself. I assume that was part of his "intimidation tactics." (I later asked someone who this guy was, and I was told he was Mr. Killeen.) Right in the beginning, he asked Harry his social security number and driver's license number.
After Mr. Killeen finished with Harry, he breezed out of the conference room without saying a word - and left us sitting there for an hour. More intimidation tactics by wasting our time that way?
Mr. Killeen also brought out in deposition--and actually entered as exhibits!--privileged documents regarding Harry's medical record that he is not supposed to have in his possession! (This was against the law!) I am going to file a complaint with the Bar about this and all his other unprofessional actions so far. (We learned that filing a complaint with the Bar accomplishes nothing except lost time--ours. The Bar does not exist to protect the consumer. They exist to circle the wagons and protect their own.)
1/30/03 - afternoon. I faxed Mr. Killeen notice that we have set deposition for Dr. Nichols on 2/7/03. I had asked Mr. Killeen three separate times to give us dates that would be convenient for Dr. Nichols. He didn't respond to my first two communications, and his response to the third said, in essence, "we'll get back to you." I had no choice but to go ahead and set the date.
1/31/03 - Friday, late afternoon. We were out but we received a call at 3:22 p.m. from still another of the team of lawyers telling us they were going to file a Motion to Quash the deposition. Surprise, surprise. (Still more tactics of harassment.)
I had called the court coordinator earlier in the week, said that at this point we absolutely require an oral hearing, and suggested it might be done in conjunction with our pre-trial hearing set for February 10th. Otherwise, I told her, and asked her to make a note of the fact, that Monday, February 3rd, is the only day that we absolutely could not be available. (Of course the court coordinator ignored the fact that we would not be available on that date.)
So of course, on 1/31, Friday, a message from the court coordinator came in at 5:47 p.m., saying Judge McCorkle wants to see all of us at 3:30 p.m. on February 3rd.
2/02/03 - I faxed a letter of Complaint to the Bar about Mr. Killeen. (Received a reply on 2/11/03. According to the Bar, the numerous counts of violation of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that I cited "does not allege professional misconduct as defined by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct." (Yes, those violations ARE "professional misconduct.") The letter didn't surprise me.)
02/03/02 - We went to the court first thing this morning and said we could probably be available at 4:30 instead of 3:30. We didn't quite get finished with our previous appointment and even though we rushed like heck, we were 15 minutes late, arriving at 4:45.
The hearing was held by Judge Kennedy instead of Judge McCorkle. (Well, well--no surprise that Judge McCorkle decided to distance himself from this mess.) We had a Motion for Special Exceptions that was supposed to be on the docket today for submission today as well as our Motion to Compel Discovery, but it was not. (No surprise there.) Regarding discovery, Judge Kennedy told Mr. Killeen that the doctor has to provide "some sort of financial information" to prove he has been "damaged," but that he didn't have to produce tax returns. (This was contrary to what Judge McCorkle had already ruled.) Killeen very somberly asked the judge for a "protective order" regarding the doctor's financial information, implying that otherwise we would release it. We have a pre-trial conference with Judge Kennedy next Monday, and she also ordered Killeen by that time to have a date before March 1st that we can depose the doctor. (Our formal notice to depose Dr. Nichols on February 2nd was ignored, and nothing was done about it.) Judge Kennedy will also hear our Special Exceptions next Monday.
Mr. Killeen tries to act very exasperated, alleging that we are so tiresome because we are "pro se" and intimating that we don't follow the rules of Civil Procedure. To the contrary. We follow every Rule of Civil Procedure, even though he refuses to. We behave with courtesy and cooperation toward him, even though he continually refuses to respond to our valid requests and continually violates the rules of ethics for lawyers. I compiled a CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD that documents requests we made to him and his refusal even to respond. (They were purposefully rude and uncooperative with the goal of causing more work and frustration for us.)
2/07/03 - They faxed notice of Plaintiffs' Designation of Experts (witnesses). Expert witness are supposed to be designated 90 days before end of discovery period. Discovery ends on 3/17. Therefore, I filed a motion objecting to the expert witnesses. This will be taken for submission on 3/03. (See HERE to learn what "expert witnesses really are.)
A "Motion for Submission" is one the judge rules on without any of the parties being present for a hearing. Motions take a long time to be ruled on. This time period varies according to "local rules" of individual courts. In the 133rd Judicial District, Monday is the only day these are ruled on. The motion must be submitted 10 days before the Monday it will be considered. Therefore, if you file a motion on a Monday, it will be 14 days before it comes before the court. Oral hearings take even longer to schedule.
2/10/03 - Judge Kennedy heard our Motion for Sanctions - denied. (No surprise there; lawyers get away with anything and everything.) She ruled on our Special Exceptions and ordered them to replead their case giving specific details of what they allege we did. (Judge McCorkel was supposed to rule on these two motions on 1/27/03. We later discovered that McCorkle has aspirations for the Supreme Court and decided to distance himself from this can of worms caused by Robert J. Killeen, Jr.)
Judge Kennedy said she would be in the court on 2/12/03 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. If we wanted to finish depositions in the court on that date, she would be available to rule on objections. (What seemed like a helpful gesture on her part turned out to be just another way to demonstrate her bias against us.)
2/12/03 - We arrived early for our 3:00 p.m. depositions. Mr. Killeen was late and kept everyone waiting. Then he continued to depose Harry first. At one point, we called the judge into the room to rule on an objection. Upon discovering that I had been "defending" Harry's deposition (objecting when Mr. Killeen asked him an improper question), she told me I couldn't do that. Because I'm not an attorney.
2/20/03 - We picked up the financial records they provided, presumably to prove loss. It's hard to believe it took since November 22, 2002 to produce such useless "records."
2/25/03 - They filed an amended petition with the amount of damages Dr. Nichols is claiming. He claims that we caused him to lose $95,619.00. This loss was alleged to have occurred in the first month (and only that month) after my web page started that mentions the doctor's name. To that figure he is adding triple damages of $286,858.00, for a grand total of $382,477.00. However, Dr. Nichols still refuses to produce any documents that provide any proof of loss from ANY cause. Indeed, we got an affidavit from our CPA that states the "financial records" provided us by Dr. Nichols don't even hint at a loss, much less prove a loss. (See the letter from our CPA HERE which says that what they produced proved nothing.)
Several professionals who have heard the details of this frivolous lawsuit against us say that Dr. Nichols is hurting his reputation by pursuing it.
3/1/03 - We finally were "allowed" to depose the doctor. However, the court made us do it at a time and place of his convenience, not ours, even though he sued us, not the other way around. (Again, that was against the rules.) The deposition was held at the lawyer's office and was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on a Saturday. We arrived at 8:30 a.m., just as our videographer arrived. The doors to the high-rise building were locked. I kept calling the lawyer's office on the 6th floor, asking for someone to come down and let us in. It took them about half an hour to come down and let us in. In the meantime, we waited outside in a cold 40-degree wind. (Typical of their harassment behavior.)
In the deposition, Mr. Killeen tried to run everything. At one point I needed to call a break and go to the bathroom. Mr. Killeen tried to tell me I couldn't do that. He even tried to tell us when the deposition would end. He informed us that he and the doctor were leaving at 12:30. I told him that we were conducting the deposition, not him, and we would all leave when I said so. (He was not allowed to dictate ANYTHING concerning our deposition of Nichols. But he certainly tried to.)
We had attached a Subpoena Duces Tecum to the deposition notice. That's a summons to bring certain documents to the deposition. It wasn't surprising that they didn't pay any attention to the subpoena at all. In fact, I called Mr. Negrin the day before to ask him about copying the documents. He didn't even know about the subpoena. That's just a further indication that they consider our rights so unimportant that they don't even read our documents. After I called Mr. Negrin's attention to the subpoena for the documents, naturally he filed an objection right away. (Just filing the objection didn't mean it would be submitted or ruled on in time, so their failure to bring the subpoenaed documents was illegal.)
3/16/03 - I haven't posted in a while because we are rapidly approaching trial and the work has been hot and heavy. On 3/31 are numerous Motions set for hearing. Some of ours and their Responses. Some of theirs and our Responses. After the 3/31 hearings, I will have some very interesting information to post here.
3/31/03 - We had hearings beginning at 9:00 a.m. and didn't get home until 4:00. The hearings scheduled for 9:00 were delayed. Judge McCorkle wanted to address the issue that an affidavit by Dr. Nichols "may" have been improperly notarized. (Click HERE for a link to a portion of my document that called this serious issue to the attention of the court.) (We caught them in every bit of chicanery and called them to task for it. Killeen apparently thought I was stupid, but I was smarter than he.)
Judge McCorkle told Mr. Killeen to immediately contact Dr. Nichols and the notary to come to the court. Mr. Killeen finally came back with the excuse that Dr. Nichols was "seeing 25 patients in the morning and 25 patients in the afternoon." (Big deal; that was not a valid excuse but McCorkle let him get away with it.) Dr. Nichols was excused from appearing that day, but Judge McCorkle ordered that Dr. Nichols WILL be present for any and all hearings in the future. After the notary finally showed up, Judge McCorkle didn't allow her to testify--in order to preserve her rights. We hadn't known beforehand that this issue has criminal implications. (Her notarizing Nichols signature not in the presence of his signing the document is a crime.) Judge McCorkle had told Mr. Killeen and Mr. Negrin to counsel the notary about her rights, (they hadn't) but when she started to testify, Judge McCorkle was immediately aware that she had not been properly counseled. Judge McCorkle instructed her to get a lawyer and then another hearing will be scheduled. (Judge McCorkle was practicing law from the bench, which is illegal.)
Another very important issue was still another Motion for Sanctions. This one was because Mr. Killeen and Mr. Negrin forged a Consent to Release Medical Information about Harry. Forgery is a crime. We already had concrete proof. And then, in the lawyers response to our motion, Robert Negrin actually admitted it (caught red handed, he couldn't do otherwise)--but he excused his forgery as a "lapse in judgment." If criminal acts could be excused as "lapses in judgment," we wouldn't need prisons or lawyers or police, would we? (Click HERE for a letter I wrote to the State Bar regarding this unconscionable act of forgery by officers of the court. I haven't had a response from them yet.) (See HERE to read about what eventually happed with this particular complaint to the Bar.)
Judge McCorkle did not rule on this particular issue today. Why not? The issue is clear that Robert Negrin committed forgery, a crime. (He never did rule; he just ignored it.)
Also on the docket for today were the plaintiffs' motions (1) to Compel sychiatric examination of us; denied. (2) Motion for Sanctions against us; denied. (They claim WE have "abused the Discovery Process." That would be amusing if it weren't so frustrating.)
Killeen thought he had a motion for Summary Judgment on the docket today, but didn't. Their Motion for a Summary Judgment has been a comedy of errors. A Motion for Summary Judgment must have 21 days' notice. They notified us February 18th that their motion was "set for hearing" on Monday, March 24th. They apparently thought they could just file the motion and select a date for hearing, but I know that NOTHING is set for hearing without going through the court coordinator. I knew all along that their motion wasn't on the docket, but I checked it frequently to see if they had figured it out. They never had a clue. I called the court at 3:30 on the afternoon of Friday, March 21st just to verify , and it was not on the docket for Monday, March 24th.
Then today, the lawyers somehow thought they had "moved" it from March 24th to today, March 31st. I don't know how they got that idea, but it wasn't on the docket then either. And we had never gotten notice of it being "moved," which is required by law. (Another example of the buffoonery of self-proclaimed "competent" lawyers.)
Today we also had a motion to Compel Production, meaning that we asked the court to order them to produce financial documents to prove the "loss" Dr. Nichols is claiming. This was denied because we entered the motion prematurely. When a request for production is given, the respondent has 30 days in which to provide the documents. I had served this particular request for production on March 19th. Because their pattern is one of refusing to provide anything we request, I filed the motion asking the court to order them to produce the documents at the end of 30 days - or sooner, at the court's discretion....a preemptive strike, so to speak, because I know their response to any request will be the usual...."the request is harassing, annoying, an invasion of privacy....etc." Judge McCorkle pointed out that we couldn't file the motion to compel production until after the 30 days had passed. However, their responses to our requests for production are due by April 21st. Now that the judge has become well aware of their frivolous responses to our requests for production, it will be interesting to see what they provide in response to these latest requests.
Judge McCorkle called all of us to task-- including the lawyers--for not following proper procedure. That was very gratifying, because all this time the lawyers have sneered at us, implying that we are stupid "pro se defendants" who are just Sooooo tiresome to deal with. Even without an attorney, it has already cost us $10,000 in hard cash to defend ourselves. And for months now we have had to devote our entire life to this cause. We continually do our best to learn and follow procedure, and we have spent hundreds of hours educating ourselves. The lawyers have no excuse for their errors. They should know better. And now the judge is well aware that they don't know better. Judge McCorkle ordered that Dr. Nichols be present at every hearing from now on.
4/14/03 - Judge McCorkle heard our motion for no-evidence summary judgment today. A no-evidence summary judgment means that the other side has to come forth and give evidence that their case is valid. Judge McCorkle denied our motion but refused to say why. Then, barely giving me time to prepare a response, Killeen filed an answer containing more attempts at obfuscation and even outright lies. I filed a reply to their response on Friday, 4/11.
Here
are the documents:
Our MOTION for
no-evidence summary judgment
Their RESPONSE
(Even I, a non-lawyer, could pick this document to pieces; Killeen also
misspelled our CPA's name.) Their response included a self-serving AFFIDAVIT by Dr.
Nichols--the one in which he signed and later had it notarized, a crime.)
Our REPLY to
their response (included an AFFIDAVIT by Harry.
Harry's affidavit gives evidence that Dr. Nichols, his lawyers, or someone in
Nichol's office circled the word "alcoholism" on his medical form from
Dr. Nichols' office. (Dr. Nichols and Killeen and crew never hesitate to forge documents. )
In the hearing Monday, Killeen said he had not received our final document which was mailed the previous Friday. He said he had not received it, and that we had not filed it in time for him to respond. Obviously, he did receive it on Saturday, because he brought with him to court a motion to "continue" the hearing to a later date. His motion contained reference to an error in Dr. Nichols' affidavit (which had been attached to their response). Judge McCorkle denied Killeen's motion. Then he asked me if I wanted to proceed or what. I moved that we go ahead and have our motion decided today. He did make reference to deciding the motion on the documents "that were properly before the court," which Killeen's weren't. So maybe I should have agreed to wait.
Killeen's motion was denied because he should have filed a "motion to reset" the hearing, not a "motion for continuance." (This arrogant lawyer didn't even know the proper motion to file.)
Judge McCorkle was furious at the way in which this case had been conducted. (But again, he allowed it to develop that way.) He again referred to this case as a "tar baby" and said at this point, no one can win it. He was furious because this had not been conducted in the way in which the legal process is supposed to work. (He should have been furious at himself, because he allowed the criminal acts and breaking of the rules by Killeen and crew and their inundating the court with dozens of frivolous motions.) With the position Killeen kept putting us in, there was no way to do our side any differently. We had to answer every ridiculous motion he inundated the judges with. The lawyers should know better--but then again, I believe that a competent, ethical lawyer would never have taken Nichols' case in the first place. Nichols didn't have a case to begin with. (The judges knew it, too.)
On April 14, 2003 in an oral hearing, with trial having been scheduled for May, Judge McCorkle finally said he is going to hold everyone's feet to the fire to follow procedure to the most minute detail. Gee, why didn't he do this sooner? He allowed Killeen and crew to break rules and procedures right and left, plus commit forgery, for almost a year--and he didn't say a thing about it until a month before trial. (We had followed procedure, so his ire was obviously directed toward Killeen and crew for the dozens of motions foisted on him, which were nothing but attempts to obfuscate the issue and harass us.)
Dr. Nichols was present at the hearing--his first time at a hearing. If he has been misled all along by Killeen that they are prevailing, now he knows differently. In our opinion, if Dr. Nichols wants to prevail in a lawsuit, he should sue his lawyer, not us. (Apparently Killeen was not "misleading" Nichols, because Killeen KNEW the judges would not allow us to prevail. Good grief, if a lowly Pro Se were to prevail in a big-bucks lawsuit, that would send messages to others who might decide to represent themselves in court! And gosh, we wouldn't want LAWYERS to lose business, would we?)
4/15/03 - We had mediation today, which was not successful. No surprise there, just more money down the drain. So we're headed for trial on the week of May 12th.
We received a response to our letter to Chuck Rosenthal, District Attorney, regarding forgery by the attorneys. He said that "this office remains unconvinced that criminal charges are warranted in this matter." (Still another example of how lawyers can commit a crime with impunity.)
When we have time, we will pursue other avenues regarding this forgery. Should an attorney get away with an act for which an ordinary citizen would likely end up behind bars?
I also received a response to my complaint to the State Bar, which mandates that "In accordance with Rule 2.15 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, all information brought to the attention of the investigatory panel must remain confidential and may not be disclosed to any person or entity (except the Chief Disciplinary Counsel) unless disclosure is ordered by the Court." What's wrong with this picture??? Whatever a lawyer does, no one can disclose information about it!
4/30/03 - I have more malfeasance to report regarding a hearing on 4/28 when I get time, but we have just learned that the best way to get relief is not through the court system, but through PICKETING. Harry started picketing Dr. Nichols' office yesterday. Dr. Nichols--and his lawyer--have called the police numerous times. The police come talk with Harry, and then leave. They are being very nice to him. To see a picture of Harry picketing, click HERE. I also include a copy of the pamphlet Harry is handing out.
.....Stay tuned.
2015 update: The court date was scheduled for the week of May 12, 2003. Judge Katie Kennedy was to preside. We had endured almost a year of Robert Joseph Killeen, Jr. and his staff breaking rule after rule under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; publishing Harry's medical records (a crime); forgery by Robert Negrin (on Killeen's staff); forgery by Dr. Nichols himself; with no repercussions to any of them. All that added to bias against us by Judge McCorkle and Judge Katie Kennedy, which is evident in my reports here.
Judge Katie Kennedy had even told us that my husband and I could not speak for each other in the courtroom. (She called speaking for each other "the illegal practice of law.") This means after the case finally went to court and my husband was grilled on the stand by one of Dr. Nichols' team of attorneys, I can't then cross-examine my husband. He has to "cross-examine" himself by essentially giving a monologue. And vice versa. This puts an unfair burden on us. We would not only have to concentrate on the questions being put to us, we would have to try to remember to clear up misleading information that the lawyer might manage to get across to the jury by his line of questioning.
Then, shortly before trial, Killeen filed his Motion in Limine. A Motion in Limine is a request that the judge rule that certain testimony regarding evidence or information may be included or excluded. The motion is always discussed outside the presence of the jury and is always decided by a judge. With Killeen's Motion in Limine, it became crystal clear that Judge Katie Kennedy would prevent us from presenting ANY evidence in our favor. Therefore, we decided not to waste any more time and effort by attending the kangaroo-court "trial."
In our absence, Judge Kennedy gave a default judgment of $311,000 against EACH my husband and me. See HERE to learn how we never paid a dime of this judgment (if you haven't already read it on the previous page). And even though the process of this frivolous, unwarranted lawsuit cost us approximately $15,000, it had to have cost Dr. Nichols at least $100,000. We hope it taught the arrogant fool a lesson! But probably not. I'm sure he doesn't have a CLUE that Killeen's stupidity was the reason he never collected a dime from us.
The crimes by the lawyers and judges in our case were in no way unusual.
For a truthful, eye-opening essay about Rigged courts, bribed judges, phony trials, extortion by lawyers, and over 2 million prisoners in the USA gulag, Click HERE.
The essay was written in 2005, and now in 2015 the situation is infinitely worse!
Back to US LEGAL SYSTEM (Justice or Injustice?)
You may write me at iamfree@asia.com