Moving on to Federal Court
I filed the following federal civil rights lawsuit against one of the
judges, my X, and her greedy lawyers. In the suit I've alledged that
they obtained an unfair judgement as a result of fraud. Since I filed
this I have ammended my pleadings to include more fraud than shown here.
The local circuit courts are far too corrupted to even attempt to get a fair hearing. No matter what I do or say they rule against me. They neither understand nor have any respect for the law and can get away with anything whether it be legal or not. So I have turned to the federal courts for the second round of the divorce.
Early in my divorce case I had a hearing where I represented myself. A few weeks before this hearing after firing my lawyer, my ex-wife's lawyer served me with a notice to take my deposition. The next day I filed an objection to the deposition as required by Supreme Court Rule 61a. I didn't hear anything and had made several inquiries to make sure the deposition was indeed cancelled.
The day of the scheduled deposition her lawyer filed a motion for sanctions because I had not shown up for the deposition. At the hearing the judge didn't like the fact that I was representing myself and out of spite ruled against me in direct violation of the law.
This act tainted the divorce process and was such a clear violation of me civit rights that I have now sued him on this basis. Here's a copy of the actual suit I filed. If anyone want to give me some advice on this I'm all ears. Maybe with a good counter attack I can get this fucking divorce behind me and get rid of the bitch from hell I married 7 years ago.
Status of the Case
This is my 4th pro se federal lawsuit. I'm hardly an expert but I learn
very quickly. Most local lawyers are scared shitless of federal court
but I like federal court better. In federal court the tend to play by
they rules, where the judges in the local county circuit courts are
lawyers who are too stupid to make a living practicing law. So far
things are going well.
I gotten a response back from all parties involved and it's been interesting indeed. My x-wife's lawyers hired lawyers to defend them. But they are trying to represent my X in her federal lawsuit. In other words, you have one defendant trying to represent another defendant which looks to me like the very definition of conflict of interest. I filed a motion to ask the court to disqualify this and am still waiting on the results. This will be a test of the integrity of the federal judge.
The way I interpret this representation is that they are trying to keep her away from getting her own lawyer. If she had her own lawyer it is likely that her lawyer would file a cross complaint against her divorce lawyer. I find it amazing that they would even attempt this, but everything about the extent of judicial corruption is amazing to me. I interpret it as an act of desparation on their part.
All defendants have filed motions to have the case dismissed. One thing I learned about was a famous Supreme Court decision "Stump vs. Sparkman" which gives judges almost absolute immunity from liability. Even in cases of gross incompetence, willfull misconduct, and abuse of judicial power. The judges in the United States are truely above the law and if you think I'm exagerating, check it out yourself.
Case is Dismissed
On January 2nd 1997 the judge made a decision and ordered the case dismissed. When
you read it you'll see that the decision may be technically correct. I
filed it in the wrong court and I'll be refiling it in the correct
court. What I find interesting is that the reason it was dismissed had
nothing to do with the weak arguments they
made defending themselves.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
CIVIL COMPLAINT
---------------
Marc Perkel - pro se )
)
vs. ) No. 96-3383-CV-S-AE
)
Commissioner Scott Tinsley )
Greene County Circuit Court )
William A. Wear Jr. )
James R. Sharp )
The Lawfirm of Wear and Sharp )
Vicki Stringfellow )
Statement of Claim:
-------------------
1) On September 16th 1994 my ex-wife, Vicki Stringfellow, filed for
divorce. On December 15th 1994 I dismissed my lawyer and decided to
handle my case pro se until I could hire another lawyer.
2) On December 20th, 1994 the law firm of Wear and Sharp filed
"Petitioners Notice to Take Deposition of Marc Perkel". (See attached
document) This deposition was scheduled for January 4th 1995.
3) The next day I filed a motion to quash depositions. Based on Rule
61.01a I filed my timely objections to the discovery request. (see
attached motion) According to this rule, all that is required to stop
depositions is the filing of timely objections, and not a protective
order of the court.
4) After hearing no response to my objections from either Wear and Sharp
or the court, I sent a letter by fax to both Wear and Sharp and the
court. In that letter I stated that I believed that the deposition was
cancelled and that if I was wrong about this that someone should contact
me. (see attached document)
5) On the morning of the deposition I called the lawfirm of Wear and
Sharp and asked if depositions were scheduled. The secretary said that
no depositions were scheduled for that morning. If they actually were
waiting for me to be deposed, they didn't call me asking why I wasn't
there. My office is 5 minutes away from where their office was located.
They also failed to respond to faxes inquiring about the deposition and
they didn't return any of my phone calls.
6) If a deposition had occurred they deliberately and intentionally
mislead me to think there was no deposition and fraudulently represented
to the court that they expected me to be there. I had certianly made it
clear to them that I believed the deposition had been cancelled.
7) On January 4th of 1995 Wear and Sharp filed a motion for sanctions
against me stating "that the Respondent failed to appear to a lawfully
noticed deposition." (See attached document) There was no deposition to
appear to, thus making their motion before the court an act of fraud.
8) On January 12th Jim Sharp fraudulently indicated to the court that I
was expected to be deposed and failed to show up when in fact there was
no deposition. Sharp then asked the court to sanction me under Rule
61.01(f). The law firm of Wear and Sharp violated my civil rights by
asking the court to sanction me for not showing up for a deposition that
they knew did not exist.
9) Commissioner Tinsley ruled in favor of Wear and Sharp and ruled
sanctions against me for not showing up for the non-existent deposition.
10) Vicki Stringfellow violated my civil rights because her lawyers were
acting as her agent. Wear and Sharp lied to the court with her full
knowledge and approval in order to gain a more favorable monetary
settlement from me in her divorce.
11) There's nothing in the law that requires me to notice up my motion
for a hearing. I am only required to file timely objections. Either
party has the right to notice up a hearing. If they felt it necessary
they could have noticed up the hearings themselves.
12) This decision was clearly wrong, so clearly wrong that there's no
doubt that Commissioner Tinsley knew it was wrong and that he
deliberately, intentionally, and maliciously abused his power and
authority as a family court commissioner and made a decision against me
he knew was improper. Had I been represented by a lawyer there is
absolutely no way Commissioner Tinsley would have made the decisions he
made.
13) During the hearing Commissioner Tinsley made it clear that he didn't
like it that I was representing myself pro se and he sanctioned me as
punishment for representing myself in his court.
14) I have the right to represent myself and Commissioner Tinsley does
not have the right to sanction me just because he doesn't like it that I
didn't have a lawyer at that time.
15) Commissioner Tinsley violated my civil rights by knowingly ruling
against me in order to punish me for exercising my right to choose to
represent myself. He further violated my civil rights by declaring
sanctions against me with no logical justification for doing so.
16) To sanction a party is a punitive measure to punish a party's
actions in a manner as if their actions were in contempt of court. There
was absolutely no basis to justify a punitive ruling against me.
17) Mr. Wear, Mr. Sharp, and Commissioner Tinsley are all lawyers and
they were all aware that the only requirement to temporarily stop a
deposition is the timely filing of objections and does not require a
protective order of the court. They know that the proper order of events
was to rule on my motion to quash and schedule a new deposition hearing
if they ruled against my motion. However, my reasons in my motion to
quash were very solid and a ruling against my motion to quash would have
been in itself an improper decision.
Damages/Relief:
---------------
This decision of Commissioner Tinsley, as well as the fraudulent
misrepresentaions of the facts by Wear and Sharp, did untold harm to my
divorce case. As a result my divorce lasted two years and resulted in a
decision against me in excess of 100% of everything I own. During my
divorce I was forced to pay more that 50% of my income in separate
maintenance. This decision to sanction me tainted the divorce trial
process against me and I've been denied the ability to get a fair
hearing and a property settlement that is even possible, let alone fair.
It has ruined my business, my ability to earn a living, and created
extreme stress and psychological damage. I can never feel confident to
have a normal relationship with a woman or to even own property without
living in fear that a court is going to take it from me. I live in fear
that I will be arrested and jailed for being unable to pay an impossible
judgement against me. I fear that I will lose my house and have to live
in the back of my pickup truck. This is not a complete list of all
damages.
I want the court to award me an amount of money to compensate me for the
damages I've suffered as a result of these acts against me.
I want a jury trial.
Jurisdiction:
-------------
The federal court has original jurisdiction in this matter because
Commissioner Tinsley, acting as an employee and representative of the
Greene County Circuit Court violated my civil rights by denying me due
process of the law. Under Supreme Court Rule 61.01a, I have the right to
object to the taking of depositions and the state court system is
obligated to hear my objections and rule on them in a fair and impartial
manner.
James Sharp and William Wear are both lawyers and members of the
Missouri Bar and are officers of the Court. As officers of the Court
they are subject to the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct
which prohibits them from deliberately misrepresenting facts and making
fraudulent statements to the court. While representing Ms. Stringfellow,
they lied to the court saying that I failed to attend a deposition that
never existed and thus violated my civil rights.
Attachments:
Petitioners Notice to Take Depositions
Respondents Motion to Quash Deposition
Computer Printout of Court Filing Records
Petitioners Motion for Sanctions
Respondents written arguments presented to Tinsley at the hearing
Marc Perkel * Plaintiff
My objection I filed to taking deposition.
Here's a copy of the objection I filed with the court to stop the
deposition. I technically should have called it a motion to quash, but
that's not relevant. I'll file this with the suit.
ANSWER - NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION
==================================
COMES NOW respondent in answer to petitioners notice to take deposition.
That respondent ask the court to deny petitioners request to take
depositions at this time for the following reasons.
1) Respondent recognizes petitioners right to discovery, however,
considering petitioner is attempting to collect attorney's fees
from respondent, that the respondent feels that a deposition at
this time would be a waste of time and money for the following
reasons:
A) It is traditional, in the interest of efficiency, for each side
to depose the other side at the same time. I am not ready to
depose the petitioner because I am still waiting for
petitioner to answer the long overdue first set of
interrogatories.
B) Having just took over this case, and needing a reasonable
amount of time (90 days) to prepare. I ask the court to hold
off depositions.
C) A deposition, at this time, would not be an efficient tool to
discovery. Respondent has proposed to petitioner that
petitioner finish the first set of interrogatories and
specifically answer the question, "What do you want?". After
which, respondent and petitioner will have a meeting for the
purpose of negotiation to attempt to reach settlement. During
these negotiations, if a settlement is not reached at that
time, that it is likely that we should be able to agree on a
significant number of items, and, that we will at least know
each others positions on the remaining disputed items.
After knowing what the petitioner wants, and knowing where our
differences are, then a deposition, taken at that time would be
more focused, more informed, and lead to better discovery than
could be possible at this time. It's that respondents position
that the petitioner doesn't have enough information to know
what to ask.
D) That the petitioner is not responding to the reasonable
scheduling requests of the respondent and that the true reason
for this deposition is not discovery, but is specifically to
harass the respondent, and to raise his fees.
2) That petitioner has not respected respondents right to discovery.
A) On 09-28-94 respondent delivered to petitioner, respondent's
first set of interrogatories. After failing to answer, that
respondent filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and by agreement,
extended the deadline to 12-05-94. After this deadline passed,
respondent filed a second Motion to Compel Discovery.
B) After talking to my wife Vicki, it is my opinion that they are
no where close to answering the question, "What do you want?".
And that it is also my opinion that the opposing council has
not yet talked to her about what she can reasonably expect to
get within the guidelines of the law.
C) That respondent is trying to settle this case and avoid
unnecessary litigation and that in order to attempt a
settlement that it is necessary for petitioner to at least say
what they want so that respondent is at least given the
opportunity to accept their demands.
D) That respondent has completed petitioner's first set of
interrogatories, but that petitioner has no intention of
answering respondent's interrogatories in the near future. That
because of petitioner's contempt for respondent's right of
discovery, that petitioner be penalized, and that petitioners
right to discovery be sanctioned.
3) That petitioners request for documents is unreasonable. That
petitioner has requested the corporate books of Computer Tyme Inc.
and that this is the same material that I have already delivered
to petitioner on 12-13-94 and that petitioner returned on that
same day. And it is the respondents position that to summon the
same material twice is unreasonable and that petitioner should pay
respondent $200 in expenses to produce this material a second
time.
4) That even though petitioner has the right to demand depositions,
that there are traditional courtesies among attorneys, in regards
to scheduling. It is my position that I should be treated with the
same level of respect that my attorney would be, if I had one.
5) That Marc Perkel as an individual is being called to be deposed,
but that the President of Computer Tyme is not being called. In
light of the fact that the coprorate records are being summoned
(again) that the petitioner should depose Computer Tyme as well.
And, that Computer Tyme Inc. might have it's corporate attorney
present.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays that the court will set aside petitioner's
request to take depositions at this time on the basis that it won't lead
to discovery.
That the court will sanction the petitioner's rights to discovery until
such time that the respondent's first set of interrogatories are
answered.
That after petitioner answers the question, "What do you Want?", that
the court order that petitioner to attempt to negotiate, in good faith,
and attempt to settle this divorce. (See attached letter from respondent
to petitioner)
That the court order that the petitioner show some respect to
respondent, and to afford the respondent that same scheduling courtesies
that are traditional among attorneys.
By ___________________________
Respondent
Written arguments presented at the hearing.
Here's a copy of written arguments I presented at the hearing to
Commissioner Tinsley to argue against sanctions. It includes a copy of a
letter I wrote to the court inquiring the status of the depositions.
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS - RESPONSE
================================
COMES NOW Respondent in response to Petitioner's motion for sanctions.
Respondent denies Petitioners allegations and states:
1) That Petitioner led Respondent to believe that the deposition had
been canceled. That on 12-21-94 Respondent filed an objection to
discovery with the court stating his objections. Respondent also
sent a letter to both the court and the Petitioner stating that
Respondent believed that the deposition was effectively cancelled
and requested that he be informed if his assumption is wrong.
Since Petitioner received a copy of this letter, and Petitioner
didn't inform Respondent that he was mistaken, and that Petitioner
refused to return any of Respondent's phone calls or answer his
faxes, that Petitioner led Respondent to believe that the
deposition had been cancelled.
Respondent also faxed a letter to judge Davis on 12-22-94 (and a
copy to Petitioner) stating:
===============================================================
Dear Judge Davis,
Last Thursday I filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Then on the
weekend, I faxed you two letters in response to Petitioners
letters to you regarding the scheduling of hearings. Yesterday I
filed a motion in response to Petitioners deposition request.
Anyhow, I haven't heard any response from you. I am also
concerned, being new at this, that I'm communicating with you in
the most efficient way. If you can tell me what you prefer I
will try to comply.
Without having any feedback on this I'm making the following
assumptions.
1) That the temporary maintenance hearing is dead until the
Petitioner starts over and files a new motion stating their
new requests.
2) That I don't have to show up to be deposed unless you rule
on my motion in favor of the Petitioner.
Correct me if I'm assuming wrong. I'm just trying to do things
so as to move towards settlement as efficiently as possible.
===============================================================
Had anyone returned my calls, answered my letters or faxes, or
called me on the phone the day of the deposition, I would have been
there.
2) Respondent was not required to appear because he has met the
requirement of rule 61.01(a) which states:
"Any failure to act described in this rule may not be excused on
the grounds that discovery sought is objectionable UNLESS THE PARTY
FAILING TO ACT HAS FILED TIMELY OBJECTIONS TO THE DISCOVERY REQUEST
or has applied for a protective order as provided by rule
56.01(c)."
Respondent on 12-21-94, the next day after being served, filed
timely objections to the discovery request with the circuit clerk
and hand delivered a copy to the Petitioner.
3) That Respondent's failure to attend his deposition was not a
contempt of court.
A) Contempt of court, by definition, is a deliberate act where a
person knowingly and willingly defies the authority of the court.
Respondent did not knowingly and willingly defy the court in
that Respondent, who is not an attorney, legitimately believed
he had complied with the law. That the law recognizes the
difference between an possible honest mistake and contempt of
court.
B) Respondent informed the court and the Petitioner on 12-21-94 that
he would not be attending the deposition giving his reasons why.
Respondent is not an attorney and is unfamiliar with all the
procedures necessary to block a deposition, however, Respondent
believed that the correct procedure was to file his reasons for
objection with the circuit clerk's office and to hand deliver a
copy of his objections to the Petitioner.
Thus Respondent made it clear that he was objecting to the
deposition and why, and made a good faith effort to comply with
the law.
C) An honest mistake may have been made in the procedure for
objection to deposition, and, that Respondent was not the only
party responsible for this mistake. The mistake being, as I
think I understand it, that in addition to filing my objections
with the court, that I failed to "call up" the motion.
That the Petitioner knew that the Respondent believed that he
wasn't required to show up and that the Petitioner failed to
inform the Respondent that he was mistaken. And that the court
knew that the Respondent believed that he wasn't required to
show up and that the Petitioner failed to inform the Respondent
that he was mistaken. Since the court and the Petitioner are
knowledgeable in these matters, I contend that the court and the
Petitioner should share the blame for the honest mistake.
In spite of the fact that I am admitting a possible mistake in
procedure, I'm still not entirely convinced that I made a
mistake and that I might have in fact, compiled with the
procedures as outlined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. I can
find no references in there to the step "Calling Up" a hearing.
4) Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to show up for his
deposition. Respondent denies this allegation on the basis that
what he was being called to was not a deposition. And that since it
was not a deposition, that Respondent wasn't legally required to
show up.
Respondent recognizes that the Petitioner has the right to
discovery. However, Petitioner can not compel the Respondent to
show up to be deposed when it is obvious that Petitioner never
intended to depose Respondent in the first place.
A deposition is supposed to be a tool of discovery allowing parties
to discover relevant information. It must be conducted in good
faith and not be used as a tool to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the
deponent.
When the Petitioner's attorney, Bill Wear, contacted me about the
deposition, the tone of the conversation led me to question if what
I was being invited to was a form of discovery.
On 12-28-94 in an effort to attempt to negotiate a settlement, I
sent Jim Sharp the following fax offering to give him information
so that we could focus on resolving this matter.
==================================================================
Dear Jim,
What I'm calling about is that I'd like to set up an apointment to
talk to you informally towards settling this divorce. I've sent you
my asset lists and some thoughts on why I think who owns what.
What I want to do is to talk to you about my positions on certain
items and see if we can't agree on some things. Also, by
understanding my positions, it will help you talk to Vicki and help
her figure out her positions. This, I think will help answer the
question, "What do you want?" in a way that is likely to lead to
progress.
Anyhow, I think the more you know about my side, the better you can
prepare your side. I am prepared to give Vicki more that what I
think a judge would award her should it go to trial and I think
it's in all our best interests to pursue negotiations.
I'm also willing to "forget" about Bill Wear's call last week. In a
funny way, I consider it a compliment and am taking it as such.
So, call me and lets set something up.
==================================================================
In my opinion, this was a serious opportunity for discovery that
they just passed by. I never got a phone call in response even
though I called repeatedly to try to contact them.
As a result, it became clear to me that Petitioner was not
interested in discovery, and that the reason for deposition was for
some purpose other than discovery.
Fax I sent to Davis and attorneys Wear and Sharp
------------------------------------------------
RE: Perkel vs. Perkel
Dear Judge Davis,
Last Thursday I filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Then on the weekend,
I faxed you two letters in response to Petitioners letters to you
regarding the scheduling of hearings. Yesterday I filed a motion in
response to petitioners deposition request.
Anyhow, I haven't heard any response from you. I am also concerned, being
new at this, that I'm communicating with you in the most efficient way.
If you can tell me what you prefer I will try to comply.
Without having any feedback on this I'm making the following assumptions.
1) That the temporary maintenance hearing is dead until the petitioner
starts over and files a new motion stating their new requests.
2) That I don't have to show up to be deposed unless you rule on my
motion in favor of the petitioner.
Correct me if I'm assuming wrong. I'm just trying to do things so as to
move towards settlement as efficiently as possible.
|
Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.
