Can The Petkovs Be Charged or Sued in Their Alleged Harassment of a Dying Seven-Year-Old Girl?

There is a horrific story out of Michigan where a couple, Scott and Jennifer Petkov, are accused of a cruel campaign targeting a seven-year-old girl, Kathleen Edwards who is dying from Huntington’s disease. The Petkov’s allegedly posted pictures showing Kathleen’s mother (Laura Edwards, who died of the disease last year at the age of 24) in the arms of the grim reaper and photo shopped a picture of Kathleen with her face above a set of crossed bones. The story (which has gone viral internationally) raises questions over the possible civil and criminal liability for such actions.

Jennifer Petkov is accused of some of the most outrageous acts and raises the same social and legal questions surrounding Lori Drew in the case of Megan Meier.

Reports allege that the Petkovs began a campaign of harassment after they asked if their children could come over to a birthday party for Kathleen. When there was no immediate response, according to the Rose family, the Petkovs turned nasty and started saying horrible things about the dying girl.

In addition to the pictures, the Petkovs allegedly drove their truck named the “Death Machine” up and down their street honking their horn. They later left the truck festooned with coffins in front of the Rose house (though they insisted it is just a Halloween decoration).

Witnesses say that the couple routinely laughed at Laura and her daughter for the neurological disease that causes involuntary writhing movements.

One of most upsetting statements attributed to the Petkovs was their telling Kathleen directly “I can’t wait until you die.” Jennifer Petkov is quoted as admitting that she continued the campaign for “personal satisfaction” and “because it burns Rebecca Rose’s ass raw.” Rebecca Rose is the mother of Laura and grandmother of Kathleen.

Kathleen’s father reportedly begged the Petkovs to stop, asking them ” ‘Just leave us alone; that’s all we want. Don’t make any more comments about our daughter.”

Scott Petkov and his wife have now apologized. Scott Petkov described how his wife’s “brutal honesty” has caused his family to “not get along with a lot of people.” For her part, she now admits “What I did was ignorant and wrong.” Scott Petkov said that, after they posted the pictures on Facebook, he was suspended with pay from his job as a forklift repairman.

They cannot apologize in person because at the height of the harassment, the Rose secured a restraining order against them.

Here is Jennifer Petkov before she decided contrition as opposed to taunting was the proper response to public outrage:

The question is what criminal or civil liability the Petkovs could face. They have a constitutional right to be horrible people. However, their first amendment rights are limited in cases of harassment, stalking, and other crimes. The most obvious criminal charge would be any violation of the restraining order. Such orders generally do not include limitations on speech such as Facebook sites and public statements. The truck could be an issue if parked within the protected zone. I do not believe Michigan has a cyber-bullying statute. What I am unclear about is why the police did not pursue this as a child abuse case, if it is true that the Petkovs confronted the little girl. If that account is false, there remains the campaign directly against the little girl as a possible abuse or stalking case.

The most obvious course for the Rose family would be a civil lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is probably not an action for privacy violations here, such as intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of embarrassing private acts. Likewise, words alone are generally insufficient for assault. However, what is fascinating about the case is Jennifer Petkov’s admission that she wanted to harm the Rose family in taking these actions.

In the end, either criminal or civil claims run into the first amendment and the right of the Petkovs to say despicable things, even allegedly to and about a dying seven-year-old girl. This is strikingly similar to the claims in the pending Westboro case before the Supreme Court. Indeed, this drama was unfolding in Michigan at the very time that the justices were hearing arguments on the right of an extremist and homophobic church to say hateful things at funerals for fallen soldiers. I believe that the Westboro Church does have first amendment rights guaranteeing such protests as a general principle. The Westboro church appears to have complied with orders to confine their protest to a certain area that was separated from the family’s church and funeral functions.

The Petkov case could be different if they crossed the line in harassing this child and confronting the family directly. While Jennifer Petkov has been called “the Devil on Detroit Street” the devil will be in the details in whether she would be able to cloak herself in the first amendment to protect her hateful speech. We simply need to confirm the specific acts in the case to determine the viability of criminal or tort liability in the case.

Source: Daily Mail

Jonathan Turley

127 thoughts on “Can The Petkovs Be Charged or Sued in Their Alleged Harassment of a Dying Seven-Year-Old Girl?”

  1. PPO’s against strangers are allowed when they are requested by a prosecutor pursuant to a criminal prosecution.

    PP0 statutes vary a lot from state to state. A friend from California said a woman he hardly knew and had only dated a few times applied for one against him and that it was almost like a break up and then automatically dissolved in six months.

    A PPO is a form of an injunction. Any injunction is supposed to require a statute, a motion, a written hearing, and an order that states the reason as well as the order and does not simply refer to another document. When it is not requested by the government there is supposed to be a bond. They use short cut — summary — procedure for certain types of injunctions i.e. domestic and that is where most of the problems come up.

    When I went to court w Jane Bennett v. Kay Sieverding, a PPO that cost me probably $ 1 Million, I was not told what evidence would be presented and the decision was made on what was not written, and I was only allowed 3 days advance notice, and was not offered an option of trying to get a lawyer.

    One issue that came up is they claimed that I was yelling. There isn’t a public law against yelling. We were outside 30 feet apart and I think they had set me up by trying to make me mad by putting lumber on my landscaping. But I was not prepared at all for their witness testimony that I was yelling. Later I realized that one defense for the charge of “yelling” was that they claimed I yelled they were violating the constitution and the development laws and long strings of words are hard to yell. I also found that I could hear their outdoor conversations about normal events like dinner from the same locations. They had claimed I must be yelling because they could hear me from the same distance that I could later hear them talking about dinner.

    “Tried to run over” does mean something. It means she didn’t hit the person and it assumes that she had intent to hit her. An attempted crime is only a crime in certain crimes. I.E. attempted murder, attempted rape and in those cases evidence is presented. Attempted extortion is not a term used in criminal law but sending threatening communications is. When criminal statutes are passed there is a lot of legislative discussion and written documents and then if the meaning is vague the courts are supposed to strike it down. They are supposed to have a public purpose One danger with injunctions is they are written by just a few people and can be vague. When injunctions are not based on statute, then there is no public purpose. In those cases, one party simply convinced a judge to change the law to affect one party only and that is a violation of fundamental rights.

    Same Laws for All is the key theory and can be described as equal protection of the laws or procedural due process.

  2. Kay, I just want you to know that I completely disagree with your opinion on who should or shouldn’t be allowed a PPO. I respect your right to have an opinion based on your own experience, but you completely exclude many occasions when a PPO against a stranger might be warranted. Because of this, I am not going to debate or be forced to explain what “tried to run over” means …. read the news article…the Petkov woman is a complete menace to her neighbors.

  3. The friend that Dick Cheney shot reportedly has physical damages still. I am really hurting and so are others who are defamed and falsely accused. That is why we need access to courts.

  4. Yes and making false police reports is a crime. Do you think this article is a tort? i.e. defamation or false light publicity….

    The charges were dismissed in 2001 but the article doesn’t acknowledge that. There was no arrest, no warrant, and no written statement of probable cause. The Pilot deleted my comments and will not let me post. I asked them to remove the article from the Internet and can prove that. As the paper is well aware the so called garage is two floors with central heating and plumbing and multiple rooms on each floor. The so called log cabin was a non conforming unheated shed that was expanded. A new foundation with in floor heating, kitchen, and full bathroom with tub were added and the garage door was filled in. The planning services director while under oath referred to her organization the American Institute of Certified Planners but their emails show they never had a member with that name. To be an AICP member is a big deal involving tests, background checks, and an ethics pledge. When I found out that she wasn’t an AICP member I notified the newspaper. The buildings described were never put on the property tax rolls and in 2008 the Routt County assessor made a public statement that there are many illegal buildings in Steamboat Springs and enforcement of the regulations is lax.

    Everytime anyone googles my name this article comes up. I have a masters degree in city planning from MIT and this article damages my professional reputation.

  5. Kay S wrote: “I’m not defending Petkov, I am just saying that “trying to run over” could be totally made up. At this point you could probably get people to testify they saw her with a broom.”

    I agree. I’ve been seeing some really ugly things over the course of the past few years. It’s pretty easy to destroy someone these days — false allegations are not uncommon, sadly. (To be clear, I’m not a supporter of the Petkovs, but believe that Kay is right.)

  6. What does “trying to run over” mean?

    Per my earlier posts, a Jane Bennett in Steamboat Springs got a restraining order on me based on a sua sponte finding that I “molested” her. That supposedly consisted of yelling that she was violating the zoning.

    In an ex parte hearing, Jane Bennett also claimed that I tried to hit her car with my car. I had been doing errands with my son and we ended up driving home behind Jane Bennett. My car was fairly new and in good condition. It was 3:30 p.m. on a warm afternoon in September and since no one in Steamboat has AC everyone had their windows open. Merrit St has many houses and with the grade school right there there were a lot of people. I was not even accused of speeding and the speed limit was only 25 mph.

    Jane Bennett’s car stopped at the stop sign and I stopped behind her without hitting her car. I got to the stop sign and stopped again and then turned and drove to my driveway and parked in it. She told the judge under penalty of perjury that I tried to hit her car. No one substantiated that charge. If I had wanted to rear end her car it would have been easy but I was just driving home with my school aged son.

    I’m not defending Petkov, I am just saying that “trying to run over” could be totally made up. At this point you could probably get people to testify they saw her with a broom.

  7. Dear Bil

    I really appreciate your points on this. I had actually gone to bed but I kept thinking about this and got up again.

    Maybe the right lawyer will see this and call me. Believe me I don’t bite and my husband is OK too.

    Look at my Court of Appeals Docket CDC 10-5149. See our unopposed brief and our unopposed petition for a settlement conference. Does anyone want to help close that? This is against DOJ for two Dr. Stephen Hatfills at $5.6 M each. I used Hatfill as a benchmark and DOJ did not object. Our 3rd party civil litigation which DOJ intervened into was claimed at $13-15 M based on $400,000 economic damages plus defamation personal damages for 4 people. The sons were intimidated and dropped out, although I think they had real damages. The actual economic damages are now greater because we had damage to our independently owned family manufacturing businesses plus our former house is now for sale for $1.3 M but we were forced to sell same house for $580,000. Other benchmarks include a $10-11 M jury award to the Quigleys for a scheme to raise money by pretending that they were Nazis. I think Rule 804 applies.

    One claim I am positive that I can prove and have tolling for is first amendment retaliation against a prosecutor who is insured by Lloyds. Lloyds claimed to State of CO division of re-insurance they had a $250 M bond.

    10th Circuit recognizes liability for those who initiated or, what is the term they used…., anyway I am still going thru the case law but I think Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing insured claim and Lloyds was there re-insurer. Parties actively involved in the First Amendment Retaliation, the Bennetts, Randall Klauzer etc., have a lot of real estate wealth since this all happened in a ski resort. The prosecutors’ family is involved in real estate development and the reason she prosecuted me without a written statement of probable cause was to advance their real estate interests so there is a lot of money there.

    Ideally, my 3rd party civil defendants would reimburse DOJ for the $11.6 M to me and hubby and we would get a RICO premium potentially three times our original claim. Also, I have a tax whistle blower claim on CIRSA and Lloyds. If they came in, we would be talking about some real money.

    My ideal situation is that my husband and sons get substantial sums for expansion of our already existing business interests and I would have my own pot of money for my personal interests. Then the RICO money I would donate mostly to legal reform projects. As an independent I will have flexibility not available with government funds.

    The reason I got out of bed was to follow up on the discussion of “dicta” or “dictum”. I had problems establishing facts of law. In my current court, I found

    Vertical stare decisis — both in letter and in spirit — is a critical aspect of our hierarchical Judiciary headed by “one supreme Court.” U.S. CONST. art. III,§1. And as we have said before, “carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative.” United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366, 375 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Winslow v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 587 F.3d 1133 (D.C.Cir. 12/01/2009)

    This, plus my S.C. quotes, is all I need to prove my arguments. I only need 875 words to get to

    For the reasons stated by the Supreme Court and quoted above, The First Amendment limits restrictions on PRO SE speech.

  8. pardon, “too cozy”

    It has been a long day and my fingers are getting lazy.

  9. Kay,

    Your previous post though indicates the problem of a layperson trying to act as an attorney.

    AmJur is fine for something that’s considered general legal knowledge to cite (Bob recently used it arguing a point to Vince here), however, the Devil is in the details. Because you don’t the requisite underpinnings of history and theory, you won’t know where to dig deeper and find the appropriate on point case law and statutes that may have variations based on local jurisdiction. Case law and statutes are where the controlling law is to be found. Had you had these skills, you wouldn’t have made the mistake of lacking specificity in claiming your tort.

    In addition, if clarity in writing is an issue for you, then you really shouldn’t be preparing paper. I’m going to tell you a dirty little secret about the legal profession. We’re trained to be able to write two ways for two different reasons.

    We’re trained to write in an arcane manner mostly for the purposes of scholarly research although you see it creep into things like contracts and disclaimers. This may seem to be valueless because of the contractual and disclaimer experience most people have (in fact, Bob, mespo, Mike A. and myself have had many a good laugh over ‘boilerplate’ language found in disclaimers), but the law can be a very complex and arcane subject. In scholarly application it’s a lot like a form of differential equation: it’s rules that change over time and with circumstance layered over precepts that do not change. It requires what is known as Art.

    But for court (and this is where the dirty little secret is), we’re trained to write with brevity and clarity that a monkey could understand because the assumption is 1) that judges don’t like having their time wasted and 2) some of them are only slightly smarter than monkeys so you must prepare like all of them are monkeys. Sirrica didn’t get the Watergate trial because they thought he was the best judge on the circuit at the time (for political advantage). Some judges are easier to baffle than others and this can be used to tactical advantage. Look at the O.J. Simpson trial if you want an example of an easily baffled or dazzled judge. Had I been the judge, I’d have shut down “The Dream Team’s” histrionic presentation early on.

    As to the speaking part, as you found out, it’s hard to talk to a judge in the way you need to without being trained. That’s part of what got you into the position you are in now. It’s like a kind of verbal dance and if you don’t know the steps, it makes judges cranky. They like to get to the point. Public speaking of any sort can be daunting, but the difference between talking to say the Rotary Club and talking to a judge and/or jury is like the difference between a waltz and ballet. Both are precision work, but ballet is about a thousand times more difficult. You’ve may have heard the saying “a good lawyer never asks a question he doesn’t know the answer to first”. This is because they know the proper steps of the dance if they are doing their job. If they are thrown for a loop by a sudden change of beat by the prosecution or defense (or the judge), they know how to change their dance.

    I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t exercise your rights. However, after reading what you’ve said tonight, I cannot say strongly enough: Money aside, you need a professional. Especially since you’re dealing with a small jurisdiction where everyone knows everyone. Where I’m at now is a place much like that. If you wanted to pursue a Med Mal claim in this town? You’d have no choice to be get counsel from outside the area. Small town politics suck and if you get a bunch of people to cozy with one another, that’s when you see issues like you had where the available pool of attorneys is “tainted”.

    I know you’re passionate about this, but really, you need to find a way to hire an attorney if you want to stand a chance of seriously winning any kind of monetary settlement and moving on.

  10. P.S. BIL

    Before I sued the City of Steamboat Springs I knew someone else who did. He spent over $100,000 and then had to quit because he ran out of money. If I could have hired a lawyer for my lawsuit for 10K I would have done it. I heard that the city council said their tactic was to bankrupt him.

    In my litigation, dilatory tactics were omnipresent. As a pro se litigant it is difficult to overcome them because PRO SE are denied required procedures that are required to establish facts. The idea seems to be that the lack of procedural due process can be attributed to pro se confusion and incompetence.

    One advantage that I have is that I am not embarrassed by what I don’t know. I happen to know that law is big enough that most lawyers specialize but many are uncomfortable admitting what they don’t know. I’ve been around a lot of very intellectually gifted people and it doesn’t rattle me too much. I can recognize their strengths but still concentrate on getting to our goal, i.e. at this time, winning our lawsuit.

    For other PRO SE litigants that might read this, a major tip is to spend 8 cents a page on PACER to look up other litigants’ documents. I cut and pasted paragraphs from one of Dr. Stephen Hatfill’s objections.

  11. Dear BIL

    Thank you.

    On-line research is the most convenient for me. I have used, as well as other resources. I have a library of law books most of which I read at least partially. I have spent some days at U of WI law library and have also borrowed books there.

    I think American Jurisprudence is great, even though I know some lawyers make fun of it. I did research on Kansas law and noticed that their courts were citing it. As I mentioned earlier, I spent 4 months at Georgetown Jail for engaging in pro se litigation without permission. While I was there I studied law and worked on my law projects from 6 to 6. A lot of that I spent reading American Jurisprudence, since it was their only legal reference. It was in A.J. that I first read about YOUNG V. U.S. EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS, 481 U. S. 787 (1987) — that a prosecutor must be independent and cannot have a financial interest in the outcome. I quoted that in a motion to Nottingham objecting to his use of the defense counsel as prosecutors and I quoted it to their face in court.

    I was jailed specifically for filing a Rule 60b(3) motion in a nonrendering court. I got that idea directly from American Jurisprudence. It’s in the section on judgments. I found that before I was sent to jail. I also used Causes of Action Journal.

    I’ve been researching a motion for mandamus in the 10th Circuit. For that I am relying primarily on their own opinions, which are on-line at their website.

    I always thought I was a good researcher, however, one problem that I had in my legal efforts is that I didn’t name my tort (First Amendment Retaliation) as early as I wish. The magistrate said my claims sounded like a Hornbook Textbook and I did take most of it from The Law of Torts by Dan Dobbs but that didn’t list First Amendment Retaliation. It might have been smoother initially if I had used that phrase in my first complaint.

    My goal is to win my financial judgment and then do other things. I have no interest in going to law school.

    Dear Lee

    Do you think this anti-social behavior is related to the decrease in church attendance?

  12. Those who requested a shrink – hope you’ll settle for a member of a support group for adults who had parents like this. They’re called “Axis 2 Personality Disorders,” also known as “Cluster B Personality Disorders.” I’ll skip over the psychiatric-speak, but basically, the emotional parts of their brains never developed to adulthood, so now they behave like mean little kids. They are consumed by anger, rage, hyper-sensitivity to slights, and do not follow basic social rules of interaction. They are known to be extremely verbally abusive, vindictive like you wouldn’t believe, and have been called “bullies who blame their targets.” There is no known cure.

    PD’s, as we call them, regularly engage in smear campaigns when enraged – for instance, lying about you to all your neighbors, or calling your workplace to make a false report that you use drugs. They get enraged for no damn reason and then create “cognitive distortions” – also known as bizarre, crazy thinking – to justify their behavior. In other words, if Petkov had a beef with this little girl’s family, it would be over something very minor or even nonexistent.

    Personality Disorders are known to be completely consistent in their behavior. Note that she doesn’t just restrict her abuse to the little girl.

    As soon as I heard this story, I thought, “She’s either a borderline PD or a narcissist PD.” You can look them up for more information; go for the people who have actual stories about them since the medical diagnostics are confusing. “Out of the Fog” is an excellent website.

    By the way, and I have this on good authority from my outstanding therapist, borderlines and narcissists are considered the most dangerous people next to serial killers.

  13. Kay,

    I’m not going to give you specific legal advice, but I am going to give you some general advice on doing research.

    Scalia is not a good role model for anything. Scalia’s been a corrupting right-wing bane on SCOTUS since his appointment and is just as vile and evil as his hunting partner, Dick Cheney. There’s a reason Bob, Esq. refers to him as “The Dark Lord”.

    As to relying upon dicta, that’s not necessarily a good idea. It’s not law but mere opinion that can – but doesn’t always or often – inform the law. It’s not controlling. If you want to know more about the value of dicta, see below on how to find out.

    If you want to do legal research properly, you need access to a good law library, Westlaw and/or Lexis/Nexis. Many law schools will allow you to use their library for research, but you can’t remove books usually unless you’re a student.

    If you don’t know about a specific topic and want an overview of the subject matter, start by looking at Am Jur 2d (American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition) either at the library or it’s available through Westlaw or Lexis. It’s essentially a legal encyclopedia that can be used to point you to more detailed areas of search. If you need to know form details, the online services can provide many/most, but in a library ask the reference librarian where the appropriate formularies are located. And make friends with the reference librarian. They can be invaluable resources themselves when you are looking for something specific. To learn how to cite anything properly, buy yourself a copy of “The Blue Book”. It’s the legal citation version of “Elements of Style” and will give you the proper way to cite anything you could want in presenting your case.

    But mostly and lastly I will give you one piece of general legal advice: you really need to find a good attorney even if you have to range out of town. This kind of stuff is what they are trained and paid to do – research, prepare and present. They will know to look for things and avoid pitfalls from their training and experience that you as a layperson might not think of or even know about.

  14. PS as to the form of the document… if you follow Justice Scalia’s directions you can’t go wrong right? The one disagreement I have w Justice Scalia has to do with use of dichta. He doesn’t like it and says he doesn’t want to read block quotes. I do like dichta because it has authority that my writing doesn’t (because I get no respect). However, I can write without dichta. For instance I wrote, in my unopposed Sieverding v. DOJ appeal, see ,

    “Both the Supreme Court and the Circuit of the District of Columbia have ruled that governments have liability for the actions of their subordinates when there is informal policymaking or deliberate indifference.”
    See Monell v. Department of Social Services 436 U.S. 658 and Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller 820 F.2d 1245.

    That was perfect form right?

  15. I / we (my family) have/has been self employed as manufacturers for almost 30 years so I can definitely relate to business interests but I think that it is probably better for everyone to have more access to courts rather than less and I perceive the Chamber as being anti access to courts.

    It was not my intention to become stubbornly pro se. In fact, a significant part of our family income has been derived from patent licensing, which we never would have received if we had been pro se. I really am not anti -lawyer. I respect specialists.

    I ended up Pro se for two reasons — 1.) My husband wanted to save money and thought I was “free” to him and almost as good as a lawyer 2.) My legal troubles started in a town of 11,000 people where there weren’t very many lawyers. I had a property dispute with the city council president. He was a sophisticated and smart guy, a convicted felon, and part of his strategy to get my property rights was to deprive me of Access to Courts. Part of how he did that was to hire almost every lawyer in town so when I tried to hire them they had conflicts. Where we lived was a 4 hour drive from the nearest big city so to hire a lawyer from there meant that every appearance included at least 8 hours of driving. I met someone who also had problems w the same local government and her solution was to only hire non local lawyers — adding at least $2,000 to every court appearance.

    I admit that I am emotionally involved with my pleadings and that that adversely affects my writing clarity. Sometimes my writing really isn’t clear. My oral skills as assessed in tests are lower than my other skills. I have a problem with alcohol and have been known to drink and write. Plus my family and work dynamics result in my being interrupted and distracted when I am writing. My strengths are being multi-disciplinary and creative problem solving.

    Another problem is that my adversaries don’t want to deal with me personally so since I don’t have a go between they avoid negotiating with me totally and try to attack my character. But I am where I am and try to optimize. Once a person has been a victim of obstruction of justice and is pro se, it is very hard to get to a procedure where legal decisions are actually being made on the facts. The McGee Commission observed that it is practically impossible to get a lawyer to sue a lawyer. With my facts, suing lawyers in tort is almost essential to getting recovery or redress. My theory is that the obstacles to suing lawyers causes problems w Access to Justice and that that results in bad public policies.

  16. “There are formalities to the form of the document”

    An internal edit that didn’t quite all make it to my fingers in time.

  17. Kay,

    There are formalities to both the form of the document proper and also there are formalisms to way legal arguments are made and legalism presented to the court that are not necessarily going to be met even if your submission formalities are all met. This is why even though it’s your right to represent yourself, it’s rarely a good idea because it is legal training that allows you to know and avoid those other potential pitfalls in presentation. The more complex the litigation, the worse it is for one to represent themselves. It’s not even a good idea for lawyers to represent themselves except maybe in the simplest of cases and even then it’s not a good idea because as a party to litigation or defendant you’re simply too close to the subject matter to trust your own objectivity as a general rule. It’s analogous to why psychologist and doctors should never treat themselves either. The objective eye catches more than the interested eye.

    As to the Chamber of Commerce? The Chamber raises money from foreign-owned businesses for its 501(c)(6) entity, the same account that finances its unprecedented $75 million dollar partisan attack ad campaign. They have no interest in your rights or preserving the Constitution or anything that interferes with their “profits above all else” agenda. They are venal fascists who think they should be able to do whatever they want as long as it makes them money and not suffer any consequences for wrongdoing.

  18. Your statement: “I think the Chamber of Commerce operates like a fascist criminal organization spreading political graft and should have the FBI on them like white on rice.”
    is a pretty strong. I wish you would expand on that.

    As far as mandamus goes, it seems like not that many are actually filed. I filed several and they were always denied for reasons that didn’t seem transparent. A motion for mandamus isn’t supposed to be difficult right? You aren’t supposed to have to write like a college professor to get one, right? All you’re supposed to have to do is explain why there is no other remedy, show your government and court documents, and quote the statutory or case law basis, right?

Comments are closed.