Viggers v. Pacha

What follows is a synopsis (or rather an extended summary) of the lawsuit I filed against the IT intermediary Al-Azhar Pacha (interchangeably, Al Pacha) for defamation, wrongful termination, and other counts. Court documents are posted below. My appellate brief and Application for Leave to Appeal fully address the merits with basis on statutes, legal doctrines, and case law.

Background and Filing of the Lawsuit against Al Pacha
Intermediary Al Pacha is owner of Alpac Inc. and my former employer. I sued him after discovering that Al Pacha approached the University of Michigan on July 21 and 22, 2015, and falsely accused me of threatening him.

I would have sued Al Pacha earlier, but for three months the University of Michigan concealed from me Al Pacha's defamatory publications. The University of Michigan should have promptly disclosed that information to me because (1) I directly inquired about the real cause for the cancellation of my prospective employment, and (2) I had subpoenaed the University as part of my discovery efforts in my lawsuit against María Viggers. Therefore, the University's concealment is unjustifiable and constitutes discovery fraud.

Ever since Al Pacha was busted, he and his attorneys have alleged that Al Pacha "felt threatened" by the proverb what goes around comes around, which I wrote in two of my emails. However, Al Pacha never mentioned to the University that proverb or that it was his "interpretation". He instead crafted an elaborated fraudulent narrative when the University asked him for details at their meeting on July 22, 2015. Al Pacha's ulterior motive for defamation became evident at that same meeting: Al Pacha offered the University (at that time my prospective employer) to provide it with someone to replace me.

Al Pacha made his false accusations three weeks after he failed to persuade me to decline my prospective position at the client University of Michigan. Interestingly, he made his first accusation (lower portion of page 20 in my complaint) within six hours of Law Enforcement serving the Personal Protection Order I requested against María Viggers, my father's 2nd wife. Harasser María Viggers actually had been pressing for months the University of Michigan to identify who was my direct employer. Whether or not the University eventually facilitated that information to María Viggers is still unknown. I suspect they did, for that coincidence in the timing of the events is quite bizarre.

Some Michigan judges have juicy links to the University of Michigan. Even "fact-finder" Carol Kuhnke used to post on facebook her delusional belief that she was working at the University of Michigan (pages 50-54 of my motion in MCOA #332481). Carol Kuhnke's delusion illustrates how some Michigan judges drool for a bone from the University of Michigan. That helps explaining the judicial systematic reluctance to address the University's instances of discovery fraud. Notwithstanding the University's dishonesty, Al Pacha remains liable for his defamatory and disproved statements, which to this date he staunchly refuses to retract.

I filed my complaint in the Washtenaw County Trial Court, Michigan, on November 24, 2015. The case was presided by Carol Kuhnke, a judge known for her undue leniency toward wrongdoers and criminals.

Judge Carol Kuhnke's Obstacles to Discovery
Taking the deposition of Al Pacha was my priority. However, corrupt Carol Kuhnke prevented me from taking his deposition. Only in mid April I was permitted to take Al Pacha's deposition because rotten Kuhnke put obstacles for that deposition to happen. For instance, at the hearing on February 24, 2016, this judge ordered me to produce my tax filings since year 2009 as a condition to be able to take Al Pacha's deposition. Nevertheless, the tax filings are entirely irrelevant to the fraudulent representations that Al Pacha made about me.

Carol Kuhnke took instructions from Al Pacha's attorney so that I would have to produce all the evidence I had before I could take Al Pacha's deposition. That approach defeats the purpose of depositions. A testimony under oath is intended to ascertain what the witness knows about the events leading to the claims. By ordering me to first produce the evidence I had by then, Carol Kuhnke enabled Al Pacha and his lawyers know where to safely perjure with attorney-crafted responses.

Additionally, the delay imposed by dishonorable Kuhnke allowed Al Pacha to make showings of amnesia on a multitude of questions during his deposition.

Miscarriage of Justice in the Form of Rulings on Summary Disposition
Al Pacha falsely stated to the University of Michigan that I threatened him that I would use my future position at the University to negatively impact his business (pages 19-23 of my motion for partial disposition). However, there is absolutely no such threat in my emails to Al Pacha which he likes to portray "direct threats" (pages 24-26, of that motion, also filed in complaint, pages 20-21). Simply put, failed negotiations and my frustration about Al Pacha's unreliability do not entitle him to make fraudulent narratives about me.

The trial court ruled in favor of Al Pacha under the pretext of qualified privilege. Carol Kuhnke deliberately treats qualified privilege and an absolute one.

In defamation cases, a defendant's qualified privileged is deemed abused if the defendant made the defamatory statements with actual malice, the term to denote the defendant's knowledge that his defamatory statements are false or that he made the statements with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. The Michigan legislature via MCL 423.452 is clear in that mental states actual malice and good faith are to be proved by preponderance of the evidence.

With Al Pacha's elaborated and fraudulent narrative being disproved, his only recourse was to demonstrate that he made his statements in good faith. Yet he failed to do so. Despite alleging that he felt threatened by the proverb what goes around comes around, which I wrote in two emails, Al Pacha was utterly unable and reluctant to explain his understanding of that proverb (pages 52-53 of the deposition transcript, displayed pages 14-15 of the pdf file). In this regard, his answers at deposition resemble much more a clown trying to be funny than a defendant wishing he could prove good faith. Several other signs of Al Pacha's inconsistencies are palpable in the deposition transcript.

Case law indicates that mental states may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The complaint reflects Al Pacha's avoidance (pages 26-27) of my reiterated and specific inquiry (page 22) about the notifications from the University to him, which would have accelerated the unveiling his defamatory statements. That avoidance of scrutiny is another sign of Al Pacha's consciousness of guilt, which in turn reinforces the position that he defamed me with actual malice.

Besides Al Pacha's ulterior motive (offering a replacement to the University), prior communications show that Al Pacha didn't "feel threatened" by my similarly upset emails in year 2011 (pages 19-20) when I didn't have the job offer from the University. By contrast, in year 2015 Al Pacha failed to persuade me about declining the job offer. As a result, his delayed tactic to overcome his failure was to pretend that now he "felt threatened".

Case law also recognizes as proof of actual malice when the defamer refuses to retract his disproved statements. Al Pacha declined my requests for retraction (page 24 in the complaint), even when the evidence clearly disproved the fraudulent narrative he made in July of 2015. Al Pacha resorted to excuses that have nothing to do with the truth/falsity of the statements at issue (page 17 of his opposition).

A self-respecting judge would ponder the defendant's inconsistencies and reconsider rulings if need be. But judge Carol Kuhnke does not have that dignity or self-respect:

  •  On June 15, 2016, she alleged that I presented "no proof except suppositions" (page 26).
  • On July 13, 2016, judge inadvertently admits that she hadn't seen Al Pacha's deposition transcript, something that she omitted during my prior references to that transcript and its timely filing toward Partial Summary Disposition.
  • On August 17, 2016, this incompetent judge signaled her ambivalence, cluelessness and her indecision (page 22) by stating: 
    • "There has been no finding by me or a jury that  you did not earn any damage to your reputation, Mr. Viggers. That finding has not been made. [...] It hasn't been found the other way either". 
    • Yet that didn't prompt this mediocre "fact-finder" to assess evidence which has been repeatedly filed since the entry of my complaint. This is one sign of how Carol Kuhnke neglects her job by assuming that qualified privilege means absolute privilege.
  • August 17, 2016, is also the date when judge Carol Kuhnke described her blatant and deplorable assessment (pages 21 and 22) of Michigan and, by implication, of its judicial system:
    •  "The State loves insurance companies and it loves employers and it loves oil companies and it loves anybody who's powerful. Okay? But if you're not in those groups, they [sic] you just kind of have to try and stay away -- stay out of the way. [...] and I won't apologize for the State on that."
  • Notwithstanding the judges' obligation to ascertain the truth, when I asked rotten Kuhnke how defendant Al Pacha will clarify the false statements he portrayed as facts, Carol Kuhnke's debauched answer (page 24, line 25 and page 25, lines 1-4) was "That's not up to me. It's not up to me".

Bringing matters to the Michigan appellate court taught me that also upper levels of the judiciary are grossly negligent. I must say it has been appalling how blatantly the appellate court  resorts to judicial fraud. I elaborate on these aspects in my Application for Leave to Appeal.

The foregoing is a monograph of Carol Kuhnke's moral and judicial ineptitude. As long as corrupt judges like her continue degrading the judicial system with their glaring unfitness, rotten individuals like Al Pacha will retain their freedom to harm and defraud unsuspecting, honest civilians.

Trial Court
  • November 24, 2015: My complaint against Al-Azhar Pacha for defamation and other offenses.
  • January 11, 2016: Al-Azhar Pacha's motion to quash the deposition subpoena.
  • January 15, 2016: My opposition to Al Pacha's motion to quash subpoena.
  • January 20, 2016: Transcript of the hearing for motion to quash subpoena. Judge Carol Kuhnke grants the motion, thereby allowing Al Pacha to postpone his deposition.
  • February 8, 2016: Transcript of the deposition testimony of Univ. of Michigan Ronald Loveless.
  • February 8, 2016: My motion to compel discovery due to Al Pacha's lack of compliance with subpena duces tecum.
  • February 15,  2016: Al Pacha's cross-motion to compel me to complete my answers to Al Pacha's discovery requests. This was Al Pacha's artifice to exploit Carol Kuhnke's sloppy ruling and further postpone his deposition.
  • February 19, 2016: My response to Al Pacha's cross-motion to compel.
  • February 24, 2016: Transcript of the hearing  for motion and cross-motion to compel discovery.
  • March 16, 2016: Filing of my motion for partial summary disposition on the counts of defamation and tortious interference with business relation.
  • March 22, 2016: Transcript of my deposition testimony (1st part), (2nd part), (3rd and last part).
  • April 13, 2016: Al Pacha's opposition to my motion for partial summary disposition.
  • April 18, 2016: Transcript of the deposition testimony of defendant Al Pacha, or what I would call "The art of embarrassing yourself under oath".
  • June 2, 2016: Supplement to my motion for partial summary disposition.
  • June 15, 2016: Transcript of the hearing for my motion for partial summary disposition.
  • July 5, 2016: My motion for reconsideration of the ruling on June 15 (partial summary disposition).
  • July 5, 2016: My motion for sanctions against Al Pacha and his attorney in regard for blatant misconduct during Al Pacha's deposition.
  • July 13, 2016: Transcript of the hearing for my motion for sanctions.
  • July 27, 2016: My motion for summary disposition of the remaining counts.
  • August 8, 2016: My supplement to motion for summary disposition. Includes my proposed affidavit giving Al Pacha another opportunity to retract his fraudulent statements.
  • August 10, 2016: Al Pacha's opposition to my motion for summary disposition.
  • August 11, 2016: My supplement to my motion for reconsideration (filed on July 5, see above). Per case law, Al Pacha's refusal to retract his disproved statements constitute proof of actual malice.
  • August 17, 2016: Transcript of last hearing in trial court. On page 21, lines 7-21, Carol Kuhnke summarizes her rogue mentality as judge.

Michigan Court Of Appeals

Michigan Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court (case 17-1576)

No comments:

Post a Comment