Background and Filing of the Lawsuit against Al Pacha
Intermediary Al Pacha is owner of Alpac Inc. and my former employer. During my entire employment with him I worked for the University of Michigan. In 2015 the University began its process to hire me as full-time employee. This meant that Al Pacha's years of profiting from my work would come to an end as soon as the University's process reached completion. But the University changed its mind under suspicious circumstances, and on July 30, 2015, it notified me of its decision to abort the hiring. I sued Al Pacha upon discovering that on July 21 and 22, 2015, he approached the University and falsely accused me of threatening him.
I would have sued Al Pacha right away, but I filed suit in November of 2015. The reason for the delay is that for three months the University of Michigan concealed from me Al Pacha's defamatory publications. The University of Michigan had a legal duty to promptly disclose that information to me. Indeed, the matter was within scope of a subpoena I served upon the University as part of my discovery efforts in my lawsuit against harasser María Viggers. She used to harass a number of University employees, which is why I petitioned a Personal Protection Order against her. The University also had a moral duty to give me an opportunity to disprove Al Pacha's lies, but morals is too much to ask of an entity that turned out to be corrupt. The University's unjustifiable concealment constitutes discovery fraud.
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. For months, harasser María Viggers insisted the University of Michigan to identify who my direct employer was. Whether or not the University eventually facilitated that information to María Viggers is still unknown. My conjecture is that the University did (for the six-hour gap between the servicing of the PPO and Pacha's false accusations is too much of a random coincidence) or the University made arrangements with Al Pacha as an oblique way get rid of harasser María Viggers.
Some Michigan judges have, and others crave, lucrative 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). The extent of Carol Kuhnke's delusion illustrates how some Michigan judges drool for a bone from the University of Michigan. That helps explaining the judicial systematic refusal to remedy the University's 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.
The case was presided by Carol Kuhnke. Ever since the police busted her for illegal possession of narcotics, in November of 2016, her pattern of favoring wrongdoers and criminals has been gaining notoriety among the public.
Judge Carol Kuhnke's Obstacles to Discovery
I sought to take the deposition of Al Pacha as soon as possible, but only in mid April I was permitted to do so because rotten Kuhnke put vexatious obstacles. Case in point: 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 notwithstanding that the tax filings are entirely irrelevant to Al Pacha's fraudulent representations about me.
Carol Kuhnke catered to Al Pacha's attorney, thereby defeating the purpose of the deposition. A testimony under oath is intended to ascertain what the witness knows about the events leading to the claims. But 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 via attorney-crafted responses as well as malingered amnesia at 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. That term denotes that at the time of making the defamatory falsehoods the defendant was aware that they were false or acted 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 narrative being disproved, his only recourse was to demonstrate that he made his statements in good faith. He failed to do so. Despite alleging that he felt threatened by the proverb what goes around comes around, he 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 some clown trying to be funny rather than a defendant trying to 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, records that would lead me to discovering 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 so as to prolong his lucrative business), prior communications show that Al Pacha didn't "feel threatened" by emails I sent in year 2011 (pages 19-20) where I expressed with similarly upset tone my frustrations about him. He just was unable to cope with the fact that in 2015 I preferred to retain the job position for which the University decided to hire me.
Case law also recognizes as proof of actual malice the defamer's refusal 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 vacate improper rulings. But many judges in Michigan lack integrity, and crooked Kuhnke is a textbook example of that:
- On June 15, 2016, she alleged that I presented "no proof except suppositions" (page 26).
- On July 13, 2016, the judge inadvertently admits that she hadn't seen Al Pacha's deposition transcript, something she should have disclosed prior to ruling on my Motion for Partial Summary Disposition. It appears that this deadbeat judge did not read even the first paragraph of the filing that locates the transcript.
- 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 pretending 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.
- 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 25, 2016: Order sanctioning Al Pacha's attorney for misconduct during Al Pacha's deposition.
- 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
- August 24, 2016: My Appellant's Brief.
- August 24, 2016: My Motion to Expedite Appeal.
- August 31, 2016: Al Pacha's Opposition to my Motion to Expedite.
- September 7, 2016: Order denying my motion.
- September 12, 2016: Al Pacha's attorneys wasting time with a Motion to Strike Appellant's Brief instead of working on the Appellee's Brief.
- September 14, 2016: My Opposition to Strike Appellant's Brief.
- September 21, 2016: Order denying Al Pacha's motion.
- September 22, 2016: Al Pacha's Motion to Extend Deadline for Appellee's Brief.
- September 25, 2016: My Opposition to Extend Deadline.
- September 28, 2016: Al Pacha's Appellee's Brief.
- October 2, 2016: My Appellant's Reply Brief.
- October 5, 2016: Order denying Al Pacha's motion to extend deadline.
- November 20, 2016: My first of several Supplemental Authority Letters in this appeal.
- November 25, 2016: My second Supplemental Authority Letter.
- December 22, 2016: Another Supplemental Authority Letter.
- December 25, 2016: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- January 18, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- January 23, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- February 7, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- April 2, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- April 23, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- May 7, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- May 29, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- June 26 ,2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- July 4, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- July 30, 2017: Supplemental Authority Letter.
- August 15, 2017: COA's judicial fraud or "appellate review".
Michigan Supreme Court
- September 18, 2017: My Application Brief for Leave to Appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court the so-called "review" of the Court of Appeals.
- October 2, 2016: Al Pacha's Motion to Extend Deadline for Appellee's Brief.
- October 3, 2016: My Opposition to Extend Deadline.
- October 5, 2017: Order extending Al Pacha's deadline to November 6, 2017.
- November 6, 2017: Al Pacha's Appelle Brief.
- November 26, 2017: My Reply Brief.
- March 5, 2018: The Michigan Supreme Court denies my Application.
United States Supreme Court (case 17-1576)
- May 14, 2018: My Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
- June 21, 2018: Al Pacha's opposition brief.
- July 2, 2018: My Reply Brief.
I can't believe I've found this website, this is an incredibly entertaining read. I'm a lawyer myself and but I can't really understand what's going on with your case.ReplyDelete
Can you answer a couple of questions:
1. Please state the statements given by the defendant which you believe are defamatory
2. Don't you think, with your livelihood at stake, that seeing a lawyer was a good choice?
With all due respect, everything I've read in the documents you've linked shows exactly why legal professionals are so crucial when you have a complaint. You have a minimal understanding of civil procedure, and judging by the efforts you've gone through to appeal your case, completely unrealistic expectations about what remedies are available to yourself.
Thanks for your comment. Your mention that you have read the documents linked herein helps debunking the nonsense that having a lawyer is "crucial" or even helpful.Delete
If you --as you purport-- have truly read any of (1) my Appellate Brief in the Michigan COA (in particular page 5), (2) my Application for Leave to Appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court (pp. 5-6), or (3) my Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the SCOTUS (pp. 8-9), and you are still unable identify the defamatory statements at issue, then it just reflects a severe lack of reading comprehension skills that makes you unfit to practice law.
It is funny that you talk about "completely unrealistic expectations". When the judge presiding a case is some narcofelon like Carol Kuhnke --whose lecture in court is that "Michigan loves anybody who's powerful and you just have to stay out of the way" (transcript of August 17, 2016, page 21)--, the chances for justice to be served are non-existent. As long as courts are run by deplorable judges of that "quality", the only sure way prevail in court is that the party's (or his lawyer's) position align with the judiciary's rogue interests.
I believe this addresses your pair of rhetorical questions.
Lastly, your remark that I "have a minimal understanding of civil procedure" is hilarious. The defendant's lawyer said the exact opposite when she was trying to avoid sanctions for her misconduct. Indeed, the crooked attorney said I am "more aware probably than most second or third year associates of what the Michigan Court Rules require" (on page 9 of transcript of July 13, 2016). So, which is it? This shows how you lawyers "grade" us depending on what's going on with you on that particular day.
With due respect, yours is a poor attempt to mislead the audience on the ridiculous notion that lawyers in general add value.
Thank you for this. I found it very informational. I agree that many professionals involved in the legal field are very corrupt.ReplyDelete
Viggers is a crank who lashes out at anyone and everyone who doesn't mindlessly support his narrative, and who uses every possible opportunity to dredge up his failed legal disputes as evidence of a conspiracy of incompetent but powerful forces to suppress his supreme intelligence.ReplyDelete
Every now and then I get this type of attacks on law.stackexchange.com. Online anonymity/pseudonymity does not change the fact that court cases are decided by criminals wearing black robe, though.Delete
Narcofelon Carol Kuhnke is one of those criminals. Her misconduct in court, her remarks from the bench, and the police report from when she got busted indicate that she clearly is unfit for judicial office. There is no need for "mindless" support of my narrative. Beyond your impulse to suck up to judges are the police report about narcofelon Kuhnke, the ensuing letters by the Special Prosecutor, and my court transcripts for anyone to corroborate.
Your anonymous grandiloquence speaks more about your cowardness than about anything else. But when ending up in court and depositions, you clowns stick to answers of the sort "I don't know" and "I don't remember" just like defendant Al Pacha did during his deposition.