|Series of bullying tactics and violation of First Amendment |
Attorney Daryl L. Kidd
Attorney Daryl Kidd attempted to force M. Portman to change her original web site, through a direct threat to her and through complaints to the web site provider, Lycos. Attorney Kidd threatened to sue M. Portman for libel if she did not remove certain statements from the web site. In addition, Daryl Kidd's attorneys have threatened M. Portman with a suit for Abusive Litigation. As with so many of Daryl Kidd's other threats, these are simply more bullying tactics by members of the legal profession. The following series of letters and emails are an interesting study of attempted intimidation by a member of the legal profession:
Kidd's letter to M. Portman, February 7, 2000 Appendix B.00.02.07a
Kidd's letter to Citizens for Legal Responsibility, February 7, 2000 Appendix B.00.02.07b
CLR's response to Mr. Kidd http://www.clr.org/Kidd-Daryl-L.html
M. Portman's response to Kidd, February 20, 2000 Appendix B.00.02.20a
M. Portman's letter to Lycos, February 20, 2000 Appendix B.00.02.20b
Neil Bibbin's email to M. Portman, March 21, 2000 Appendix B.00.03.21a
Neil Bibbin's' email to M. Portman, April 2, 2000 Appendix B.00.04.02a
M. Portman's email to Neil Bibbins, April 5, 2000 Appendix B.00.04.05a
M. Portman's letter to Lycos, April 7, 2000 Appendix B.00.04.07a
Attorney Mercer's letter to M. Portman, April 7, 2000 Appendix B.00.04.07b
M. Portman's response letter to Attorney Mercer, April 10, 2000 Appendix B.00.04.10a
Brad Steiner's email to M. Portman, April 12, 2000 Appendix B.00.04.12a
M. Portman's letter to Brad Steiner, April 22, 2000 Appendix B.00.04.22a
Brad Steiner's letter and email to M. Portman, May 30, 2000 Appendix B.00.05.30a
M. Portman's letter to Brad Steiner, May 30, 2000 Appendix B.00.05.30b
The result is that Lycos DID remove M. Portman's web site. However, she had taken precautions and had moved the documents to another site and obtained her own domain. The documents are now available at http://www.marquitta.com
Then, M. Portman was notified by the new web provider that they had received a letter from an attorney and a letter from a judge demanding that the new site be terminated. They identified the attorney as Daryl Kidd, and told the M. Portman that they had contacted their own counsel. They (the new web provider) assured M. Portman that upon the advice of their counsel, they were standing firm, that to terminate the site would require a court order. Although they had notified her of the two letters, they now refuse to provide her with copies of the letters. She has notified them that the letters are evidence and should be retained for expected litigation.
M. Portman has been asked why she believes that the underlying Final Judgment, if VOID, must be declared as VOID by a Court of Law. VOID ab initio means "as if it never was." VOIDABLE means that a party may have the grounds "to nullify that which was." She takes her direction on this from the Court's directive. The following is an excerpt of the transcript, Appendix B.98.09.16a before Judge James G. Bodiford:
Plaintiff Portman: I HAVE BEEN MADE TO FEEL OBSTINATE AND LITIGIOUS FOR SIMPLY RESPECTING THE JUDGMENTS OF SUPERIOR COURT. OUT OF SELF-PRESERVATION, I HAVE SPENT AN INORDINATE NUMBER OF HOURS RESEARCHING AND STUDYING THE LAW, SO THAT I COULD WORK WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF THE LAW. SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE AN ELDERLY LAW STUDENT, TAKING ONE LONG GRUELING BAR EXAM.
I PRESENTLY DO NOT KNOW IF I AM TRULY DIVORCED OR IF THE FINAL DECREE IS, IN FACT, NOW VOID, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH I AM SEEKING FROM DEFENDANT
HOLDS WITHIN IT THE ANSWER AS TO MY LEGAL RIGHTS, STATUS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS. WITHOUT IT, I AM LEFT IN A NO-MAN’S LAND OF MAYBE DIVORCED, MAYBE NOT DIVORCED.
Court: DO YOU HAVE A FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF DIVORCE?
Plaintiff Portman: I DO.
C: LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY; YOU’RE LEGALLY DIVORCED UNTIL A COURT SAYS OTHERWISE. BUT I DON’T NEED TO GET INTO THAT. THAT’S THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. IN FACT, DO NOT TELL ME ABOUT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. I’VE GOT ANOTHER CASE, WE HAVE GOT OTHER LITIGANTS THAT ARE WAITING ON YOU. NOW, LET ME SAY THIS; ARE YOU SAYING AS FAR AS -- AS FAR AS THE WAY YOU WERE DESCRIBING YOURSELF -- ARE YOU SAYING THIS COURT TREATED YOU ANYTHING WITH LESS THAN COURTESY, DIGNITY AND RESPECT? Commentary: M. Portman has been advised that the statement by Judge Bodiford identified above, in red, "Let me put it this way; you're legally divorced until a court says otherwise." is woefully inaccurate. If an order is VOID, it was never of any force or effect. Consequently, such a statement by a judge is actually fraud by the Court. But, the fraud cannot be specifically identified until the VOID order is declared to be VOID. (Note that the statute of limitations runs from the identification of the fraud.) Could this case actually go on FOREVER?
Very interesting to read.