I also wrote on this blog about Sharon O'Dell's instant "retirement", endorsement of that retirement by a local "women's bar association" infested with law clerks, judges and relatives and employees of judges, and about the lavish "retirement" party, complete with food and balloons thrown in Sharon O'Dell's "honor", with posting of "mock lockup" pictures of Sharon O'Dell fraternizing with the Sheriff who is supposedly investigating her.
Now that Sharon O'Dell "retired", Debra A. Goodrich, her deputy, took over - and filed yet another false public document offered for filing by Jonathan Follender, during the criminal investigation of her boss, and of herself.
On November 4, 2016, Debra A. Goodrich and Jonathan Follender filed a "partial satisfaction of judgment".
The criminal complaint against Jonathan Follender was for filing, on September 26, 2016, a $10,961.50 judgment, with 9% interest
based on a court order that allowed only for a $1,751.60 judgment with costs allowed by the court, and after the $8,470.00 that I put in escrow during appeal was released to Follender prior to filing a judgment based on the money he just received, as if it is a new judgment, with a 9% interesting ongoing.
See what the Turnover order of July 18, 2016 said:
The Turnover Order clearly allows Follender to file only a judgment for $1,751.60 plus costs, and refers to a "previous judgment" (already entered) for $8,470.00 (which grew during the pendency of appeals to $8,501.05) which the court ordered to be satisfied, by turning over funds to Follender out of the court escrow:
Once again, the September 26, 2016 judgement filed by Follender was based only on the Turnover Order of July 18, 2016.
The Turnover Order of July 18, 2016 ordered satisfaction of a "previous judgment" of April 10, 2016 by releasing funds I put into escrow during the pendency of appeal.
- took the money ordered to be released to satisfy the April 10, 2016 judgment; and
- illegally put the amount just received right back into a new judgment of $10,961.60, without court permission, and with an ongoing 9% annual interest.
In the "partial satisfaction", Follender claimed that
the Judgment he filed on September 26, 2016 was based not on Turnover Order only (which is what the judgment says), but also on the judgment from an April 10, 2014 order (referenced by the judge as "the previous judgment", already existing);
Follender did not even try to amend the judgment of September 26, 2016 as being based on two orders instead of one, as the text of that judgment says, before filing the "partial satisfaction" of a judgment of September 26, 2016 based on receipt of funds a week prior.
Follender filed the "partial satisfaction" 10 days after the police received my criminal complaint against him and ONLY because I filed a criminal complaint against him, otherwise the triple judgment would have remained filed, with 9% interest accruing on $8,470 plus $10961.50 - instead of $1,751.60 with costs, total.
Follender also claimed that he has actually received "partial satisfaction" of a judgment filed on September 26, 2016 "on or about September 17, 2016", a full week before he filed a new judgment under the Turnover Order, with an ongoing 9% interest on the amount already received a week prior.
Follender authorized the Delaware County Clerk - who by that time resigned - "to cancel, satisfy and discharge the judgment" (the September 26, 2016 illegal judgment) to the extent of $8,301.00, while leaving the "previous judgment" mentioned by Judge Tormey unsatisfied.
Debra Goodrich, who was herself under criminal investigation because of filing of the previous fraudulent judgment of September 26, 2016, entered and filed the new fraudulent "partial satisfaction" of judgment that tried to represent the judgement of September 26, 2016 as a legitimate judgment, and tried to claim "partial satisfaction" by receiving satisfaction funds prior to entry of a judgment, for the 2nd time, in a full amount - which is abject fraud.
So, I turned Follender in again.
I filed one more criminal complaint against him, and one more complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission, and one more complaint to the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Let's see if the law applies to Follender, or if he is immune.
So far Follender engaged in a frivolous proceeding against several people whose representation I undertook only after a default judgment was entered in 2009, to make motions to vacate and appeal - in M & C Brothers v Torum, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280, claiming breach of contract and fraud where his client did not satisfy conditions precedent of the contract.
Follender's client, the timbering company, was supposed to obtain a large (1 million dollars, as far as I remember) insurance policy before attempting to claim specific performance or breach of contract, and never obtained that policy, nor demonstrated that it had funds to obtain that policy to demonstrate to the court that the client was willing, able and ready to perform the contract.
Thus, the whole proceeding was frivolous in the first place - not that it deterred Follender from prosecuting it.
Then, Follender made in that proceeding an outrageously stupid (and frivolous) motion to substitute a client "nunc pro tunc" because of the client's death, while his client was a corporation (that never dies) - the motion for the "death of a corporation" was actually granted by a Harvard-educated judge, the now retired judge Eugene Peckham
Peckham also did not see a problem that there was no affidavit of service of his Order to Show Cause to strike an answer and to enter a default judgment, a jurisdictional requirement to even review such a motion - and entered the default judgment anyway, and subsequently refused to grant a motion to vacate because of his own illegal actions, and stalled the appeal from the denial of the motion by refusing to settle the transcript, which was his obligation.
I was actually sanctioned and then suspended for withdrawing one of the two pending appeals - which I did only and exclusively because I could not file a settled transcript, since Peckham refused to settle it. Yet, Peckham was protecting himself by preventing me from filing the settled transcript of the motion hearing - which shows that it is completely wrong to give to judges whose decisions are challenge on appeal control over that appeal by giving them authority to settle transcripts for the appellate record.
Peckham also did not see a problem with awarding the accrual of 9% interest on the judgment Follender's client did not deserve in the first place (because it never obtained the insurance policy as the contract required) covering the periods of adjournments of court proceedings which were not caused by the defendants. Follender actually got 9% interest on damages for periods of adjournments that he himself requested, thus providing encouragement to connected attorneys like Follender to delay litigation in order to get more money in damages at the end.
Peckham also did not see a problem to join, as a partner, a firm that was litigating a case which he previously handled as a judge, without disclosure of the firm's disqualification. Nor did Peckham see a problem acting, without disclosure, as a "judicial hearing officer" (a retired judge with the same functions as an acting judge) in the same court which handled the case where his law firm appeared.
Peckham fought disqualification
even after I presented to his partner the law requiring his law firm's mandatory disqualification from the case:
Peckham and his law firm were disqualified from the Kilmer v Moseman case, but were never sanctioned.
This was one "stellar" judge on M & C Brothers v Torum case who ruled for a fellow judge Follender - not surprisingly, given the level of competence and integrity demonstrated by Judge Peckham.
- he filed a breach of contract claim without showing satisfaction of condition precedent in the contract,
- made a motion for the "death of a corporation",
- obtained a default judgment without providing proof of service and claiming 9% interest on damages for periods of delay caused by his own client,
- concealed transcript of his expert's deposition, as well as identity of his expert and the stenographer who was taking the deposition;
- made fraudulent claims to the homestead judge that I "abandoned my clients" and "frivolously caused the loss of subject matter jurisdiction" by the court by causing to satisfy the money judgment too soon - after having me sanctioned for delaying satisfaction of that same money judgment; and
- Follender got attorney fees for opposing my defamation and fraud action against him, even though my lawsuit was based on irrefutable documentary evidence, and Follender defaulted (imagine having a judge "deeming" record evidence of 2 completely separate court cases as "one" - and sanctioning a party for asserting what is in court records, it is only possible where one attorney is also a judge, the judge is a woman-hater and the sanctioned attorney is the judge's critic).