TELL PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC. THAT UNFAIR LITIGATION TACTICS AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS BY THEIR PROVIDER LAW FIRMS IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS! 

(NOTE . . . SCROLL TO THE END FOR THE PETITION!)

WHY SIGN THIS PETITION? 

The purpose for this Petition is two-fold.  First, it protests the PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC. policy of refusing to investigate and resolve complaints of litigation abuse and unfair trial practice conducted by law firms designated as “Provider Law Firms” by opposing litigants and others who are not members of Pre-Paid Legal.  Secondly, to garner support for the principal that Pre-Paid Legal should never do business with or otherwise recruit attorneys or law firms who engage in unfair litigation practices targeting Pro Se Litigants.

As stated in greater detail below, I filed a lawsuit against JOSEPH LOGAN NEWELL in Orlando, Florida for breach of contract in December 2005.  As a Pre-Paid Legal member, Newell was directed to the law firm of De Beaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal, a designated “Provider Law Firm” for Pre-Paid Legal.  After more than a year of litigation, trial was held in March 2007.  Through the use of shifty tactics and maneuvers which robbed me of my Constitutional right to a fair and equitable trial, I lost the suit.  As a result, I have been unjustly saddled with attorneys’ fees of $3,360.00 (and climbing!), which I cannot afford and should rightfully not have to pay.

In December 2007, I telephoned my complaint to Ms. Leslie Fisher of Pre-Paid Legal regarding De Beaubien Knight.  According to Pre-Paid Legal’s website, Ms. Fisher is the Vice President for Attorney Resources and is responsible for “provider firm selection, training, member resolution, and quality control.”  After a thorough attempt to make my case, Ms. Fisher advised that she would not take any action on the matter, and added that it was not Pre-Paid Legal’s policy to address complaints made against Provider Law Firms by individuals who are not customers.  WHAT?  This is as ludicrous as an environmental polluter arguing that they owe no duty to those who suffer from the pollution they cause, but only to those who purchase their products.

By pitching the claim that no one should be without a lawyer, Pre-Paid Legal, an MLM company started in 1972, sells legal expense plans for “$26 or less per month.”  When a customer of theirs is sued, Pre-Paid Legal refers them to a nearby “Provider Law Firms” that Pre-Paid Legal itself has “carefully screened and selected.”  Their website makes other claims about their law firm selection process.  This is why I believe Pre-Paid Legal has a RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that the law firms they select are not engaged in unfair and abusive litigation tactics, especially when litigating against a Pro Se Litigant!  In fact, as long as they are profiting from the function and operation of the American Legal System –- a system which is funded by the taxpayer and belongs to THE PEOPLE – I think they have a SUBSTANTIAL DUTY to make sure they are helping to improve the legal system and not contributing to its problems.

They certainly are deriving a SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT from selling their products.  Pre-Paid Legal, headquartered on 80 acres in Ada, Oklahoma, and staffed by more than 700 people, is a member of the New York Stock Exchange, and has more than 1.5 million customers in the U.S.A. and Canada from whom they are collecting monthly membership fees in the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.  With all of this business activity, Pre-Paid Legal has reasonably incurred a duty to establish an honest and effective system for documenting, investigating and resolving complaints against their Provider Law Firms made by non-members.  Their failure to do so, while still profiting from the legal system, is akin to a seal of approval regarding allegations of litigation misconduct and abuse, especially since the allegations pertain to law firms they “carefully screened and selected.”

I NEED YOUR SUPPORT.  Please sign this Petition and distribute it to everyone you know!  Tell Pre-Paid Legal that if they are going to PROFIT from the legal system that WE PAY FOR with our precious tax dollars, they need to institute a procedure to accept, investigate and honestly adjudicate any complaints made against Provider Law Firms, no matter where they come from.

According to WIKIPEDIA, “Pre-paid Legal has come under fire by both former members and legal authorities, charging fraud, deception, and accounting irregularities.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Paid_Legal_Services,_Inc.).  The American Legal System has enough problems, and Pro Se Litigants enough headaches, without Pre-Paid Legal’s business activities running counter to the Public’s desire for a fair, equitable and just litigation process.  If Pre-Paid Legal’s claim of integrity stated in its website is true, then it would gladly and prominently do whatever is necessary to make sure that it does not do business with law firms that frustrate the right to a fair trial or abuse Pro Se Litigants.

THE SHORT STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED

On December 16, 2005, I filed a lawsuit against JOSEPH LOGAN NEWELL (a.k.a. “Logan Newell” or “Joe Newell”) in County Court of Orlando, Florida.  The judge assigned to the case was the Honorable Antoinette Plogstedt.  The suit was based on a breach of contract claim against Newell, a professional Hollywood actor, for his last-minute refusal to honor his agreement to perform at a play premiering at the 2005 Orlando International Fringe Theatre Festival, despite attending four months of rehearsals, resulting in a loss of thousands of dollars in production costs and potential income.  He had the starring role and because he announced his refusal the night before the premier, the show could not go on.

Newell, a customer with Pre-Paid Legal, was represented by the law firm of DE BEAUBIEN, KNIGHT, SIMMONS, MANTZARIS & NEAL, LLP -- the “Provider Law Firm” for Pre-Paid Legal in the Orlando area.  Because De Beaubien Knight is involved in litigation on a daily basis at the same courthouse, before the same judges, for however many years, they enjoy a level of INFLUENCE that no Pro Se Litigant could ever achieve.  De Beaubien Knight took advantage of this fact whenever they could.

One of the first things they did – in a desperate attempt to gain leverage in the suit - was to file a FRIVOLOUS COUNTERCLAIM charging me with violations of the state and federal debt collections practices statutes.  There was only one problem – there was no debt being collected!  While I was vindicated on this issue at trial, De Beaubien Knight not only vilified and prejudiced me with the Court, but also confused the judge on the facts of the case.

Another tactic commonly used by De Beaubien Knight was to produce a pile of legal research for presentation to the judge at the start of any motion hearings we had.  The purpose is to bury the judge with a pile of paper that he/she does not have time to review and make self-serving representations suggesting, accurately or inaccurately, that case law or statute is on the lawyer’s side.  This incredibly dishonest maneuver greatly prejudiced my ability to make opposing arguments because I was not given a copy of the material until MINUTES before the hearing, despite the fact that De Beaubien Knight could have provided it to me days, if not weeks, in advance.

Then came the trial (non-jury), which was held on March 28, 2007.  This is when the GREASTEST LITIGATION ABUSES occurred.  Long story short, and despite my fervent objections whenever possible, here is the worst of it:

     (a)   Despite more than a year of pretrial litigation, De Beaubien Knight got the judge to allow trial time of only two hours!  De Beaubien Knight was producing only two witnesses to say their client was right to my seven witnesses to say their client was wrong.  Since a shorter trial pressures the side with the most witnesses into a rush presentation of his/her case, De Beaubien Knight gained another advantage.   Fairness dictates that more time be accorded to any case in which a Pro Se Litigant is involved, particularly since they do not have the experience and education an attorney has to conduct a trial as effectively.

     (b)   The trial was NOT RECORDED.  No tape recording, no court reporter and, of course, no record from which to effectively mount an appeal.  Worse yet, the Defendant and his witnesses can lie all day long and without a record of the testimony, he can never be held accountable.  De Beaubien Knight, who work the court house on a regular basis, knew this on the way in.  I did not.  This was horrendous!  There should be a rule that no trial involving a Pro Se Litigant should ever occur without a record.

     (c)   At the start of the trial, De Beaubien Knight objected to two of my seven witnesses as being “surprise” witnesses, even though that was NOT TRUE!  One of the two witnesses De Beaubien Knight knew about from the filing of my lawsuit and AGAIN when it was amended.  The second witness was an expert witness and essential to my case.  De Beaubien Knight knew an expert witness was going to come to trial.  In any case, De Beaubien Knight never requested a witness list, which is a clever way to claim ignorance at the trial.  This tactic dealt a “death blow” to my case.  Bona fide witnesses with accurate testimony, WHO WOULD HAVE HELPED ME WIN MY CASE, were not allowed to testify.

     (d)   In reaction to repeated, irritating and irrelevant objections to the Court from De Beaubien Knight, Judge Plogstedt took over the questioning of four of the five witnesses I brought to trial.  My witnesses!  Of course, the judge, not knowing what case I was putting on, asked the questions that she was interested in posing, rather than those that would make my case.  In two instances, I didn’t even get a chance to say “hello” or “goodbye” to my own witnesses.  Moreover, key documents that supported my claims never saw the light of day because I couldn’t introduce them through my own witnesses.  To make matters worse, De Beaubien Knight was given an unfettered opportunity to question my witnesses.

     (e)   De Beaubien Knight’s witnesses, one being the Defendant himself and the other being his good friend, took advantage of the fact that their testimony was not being recorded and made all kinds of unsubstantiated claims, allegations and statements, some of which were clearly hearsay.       (f)   De Beaubien Knight continued making false allegations that I was a “debt collector” in an attempt to denigrate me and prejudice my case.

The end result was that Judge Plogstedt ruled in Newell’s favor, resulting in an award of attorneys’ fees against me of $3,360.00, plus interest.  Because De Beaubien Knight is working the file, the current total is much more.

THE PETITION

I BELIEVE that no one should be made to pay attorneys’ fees or any other monetary judgment that is the result of a trial or other legal process that is not conducted fairly, properly, and equitably.

I DENOUNCE AND HOLD RESPONSIBLE any parties, be they individuals or businesses, who are in any way involved in or fail to take action against complaints of litigation abuse and injustice, particularly those that involve the violation of someone’s right to a fair and equitable trial.

I BELIEVE that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. has a public and commercial responsibility to make sure none of the law firms it designates as “Provider Law Firm” engage in unfair litigation practices, particularly those which result in the denial of a litigant’s right to a fair and equitable trial.

I BELIEVE that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. has a duty to make certain that it does business with only the most ethical and responsible law firms available. To honor this duty, I BELIEVE that Pre-Paid Legal should develop and implement a process for accepting, investigating and resolving any and all complaints against its Provider Law Firms regardless of who makes those complaints.

I BELIEVE that Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.’s ability to sell legal expense plans to the general public is a privilege, not a right. To maintain that privilege, Pre-Paid Legal should take all reasonable measures to make certain that no law firms it does business with are engaged in unfair litigation practices when litigating cases on behalf of Pre-Paid Legal members.

I SUPPORT the fair and just treatment of Pro Se Litigants with regard to any litigation to which they are a party. Accordingly, I DENOUNCE any commercial enterprise which is directly or indirectly involved with law firms that are engaged in unfair litigation practices directed at Pro Se Litigants.

I SUPPORT an initiative by the Florida Bar Association to warn all attorneys that unfair litigation practices and tactics against Pro Se Litigants is a violation of public policy and will not be tolerated, and any complaints regarding the same will be swiftly and properly investigated, and the guilty parties punished.