• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
The Misadventures of Charles Lincoln and PeeWee Freiman
The Cases of Abbott, Johnson, and Jaikaran 
nolu chanDecember 5, 2009Hyperlinked numbers go to corresponding documents in a case Docket Report. The cases involved,hyperlinked to the Docket Reports, are:
 ABBOTT
-
Lincoln v. Abbott 
, USDC TXWD, 1-06-cv-00838
JOHNSON
-
Johnson v. Bank of America 
, USDC TXSD, 3-06-cv-00714
JAIKARAN
-
Jaikaran v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
, USDC TXSD, 4-06-cv-01479 Andrea Atalay hand and stamp SignaturesThere are 114 documents listed in
 ABBOTT
, but I focus on only two,53 and78. My focus is not on the case itself, but on the motion for sanctions with attached exhibits, including statements of Andrea Atalayand apparent misuse of her signature stamp. Documents110and113show Lincoln again "paying" an appeal docketing fee with a rubber check and not paying the NSF fee or providing a replacement check. Itseems one can get away with this in federal court but not at the local store.In
JOHNSON
, Andrea Atalay was surprised to discover she was the Lead Attorney to be Noticed. Withouther knowledge, but with her signature stamp, it seems Atalay moved for admission
pro hac vice 
in TexasSouthern District, was admitted, and was even scheduled for a required admission workshop.In
JAIKARAN
, there are currently 367 documents in this Lincoln adaptation of the Dickens creation,
Jarndyce and Jarndyce 
. The more I look at it, the more interesting it gets. Indeed, there seems to havebeen a tangled web of intrigue going on behind the scenes regarding the involvement of Charles Lincolnand Andrea Atalay. Whatever exactly was going on, it went sideways and Lincoln was ordered into court toexplain his involvement in the case, Atalay managed to get herself relieved from representation in the case,and the judge wound up issuing a bench warrant for Lincoln's arrest. And, of course, there are more Atalaysignatures, possibly including real and forged handwritten signatures.
 ABBOTT
53-4was filed by "Peyton Yates Freiman, Trustee," and bears the signature of Andrea S. Atalay on pages13 and 16. The signatures are not just similar, they are identical. They appear to be placed there with asignature stamp, but could be a digital copy of the signature inserted into the document. This signaturestamp use also appears in
Johnson 
,1at 24 and 25, and4at 4. See documents or my collection of  Andrea  Atalay hand and stamp Signatures.53-5, at 29-30, shows the following from a court transcript:3 MR. DAVIS: Mr. Lincoln's taken two routes since4 then to challenge that order. One he suited everybody,5 including Judge clausen, Judge Schraubb, Mr. Todd, the Attorney6 General and myself, Mr. Grimes, Ms. Nolan, Williamson County,7 Janet Duty, unnamed judges and unnamed attorneys in federal8 court. Now, he's only served myself, Mr. Todd, the Attorney9 General, and Mr. Grimes. But he has this federal suit pending10. saying -- trying to appeal that decision for sanctions.11 And then just last week or maybe just the other
 
12 day, I got something by somebody alleging to be his trustee who13 is this same person serving the citations, saying that he was14 going to set aside this judgment that we are trying to enforce15 by an equatable bill of review under Ms. Atalay's signature,16 which she filed in this court. So they had plenty of vehicles,17 Judge, to go forward and do that. This Court has jurisdiction18 to say, show up at a deposition and answer these19 interrogatories.
20 MS. ATALAY: Your Honor, I need to object here21 to what Mr. Davis said. The filing of the equitable bill of 22 review, I understand, has some representation of my signature23 on it. I am not willing to state or take responsibility for24 that filing.
 25 THE COURT: All right. I'm not sure I1 understand exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that2 that--3 MS. ATALAY: Your Honor --
4 THE COURT: Okay. You didn't sign it and you5 aren't -- nobody else was authorized to sign on your behalf?
 
6 MS. ATALAY: That's correct.
78-2, pp. 4-7, is the handwritten "Motion to Withdraw" by Andrea Atalay. At 4-6 we find:MOTION TO WITHDRAWNow comes ANDREA S. ATALAY and requests that this Court remove any reference to her as Attorney of Record for Defendant Charles Lincoln. Ms. Atalay knew nothing until today of hersupposed involvement in the above captioned matter.
 Any submitted papers, motions, orletters which show my 'signature' WERE NOT signed by me or with my permission.Further, Ms. Atalay represents to the Court that this is not the first time thatDefendant Lincoln has submitted papers to a court attempting to use her license, towhat end Ms. Atalay is unsure. Ms. Atalay has to write similar motions to Courts inWilliamson County and has already submitted such a motion to the GalvestonDivision of the Southern District of Texas federal court.It is true that Mr. Lincoln has worked for Ms. Atalay on occasion as a legal assistant.It is also true that Ms. Atalay had a signature stamp made (as do most attorneys)and that Mr. Lincoln had access to that stamp. However, it is also true that Mr.Lincoln was told he could never use the stamp absent Ms. Atalay's expresspermission. That permission was never given or even sought in the case at bar. Mr.Lincoln represented to Ms. Atalay that the stamp had been lost months ago. It isnow obvious that Mr. Lincoln either lied about the stamp or he has found anothermethod to duplicate her signature.
In the event, ANDREA S. ATALAY sincerely apologizes to the Court for the wasted efforts tocontact her made by the Court's personnel, and for any upset this may have caused inmanaging the Court's docket and Chambers.Ms. Atalay intends to immediately explore the least disruptive way to handle other known (andunknown) of this behavior. She has already sent an email to Mr. Lincoln informing him of her
 
intentions.WHEREBY, Attorney-at-Law Andrea S. Atalay requests that this Court remove from the recordsof this case any reference to her as attorney of record for Defendant Lincoln, or in thealternative, grants her motion to withdraw; and further requests that this Court not require Ms. Atalay to appear in person before ruling.Respectfully submitted, /s/ A S Atalay Andrea S. Atalay Attorney-at-LawIn78-2, p. 2, an Email of Charles Lincoln to John Franks, Peyton Freiman, Dan Simon, claudia lowe; hestates,IF CLAUDIA GETS HER AFFIDAVIT DONE TODAY SO THAT WE CAN FILE the Amendment, thatis a PARTIAL (not a complete) response and DE FACTO (because it is a partial response) willRESET THE CLOCK by giving them a new document to which they must respond-- and that'sPART of the reason why CLAUDIA's AFFIDAVIT NEEDS TO BE FILED TODAY. I DO WANT DANto file his Response also, because that TOO will either set or confuse the clock. I am not certainthat Claudia needs to file any response other than her affidavit saying that she was not served.Dan's response is probably something that JOHN HENRY FRANKS could cosign, and it will havesome effect, whether it is LEGALLY SUFFICIENT or not .... resetting clocks is what we need todo UNTIL WE GET A LAWYER.In53-2, pp. 5-9, we find:He is a harassing, vexatious litigant whose actions are antithetical to the system of justice wehave in America today.3. Defendants would show unto this Honorable Court the following timeline associated withPlaintiff's continuing vexatious litigation is as follows:4. In 1995, Plaintiff and his spouse filed for divorce. The divorce decree was finalized on orabout February 16, 1999. In 2000, alleging that he had been remarried, albeit informally,Plaintiff brought a second divorce proceeding against Elena K. Lincoln even though a FinalDecree of Divorce previously had been entered. During this second divorce proceeding, Plaintiff also appeared as a
pro se 
Petitioner in the Travis County courts. On or about October 9, 2002,the court determined that Plaintiff had not been remarried. Plaintiff filed a partial nonsuit.However, shortly thereafter on or about November 25, 2002, Plaintiff filed a third divorcepetition litigation whose cause number was FM207900;
IMMO Lincoln;
In the 250th JudicialDistrict Court of Travis County, Texas, and again alleged that he had been remarried. Plaintiff was again a
pro se 
litigant in this matter. This litigation was dismissed with prejudice on orabout May 15, 2003, and Petitioner's Motion for Reinstatement was denied on or about July 17,2003.5. On or about July 15, 2003, Plaintiff brought his fourth divorce petition in a case numberedand styled as FM-304678. Here again, Plaintiff alleged that he had been remarried informally.Here again, Plaintiff was a
pro se 
litigant. Here again, Plaintiffs litigation was dismissed withprejudice.[...]8. The Court further held "[w]e find that Lincoln and his attorney, Francis Williams Montelongo[sic] filed a petition in this Court that is clearly groundless within the meaning of Rule 52.11(a).We believe the record established that Lincoln and his counsel have engaged in a pattern of filing baseless motions and petitions. This conduct cannot be ignored." The Court further held
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...

uploaded a new revision for this document (#2)

12 / 06 / 2009

uploaded a new revision for this document (#1)

12 / 06 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...