Pre-Trial Memorandum
The topic this week is on the Pre-Trial memo. But first let’s look to last week’s affidavit. Once it was written it was time to get it notarized and filed with the court. I get to my bank and there’s a sign on the door that one needs an appointment to get service, otherwise there’s the drive-up window. Even at the window there is no one it’s all done electronically. I go to several more banks, they are open, but won’t serve me because I’m not one of their customers. I had to sign it kneeling on the tarmac’s surface and return it to the notary inside the bank through a cylinder that gets whooshed in to him, then wait for him to come, crack open the lobby door a sliver and hand me back my notarized document.
I had a similar bizarre experience when filing the document with the court. I put down my satchel at the conveyer belt and am stopped by the attending officer. He orders me to the sanitation device on the wall to clean my hands before he will scan my things. I am then made to furnish information about my health. Do I live with others, are they well, had I been out of the country in the last 3 weeks, am I coughing, do I feel unwell? No, I am saddened by the masks I see every day, whether it is forced on a person, or frightened into it. And then the endless humiliation where one is made to perform rituals that don’t add one jot of safety to oneself. It’s like waiting at the red light at 3 in the morning when the whole town is asleep. One does it because there could be police lurking. The feeling one has at the stoplight in the middle of the night is not pleasant, one is made to act the fool for the state, which cannot be bothered with making complex decisions. Such as, between the hours of 3am and 5am you’re free to make your own decisions about the stop light, using the judgment inherent in you to make appropriate choices about going forward or not.
But, we obey.
My court case concerning a gazebo that I placed in the yard of my apartment and given written permission by management do so, and then rescinded, is one of those situations where a corrupt organization feels a need to assert power because, in truth, they are powerless. Threats, threats, threats. Put your mask on or you will die. One very good reason why so many more Americans are dying from the corona virus is because of the poor health system in the country. That the median age of the dying is 85 indicates that the virus was merely one of the factors in their ill health. They were already sick from untreated diseases when exposed to the virus and had not the resources to fight it.
There is no daddy to take care of us. We are alone on a strange but beautiful planet and must make our way individually. Build our strength, put up with as little obedience as one must to survive, because obedience is much more insidious than the virus. It kills your spirit, weakens you physically. Look at the obedient among us whatever élan they once had is completely erased. They mumble inanities and shuffle along to some ersatz little candy society provides. Shopping anyone?
Check out the rich people, they’re in worse shape than we are. Oh, they’ve got the goodies and will undoubtedly live longer than others. Is that what it’s all about? I think not. The reason why the government, the maintenance company are desperate to assert power is because they have become corrupt, like the banana in the fruit basket that has become squishy and is attracting fruit flies. It has outlived its usefulness in its present configuration and a change is in order. Sometimes the change comes through collapse or is fought against with the assertion of power.
Although many bemoan the situation we find ourselves in, I do not. This is actually a very good time as we are forced to look at what is truly meaningful and important for one’s path.
And now for the memo. Being aware that I am easily dismissed as a pro se litigant, I explain more than my opponent does what my plan of action will be for the trial, which has to be balanced by the negative of giving my opponent more than I would want to; unavoidable. The talk lately is of a June hearing for the pre-trial conference.
PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
Petitioner pro se, Lorraine Saint Pierre offers this Honorable Court Petitioner’s Pretrial Statement in the above referenced matter.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT TRIAL:
BREACH OF CONTRACT:
Petitioner’s lease permits tenant to erect a gazebo in yard facing her home if given written permission, without limitation, as stated in lease’s plain language. Permission was given then rescinded and Petitioner’s property within gazebo was seized.
RESPONDENT’S ROLE:
Respondent, a maintenance company, interferes in Petitioner’s contractual lease relationship with property owner. Contrary to lease’s other signatory and major obligor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s by-laws, they may not. Yet as landlord’s delegate, they have taken or been given the ability to make its own rules. In that role, they have governed what’s permitted in the enclosed yard of Petitioner’s home because, Respondent avers, it is a common area. Yet Respondent has given permission for the placement of a gazebo in front of Petitioner’s unit, which was installed and remained in yard from May to November of 2019, has given open-ended written permission to tenant in unit 6 of stated building to have a patio in front of her unit, has also ignored others who’ve also claimed, and furnished their adjoining yard frontage. The yard cannot be considered a common area under such circumstances. Respondent does not have the authority to make such decisions. Only Landlord may do so.
OBLIGATIONS:
Petitioner has no contractual relationship with Respondent. It may ask for cooperation in maintaining property, offer guidelines, but it is not tenants’ governing body, nor is it landlord’s security force who may come into tenants’ yard, seize their property, against HUD by-laws and dismantle Petitioner’s gazebo. a) Respondent is violating Petitioner’s right by way of infringement or the like, that interferes with the its enjoyment of its leasehold interest; and b) Petitioner’s right to specific performance or replevin for the damage, compensation for the labor of assembling and securing the gazebo apply, which will have to be reinstalled; and lastly, c) Respondent is violating Petitioner’s 4th amendment right to privacy in the curtilage of her home.
WITNESS LIST:
Landlord
Lorraine Saint Pierre, Tenant
SIMPLIFICATION OR LIMITATION OF ISSUES
Petitioner has served Respondent with Request for Documents and also Request to Admit, which could simplify some of the issues in the case, However, Respondent has been uncooperative. Hence extensive exhibit list.
EXHIBIT LIST
1. WRITTEN PERMISSION TO INSTALL GAZEBO, 5.15.2019
Permission granted for gazebo in yard.
2. MEMO, SPRING CLEANUP, 6.12.2019
Gazebo fully set up, but not on list of prohibited items.
3. REMOVE GAZEBO MEMO, 5.20.2019
Same spring memo, but with note written at bottom of page.
4. WINTER CLEANUP MEMO, 11.?.2019
Personal belongings will be disposed of if not removed.
5. LEASE, 2.9.2019
See page 12, section 4.
6. PERMIT GIVEN TENANT IN UNIT 6 FOR PATIO NEXT TO HOME, 6.26.2019
In spite of spring memo prohibiting patios.
7. HUD OCCUPANCY HANDBOOK:
a) page 6-9, 6. Prohibited provisions section b. Distraint for rent and other charges.
b) page 6-7, line D, House Rules
c) House Rules, page 6-17, A. Overview, Section 2
d) Section 3, Overview, page 6-17
8. PETITIONER’S EMAIL DETAILING GAZEBO’S INSTALLATION 5.12 &13.2019
“Again” emails; it’s a gazebo, has been on other PMI site for 2 years.
9. PHOTO & SCREENSHOT BEFORE PERMISSION WAS GRANTED, 5.14.2019
Screenshot indicates photo taken at 10.37 am on morning before
permission.
10. MOLD PHOTOS & HOSPITAL REPORT, WINTER 2020
11. MAINTENANCE PHOTOS, WINTER 2020
No snow removal for paths.
12. “THE VISIT” EMAILS, 7.10.2019
Respondent Manager singles out Petitioner, but ignores other tenants’ violations.
13. PHOTOS OF PATIOS, GARDENS, ETC. Spring and Summer 2019
permanent gardens enclosed with fences, bricks, stones, i.e. structures.
14. WINTER CLEANUP PHOTOS, Fall 2019
Derangement of tenants’ yards, but no cleanup.
15. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, 7.29.2019
No structures permitted claim;
“receiving inquiries” claim, disproved by time factor “again” emails.
16. POISONING PETITIONER’S CAT, 7.30.2019
Secret files kept on tenants pitting them against each other.
Respondent is told Petitioner’s cat will be poisoned and does not prevent it.
17. ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS
For gazebo, page 4, unit 3. It is not a trellis as Respondent has stated
and supported by maintenance company photo indicating gazebo’s flooring.
18. CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
Landlord relationship with Respondent.
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF TRIAL:
At a maximum of 2 hours
The favorite essay this month has again been, Karpman drama triangle
