Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Mary Cummins Liar, Liar

Well, well, well...look what I found on the LA Superior Ccourt site.  Mary dum-dum Cummins filed a response to collection efforts against her in California.  LOL.  Here, I will give you a link to the documents.  Case number BS140207:  http://lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/casesummary.aspx?

Geez, she should receive an award for her outrageous statements!  My God does the IDIOT Cummins ever get tired of defaming, defaming, defaming and presenting herself as being a disgruntled, know-nothing-Amanda-Lollar-wannabe?  I know you will tire of her endless diatribe about being a "poor pro se" and how unfair the world is to her. "Defendant has no bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards at all. Defendant has no money, job or assets."  Really?  Then how is it that she claims to have received the Los Angeles Business Award for being a top real estate firm?  How does an indigent IDIOT with no bank, no credit cards, no debit cards, no money, job or assets accomplish this?  Let's look into our Cumminopoly crystal ball.  Hmmmm, Mary Cummins is receiving aid from the state of California.  Can we all say, "insurance fraud" is a distinct possibility. ROTFWL

Mary Cummins claims to sit around all day and feed animals despite the fact that the CADFW website indicates she is NOT licensed to do so.  How does an indigent woman have a Prius, pay $2,000 per month in rent, shop at upscale grocery stores, get an $8,000 franchise tax windfall and let us not forget the sheriff seized and is holding over $4,000 from her bank account as the first installment payment to Amanda Lollar on the over $6.1 MILLION dollars she owes Ms. Lollar for her "egregious as well as malicious as well as intentional" defamation of the famed bat expert?

By all means, fellow humans (and followers of the dark, dank world of Mary Cummins) take a moment to look up the Secretary of State of CA, the Attorney General, CADFW and spread the word.  The more of us who bring to their attention the 'alleged' evil ways of Mary Cummins the quicker Ms. Cummins can sport an orange suit instead of her usual inappropriate court and event attire.

P.S.  So you do not have to buy the document, here is a copy/paste of it.  You can't even leave the first page without laughing.  She was to STOP (quash) Lollar's attorney from obtaining copies of her banking and income tax records.  IF she truly is indigent why wouldn't she want to PROVE it with her banking and income tax records?  All together, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

645 W. 9th St. #110-140
Los Angeles, CA 90015
In Pro Per
Telephone: (310) 877-4770
Email: mmmaryinla@aol.com

Case No. BS140207
Date: May 23, 2014
Time: 8:30
Dept.: 24
Judge: Robert Hess


Plaintiffs seek the bank records from One West Bank where Defendant had an
account. Plaintiffs levied that bank and took every penny in the account. The account
was closed by the bank due to lack of funds. It had a negative balance when closed.
Defendant has no bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards at all. Defendant has no
money, job or assets because of Plaintiffs’ defamation and an injury suffered while on
Plaintiffs’ property.

Defendant applied for state assistance and was approved March 27, 2014.
Defendant will show her Benefits Identification Card to the Judge at the hearing.
Defendant was approved after the state searched state and federal records and
confirmed that Defendant has no money, job, assets, car or bank accounts. Defendant
was declared indigent by the state.

Defendant was also legally declared indigent in her appeal of the Texas case1
(Exhibit 1, Declaration) and a California restraining order appeal2 (Exhibit 2) against
Plaintiff Amanda Lollar. Defendant answered post trial discovery in the Texas case and
again proved Defendant had no assets, job or money.

There was $4,390.75 in the account when it was levied. That money was there at
that time because Defendant’s landlord had not cashed two rent checks. The only
reason there was any money in that account at all was because Defendant received an
out of the blue State refund of $8,000 from a few years old tax return. The state of
California had levied Defendant’s previous bank account for that amount. They later
realized that no tax was due so they gave the money back to Defendant. The account
would have been closed if it were not for that check.

This matter originates from a Texas Judgment for defamation that was
domesticated. That matter is still in appeal with an opinion due any day. The appeal3
was submitted September 9, 20134. An identical case was won on appeal seven and a
half months after it was submitted from the Texas Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs in the Texas case did not show any elements of defamation, breach of
contract, any damages or proof of causation. Defendant didn’t even write some
statements. The supposed “defamatory” statements were written by Plaintiff. All of the
other statements came from truthful, fair, privileged reports against Plaintiff for animal
cruelty and abuse. Two very well known freedom of speech and animal rights lawyers

1 http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=02-12-00285-CV
2 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2058847&doc_no=B251854
3 http://www.marycummins.com/mary_cummins_appeal.pdf
4 http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=02-12-00285-CV

(David Cassellman, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen) wrote amicus briefs5, 6 for
Defendant which were previously submitted in this case.

Plaintiffs in this case know and publicly admit that Defendant is indigent. In fact
they are happily posting on over 350 blogs, Facebook pages, websites devoted solely
to Defendant that Defendant is indeed indigent (Exhibit 3). They posted the complete
105 page transcript of the indigence hearing in Texas in Bat World Sanctuary’s
website7. Plaintiff Lollar as Blogger user Rachel Thompson stated “Too ugly to
prostitute. Traveling broke & hungry,” “Mary Scummins,” “Moronic Mary,” “Dummy
Cummy,” “is a complete and total failure - no job, no money, no car, no house, no
family, no husband, no support system, no successes, no earned awards,” “Mary
Cummins, DIPSHIDIOT,” “the financially illiterate, indigent garbage dumpster baby,”
“Mary Cummins is indigent after claiming to have retired,” “owes the IRS thousands
of dollars,” “Mary Cummins, SICKO” “has been declared indigent.”

In the Texas district case Plaintiffs abused discovery many times. They even
violated two protective orders on discovery items, i.e. home address, medical records.
Defendant never violated a protective order ever while Plaintiffs violated every single

Plaintiffs accidentally received Defendant’s SSN in discovery. Plaintiff Lollar used
that and all the discovery items to try to access Defendant’s bank account and the bank
account of a non-profit. The banks recorded the phone calls and played them for
Defendant. Defendant recognized Plaintiff Lollar’s voice and filed a police report
which was previously submitted as an exhibit in this case. The banks did not release
anything to Plaintiff Lollar as they know that Defendant Cummins does not have a
Texas accent.

5 http://www.animaladvocates.us/cummins_amicus_brief.pdf
6 http://www.animaladvocates.us/mary_cummins_v_bat_world_sanctuary_amicus_letter.pdf
7 http://batworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Mary-Cummins-Indigence-Hearing.pdf

Plaintiffs posted every bit of discovery online to harass, oppress and embarrass
Defendant and Defendant’s friends and family. They posted over 100 movies made
from Defendant’s deposition video which reveal Defendant’s finances, bank account,
lack of income, lack of assets, licenses, permits, family members, friends...
If Plaintiffs were to receive the bank statements of Defendant they would have the
names, addresses, bank account numbers of her family, friends and ex-clients.
Defendant is positive that Plaintiff will post all of that on the Internet to harm
Defendant’s family, friends and ex-clients. Plaintiff would most likely contact all exclients
and defame Defendant to them like Plaintiff has done previously. Defendant
hopes to be able to work again with these clients when she is able.


Defendant has been deemed indigent by the States of Texas and California.
Defendant proceeded in forma pauperis in the Texas and California appeals. There was
a lengthy indigence hearing and the Texas Judge ruled Defendant was indigent.
Defendant provided a copy of her bank statement which showed only the name and
balance which was about $200 at that time. Defendant provided through discovery of
the Texas case her bank statement again, just the name and balance. That data was then
used to try to illegally access her account when Plaintiff Lollar pretended to be
Cummins. Plaintiffs already have ample proof that Defendant is penniless. In fact
Plaintiff Lollar have admitted this many, many times on the Internet. The bank
statements will not lead to any assets of any kind as there are none.


The bank statements of Defendant include the names, addresses, bank account
numbers, routing numbers, copies of checks of people, debit card receipts of entities
which are not the subject of the sister state judgment. This would be the names of
people and entities who sent or received funds such as ex-clients, friends, businesses.

Plaintiffs have a very long history of abusing discovery. Plaintiffs would use this
information to defame Defendant to clients and friends destroying Defendant’s future
ability to find work. Plaintiffs previously received Defendant’s SSN in discovery.
Plaintiff Lollar pretended to be Defendant to access Defendant’s bank account which
was later levied. Plaintiff also tried to use this information to gain access to the bank
account of a non-profit which is also not the subject of this judgment.


Plaintiffs already know that Defendant is indigent. Plaintiffs admitted this
repeatedly in many online statements even bragging that they caused Defendant to
become indigent which is the truth. Defendant offered to give a copy of her Benefits
Identification Card to Plaintiffs’ attorney if he promised not to show it to Plaintiff who
would abuse that data to further harm Defendant. That card proves that the State fully
investigated Defendant and found no job, bank accounts or assets. Plaintiffs’ sole
purpose for this request is to continue to harass, oppress and abuse Defendant, her
family, friends and ex-clients.


Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to
quash subpoena for bank records.
Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Cummins, Defendant
Dated: May 12, 2014
645 W. 9th St. #110-140
Los Angeles, CA 90015
In Pro Per


Amanda Lollar, Amanda, Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary, Bat, World, Sanctuary, Bat World, Mineral Wells, Texas, lawsuit, complaint, animal cruelty, batworldsanctuary.com, website, official, Mary Cummins, Mary, Cummins, Animal Advocates, Animal, Advocates, Dorothy Hyatt, Kate Rugroden, Larry Crittenden, John Hyatt, Martin Rugroden, animal abuse, animal neglect, USDA, permit, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Animal Welfare Act, violations, revoked, reprimand, restraining order, TRO, crazy, mentally ill, 5150, uneducated. Mary Cummins made false reports to government agencies about Amanda Lollar and bat World Sanctuary. Mary Cummins has herself been reported for animal cruelty, animal abuse, animal neglect, violations of the Animal Welfare Act. She was investigated. Violations were found. California Department of Fish and Game suspended Mary Cummins’ permit for abusing a squirrel with no eyeballs, making false reports and other violations. Mary Cummins Animal Advocates is suspended in the State of CA. Mary Cummins lost her CADFG Educational permit. Mary Cummins was reprimanded by California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins lies about her lack of education. Mary Cummins takes donations illegally. Mary Cummins has failed classes in animal care. Mary Cummins is a cyber-stalker with serious mental problems.

And lastly, a plug for my favorite charity-
bat world sanctuary amanda lollar

No comments:

Post a Comment