Dear David Harberg
I got your e-mail today and I have a few questions.
1) You are not just refusing to bring up the issues in your e-mail you are also refusing to counter sue for thirty thousand dollars even though this is quite reasonable as I am not asking for 3 times this amount as I an entitled to under the deceptive Fair Trade Practices act. I am also not asking for interest or pain a suffering. I have even filed the counter suit myself with the court pro se before you were appointed as my attorney.
2) I am glad you are so noble that you will not bring up an issue you do not believe in. It is too bad you do not hold opposing council to the same standards. a) Dr. Mittens first lawyer claimed bad faith because I was allegedly sent a certified letter before I got Dr. Mitten to sign my first notice of health and safety violations. Upon discovery no such proof was offered. They sent a letter that had no address on it is what discovery showed. b) At the April 1 hearing to compel me to abide by the first Rule 11 agreement which I agreed to move out within 48 hours if Dr. Mitten repaired or remedied the two worst health and safety issues namely the electrical and sewage, they admitted in court that they had violated the agreement but had made a motion to compel anyway.
3) It is my understanding about lawyer client confidentiality is that I can talk to whomever I wan as long as I am truthful. It is you that cannot talk about our discussions. If you are right I have already posted what I consider to be public knowledge online. So I guess you will have to sue me.
4) The court has already tried once to deny me my right to trial by jury, and obviously you also do not want me to exercise my rights under the law. I did not write the constitution or the laws of the state of Texas. Furthermore it is neither illegal or immoral in my opinion to exercise my rights under the law.
If you want to withdraw fell free to do so I am better of with no representation than I am with prejudicial, and incorrect legal opinions from you.
Mr. Pierson:
Please do not continue to cc any other party on your communications to me.By doing so you are waiving your attorney client privilege.
Dr. Mitten's counsel has asked for me to return the $1,000 settlement funds and withdrawn Dr. Mitten's settlement offer. I will return the check.
I will not assert an argument in the County Court about the inequities of the Justice Court. Your appeal of Dr. Mitten's forcible detainer action is a "trial de novo" in the County Court. This means that you start over from scratch in the County Court. What happened in the Justice Court is not relevant or admissible in the County Court action.
Additionally, I am concerned about your statements that you suffer from a mental infirmity/disability significant enough to require accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As you may know, I can not represent a person who is not mentally competent. If this is the case, please forward documentation of you disability and I will ask the Court to appoint an attorney ad-litem to ensure that the proceedings are fair to you and in your best interest. I will then follow the instructions of the attorney ad-litem.
If you are competent to proceed, I will not argue that the Americans with Disabilities Act precludes Dr. Mitten's forcible detainer suit as I do not believe that to be a correct statement of the law and I am precluded by ethical rules from asserting an argument that I do not believe to be true/meritorious. Similarly, I will not argue that the Texas Property Code violates either the U.S. Or Texas Constitutions. If you disagree with my position on this, please let me know and I will file a motion to withdraw and request that the Court appoint another attorney to represent you. It is possible that another attorney will see things differently.
Please respond to the 2 preceding paragraphs via email.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
David&
Case No. 950733
Carl and Lois Mitten, Et Al § IN THE COUNTY CIVIL Appellee (s) § VS. § COURT AT LAW No 2 OF Robert Pierson, Et Al § Appellant (s) § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Appellant's countersuit
To the honorable judge of said court
COMES NOW, Robert Pierson Appellant, a party in the above captioned and numbered cause, and movant herein, does hereby file a countersuit or cross claim in the above captioned and numbered cause, pursuant to section 92.563 (a) (1) (2) (3) (4) and (5), and section 92.333 of the Texas Property Code.
Movant Robert Pierson contends that he had an oral agreement with the Appellee Carl Mitten to live on the premises located at 7108 Miller Road 2, Houston, Texas, and that he would also not have to pay an electric bill in return for payment for work done from February to August. Appellant contends that as a result of his exercising his right to not enter into an amended contract in June of he was harassed and retaliated against by the Appellee. Appellant further contends that he was again retaliated against after he gave written notice to the Appellee on August 22 regarding serious health and safety issues.
Actual damages are as follows: Appellant worked for six (6) months for 12 hours a day, six days a week, completely replacing the plumbing on the house located at 7108 Miller Road 2, Houston, Texas. Appellant also did other maintenance and repairs on the property, cut the grass on the 40 plus acres, and feed and cared for the horses sometimes at great personal risk. Appellant cites chapter 87, Civil Practice and Remedies code; An Equine Professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant in equine activities resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. Appellant worked from 8 AM and 8 PM every day except Saturday, during this six month period. I don’t complain about the sometimes needless risks to my health and even the risk to my life, I do however contend that my life, and my health, my time, the skilled and unskilled work that I did, little as they may be worth to the opposing parties, they are in fact worth a little more than gas money to and from Pasadena, Texas, which is what Dr. Carl Mitten testified to under oath, in front of a jury as was my only reimbursement.
Appellant contends that since all the work was not skilled labor, that $20.00 per hour is a reasonable rate of pay. The Appellant also contends that he was defrauded of his wages in 2002 when he was also promised that he could live on the property rent free after the repairs were completed and the house was habitable, but instead was harassed until movant left disgusted, and so therefore asks for damages pursuant to the Texas Fair Trade Act.
There are 25 weeks in this six (6) month period. Six days times 12 hours a day equals 72 hours per week. 40 hours per week straight time times $20.00 per hour equals $800.00 per week straight time, plus 32 overtime hours at time and a half or $30.00 per hour equals $960.00 dollars per week overtime. $800.00 straight time plus $960.00 overtime hours per week equals $1,760.00 per week. $1,760.00 per week times 25 weeks equals $44,000.000 minus the electric bills paid by the Appellee, which is unknown to the Appellant at this time, and reasonable rent which also has never been agreed upon.
The Appellant contends that the time period is the beginning of the current contract which began on February 19 until the contract was breached on June 19 or about 16 months. Given the condition of the house Appellant contends that $300.00 per month is fair. 16 months times $300.00 equals $4,800. The electric bill ran between $250.00 per month and $300.00 per month or about the same as reasonable rent. This comes to a total of about $9,600.00. $9,600 minus $44,000.00 equals 34,000.00, movant contends therefore that $34,400.00 is approximately the amount owed to the movant in actual damages.
Because the rent has never been agreed upon, and the exact amount of the electric bill is unknown to me, and because of other issues that need to be resolved, the movant contends that court ordered mediation is required and appropriate in this case, prior to trial by judge or jury.
Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICEI, the undersigned appellant in the above and foregoing Appellant's Counter Claim, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of said counter suit or counter claim was this date deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage pre-paid and properly addressed to each Party, or their Attorney in the above-styled and numbered Cause.
% Appellant's Signature & Date of Mailing
0 comments