ONE MAN S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Transcription

1 1

2 2 ONE MAN S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA Episode Four: LAS VEGAS LAWYERS TRICK, CHEAT AND LIE TO AN OLDER AND DISABLED COMBAT VETERAN OF THE VIETNAM WAR LAS VEGAS LAWYERS - PAUL C RAY, JOHN PETER LEE, YVETTE FREEDMAN, AND JOHN C COURTNEY Contact Jim Aymann at [email protected] Leave your contact information.

3 3 PLEASE NOTE THAT NONE OF THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THESE ENTRIES ARE SPECIOUS AND THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTABLE WITH DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS. James R Aymann (Jim) is a decorated and disabled combat veteran of the Vietnam War. Jim has been awarded a 70% service-connected disability. Jim is not an attorney, he is a working man. We believe that this story is both timely and compelling. LAWYER PAUL C RAY (702) James R Aymann (Jim) conferred with Paul C Ray a lawyer with the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. of Las Vegas Nevada. Jim came prepared with a list of questions. The purpose of this consultation was to obtain half an hour of legal information for $45. Jim wanted to determine what his rights were regarding a written agreement that was not honored. At the onset of this consultation, Jim made it clear that he was a 63- year-old combat veteran of the Vietnam War with a 70% service-connected disability for posttraumatic stress disorder. Jim handed lawyer Paul C Ray a seven-page detailed account of what had transpired. This account also included the conditions and circumstances involving the attack on his person that he had experienced 16 days earlier.

4 4 Jim suggested a brother of Alana Geneva Peterson as the most likely suspect as the attacker. Jim also suggested obtaining complete copies of all police records and documents involving the attack and hiring a private detective. Jim clearly asked lawyer Paul C Ray what the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY IN THE STATE OF NEVADA. This was on Jim s list of questions. Paul C Ray replied that it was two years from the date of the incident. Different facets of the litigation process were discussed. At no time was the possibility of Arbitration ever mentioned! Lawyer Paul C Ray indicated that he would initiate and conduct a lawsuit on a fee basis for $10,000-$12,000 total. Jim clearly asked lawyer Paul C Ray if he would recover attorney s fees and costs if he prevailed in the lawsuit. Paul C Ray clearly indicated to Jim that it was customary! The law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. filed a Complaint with the District Court in Clark County Nevada on behalf of Jim one month later. Jim s lawsuit was placed into Arbitration without prior notification from lawyer Paul C Ray or any other staff member of the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd.! Jim repeatedly instructed lawyer Paul C Ray to subpoena all police records and documents involving his case. These instructions were ignored! Without the benefit of these additional police records and documents to include 911 emergency recordings, Paul C Ray conducted depositions with Defendant Alana Geneva Peterson and her sister Defendant Elaina Peterson at a cost of $5000! Lawyer Paul C Ray indicated that an elderly couple from Germany should be deposed as friendly witnesses.

5 5 This deposition was unnecessary, as the German couple had already agreed to testify at the first Arbitration hearing. The cost of this deposition was $3700 including $700 to have these friendly witnesses served at the same location in Las Vegas! Paul C Ray suggested that a Dr. Holper testify telephonically from his office. This doctor indicated that Jim s $8000 hospital bill should only have been one third of that amount! The cost of this deposition was $3500. To say that this deposition was counterproductive is an understatement! It was at this point that lawyer Paul C Ray first disclosed to Jim that Arbitration has an award ceiling of $50,000. Jim was shocked and extremely disappointed. It took lawyer Paul C Ray over one year to disclose this critical piece of information to Jim. The first Arbitration hearing was held on March 18, The cost of this first Arbitration hearing was $6300 plus the Arbitrator s costs. At this hearing lawyer, Paul C Ray repeatedly failed to respond to damaging statements made by Alana Geneva Peterson. Jim was exasperated. Robert Perry White was finally deposed on May Jim made the positive identification at that time, indicating that Robert Perry White was the individual that had attacked him on February 8, Jim immediately instructed lawyer Paul C Ray to amend the complaint changing John Doe I to Robert Perry White and to include him in the lawsuit. At no time did lawyer Paul C Ray ever adhere to these instructions! Jim contacted the VIOLENT CRIMES UNIT of the Las Vegas METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT to inform them that he had positive identification of the person that had attacked him on February 9, 2009.

6 6 Jim was informed that the statute of limitations was in fact one year and that it was too late and that they would not pursue criminal action based on this information! Lawyer Paul C Ray had falsely indicated to Jim at the initial consultation that he had two years to locate his attacker from the date of the incident! At this point, lawyer Paul C Ray s demeanor had already started to deteriorate he had become very ambiguous and evasive when asked for information relating to the case getting straight answers was impossible. This is extremely difficult for anyone with stress related difficulties. Jim repeatedly made specific complaints concerning lawyer Paul C Ray to his assistant Diane Powell. The second Arbitration hearing was held on July 7, Lawyer Paul C Ray claimed to have forgotten to arrange for a court reporter! Jim s testimony, his real estate agent s testimony, the defendants real estate agents testimony at his handwriting analyst testimony is gone there is no record! Defendant Elaina Peterson was excused from testifying. She did not refuse, her sister Alana Geneva Peterson simply stated that she was suffering from neck pains and needed to go to the hospital! Elaina Peterson never testified at either hearing, not one word! Jim had spent the four previous evenings preparing questions specific to Elaina Peterson for naught! Agreements between lawyer Paul C Ray and lawyer Alexander Mazzia representing the defendants were contrived prior to this hearing without Jim s knowledge. This is not conjecture or speculation on Jim s part. Comments made by Arbitrator Elizabeth Foley prompted Jim to obtain and read a copy of the Arbitration Rules Forms and Directions.

7 7 This is when Jim first realized that only a maximum of $3000 could be recouped for attorney s fees and Arbitration! Jim was shocked, as he was never informed of this, while lawyer Paul C Ray was literally spending tens of thousands of dollars on depositions and briefs! One-week later lawyer Paul C Ray telephoned Jim while he was in his office accompanied by two houseguests. Jim placed the call on speakerphone and memory record. *Conversation with Paul C. Ray Everyone in Jim s office could clearly hear both sides of the conversation. Jim informed lawyer Paul C Ray of the $3000 limit on the award of attorney s fees in Arbitration! Because of this conversation, it was obvious to those in Jim s office then lawyer Paul C Ray had never informed Jim of the $3000 cap for attorney s fees and Arbitration! Throughout this conversation lawyer, Paul C Ray avoided discussing the $3000 limit for the recovery of attorney s fees in Arbitration. In this conversation, Paul C Ray actually tried to convince Jim that the Arbitration has merit! Please consider the following three comments made by Jim during this conversation: 1. There is a $3000 limit for recovery of attorney s fees. I mean what was I doing. I mean why was this in arbitration? 2. My concern at this point is this thing that I read in the rules forms and directions, the $3000 limit for attorney s fees I mean it blew me right over. 3. If it would have taken two years to get a trial but it means that I can recover attorney s fees, all of it, if it comes to that, then it was worth the wait to me. I mean this is huge being able to recover attorney s fees.

8 8 Please consider the following statement by defendant Paul C Ray in this conversation. Please note, this is one week after the final arbitration hearing and 16 months after Jim had hired Paul C Ray. You can get it back, here s the thing, and you probably won t even have a trial for another two years, one or two more years, had you not done that. But, so you know, now what I don t think you understood, which she was saying. If you or they don t like the result of this you can do a one day short trial and you can get that so that you would get your original arbitration and your appeal. Get that it probably in two years, where you normally can t even get a trial in two years let alone an appeal is always two more years. So it s faster that s why you did it. This is a mouthful and this information should have been provided to Jim at the initial consultation and not after the arbitration hearing 16 months later! One week later Jim met with lawyer Paul C Ray at the law offices of John Peter Lee Ltd. for the last time. Nothing was resolved and it was apparent to Jim the Paul C Ray intended to remove himself from the case! His boss John Peter Lee terminated lawyer Paul C Ray less than onemonth later. Lawyer Paul C Ray had been a practicing attorney with this law firm for 16 years! As of this writing, the conditions and circumstances of this termination have still been concealed from Jim! The two months prior to his termination, lawyer Paul C Ray surreptitiously ran up Jim s bill an additional $17,363 knowing that Jim could never recoup any of it!

9 9 LAWYER YVETTE FREEDMAN LAS VEGAS LAWYER YVETTE FREEDMAN REPRESENTED BY TREVOR J. HATFIELD (702) On August 26, 2010, lawyer Yvette Freedman of the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. contacted Jim by telephone and informed him that lawyer Paul C Ray was no longer with the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. In addition, that she would be handling Jim s case. Lawyer Yvette Freedman fraudulently concealed the fact that lawyer Paul C Ray had been terminated six days earlier. She then fraudulently misrepresented the circumstances of his departure. At this time, Jim expressed his anger and frustration and indicated that he would be filing a complaint against the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. with the State Bar of Nevada. Jim specifically indicated to lawyer Yvette Freedman that he had never been informed that attorney s fees awarded by the Arbitrator may not exceed $3000. That lawyer Paul C Ray failed to provide for a court reporter at the final Arbitration hearing.

10 10 That Elaina Peterson a codefendant never testified at either Arbitration hearing! On September 1, 2010, Jim was awarded costs including attorney s fees! On September 7, 2010, Yvette Freedman introduced a MOTION FOR ATTORNEY S FEES AND COSTS. She requested $39,551 in attorney s fees and $10,686 in costs for a total of $50,238. This request for attorney s fees was both pointless and futile. Once again, the maximum amount award of all for attorney s fees in Arbitration is $3000! Alexander Mazzia the opposing attorney quickly pointed this out. The Arbitrator waited 10 days for the itemization of the costs where Jim had prevailed. Lawyer Yvette Freedman failed to provide one. Ultimately, the Arbitrator awarded Jim $2500 in attorney s fees, $ , and costs that is a difference of $45,350 by the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. s own accounting! Jim had already paid over $16,000 to the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. and they were demanding an additional $38,567 for a total of $54,699 on a judgment of $35,000. This was well in excess of the initial quote of $10,000-$12,000 for the entire case before it was even in Arbitration! PLEASE NOTE TO DATE JIM HAS NOT SEEN A DIME! Had Jim been informed at the initial consultation that the potential lawsuit would be placed into Arbitration and that the maximum amount award of all for attorney s fees in Arbitration is $3000, Jim would never ever have initiated any relationship with the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd.! On September 16, 2010, Jim went to the law office of John Peter Lee Ltd. and met with the owner John Peter Lee to obtain his signature for a SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS.

11 11 John Peter Lee asked if he could make a copy of the document Jim complied and John Peter Lee proceeded to file Jim s document without his authorization, another indication of lawyer John Peter Lee s despicable and treacherous actions! On September 27, 2010, Yvette Freedman ed a letter to Jim. She states, Enclosed please find our office s notice of attorneys lien. The lien was not included in her ! On October 1, 2010, Jim filed a demand for a jury trial On October 20, 2010 and on October 21, 2010, Jim faxed two separate replies to the NOTICE OF ATTORNEYS LIEN On December 21, 2010, the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. filed a MOTION TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY S LIEN AND FOR JUDGMENT OF ATTORNEY S FEES against Jim. Jim did not receive this motion in the mail until January 16, The hearing was set for January 28, In the course of this hearing and subsequent hearings involving this motion, lawyer Yvette Freedman representing the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. submitted fraudulent statements under oath and submitted documents that contain fraudulent and misleading entries. These concealments and misrepresentations included: covering up the fact that Jim did respond to the Notice of Attorneys Lien in a timely manner! that lawyer Paul C Ray had been terminated by John Peter Lee Ltd! that Jim had never been informed that there is a $3000 for the recovery of attorney s fees in Arbitration! that Jim had in fact paid over $16,000 to law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. for services!

12 12 In complete disregard to the initial telephone conversation conducted between Jim and lawyer Yvette Freedman on August 26, 2010, Yvette Freedman falsely asserted in court that Jim was pleased with the work performed by John Peter Lee Ltd. on his behalf. Lawyer Yvette Freedman was in fact fully aware that this was false! Lawyer Yvette Freedman submitted copies of confidential faxes sent to lawyer Paul C Ray and to his assistant Diane Powell as exhibits! This is a breach of the fiduciary duty to Jim by John Peter Lee Ltd. These confidential faxes were either out of context, incomplete, or misleading in an attempt to establish in court that Jim was pleased with the work performed by John Peter Lee Ltd. These faxes submitted to the court failed to conceal the serious erosion of the relationship between Jim and lawyer Paul C Ray and subsequently the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. in a 16-month period. This is a breach of the confidentiality and fiduciary duty that these lawyers have toward Jim as a former client LAS VEGAS LAWYER JOHN C COURTNEY (702)

13 13 LAWYER JOHN C COURTNEY Jim arranged for a consultation between the mother of a 12-year-old boy with lawyer Paul C Ray. This consultation involved numerous complaints by Jim, other neighbors and the mother involving an abusive neighbor. Jim had also submitted a written complaint to his Homeowners Association regarding the abusive neighbor. In retaliation these abusive neighbors filed a Temporary Protection Order on Jim based on false allegations. To protect himself Jim filed Temporary Protection Orders against the abusive neighbors. Jim was prepared with witnesses, police reports, etc. to handle this TPO by himself. Jim set up an appointment with lawyer Paul C Ray the day prior to the court date, to simply discuss the false allegation submitted by the abusive neighbors. When Jim arrived for the consultation, Jim was introduced to lawyer John C Courtney also with the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. Paul C Ray informed Jim that John C Courtney would be handling the case. He was introduced to Jim as a fellow combat veteran. Jim describes what transpired as being akin to the quick manipulations of high-pressure salesmen. During that consultation with lawyer John C Courtney, it was asserted to Jim, that the TPO hearing would be used as a springboard for a lawsuit for Jim and his neighbors. At the hearing lawyer, John C Courtney did not give Jim the opportunity to testify and without his authorization requested Mediation! The case was continued for two weeks. Jim made it very clear to lawyer John C Courtney that he was vehemently opposed to Mediation and that he insisted on testifying!

14 14 At the subsequent hearing, lawyer John C Courtney once again did not allow Jim to testify and once again requested mediation! John C Courtney completely manipulated this TPO. The abusive neighbors were planning to move and were prepared to drop their TPO, and were not interested in mediation. The Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth by the State Bar of Nevada indicates that a lawyer shall abide by a client s decision concerning the objectives of representation, and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to pursue. At great expense to Jim, lawyer John C Courtney completely ignored this most important and essential rule. At this unwanted mediation, Jim was never face-to-face with the neighbors. Jim had no idea whatsoever as to what was transpiring. Ultimately, in the presence of the representative of these abusive neighbors John C Courtney suggested that Jim apologize to the abusive neighbors! Lawyer John C Courtney had subjected Jim to one of the most demeaning and humiliating experiences of his life! Subsequently Jim experienced a severe and frightening panic attack that evening. The following morning Jim telephoned lawyer John C Courtney to express his displeasure. Courtney hung up on Jim. That same afternoon Jim contacted John Peter Lee by telephone to express his displeasure and indicated that continued representation would be difficult. As a result, the 12-year-old boy and his mother were disheartened and decided not to pursue any legal action, a severe lesson for this young boy in the treachery displayed by lawyers and the shortcomings of the legal system in Las Vegas Nevada! 2-VIDEOS

15 15 LAS VEGAS LAWYER JOHN PETER LEE - (702) LAWYER JOHN PETER LEE Lawyer John Peter Lee is the proprietor of the law firm that bears his name. Consequently, John Peter Lee has vicarious culpability and liability for the actions committed by lawyer Paul C Ray, lawyer Yvette Freedman, and lawyer John C Courtney. The law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. conducts frequent staff meetings. At these staff meetings, these lawyers openly discuss the details of specific lawsuits and court cases. Lawyer John Peter Lee has repeatedly professed ignorance and innocence of what was transpiring between his client James R Aymann and these lawyers who were and are his employees. Lawyer John Peter Lee is still involved in fraudulent concealments involving the termination of his employee, of 16 years, lawyer Paul C Ray! This professed ignorance on the part of lawyer John Peter Lee is absurd and an indication that he, like his employees, is a liar!

16 16 THE LAW FIRM OF JOHN PETER LEE LTD. It is Jim s contention that the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. is a treacherous and dishonest law firm. This law firm has one objective and that is to generate as much profit from their clients as is possible! The staff of this law firm has demonstrated to Jim that they are capable of acting without conscience and are in fact immoral individuals! Jim submits that the law firm of John Peter Lee Ltd. and lawyer Paul C Ray and lawyer John Peter Lee and lawyer Yvette Freedman and lawyer John C Courtney has violated the following rules of professional conduct as set forth by the State Bar of Nevada. Rule 151 Confidence: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Rule 152 Scope of representation a lawyer shall abide by a client s decision concerning the objectives of representation, subject to subsections three, four, and five, and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. Rule 154 Communication 1. A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 2. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. 3. Rule 203 It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct.

17 17