Ms. Pooley and her friend both issued sworn Affidavits that a process server "served" her friend on a dark night in February, 2016 as she was walking Ms. Pooley's dog.
Meanwhile Pooley, a knowledgeable and well-educated pro se litigant, lost her primary case and wrote most of her own Appellate Brief with Jones overlooking, and a Motion for Reconsideration after the Court of Appeals Division One ruled against her on or about 15 August, 2017. The Court ORDERED a substantive response from from QLSC, McCarthy Holthus et al. on or about 15 September 2017. They Court ordered a response within 15 days.
ADD or about 15 September, 2017. She contends that the $20,000.00 Judgment that Jones stands to receive at her house closing tomorrow, 19 September 2017 are the product of Unjust Enrichment. She will file ethics charges as well.
Jones has been subject to ethical considerations in the past, leading to his removal as pro tem Judge in 2007 according to the Seattle Times.
For the purposes of this discussion I will attach a copy of what I drafted as the copy for this story, along with the responses from Ms. Pooley, who as also agreed to go on video. Attorney Jones declined to respond directly to my last letter and stated that he did not receive Ms. Pooley's responses. In turn, I responded to him noting that she had sent her responses to both of us at 3:40pm on 15 September 2017.
Here are the last two relevant emails between all three of us, below the Draft post I circulated to them on or about 14 September, 2017 as seen immediately below:
**********
From: Christopher King [mailto:kingcast955@icloud.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:14 PM
To: Karen Pooley <pooleykaren@yahoo.com>; Richard Jones <rlj@kovacandjones.com>
Subject: Draft Publication.
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:14 PM
To: Karen Pooley <pooleykaren@yahoo.com>; Richard Jones <rlj@kovacandjones.com>
Subject: Draft Publication.
Dear Karen and Richard:
Richard asked me about the CoA status a few days ago. Since that status changed Ms. Pooley has expressed to me that it bolsters her entire position and she feels that Richard is not entitled to the Judgment obtained in the Default Judgment.
At this point I am feeling more like a mediator than a journalist so I can't do anything more with this story besides a voiceover.
I do welcome both of you to speak your mind on video at your earliest convenience.
As to my $.02 I think y'all need to reach an extrajudicial resolution.
Christopher King, J.D.
***********
Re: Draft Publication.
2 days ago at 3:45 PM
From
To
Reply-To
Christopher,
While you have most of the story correct, there are a few details which are incorrect. Please allow me to correct my allegations of the record:
1) Mr. Jones' failed to check the docket on TWO occasions: a) failed to acknowledge opposition responded to my Partial SJ, causing me to miss a Reply to my Partial Summary Judgment; and b) failed to verify that all documents were indeed filed in the lower court. The lower court apparently rejected his offices' filing of our Response to Opposition's SJ, causing me to spend almost a YEAR's worth of attorney fees correcting the lower court record. Jones billed all this to me. At one point, he claimed I had spent $5000 rectifying the record, but it was much more than that. This is the major point of contention. I spent THOUSANDS of attorney's fees correcting HIS offices mistake. Had they checked and verified the docket, they would have noticed a TWO THOUSAND PAGE discrepancy!!!
2) Jones charged $3500 for a mediation that was non-existent. If Jones' claims this was ADR, this is also FALSE. ADR never occurred. And had it, I would have written the check directly to the mediator, not Jones' office!
3) In his complaint against me for fees claimed uncollected, he admits THERE WAS NO RETAINER AGREEMENT. For him now to claim the retainer alludes to a fee raise, this is just a flat out LIE. In addition, if you look at the documents he submitted to court, the fees after the FIRST HOUR were billed at $325. Does anyone believe I would agree to the first hour billed at the agreed upon fee and then tell him, "yeah, go ahead and give yourself a raise." Uh no. In fact, I have submitted to the court emails showing that I never received any Jones' statements on a regular basis.
4) Opening brief was written largely by myself, and modified by Jones. I was the one who found that opposing counsel submitted all the documents attached to her declaration FROM THE INTERNET. I asked Jones if we could bring up hearsay for the first time on appeal. He said "Absolutley." Yet, I investigated that. Hearsay on appeal is only observed by the panel AT THEIR DISCRETION if brought up for the first time on appeal. What attorney cannot identify HEARSAY, for God's sakes!?!
5) The demand for the $8000 came when I was writing the Appellate Reply brief. I was shocked as his demand letter said he acknowledged my regularly providing $2000 per month on a regular basis and this practice was accepted. Yet, his $8000 demand right before Appellate Reply was a dereliction of his fiduciary duties. Violation of his RPCs and felt very much like extortion.
Karen Pooley
206.xxx.xxxx
from Mortgage Movies Journal http://ift.tt/2fe3qRx
KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Karen Pooley Succeed in Foreclosure Reconsideration; Issue Complaints Regarding Attorney Richard L. Jones, Esq. - After The Mortgage ADSENSE HERE