Opinion
20-CV-00467 WJ/SCY
12-15-2023
Randal Pruit, Plaintiff v. HALEY LEVY, TIMOTHY ORUM Defendants
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; MOTION TO RESCIND PENDING AGREEMENT; AND RE-ARBRITRATE A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT BY OUT OF STATE ARBITER; AND COMPEL 3RD PARTY (OUT OF STATE) INVESTIGATION INTO CLOVIS
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT: MOTION TO RESCIND PENDING AGREEMENT: AND RE- ARBRITRATE A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT BY OUT OF STATE ARBITER: AND COMPEL 3RD PARTY (OUT OF STATE) INVESTIGATION INTO CLOVIS PD
Comes now Plaintiff, Randal Pruit, Pro Se to address the above listed issues in the court.
In support of ALL of the above issues, Plaintiff introduces the following exhibits:
exhibit #1 : a video which is a shortened and annotated version of body cam from the night of the second arrest(12/31/2017)
exhibit #2 : a set of log files demonstrating cyber-attack upon plaintiff that appear to have originated from the Clovis/Portales area between March and May of 2023
exhibit #3 : a set of log files demonstrating cyber-attack upon plaintiff in October of 2023
exhibit #2 : a set of log files demonstrating cyber attack upon plaintiff that appear to have originated from the Clovis/Portales area between March and May of 2023
Facts of Underlying Cases
This case stems from two DWI cases in 2017 in which the plaintiff was arrested (both times) by defendant, Officer Timothy Orum.
i) Pruit was held without bond pending trial on the second.
ii) Plaintiff Pruit was found not guilty by a jury on the first
iii) He was illegally convicted on the second and was given an ILLEGAL sentence of twelve years D.O.C.
iv) DEFENDANT Orum peijured himself in documents such as blood test and warrant that he submitted to the court concerning the arreart to help ensure the illegal conviction. (Hearsay and accusatory, but plaintiff can prove it)
v) DEFENDANT Orum peijured himself on-stand during the trial to help ensure the illegal conviction. (Hearsay and accusatory, but plaintiff can prove it)
vi) The conviction was overturned and all charges were dismissed in February of 2022.
vii) At the time of arrest Plaintiff owned several businesses in Clovis. The value of real property alone was worth an estimated $1.1 million. ALL properties were sold for considerably less than their value and plaintiff was forced to sign over titles under duress while in jail awaiting trial.
The value of the properties is insignificant to this case, but significant to plaintiffs mindset when signing any settlement agreement.
viii) Upon dissolution of business, plaintiff was left owing several hundred thousand dollars and credit score that was in the 400’s.
ix) Plaintiff Pruit filed a civil suit Pro-Se while incarcerated on the first case.
x) In October of 2020, while in lockdown in Clayton due to CO VID, plaintiffs father passed. He was not allowed to go see him or attend the funeral.
(1) Co-incidentally, plaintiffs father had a $100,000 life insurance policy which went to a woman who wouldn’t marry him. The reason she stated was so that the plaintiff wouldn’t be allowed to share in her children’s inheritance as she was supposedly) worth several million. This woman (SUDDENLY) became married to him and took his life insurance policy.
xi) Plaintiffs attorney Ken Stalter filed the second civil case in the 2nd Judicial district of New Mexico in February of 2023.
xii) Shortly after second case was filed, it was announced on local news channels. When it was shown, they used they used the same altered video and mug shot from the initial arrest. Plaintiffs boss actually thought that he had been arrested that weekend. Almost immediately after, plaintiff began receiving threats from other employees and was forced to quit his job or be fired. He quit in May of ’23 so he wouldn’t have the firing on his record.
xiii) Unable to find another job due to mental anguish and other issues, plaintiff was threatened with eviction in July of ‘23
xiv) Stalter informed Plaintiff that he thought the case should be wor5th “Several Hundred thousand dollars” in his opinion.
xv) Plaintiff was reduced to bouts of psychosis and crying and had in fact entered into Attorney Stalter’s office balling uncontrollably and telling him of the people from Clovis that he thought were stalking him.
xvi) Defendant’s through Stalter offered a settlement in August while a consolidation motion was pending.
xvii) Statlter told plaintiff he felt the two cases would be consolidated and offered the small insignificant amount of $40,000 which does not even begin to cover medical issues, lost salary, pending collection cases or any other expense; Nor did it require any investigation into the defendant or CPD practice and policy, which is or SHOULD BE the primary question in this case
xviii) Defendants consolidation motion was denied. They had not yet tabled a formal offer.
xix) Plaintiff told Stalter he didn’t want to take the offer and in fact sent an email stating so to defendant’s attorney.
xx) The day before the status hearing of the 20:CV case, defendant’s gave a formal settlement offer. Plaintiff had already been evicted and was living on the street at the time which caused him severe mental distress.
xxi) Stalter said if Plaintiff didn’t take it he was off the case and basically told him that he had to take it or else.
xxii) About 2 and a half weeks later, defendants made a pay out to Stalter. Plaintiff to date has still not seen a final copy of the payout to Stalter nor did Stalter complete the case by filing the necessary documents to finalize or having plaintiff sign any additional documents to resolve the case.
xxiii) Sometime in October, defendant’s attorney contacted plaintiff asking him to formalize and sign a document that THEY had produced. It was on a Friday. Plaintiff tried several times to contact his attorney that day to no avail. Stalter responded nine days later; on TUESDAY.
xxiv) Plaintiff refused to sign documents and in fact walked up to the US DISTRICT court in Albuquerque attempting to talk to the judge in person. Bailiffs stopped him; TWICE.
xxv) Plaintiff STILL has not seen a copy of the finalized payout by defendant to Stalter’s firm as promised by Stalter.
Question Pending Before Court:
Rescind or Enforce an unconscionable settlement agreement
This matter comes before the court due to an illegal /void / unconscionable settlement agreement that was offered by defendant’s lawyer KNOWING that plaintiff was in an incapacitated state of mind due to loss of job, pending eviction, and other mental imbalances such as schizophrenia and psychosis. THEY utilized economic distress and these other issues as tools duress in order to get plaintiff to sign off on a settlement agreement that they KNEW was just like spitting in the ocean.
Plaintiffs lawyer (Ken Stalter) was well aware of these issues and had in fact expressed concern and offered to help plaintiff find help.
This (proposed) settlement agreement is unconscionable and does not address any REAL costs and losses associated with the case, nor does it address any of the underlying issues within the CPD. It is TOTALLY unacceptable, unconscionable and in-fact void ab-initio.
Defendants, simply by their act of hiring a top AM 100 firm to fight this simple motion filed by a (psychotic) pro-se plaintiff, have demonstrated the validity of the claim.
Response to Defendant’s motion
Defendant’s state that this is a contract matter. Plaintiff is in agreement. One of the first requirements for a VALID contract is CAPACITY to contract. The 2nd would be CONSCIONABLENESS or FAIRNESS. This agreement is void ab-initio due to incapacity to contract of the plaintiff.
K.E. v. The Bd. of Educ.
Civ. 21-632 MV/SCY (D.N.M. Aug. 15, 2022)
State law defines "incapacitated person" as "any person who demonstrates over time either partial or complete functional impairment by reason of mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication or other cause, except minority, to the extent that the person is unable to manage the person's personal affairs or the person is unable to manage the person's estate or financial affairs or both." NMSA § 45-5-101(F).
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS UNCONSIONABLE.
The “contract” or settlement agreement would not meet any standards of conscionability. NOTE; additional supporting case law will be submitted here.
Closing
For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff RANDAL K. PRUIT DOES RESCIND any acceptance of said PROPOSED settlement, either verbal or written and does offer return of the funds (in payments as he is homeless again). In the case that the court has any doubt regarding capacity, plaintiff would request an independent evaluation of his state of mind at the time and would offer several witnesses and financial records as proof
In the case that the court decides to allow renegotiation, Plaintiff does request that the court contract an outside arbiter that would address ALL ISSUES and COSTS including ongoing cost of living and medical expenses. Plaintiff would also ask the court to cause an investigation into defendant’s actions not just in this case, but overall as an agency. Plaintiff would specifically request the court to investigate Lt. Stansell and request that a restraining order be placed upon the Clovis Police Dept and ANY CONNECTED WITH THEM in any form Plaintiff would also ask the court to consider the pain and suffering from loss of business and the loss of his father which was compounded by the defendant’s illegal actions and perjury to enforce not just a sente3nce that would have been legal but an overly enhanced and illegal sentence to try and bypass the courts statute of limitations.
Exhibit 1 - Video in which defendant’s sergeant and immediate supervisor tells defendant Orum that she had already discussed the issue with Lieutenant Lindell (Mack) Stansell (THE decision maker for the city Police Department at that time of night) WHILE SHE WAS ON HER WAY TO THE SCENE and they had decided to arrest him. According to the video this decision was based upon PAST HISTORY and the amount of damage. When defendant Orum balks, the sergeant asks Orum “Do you want to get in trouble again, like last time?” meaning the last time that Orum arreseted plaintiff ::: addi information her.
Randal Pruit Plaintiff Pro Se