Mr. Couri's claims were without merit as reflected in the 40 or more court decisions, the jury verdict, and Mr. Couri's failure to pursue an appeal. The litigation consumed over five years, the jury trial three weeks. Suffice it to say, Mr. Couri had sufficient time to fully air his grievances. His efforts to revisit these very issues is misguided.
Mercifully, in a recent case, unrelated to the Pavia litigation, Mr. Couri did not avoid the wrath of the court. As a result of Mr. Couri's failure to comply with four court orders directing him to sign authorizations to allow his adversaries access to his and his companies' tax returns --- to establish their multi-million fraud claim against him --- an appellate court dismissed Mr. Couri's complaint that alleged, incredibly, that his adversaries damaged him in excess of $20 million dollars. A copy of the appellate court decision can be found HERE.
Mr. Couri stated that as a practical matter he had no assets (and apparently free from enforcement of judgments and court imposed sanctions).
Notably, last year I was able to serve restraining notices upon two insurance companies days before they were to make a one-time total payment to Mr. Couri's attorneys of $230,000. After the insurance companies paid approximately $160,000 to satisfy two judgments entered by Mr. Couri's former landlords, and after Mr. Couri's lawyers paid themselves their legal fee, Mr. Couri was left with very little of the original $230,000. Perhaps that upset him and made him want to strike out at me without basis. Realize, I was not the problem; the problem was Mr. Couri's failure to pay his lawful creditors. Until Mr. Couri accepts responsibility for his actions he will continue to rant against those who hold him responsible for his actions, including the court system.
Like the Pavia verdict, Mr. Couri did not pursue an appeal of the court order directing payment of the judgments. Why not? Because he owed the money. For him to claim otherwise is bogus.
Separate and apart from attempting to avoid his creditors, it is Mr. Couri's practice, as documented in court decisions, to file motions seeking the same relief over-and-over. Similarly, he will serve and file complaints over-and-over. For example, Mr. Couri's repetitive and malicious conduct was evidenced by the service of new complaints upon my clients the Pavias within days of a jury verdict that declared the very same allegations were without merit. Under these circumstances, and as further detailed in this blog, Mr. Couri has all the characteristics of a vexatious pro se litigant and likely that is what led Justice Joan A. Madden to find that Mr. Couri has "a fundamental disrespect for the legal system."
Articles expressing the problems associated with pro se litigants abound. See, the Washington State Bar Association, "The Pro Se Dilemma: Washington Courts and Vexatious Pro Se Litigation," by David Goodnight, Esq. The article is available HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment