Preview
FILED
PENNY C: ARKSTON
cause wo. PI-IBS 8-8 D if1 S CLERK
iti us “6 PH “1550
EDWARD T. JACOBS, In the District, urt, for.
Smith County,
fe 1 FE GCUNTY 7
Tex:
Plaintiff,
GRP
Vv Judicial District
§
CAREY CHRISTIE;
BEARD HARRIS BULLOCK HUGHES,
P.C.; and
TY BEARD,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DAMAGES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT?
COMES NOW Edward T. Jacobs, Plaintiff, complaining of and about
Carey Christie; Beard Harris Bullock Hughes, P.C.; and Ty Beard (here-
inafter Defendants), and for cause of action would show unto the Court
the following:
I
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Pursuant to Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under Level 3 of the
Discovery Control Plan.
Ii.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Smith County,
Texas, because this is the county in which the cause of action described
in this Petition occurred in whole or in part. In addition, the contract
entered into by the parties stipulated that, in certain related circum
stances, venue "shall be in Tyler, Smith County, Texas."
1
III.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
Plaintiff, Edward T. Jacobs, brings this action individually. His
residence is in Smith County, Texas. His current mailing address is:
Edward T. Jacobs, #19938-078; Federal Correctional Institution; P.O. Box
9000; Seagoville, TX 75159.
Defendant Carey Christie is an individual residing and/or employed
in Smith County, Texas. As a licensed attorney, her State Bar numbers
are 33920 62704 and 2410 3218. She may be served with citation at the
following place of business, or any other place where Defendant may be
found: 100 Independence Place, Suite 101; Tyler, TX 75703.
Defendant Beard Harris Bullock Hughes, P.C.. (hereinafter "BHBH"),
is a business or corporation authorized to do business in the State
of Texas, and maybe served with citation by serving its authorized
agent, as follows, or any other place where Defendant may be found:
100 Independence Place, Suite 101; Tyler, TX 75703.
Defendant Ty Beard is an individual residing and/or employed in
Smith County, Texas. He may be served with citation at the following
place of business, or any other place where Defendant may be found:
100 Independence Place, Suite 101; Tyler, TX 75703.
IV.
FACTS
1 At all times relevant, Plaintiff has been incarcerated pursuant to
a criminal judgment issued by the United States District Court for the*
Eastern District of Texas, at Tyler, in Case No. 6:12-cr~33. In April
of 2017, Plaintiff filed a post-conviction petition, opening Case No.
6:17-cv-216, to correct an error in the criminal‘ judgment affecting the
nature and execution of his sentence, including the total amount of time
he is required to serve in official confinement.
2. Because Plaintiff had known him for years and worked with him in
a prior engagement, Plaintiff reached out to Defendant Ty Beard (a.
partner -in Defendant BHBH), who in August of 2017 referred Plaintiff -.
to Defendant Carey Christie (an attorney in the same firm).
3 Defendant Beard advised Plaintiff that Defendant Christie was a
skilled federal criminal defense attorney with experience handling
federal post-conviction remedy (PCR) actions, who would serve Plaintiff's
interests well. Based wholly upon Defendant Beard's recommendation,
Plaintiff immediately agreed to work with Defendant Christie, and did
there and then begin to employ Defendant Christie's services in connec-
tion with his PCR action, sending to her documents related to the criminal
cage and, his collateral attack on the judgment.
4, However, Defendant Beard knew that Defendant Christie lacked
relevant experience, and had agreed with Defendant Christie to "milk"
Plaintiff -- who Defendants knew was in prison, was desperate for help,
had no way to seek out alternative representation, and had access to
substantial funds -- by charging Plaintiff unearned amounts and pretending
to work by producing communications, documents, and invoices that would
fool trusting persons unlearned in the law. Upon information and belief,
Defendants Beard and Christie, and by extension Defendant BHBH, discussed,
understood, and agreed to perform various roles for effectuating this
fraud, including by Defendant Beard's referral of Plaintiff to Defendant
Christie, by Defendant Christie's interactions with Plaintiff and his
family, and by Defendant BHBH's application of infrastructure and resour-
ces, e.g., to invoice and pursue payment from Plaintiff.
5 In the period leading up to 2/2/2018, Defendants Beard and Christie
agreed that they could squeeze money out of Plaintiff's need for help,
and to charge Plaintiff $2500.00 up front, irrespective of earnings,
plus inflated ad hoc fees going forward. Accordingly, on or about
2/2/2018, Defendant Christie mocked up largely-false- billing records
to support a fee of exactly $2500.00.
6 Specifically, Defendant Christie wrote that, between 8/22/2017 and
10/12/2017, she had spent exactly 1 hour to review documents, exactly
2 hours to "further review" the documents, and:exactly 5 hours to review
materials, analyze statutes, and speak with Plaintiff's mother once by
phone. She also wrote that she spent exactly 1 hour engaging Plaintiff
via email on 10/31/2017, and exactly 4 hours reviewing case law on
11/6/2017.
7 Upon information and belief, those claims of work performed were
largely false, Defendant Christie knew they were false, and Defendant
Beard knowingly supported Defendant Christie's making the claims for
the aforestated purpose of "milking" Plaintiff.
8 Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2246 (stating that,
between 8/22/2017 and 11/6/2017, the aforedescribed work had been per-
formed) for precisely $2500.00 on 2/2/2018. See Fxhibit 1 (billing
records), at 7-8, 40. This first invoice had an appearance markedly
different from subsequent invoices because it was a document developed
not through the ordinary processes for securing payment for work duly
performed, but instead for fraudulent purposes in the first instance.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Christie and Beard benefited
from this action,.as well as subsequent such actions, by directly
pocketing the monies received from Plaintiff therefor, without having
performed the stated work as described therein.
4
9 Nothing further was done by Defendants.with respect to Plaintiff's
case from late 2017 to 2/2/2018, but in the period following and leading
up to 3/5/2018, Defendant Christie wrote up additional billing records
stating: that on 2/14/2018 she had spent exactly 30 minutes to draft an
email "notifying [Plaintiff] of [her] availability to speak with him";
that on 2/15/2018 she had spent 10 minutes between phone and email with
Plaintiff; and that on 2/19/2018 she had spent exactly 20 minutes to
draft another email to Plaintiff "to schedule a time to speak on the
telephone." Upon information and belief, aside from the short time
required to send two emails and speak on the phone for a few minutes,
those claims of work performed were also mostly inflated; Defendant
Christie deliberately inflatéd them; and Defendant Beard knowingly
supported same--all for the purpose of "milking" Plaintifé.
10. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2123 (covering ©
2/1/2018 through. 2/28/2018) for precisely $250.00 on 3/5/2018. See
Exhibit _1, at 37-39, 40.
11. Cn or about 3/13/2018, Plaintiff directed Defendant Christie to
review specific lines in a transcript; as a result, Defendant Christie
billed Plaintiff for exactly 30 minutes. Upon information and belief,
that amount was also deliberately inflated by Defendant Christie, with
the knowing support of Defendant Beard, for the purpose of "milking"
Plaintiff.
12. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2265 (covering 3/1/2018
through 3/31/2018) for precisely $125.00 on 4/10/2018. See Exhibit 1, at
34-36, 40.
13. On or about 5/7/2018 and 5/14/2018, Defendant Christie billed
Plaintiff for 10 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively, for a phonecall
with Plaintiff's brother and an email to Plaintiff, adding the phrase
5
“document review and file assimilation" to the description of the latter.
Upon information and belief, this latter amount was deliberately inflated
by Defendant Christie -- and the quoted phrase appended specifically to
support its false appearance as a legitimate charge -- with the knowing
support of Defendant Beard, all for the purpose of "milking" Plaintiff.
14. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2459 (covering 3/1/2018
through 5/31/2018) for $166.67 on 6/8/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 31-33, 40.
15. At this time, in June of 2018, Plaintiff was served with the govern-
ment's response in opposition to his earlier-filed PCR petition. Having,
already paid over $3,000 to Defendants Christie and BHBH over the
preceding ten months without any physical product, representation, or
filing on his behalf, Plaintiff sent to Defendant Christie the govern~
ment's pleading as well as his pro se motion for extension of time to
file a reply.
16. On or about 6/11/2018 and 6/15/2018, Defendant Christie billed
Plaintiff for a total of 1 hour for the "Receipt and review of Motion
for Extension of Time to Reply to Government's Response’ (both dates'
entries reflected the identical text). Upon information and belief, the
motion for extension was received by Defendant Christie only once, not
twice; and it is not possible for a reasonable person to spend more than
5 minutes, as contrasted from an entire hour, reviewing a pro se motion
for extension of time. Thus, these amounts were deliberately inflated
by Defendant Christie, with the complicity of Defendant Beard, for
the aforedescribed purpose of "milking" Plaintiff.
17. On or about 6/21/2018 and 6/22/2018, Defendant Christie billed
Plaintiff for a total of 2% hours for the "Receipt and review of govern-
ment's response [and] [a]nalysis of each case asserted by the government
!
in its response to assist in formulation of a reply" (both dates'
entries reflected the identical text). Upon information and belief,
the response was received by Defendant Christie only once, not twice;
and Defendant Christie did not "analyze" anything "to assist in for-
mulation of a reply, " as shown by her subsequent actions. and omissions.
18. On or about 6/28/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for
exactly 1 hour to conduct an email exchange with the government's
attorney and for an email to Plaintiff describing same. And on or
about 6/29/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for exactly 2 hours
to "Draft proposed [reply] and explanation of the law to forward to
Ty [Beard] and to [Plaintiff] via email," in addition to "respond[ing]
to 4 emails from [Plaintiff]." The reference to Defendant Beard in
this entry is demonstrative of his continued close involvement in
the conspiracy to "milk" Plaintiff by assisting Defendant Christie to
craft a legal document that would appear sufficiently legitimate to
continue perpetration of the scam, though it had little to no value vis-
ar-vis service of Plaintiff's legal interests in the PCR action, and did
not represent the amount or quality of work purported by Defendants.
19. Upon information and belief, this "proposed" pleading, drafted in
,the days following Defendant Christie's 6/21/2018 receipt of the govern+
iment's filing (during which she billed Plaintiff for a cumulative 5%
hours), was substantially the same document she later filed on Plain~
“tiEe 's behalf (after billing Plaintiff for several additional hours
which -- given that the pleading had already been prepared and Little or
no changes made by Defendant after her 6/29/2018 transmission of same
to Defendant Beard -~ were almost entirely inflated).
20. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2562 (covering 6/1/2018
through 6/30/2018) for $1625.00 on 7/5/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 28-30,
40. This brought the total amount charged to $4,666.67, see id. at 40.
ai. At this point, Defendants Beard and Christie agreed that Plaintiff
was under duress, having received the government's response in opposition
to his petition and needing to timely file a reply and convince the
federal district court to grant the requested relief. Defendant Beard
knew, from personal experience, that Plaintiff suffered from severe
anxiety and related psychological and mental coriditions, such that
stressful circumstances tended to pressure him to act quickly and with
little regard for consequences or contemplation of all interests and o
possibilities. For these reasons, Defendants Beard and Christie deter-
mined and agreed to press Plaintiff for an additional $10,000 up-front
to continue assisting him. Regardless of the fact that Defendants had
successfully obtained prompt payment of each and every invoice billed
to date within days of issuance, to the tune of nearly five thousand
dollars, according to an ad-hoc arrangement, Defendants deliberately
chose this moment -- when Plaintiff was facing a sudden deadline to file
his reply in the PCR action opposed by the federal government ~~ to push
him up against the wall (figuratively speaking), because they knew that
he would feel he had no other choice, as vulnerable as he was feeling
(despite that Defendants had the choice to continue the relationship
as it was, as well as to turn over the reply already drafted on his
behalf, neither of which they offered), but to accede to Defendants!
demands . Upon information and belief, Defendants mutually decided this
course of action in bad faith: having already "milked" Plaintiff for
very little actual work, they saw that the PCR action could soon come to
a close, and, having no intention of effectively representing Plaintiff 's
legal interests, desired only to take more money from this captive "cash
8
cow" while the getting was good.
22. On or about 7/3/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 10
minutes to talk with Plaintiff's mother on the phone for the purpose of
relating Defendants' demand for $10,000 "to assist in completing the
current habeas [PCR] action." On or about 7/10/2018, Defendant Christie
billed Plaintiff for 1 hour to answer an email from Plaintiff regarding
the calculation of "good time" in his federal sentence. These, and other
subsequent, actions demonstrated that Defendants knew they could still
bill Plaintiff in an "ad hoc" fashion, and had no qualms about doing
so (particularly given their having already been paid nearly five thou-
sand dollars in the same manner, always within ten days of invoicing).
Upon information and belief, in addition to effectively (and unethically)
"billing for billing" (as opposed to for services reridered), these amounts
were inflated in the same ways and for the same reasons as noted above:
to "milk" the unaware, trusting, and desperate Plaintifé.
23. Because of the aforestated facts that nearly five thousand dollars
had already been paid to date and that there was obviously nothing
flawed about the ad-hoc system utilized thus far, Plaintiff and his
family balked at what they felt was an inappropriate "shake-down" by
Defendants Beard and Christie, and attempted to reason with them. When
Plaintiff emailed Defendant Christie to obtain her assurance that she
would file a reply on his behalf prior to passage of the deadline, ‘on or
about 7/18/2018 Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 30 minutes to
inform him "that unless and until I have a Fee Agreement in place, I
camnot file a Reply on his behalf"--as if she were suddenly dealing
with someone who lacked means or had otherwise violated her trust. It
was plain that Defendants' purpose in making these demands was only to
secure a large amount of non-refundable money before withdrawing from
9
a ship which they --as became evident later --were actively working to
sink, having had no intention of fulfilling their obligations ab initio.
24. On or about 7/18/2018, Defendant Christie noted that she had
“received and reviewed" the order of the federal court granting an
extension of time to file Plaintiff's PCR reply through 8/14/2018.
25. On or about 7/23/2018, Defendant Christie put further pressure on
Plaintiff by emailing him "regarding not having heard from his Mom or
[brother] Robert" and "explain[ing] that.time is of the essence to be
able to file a Reply on his behalf." Upon information and belief, this
action -- for which Defendant Christie unethically charged Plaintiff for
10 minutes of her time, at $250/hour, i.e., $41.67 --was explicitly re-
commened and supported by Defendant Beard: Both Defendants Christie and
Beard were well aware, from direct experience and having been informed
by his family, that Plaintiff was highly susceptible to such threatening
tactics, and thereby Defendants intended and sought to thoroughly stoke
Plaintiff's fears and anxiety regarding the survival of his PCR petition
to correct his criminal judgment and, ultimately, allow for his earlier
release from prison.
26. Based on Defendants’ coercions, Plaintiff directed his mother to
sign an Engagement Agreement as demanded by Defendants Beard and Christie.
Although Plaintiff wanted his family to do whatever Defendants asked, his
mother continued to argue that Defendants Beard and Christie had already
been paid nearly five thousand dollars and had done virtually nothing for
it, and sought to negotiate the demanded $10,000 retainer down to $5,000.
27. On or about 7/27/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for
1 hour to draft what™'she termed the "Fee Agreement," an "Entry of
Appearance" in the federal court for the PCR action, and an “email to
10
client discussing the actions being taken and letting him know that an
Authorization will need to be signed to allow [Defendant Christie] to
speak with Joel [Plaintiff's mother] and Robert [his brother]." She:
also billed Plaintiff for 1.8 hours of "legal assistant" time, on or
about 7/27/2018, to obtain all documents from the public record relating
to the case and to calendar the:"upcoming filing deadline" of 8/14/2018.
And, on or about 7/30/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for
another 30 minutes to exchange emails with Plaintiff and meet with his
mother for the signing of the "Contractual Agreement for Legal Services"
(hereinafter "Agreement").
28. Upon information and belief, each of these amounts were wrongfully
inlfated for the reasons stated above, i.e., to "milk" the: vultierable
Plaintiff for as much as Defendants could get, in exchange for as little
value as possible, while simultaneously pretending to help him and harm-
ing his legal interests and rights. Further, Defendants' billing Plain-
tiff for time spent preparing the Agreement, discussing fees with Plain-
tiff and his family, and pressuring Plaintiff to retain Defendants for
future services, whether in bad faith or not, was exponential "padding"
of the most.despicable kind.in abusing Plaintiff's captive status, =.
desperate position in needing assistance to correct his sentence to
ensure his timely release from prison, and his relationships with his
family memberssin directing them to release fimds and otherwise co-
operate with Defendants (who were at all times misrepresenting their
true actions and interests, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff's
continued discharge of money, like parasites). :Al]- these actions.
and decisions were deliberately undertaken by Defendant Christie with
the full knowledge and blessing of Defendant Beard, both of whom gained
practically 100% “profit'' from what amounted to racketeering activities
a
29, Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2637 (through 7/31/2018)
‘foe $1013.34 on 8/7/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 24-27, 40. This was the
first invoice billed against the retainer established with the 7/30/2018
Agreement. See Exhibit 2 (Agreement); id., at 5 (copy of receipt).
30. Plaintiff was told by his mother that Defendant Christie had seemed
upset regarding Plaintiff's family's attempts to negotiate downward the
amount of the advance retainer fee, and that Defendant Beard had inter-
ceded to cause Defendant Christie to agree to the lesser $5,000 retainer
to ensure that Plaintiff would enter into the Agreement. Plaintiff's
mother said that Defendants were unhappy that the $10,000 "non-refund-:
able" fee would not be paid. Upon information and belief, this is one
reason why Defendants deliberately sabotaged Plaintiff "s legal rights:
in effect, they wanted to show that "you get what you pay for," vindic-
tively, and-- given the posture of Plaintiff's family that they were
demanding too much money -- they knew they would be unsuccessful in
wringing any further funds out of Plaintiff, so they may as well crash
the ship that served no more purpose for their personal interests.
31. By the terms of the Agreement, a duty-bound relationship was formally
established. (whereas previously an implicit verbal understanding existed)
in which Defendant Christie agreed "to provide effective legal represen-
tation" in "Civil Action 6:17cev216 in United: States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas regarding Criminal Cause No. 6:12cr33."
In the Agreement, in addition to the $5,000 retainer, Plaintiff agreed
to pay legal fees "hourly upon use of the retainer fees," i.e., the same
as had been occurring prior to the Agreement. See Exhibit 2, at 1, 3;
see also Exhibit 1, at 1. Plaintiff paid all fees and invoices, thus
satisfying in full his obligations to Defendants.
32. On or about 8/3/2018, 8/8/2018, 8/9/2018, 8/10/2018, and 8/13/2018,
12
Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 6 hours, 1% hours, 3 hours,
1 hour, and 1 hour, respectively, purportedly to prepare the Reply for
filing in Plaintiff's PCR action. See Exbibit:1) at 18-19, 21-23. Upon
information and belief, these additional 12% hours -- atop the 5% hours
billed in late June in Invoice #2562 -- were completely fraudulent: As
stated above, Defendant Christie had already prepared a "proposed" Reply
and shared it with Defendant Beard, which (as discussed further below)
was substantially the same five-page document:ultimately filed on Plain-
tiff's behalf. Upon information and belief, no reasonable attorney
could spend anywhere near the cumulative eighteen hours (and this isn't
even accounting for the many hours Defendants charged Plaintiff for
indirect efforts preparatory to the same end) billed by Defendant Christie
for developing the five-page document she filed for Plaintiff, and these
amounts were, for the reasons already mentioned, grossly inflated. See
Exhibit 3 (Reply).
33. On or about 8/14/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for an
additional 1 hour for sémathing she described as "file review and docu-
ment assimilation," as well as to mail a copy of the Reply to Plaintiff
along with a letter. Then, on or about 8/16/2018, Defendant Christie
billed Plaintiff for another 15 minutes to email him. Finally, on or
about 8/27/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for an additional
30 minutes to talk with his mother and to email Plaintiff regarding
same. See Exhibit 1, at 19-20.
34. These line items resulted in the assessment of two Invoices: #2640
(dated 8/7/2018), for $1500.00, and #2717 (dated 9/5/2018), for $2092.50.
See Exhibit 1, at 40. Upon information and belief,.the amounts billed
were, as explained above, inflated with the knowledge and support of
Defendant Beard, for the ongoing purpose of "milking" Plaintiff.
13
35. On or about 10/22/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for
_3 minutes to speak with his mother and his brother, as well as to
‘Nanalyze statute of limitations issue," On or about 10/23/2018; she
_billed Plaintiff for 30 minutes for the exact same entry. And onzor
about 10/29/2018, she billed Plaintiff for 10 minutes for "document
review and file assimilation." See Exhibit 1, at 15-17. Upon infor-
mation and belief,.all these amounts were likewise inflated.
36. Those entries resulted in Invoice #2826, for $187.50, on 11/14/2018.
‘See Exhibit 1, at 40.
37. On or about 11/14/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for
45 minutes for speaking with his mother and drafting an email to Plain-
tiff. At this juncture, Defendant Christie -~ without announcement --
increased her billing rate from $250/hour to $275/hour. See Exhibit 1,
at 12-14. Upon information and beliéf, all these amounts wave inflated
‘and it was inappropriate for Defendant to surreptitiously raise her rate.
38, These items were assessed via Invoice #2903 for $206.25 on 12
“12/18/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 40.
39. After several months, on 3/26/2019, the United States Magistrate
_Tudge assigned to Plaintiff's PGR action issuéd an 182page:"Report & 3
“Recommendation” detailing cases and analysis on either side of the issue
whether Plaintiff's petition should be allowed to proceed and, rather
-equivocally, recommending that the U.S. District Court.dismiss Plain-
tiff's petition. ‘The document expressly advised that parties had only
14 days in which to file objections to the Report & Recommendation of
the U.S, Magistrate Judge. See Exhibit 4 (Report & Recommendation), at
17-18.
40. On or about 3/28/2019, Defendant Christie billed Plaintifé for
14
15 minutes: "Received denial of motion. Sent an email to [Plaintiff]
and contacted client's brother and mother via telephone to advise."
The document Defendant Christie had received, however, was NOT a "denial."
U.S. Magistrate Judges cannot issue dispositive rulings under Article III
of the federal Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Thus, the commmi+:
cations issued by Defendant Christie:on this date to those several
people, including Plaintiff, were false. Further, as an attorney, she
had a responsibility to review the pertinent law to determine the
accuracy.of her grave pronouncements. But regardless of her skill as
a lawyer, any literate person could read the language in the Report &.
Recommendation, which clearly stated that the document was a report and
recommendation, not a decision. : See: Exhibit 4, at 1, 17.
41. On or about 3/29/2019, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 2
hours : "Review Report & Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate. Emails
to [Plaintiff] and his family to explain the ruling. The Magistrate
denied issuance of a certificate of appeal so no appeal can be taken to
the 5th Circuit. Spoke to [Plaintiff's] mother. Drafted letter.‘to
mail along with the decision." Again, the:Report & Recommendation was
NOT a "ruling," was NOT a "decision," and could not "deny" anything.
Any reasonably intelligent person, lawyer or otherwise, who spent two :
and a half hours with the document (Exhibit.4) -~which is all of eigh-
teen pages -in Length -:-would see this, particularly if that person
devoted any amount of time to reviewing the applicable law. See, e.g.,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72. Thusi:2it is plain that
Defendant Christie did nothing more than glance at the Report & Recom-
mendation, and certainly did not review" it, as her billing statement
asserts. This blatant failure strongly supports Plaintiff's claims
throughout that Defendant falsified the billing records to reflect
15
work that she never performed; further, it makes clear that Defendant
Christie had no intention of fulfilling her duties and obligations as
memorialized in the Agreement.
42. In her letter to Plaintiff dated 3/29/2019, Defendant Christie
wrote: "the Judge has dismissed your [PCR petition] with prejudice .
and has denied a certificate of appealability that allows an appeal to
be taken ... (the 5th Circuit will send back any appeals filed as
invalid unless you have a certificate of appealability). Enclosed is
a copy of the decision.. - I understand this was not the outcome you
desired, and it is disappointing. As ‘Ty: and I both explained, attemp-
ting to overturn or correct a sentence is very difficult
to the point of
being almost impossible. Great efforts were put forth on your-behaff.
With this decision, we will belosing this matter. I wish you the best."
See Exhibit 5 (3/29/2019 letter).
43. However, NONE of what Defendant Christie said in that letter was
true. No judge had dismissed the petition, nor denied a COA--much less
a federal district court -- and the appellate court certainly would not
"send back any appeals filed as invalid" without a COA: it would instead,
in accordance with the law, interpret such an appeal as requesting a COA
from the appellate court itself, see Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Rule 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Defendant Christie's letter, in fact,
made clear that any "efforts put forth on [Plaintiff's] behalf" were not
"great" but,irather, extraordinarily pathetic: a quick reference to the
rules of procedure, or any pertinent practice manual, would have made
clear the true circumstances -- indeed, a review of the "decision" (i.e.,
the Report & Recommendation) would have served to accomplish most of
thosezends. Although she billed Plaintiff for review of documents and
law, the proof is in the pudding --her billing was nothing but a fraud.
16
44. Upon information and belief, Defendants Christie and Beard (whose
name was, again in the 3/29/2019 letter, invoked) ctermined to cease
work on Plaintiff's behalf (to the extent it had ever begun) because
the retainer had, by the previous day, been exhausted. Even though
Plaintiff had agreed to continue to pay hourly for legal services
beyond the retainer, and had done so prior to the entry into the Agree-
ment, see Exhibit 2, it appears that Defendant preferred to take large
sums of money up-front and then invent bases to draw from those funds at
her leisure--as she did, for example, in billing Plaintiff for 12%
hours in early August for work she had already billed 5% hours for in
late June, where the only difference was that Plaintiff had loaded p=:
thécofferszon July 30th.
35. Effectively, by her 3/29/2019 letter, Defendant Christie failed to
provide effective legal representation as promised in the Agreement,
failed to fulfill her required duty as Plaintiff's legal representative
and counsel, and misrepresented to Plaintiff matters crucial to his
legal interests’, comprehension, and decisionmaking, where she knew and
should have known that the true facts were otherwise. Defendant Christie,
with the involvement, agreement , and support of Defendant Beard, deliber-
ately misrepresented and otherwise failed to reasonably review the docu~
ments and law at issue to provide Plaintiff with accurate information
regarding the action of the federal court in his PCR action on 3/26/2019.
And Defendant Christie, with the knowledge and blessing of Defendant
Beard, knawingly2and purposefully failed to evaluate Phaéntidt ‘s legal
rights:and responsibilities with respect to the admonition clearly
spelled out in the Report & Recommendation that he must file objections
within 14 days:of its 3/26/2019 issuance, see Exhibit 4, at 17-18. As
a direct and proximate consequence of these failures, no. objections were
17
filed on Plaintiff's behalf in his PCR action. Defendant Christie both
misrepresented to Plaintiff his legal right sand options, and failed to
act to secure his rights by evaluating, preparing, and filing timely
objections to the equivocal 3/26/2019 Report & Recommendation.
46. On or about 4/3/2019, Defendants levied Invoice #3115 for $755.84
($756.25 minus the last 41 cents of the retainer). See Exhibit 1, at 9-11,
40 Plaintiff paid all amounts charged, totaling $9,666.67.
47. Defendants Christie (as: his attorney) and Beard (as his long-time
friend and business associate) intended that Plaintiff should rely on
Christie's conveyances. When Plaintiff approached Defendant Christie, by
email and phone, to inquire about suggestions by nonprofessionals around
him who advised that he critically evaluate Defendant's representations,
Defendant vehemently ordered Plaintiff to "stop listening to jailhouse
lawyers," virtually shouting that if he continued to do so, she would
drop him as a client and leave him without legal representation. Faced
with this explicit threat to his ability to secure a:corrected..sentence,
Plaintiff did rely thereon, in taking no action, as (according to Defen-
dant's statements) there was nothing he could legally do. See Exhibit 5
48. But on 5/30/2019, the U.S. District Court issued a "Memorandum
Adopting Report & Recommendation," entering final judgment in the PCR
action, wherein the District Judge stated: "A copy of thle] Report was
sent to counsel who appeared in the case on Jacobs’ behalf but no objec-
tions have been received; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review
u
and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review See
Fxhibit 6, at 1. Thus: (a) the Report & Recommendation had not been a
final ruling, (b):objections thereto had been expected but not received;
(c) Plaintiff was therefore "barred from de novo review"; and (d) as a
18
further result.of that.same omission, Plaintiff was barred "from appel-
late review'' of the whole of the judicial determinations.
39. Thus, with the passage of the deadline to file objections, Plain-
tiff's legal rights were irreparably injured. However, that was not
the conclusion of Defendants' harming Plaintiff.
40. ‘The U.S. District Court's 5/30/2019 Memorandum and Final Judgment
were not sent to Plaintiff, as he was represented by counsel; instead,
they were sent to Defendant Christie. But Defendant Christie did nothing
to inform Plaintiff of .the Court's action.
41. Upon information and belief, when Defendant Christie received the
Court's 5/30/2019 decision -- which event, unlike similar such events,
was NOT entered in any billing statement or charged to Plaintiff ~~
she conferred with Defendant Beard and together they agreed to suppress
this document (because it explicitly demonstrated the fraud perpetrated
by Defendant Christie's 3/29/2019 letter, etc.), and to withhold it from
Plaintiff for the full duration of hte period in which Plaintiff could
lawfully file an appeal (which is 60 days under F.R.A.P.
Preview
FILED PENNY C: ARKSTON cause wo. PI-IBS 8-8 D if1 S CLERK iti us “6 PH “1550 EDWARD T. JACOBS, In the District, urt, for. Smith County, fe 1 FE GCUNTY 7 Tex: Plaintiff, GRP Vv Judicial District § CAREY CHRISTIE; BEARD HARRIS BULLOCK HUGHES, P.C.; and TY BEARD, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DAMAGES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT? COMES NOW Edward T. Jacobs, Plaintiff, complaining of and about Carey Christie; Beard Harris Bullock Hughes, P.C.; and Ty Beard (here- inafter Defendants), and for cause of action would show unto the Court the following: I DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN Pursuant to Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under Level 3 of the Discovery Control Plan. Ii. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Smith County, Texas, because this is the county in which the cause of action described in this Petition occurred in whole or in part. In addition, the contract entered into by the parties stipulated that, in certain related circum stances, venue "shall be in Tyler, Smith County, Texas." 1 III. PARTIES AND SERVICE Plaintiff, Edward T. Jacobs, brings this action individually. His residence is in Smith County, Texas. His current mailing address is: Edward T. Jacobs, #19938-078; Federal Correctional Institution; P.O. Box 9000; Seagoville, TX 75159. Defendant Carey Christie is an individual residing and/or employed in Smith County, Texas. As a licensed attorney, her State Bar numbers are 33920 62704 and 2410 3218. She may be served with citation at the following place of business, or any other place where Defendant may be found: 100 Independence Place, Suite 101; Tyler, TX 75703. Defendant Beard Harris Bullock Hughes, P.C.. (hereinafter "BHBH"), is a business or corporation authorized to do business in the State of Texas, and maybe served with citation by serving its authorized agent, as follows, or any other place where Defendant may be found: 100 Independence Place, Suite 101; Tyler, TX 75703. Defendant Ty Beard is an individual residing and/or employed in Smith County, Texas. He may be served with citation at the following place of business, or any other place where Defendant may be found: 100 Independence Place, Suite 101; Tyler, TX 75703. IV. FACTS 1 At all times relevant, Plaintiff has been incarcerated pursuant to a criminal judgment issued by the United States District Court for the* Eastern District of Texas, at Tyler, in Case No. 6:12-cr~33. In April of 2017, Plaintiff filed a post-conviction petition, opening Case No. 6:17-cv-216, to correct an error in the criminal‘ judgment affecting the nature and execution of his sentence, including the total amount of time he is required to serve in official confinement. 2. Because Plaintiff had known him for years and worked with him in a prior engagement, Plaintiff reached out to Defendant Ty Beard (a. partner -in Defendant BHBH), who in August of 2017 referred Plaintiff -. to Defendant Carey Christie (an attorney in the same firm). 3 Defendant Beard advised Plaintiff that Defendant Christie was a skilled federal criminal defense attorney with experience handling federal post-conviction remedy (PCR) actions, who would serve Plaintiff's interests well. Based wholly upon Defendant Beard's recommendation, Plaintiff immediately agreed to work with Defendant Christie, and did there and then begin to employ Defendant Christie's services in connec- tion with his PCR action, sending to her documents related to the criminal cage and, his collateral attack on the judgment. 4, However, Defendant Beard knew that Defendant Christie lacked relevant experience, and had agreed with Defendant Christie to "milk" Plaintiff -- who Defendants knew was in prison, was desperate for help, had no way to seek out alternative representation, and had access to substantial funds -- by charging Plaintiff unearned amounts and pretending to work by producing communications, documents, and invoices that would fool trusting persons unlearned in the law. Upon information and belief, Defendants Beard and Christie, and by extension Defendant BHBH, discussed, understood, and agreed to perform various roles for effectuating this fraud, including by Defendant Beard's referral of Plaintiff to Defendant Christie, by Defendant Christie's interactions with Plaintiff and his family, and by Defendant BHBH's application of infrastructure and resour- ces, e.g., to invoice and pursue payment from Plaintiff. 5 In the period leading up to 2/2/2018, Defendants Beard and Christie agreed that they could squeeze money out of Plaintiff's need for help, and to charge Plaintiff $2500.00 up front, irrespective of earnings, plus inflated ad hoc fees going forward. Accordingly, on or about 2/2/2018, Defendant Christie mocked up largely-false- billing records to support a fee of exactly $2500.00. 6 Specifically, Defendant Christie wrote that, between 8/22/2017 and 10/12/2017, she had spent exactly 1 hour to review documents, exactly 2 hours to "further review" the documents, and:exactly 5 hours to review materials, analyze statutes, and speak with Plaintiff's mother once by phone. She also wrote that she spent exactly 1 hour engaging Plaintiff via email on 10/31/2017, and exactly 4 hours reviewing case law on 11/6/2017. 7 Upon information and belief, those claims of work performed were largely false, Defendant Christie knew they were false, and Defendant Beard knowingly supported Defendant Christie's making the claims for the aforestated purpose of "milking" Plaintiff. 8 Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2246 (stating that, between 8/22/2017 and 11/6/2017, the aforedescribed work had been per- formed) for precisely $2500.00 on 2/2/2018. See Fxhibit 1 (billing records), at 7-8, 40. This first invoice had an appearance markedly different from subsequent invoices because it was a document developed not through the ordinary processes for securing payment for work duly performed, but instead for fraudulent purposes in the first instance. Upon information and belief, Defendants Christie and Beard benefited from this action,.as well as subsequent such actions, by directly pocketing the monies received from Plaintiff therefor, without having performed the stated work as described therein. 4 9 Nothing further was done by Defendants.with respect to Plaintiff's case from late 2017 to 2/2/2018, but in the period following and leading up to 3/5/2018, Defendant Christie wrote up additional billing records stating: that on 2/14/2018 she had spent exactly 30 minutes to draft an email "notifying [Plaintiff] of [her] availability to speak with him"; that on 2/15/2018 she had spent 10 minutes between phone and email with Plaintiff; and that on 2/19/2018 she had spent exactly 20 minutes to draft another email to Plaintiff "to schedule a time to speak on the telephone." Upon information and belief, aside from the short time required to send two emails and speak on the phone for a few minutes, those claims of work performed were also mostly inflated; Defendant Christie deliberately inflatéd them; and Defendant Beard knowingly supported same--all for the purpose of "milking" Plaintifé. 10. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2123 (covering © 2/1/2018 through. 2/28/2018) for precisely $250.00 on 3/5/2018. See Exhibit _1, at 37-39, 40. 11. Cn or about 3/13/2018, Plaintiff directed Defendant Christie to review specific lines in a transcript; as a result, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for exactly 30 minutes. Upon information and belief, that amount was also deliberately inflated by Defendant Christie, with the knowing support of Defendant Beard, for the purpose of "milking" Plaintiff. 12. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2265 (covering 3/1/2018 through 3/31/2018) for precisely $125.00 on 4/10/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 34-36, 40. 13. On or about 5/7/2018 and 5/14/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 10 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively, for a phonecall with Plaintiff's brother and an email to Plaintiff, adding the phrase 5 “document review and file assimilation" to the description of the latter. Upon information and belief, this latter amount was deliberately inflated by Defendant Christie -- and the quoted phrase appended specifically to support its false appearance as a legitimate charge -- with the knowing support of Defendant Beard, all for the purpose of "milking" Plaintiff. 14. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2459 (covering 3/1/2018 through 5/31/2018) for $166.67 on 6/8/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 31-33, 40. 15. At this time, in June of 2018, Plaintiff was served with the govern- ment's response in opposition to his earlier-filed PCR petition. Having, already paid over $3,000 to Defendants Christie and BHBH over the preceding ten months without any physical product, representation, or filing on his behalf, Plaintiff sent to Defendant Christie the govern~ ment's pleading as well as his pro se motion for extension of time to file a reply. 16. On or about 6/11/2018 and 6/15/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for a total of 1 hour for the "Receipt and review of Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Government's Response’ (both dates' entries reflected the identical text). Upon information and belief, the motion for extension was received by Defendant Christie only once, not twice; and it is not possible for a reasonable person to spend more than 5 minutes, as contrasted from an entire hour, reviewing a pro se motion for extension of time. Thus, these amounts were deliberately inflated by Defendant Christie, with the complicity of Defendant Beard, for the aforedescribed purpose of "milking" Plaintiff. 17. On or about 6/21/2018 and 6/22/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for a total of 2% hours for the "Receipt and review of govern- ment's response [and] [a]nalysis of each case asserted by the government ! in its response to assist in formulation of a reply" (both dates' entries reflected the identical text). Upon information and belief, the response was received by Defendant Christie only once, not twice; and Defendant Christie did not "analyze" anything "to assist in for- mulation of a reply, " as shown by her subsequent actions. and omissions. 18. On or about 6/28/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for exactly 1 hour to conduct an email exchange with the government's attorney and for an email to Plaintiff describing same. And on or about 6/29/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for exactly 2 hours to "Draft proposed [reply] and explanation of the law to forward to Ty [Beard] and to [Plaintiff] via email," in addition to "respond[ing] to 4 emails from [Plaintiff]." The reference to Defendant Beard in this entry is demonstrative of his continued close involvement in the conspiracy to "milk" Plaintiff by assisting Defendant Christie to craft a legal document that would appear sufficiently legitimate to continue perpetration of the scam, though it had little to no value vis- ar-vis service of Plaintiff's legal interests in the PCR action, and did not represent the amount or quality of work purported by Defendants. 19. Upon information and belief, this "proposed" pleading, drafted in ,the days following Defendant Christie's 6/21/2018 receipt of the govern+ iment's filing (during which she billed Plaintiff for a cumulative 5% hours), was substantially the same document she later filed on Plain~ “tiEe 's behalf (after billing Plaintiff for several additional hours which -- given that the pleading had already been prepared and Little or no changes made by Defendant after her 6/29/2018 transmission of same to Defendant Beard -~ were almost entirely inflated). 20. Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2562 (covering 6/1/2018 through 6/30/2018) for $1625.00 on 7/5/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 28-30, 40. This brought the total amount charged to $4,666.67, see id. at 40. ai. At this point, Defendants Beard and Christie agreed that Plaintiff was under duress, having received the government's response in opposition to his petition and needing to timely file a reply and convince the federal district court to grant the requested relief. Defendant Beard knew, from personal experience, that Plaintiff suffered from severe anxiety and related psychological and mental coriditions, such that stressful circumstances tended to pressure him to act quickly and with little regard for consequences or contemplation of all interests and o possibilities. For these reasons, Defendants Beard and Christie deter- mined and agreed to press Plaintiff for an additional $10,000 up-front to continue assisting him. Regardless of the fact that Defendants had successfully obtained prompt payment of each and every invoice billed to date within days of issuance, to the tune of nearly five thousand dollars, according to an ad-hoc arrangement, Defendants deliberately chose this moment -- when Plaintiff was facing a sudden deadline to file his reply in the PCR action opposed by the federal government ~~ to push him up against the wall (figuratively speaking), because they knew that he would feel he had no other choice, as vulnerable as he was feeling (despite that Defendants had the choice to continue the relationship as it was, as well as to turn over the reply already drafted on his behalf, neither of which they offered), but to accede to Defendants! demands . Upon information and belief, Defendants mutually decided this course of action in bad faith: having already "milked" Plaintiff for very little actual work, they saw that the PCR action could soon come to a close, and, having no intention of effectively representing Plaintiff 's legal interests, desired only to take more money from this captive "cash 8 cow" while the getting was good. 22. On or about 7/3/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 10 minutes to talk with Plaintiff's mother on the phone for the purpose of relating Defendants' demand for $10,000 "to assist in completing the current habeas [PCR] action." On or about 7/10/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 1 hour to answer an email from Plaintiff regarding the calculation of "good time" in his federal sentence. These, and other subsequent, actions demonstrated that Defendants knew they could still bill Plaintiff in an "ad hoc" fashion, and had no qualms about doing so (particularly given their having already been paid nearly five thou- sand dollars in the same manner, always within ten days of invoicing). Upon information and belief, in addition to effectively (and unethically) "billing for billing" (as opposed to for services reridered), these amounts were inflated in the same ways and for the same reasons as noted above: to "milk" the unaware, trusting, and desperate Plaintifé. 23. Because of the aforestated facts that nearly five thousand dollars had already been paid to date and that there was obviously nothing flawed about the ad-hoc system utilized thus far, Plaintiff and his family balked at what they felt was an inappropriate "shake-down" by Defendants Beard and Christie, and attempted to reason with them. When Plaintiff emailed Defendant Christie to obtain her assurance that she would file a reply on his behalf prior to passage of the deadline, ‘on or about 7/18/2018 Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 30 minutes to inform him "that unless and until I have a Fee Agreement in place, I camnot file a Reply on his behalf"--as if she were suddenly dealing with someone who lacked means or had otherwise violated her trust. It was plain that Defendants' purpose in making these demands was only to secure a large amount of non-refundable money before withdrawing from 9 a ship which they --as became evident later --were actively working to sink, having had no intention of fulfilling their obligations ab initio. 24. On or about 7/18/2018, Defendant Christie noted that she had “received and reviewed" the order of the federal court granting an extension of time to file Plaintiff's PCR reply through 8/14/2018. 25. On or about 7/23/2018, Defendant Christie put further pressure on Plaintiff by emailing him "regarding not having heard from his Mom or [brother] Robert" and "explain[ing] that.time is of the essence to be able to file a Reply on his behalf." Upon information and belief, this action -- for which Defendant Christie unethically charged Plaintiff for 10 minutes of her time, at $250/hour, i.e., $41.67 --was explicitly re- commened and supported by Defendant Beard: Both Defendants Christie and Beard were well aware, from direct experience and having been informed by his family, that Plaintiff was highly susceptible to such threatening tactics, and thereby Defendants intended and sought to thoroughly stoke Plaintiff's fears and anxiety regarding the survival of his PCR petition to correct his criminal judgment and, ultimately, allow for his earlier release from prison. 26. Based on Defendants’ coercions, Plaintiff directed his mother to sign an Engagement Agreement as demanded by Defendants Beard and Christie. Although Plaintiff wanted his family to do whatever Defendants asked, his mother continued to argue that Defendants Beard and Christie had already been paid nearly five thousand dollars and had done virtually nothing for it, and sought to negotiate the demanded $10,000 retainer down to $5,000. 27. On or about 7/27/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 1 hour to draft what™'she termed the "Fee Agreement," an "Entry of Appearance" in the federal court for the PCR action, and an “email to 10 client discussing the actions being taken and letting him know that an Authorization will need to be signed to allow [Defendant Christie] to speak with Joel [Plaintiff's mother] and Robert [his brother]." She: also billed Plaintiff for 1.8 hours of "legal assistant" time, on or about 7/27/2018, to obtain all documents from the public record relating to the case and to calendar the:"upcoming filing deadline" of 8/14/2018. And, on or about 7/30/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for another 30 minutes to exchange emails with Plaintiff and meet with his mother for the signing of the "Contractual Agreement for Legal Services" (hereinafter "Agreement"). 28. Upon information and belief, each of these amounts were wrongfully inlfated for the reasons stated above, i.e., to "milk" the: vultierable Plaintiff for as much as Defendants could get, in exchange for as little value as possible, while simultaneously pretending to help him and harm- ing his legal interests and rights. Further, Defendants' billing Plain- tiff for time spent preparing the Agreement, discussing fees with Plain- tiff and his family, and pressuring Plaintiff to retain Defendants for future services, whether in bad faith or not, was exponential "padding" of the most.despicable kind.in abusing Plaintiff's captive status, =. desperate position in needing assistance to correct his sentence to ensure his timely release from prison, and his relationships with his family memberssin directing them to release fimds and otherwise co- operate with Defendants (who were at all times misrepresenting their true actions and interests, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff's continued discharge of money, like parasites). :Al]- these actions. and decisions were deliberately undertaken by Defendant Christie with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendant Beard, both of whom gained practically 100% “profit'' from what amounted to racketeering activities a 29, Defendants Christie and BHBH issued Invoice #2637 (through 7/31/2018) ‘foe $1013.34 on 8/7/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 24-27, 40. This was the first invoice billed against the retainer established with the 7/30/2018 Agreement. See Exhibit 2 (Agreement); id., at 5 (copy of receipt). 30. Plaintiff was told by his mother that Defendant Christie had seemed upset regarding Plaintiff's family's attempts to negotiate downward the amount of the advance retainer fee, and that Defendant Beard had inter- ceded to cause Defendant Christie to agree to the lesser $5,000 retainer to ensure that Plaintiff would enter into the Agreement. Plaintiff's mother said that Defendants were unhappy that the $10,000 "non-refund-: able" fee would not be paid. Upon information and belief, this is one reason why Defendants deliberately sabotaged Plaintiff "s legal rights: in effect, they wanted to show that "you get what you pay for," vindic- tively, and-- given the posture of Plaintiff's family that they were demanding too much money -- they knew they would be unsuccessful in wringing any further funds out of Plaintiff, so they may as well crash the ship that served no more purpose for their personal interests. 31. By the terms of the Agreement, a duty-bound relationship was formally established. (whereas previously an implicit verbal understanding existed) in which Defendant Christie agreed "to provide effective legal represen- tation" in "Civil Action 6:17cev216 in United: States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas regarding Criminal Cause No. 6:12cr33." In the Agreement, in addition to the $5,000 retainer, Plaintiff agreed to pay legal fees "hourly upon use of the retainer fees," i.e., the same as had been occurring prior to the Agreement. See Exhibit 2, at 1, 3; see also Exhibit 1, at 1. Plaintiff paid all fees and invoices, thus satisfying in full his obligations to Defendants. 32. On or about 8/3/2018, 8/8/2018, 8/9/2018, 8/10/2018, and 8/13/2018, 12 Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 6 hours, 1% hours, 3 hours, 1 hour, and 1 hour, respectively, purportedly to prepare the Reply for filing in Plaintiff's PCR action. See Exbibit:1) at 18-19, 21-23. Upon information and belief, these additional 12% hours -- atop the 5% hours billed in late June in Invoice #2562 -- were completely fraudulent: As stated above, Defendant Christie had already prepared a "proposed" Reply and shared it with Defendant Beard, which (as discussed further below) was substantially the same five-page document:ultimately filed on Plain- tiff's behalf. Upon information and belief, no reasonable attorney could spend anywhere near the cumulative eighteen hours (and this isn't even accounting for the many hours Defendants charged Plaintiff for indirect efforts preparatory to the same end) billed by Defendant Christie for developing the five-page document she filed for Plaintiff, and these amounts were, for the reasons already mentioned, grossly inflated. See Exhibit 3 (Reply). 33. On or about 8/14/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for an additional 1 hour for sémathing she described as "file review and docu- ment assimilation," as well as to mail a copy of the Reply to Plaintiff along with a letter. Then, on or about 8/16/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for another 15 minutes to email him. Finally, on or about 8/27/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for an additional 30 minutes to talk with his mother and to email Plaintiff regarding same. See Exhibit 1, at 19-20. 34. These line items resulted in the assessment of two Invoices: #2640 (dated 8/7/2018), for $1500.00, and #2717 (dated 9/5/2018), for $2092.50. See Exhibit 1, at 40. Upon information and belief,.the amounts billed were, as explained above, inflated with the knowledge and support of Defendant Beard, for the ongoing purpose of "milking" Plaintiff. 13 35. On or about 10/22/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for _3 minutes to speak with his mother and his brother, as well as to ‘Nanalyze statute of limitations issue," On or about 10/23/2018; she _billed Plaintiff for 30 minutes for the exact same entry. And onzor about 10/29/2018, she billed Plaintiff for 10 minutes for "document review and file assimilation." See Exhibit 1, at 15-17. Upon infor- mation and belief,.all these amounts were likewise inflated. 36. Those entries resulted in Invoice #2826, for $187.50, on 11/14/2018. ‘See Exhibit 1, at 40. 37. On or about 11/14/2018, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 45 minutes for speaking with his mother and drafting an email to Plain- tiff. At this juncture, Defendant Christie -~ without announcement -- increased her billing rate from $250/hour to $275/hour. See Exhibit 1, at 12-14. Upon information and beliéf, all these amounts wave inflated ‘and it was inappropriate for Defendant to surreptitiously raise her rate. 38, These items were assessed via Invoice #2903 for $206.25 on 12 “12/18/2018. See Exhibit 1, at 40. 39. After several months, on 3/26/2019, the United States Magistrate _Tudge assigned to Plaintiff's PGR action issuéd an 182page:"Report & 3 “Recommendation” detailing cases and analysis on either side of the issue whether Plaintiff's petition should be allowed to proceed and, rather -equivocally, recommending that the U.S. District Court.dismiss Plain- tiff's petition. ‘The document expressly advised that parties had only 14 days in which to file objections to the Report & Recommendation of the U.S, Magistrate Judge. See Exhibit 4 (Report & Recommendation), at 17-18. 40. On or about 3/28/2019, Defendant Christie billed Plaintifé for 14 15 minutes: "Received denial of motion. Sent an email to [Plaintiff] and contacted client's brother and mother via telephone to advise." The document Defendant Christie had received, however, was NOT a "denial." U.S. Magistrate Judges cannot issue dispositive rulings under Article III of the federal Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Thus, the commmi+: cations issued by Defendant Christie:on this date to those several people, including Plaintiff, were false. Further, as an attorney, she had a responsibility to review the pertinent law to determine the accuracy.of her grave pronouncements. But regardless of her skill as a lawyer, any literate person could read the language in the Report &. Recommendation, which clearly stated that the document was a report and recommendation, not a decision. : See: Exhibit 4, at 1, 17. 41. On or about 3/29/2019, Defendant Christie billed Plaintiff for 2 hours : "Review Report & Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate. Emails to [Plaintiff] and his family to explain the ruling. The Magistrate denied issuance of a certificate of appeal so no appeal can be taken to the 5th Circuit. Spoke to [Plaintiff's] mother. Drafted letter.‘to mail along with the decision." Again, the:Report & Recommendation was NOT a "ruling," was NOT a "decision," and could not "deny" anything. Any reasonably intelligent person, lawyer or otherwise, who spent two : and a half hours with the document (Exhibit.4) -~which is all of eigh- teen pages -in Length -:-would see this, particularly if that person devoted any amount of time to reviewing the applicable law. See, e.g., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72. Thusi:2it is plain that Defendant Christie did nothing more than glance at the Report & Recom- mendation, and certainly did not review" it, as her billing statement asserts. This blatant failure strongly supports Plaintiff's claims throughout that Defendant falsified the billing records to reflect 15 work that she never performed; further, it makes clear that Defendant Christie had no intention of fulfilling her duties and obligations as memorialized in the Agreement. 42. In her letter to Plaintiff dated 3/29/2019, Defendant Christie wrote: "the Judge has dismissed your [PCR petition] with prejudice . and has denied a certificate of appealability that allows an appeal to be taken ... (the 5th Circuit will send back any appeals filed as invalid unless you have a certificate of appealability). Enclosed is a copy of the decision.. - I understand this was not the outcome you desired, and it is disappointing. As ‘Ty: and I both explained, attemp- ting to overturn or correct a sentence is very difficult to the point of being almost impossible. Great efforts were put forth on your-behaff. With this decision, we will belosing this matter. I wish you the best." See Exhibit 5 (3/29/2019 letter). 43. However, NONE of what Defendant Christie said in that letter was true. No judge had dismissed the petition, nor denied a COA--much less a federal district court -- and the appellate court certainly would not "send back any appeals filed as invalid" without a COA: it would instead, in accordance with the law, interpret such an appeal as requesting a COA from the appellate court itself, see Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Defendant Christie's letter, in fact, made clear that any "efforts put forth on [Plaintiff's] behalf" were not "great" but,irather, extraordinarily pathetic: a quick reference to the rules of procedure, or any pertinent practice manual, would have made clear the true circumstances -- indeed, a review of the "decision" (i.e., the Report & Recommendation) would have served to accomplish most of thosezends. Although she billed Plaintiff for review of documents and law, the proof is in the pudding --her billing was nothing but a fraud. 16 44. Upon information and belief, Defendants Christie and Beard (whose name was, again in the 3/29/2019 letter, invoked) ctermined to cease work on Plaintiff's behalf (to the extent it had ever begun) because the retainer had, by the previous day, been exhausted. Even though Plaintiff had agreed to continue to pay hourly for legal services beyond the retainer, and had done so prior to the entry into the Agree- ment, see Exhibit 2, it appears that Defendant preferred to take large sums of money up-front and then invent bases to draw from those funds at her leisure--as she did, for example, in billing Plaintiff for 12% hours in early August for work she had already billed 5% hours for in late June, where the only difference was that Plaintiff had loaded p=: thécofferszon July 30th. 35. Effectively, by her 3/29/2019 letter, Defendant Christie failed to provide effective legal representation as promised in the Agreement, failed to fulfill her required duty as Plaintiff's legal representative and counsel, and misrepresented to Plaintiff matters crucial to his legal interests’, comprehension, and decisionmaking, where she knew and should have known that the true facts were otherwise. Defendant Christie, with the involvement, agreement , and support of Defendant Beard, deliber- ately misrepresented and otherwise failed to reasonably review the docu~ ments and law at issue to provide Plaintiff with accurate information regarding the action of the federal court in his PCR action on 3/26/2019. And Defendant Christie, with the knowledge and blessing of Defendant Beard, knawingly2and purposefully failed to evaluate Phaéntidt ‘s legal rights:and responsibilities with respect to the admonition clearly spelled out in the Report & Recommendation that he must file objections within 14 days:of its 3/26/2019 issuance, see Exhibit 4, at 17-18. As a direct and proximate consequence of these failures, no. objections were 17 filed on Plaintiff's behalf in his PCR action. Defendant Christie both misrepresented to Plaintiff his legal right sand options, and failed to act to secure his rights by evaluating, preparing, and filing timely objections to the equivocal 3/26/2019 Report & Recommendation. 46. On or about 4/3/2019, Defendants levied Invoice #3115 for $755.84 ($756.25 minus the last 41 cents of the retainer). See Exhibit 1, at 9-11, 40 Plaintiff paid all amounts charged, totaling $9,666.67. 47. Defendants Christie (as: his attorney) and Beard (as his long-time friend and business associate) intended that Plaintiff should rely on Christie's conveyances. When Plaintiff approached Defendant Christie, by email and phone, to inquire about suggestions by nonprofessionals around him who advised that he critically evaluate Defendant's representations, Defendant vehemently ordered Plaintiff to "stop listening to jailhouse lawyers," virtually shouting that if he continued to do so, she would drop him as a client and leave him without legal representation. Faced with this explicit threat to his ability to secure a:corrected..sentence, Plaintiff did rely thereon, in taking no action, as (according to Defen- dant's statements) there was nothing he could legally do. See Exhibit 5 48. But on 5/30/2019, the U.S. District Court issued a "Memorandum Adopting Report & Recommendation," entering final judgment in the PCR action, wherein the District Judge stated: "A copy of thle] Report was sent to counsel who appeared in the case on Jacobs’ behalf but no objec- tions have been received; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review u and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review See Fxhibit 6, at 1. Thus: (a) the Report & Recommendation had not been a final ruling, (b):objections thereto had been expected but not received; (c) Plaintiff was therefore "barred from de novo review"; and (d) as a 18 further result.of that.same omission, Plaintiff was barred "from appel- late review'' of the whole of the judicial determinations. 39. Thus, with the passage of the deadline to file objections, Plain- tiff's legal rights were irreparably injured. However, that was not the conclusion of Defendants' harming Plaintiff. 40. ‘The U.S. District Court's 5/30/2019 Memorandum and Final Judgment were not sent to Plaintiff, as he was represented by counsel; instead, they were sent to Defendant Christie. But Defendant Christie did nothing to inform Plaintiff of .the Court's action. 41. Upon information and belief, when Defendant Christie received the Court's 5/30/2019 decision -- which event, unlike similar such events, was NOT entered in any billing statement or charged to Plaintiff ~~ she conferred with Defendant Beard and together they agreed to suppress this document (because it explicitly demonstrated the fraud perpetrated by Defendant Christie's 3/29/2019 letter, etc.), and to withhold it from Plaintiff for the full duration of hte period in which Plaintiff could lawfully file an appeal (which is 60 days under F.R.A.P.