Not long after a California judge found Mary Cummins acted in bad faith a Texas judge found her legal antics in the Lone Star State to be less than acceptable. First, she tried to get the judge in the Bat World defamation trial recused, seemingly just because she didn’t care for the judgement (no wonder – she has 6.1 million reasons not to like it). That motion was denied:
Apparently, the language in the denial order wasn’t clear enough for Mary Cummins – she then filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider the very same order. Perhaps she thought the judge had a change or heart overnight and was suddenly moved by her brilliant legal arguments? Whatever she was thinking, that motion met with predictable results:
Denied again! But the best part is this – in the process of denying her initial motion for recusal, the Judge found that Mary Cummins had done something that the court didn’t approve of, ordering her to pay Attorney Randy Turner (whom Mary really dislikes for winning the defamation case against her) $500 under a Rule 18 sanction:
Ouch. That’s gotta hurt. It’s an easy bet that she won’t enjoy writing that check. Of course, immediately after the hearing in which the sanctions were found to be justified, Mary Cummins posted online that the plaintiffs had LOST their motion for sanctions. Say what? Guess that wasn’t an accurate representation of the proceedings, now was it? But then, it’s become quite obvious that Mary just isn’t all that good with the truth…
In an apparent attempt to circumvent venue requirements and have her personal injury case against Bat World heard in a Federal court in California, Mary Cummins tried to add defamation claims to the case. She claimed that the allegations were different than those presented in her other pending case but the judge wasn’t buying it:
After giving her a second chance to validate her allegations, the judge determined that she was, in fact, simply repeating claims from her other lawsuit:
In other words, nice try, Mary Cummins, but the court isn’t fooled. Accordingly, the judge noted that the claims were filed in bad faith and dismissed them along with her request for an injunction:
He then transferred the case to Texas, where it seems it should have been filed in the first place:
Just another bad day in court for Mary Cummins. Perhaps next time she won’t try to outsmart the judge and pull a fast one on the courts.
Mary Cummins likes to boast about how intelligent she is – how she went to college at an early age (more on that fairy tale later), how she did advanced statistics, how she was doing high-level math “before modern computers” (yes, folks, she actually said that). But the biggest whopper of all? Mary claims to have been a member of Junior MENSA – you know, that group of really smart folks who like to get together and do really smart things, only a smaller version, for not-quite-adults.
There’s just one BIG problem – there is no such thing as Junior MENSA and there never has been. According to the MENSA web site:
There is no “junior” category of Mensa membership, so youth are welcome at most Mensa events — unless the activity is limited to adults for some obvious reason (such as an activity in a casino or nightclub).
A quick call to MENSA confirms that not only is this true now but it has always been the case – you’re either in MENSA or you’re not. Perhaps if Mary Cummins were really as smart as she thinks she is, she could have found that out herself before making up a tall tale – after all, she claims to be a search engine expert, and it’s the first result when you Google “Junior MENSA”. Nice going, Mary – you’re a real, um, genius!
Mary Cummins has a lot of difficulty keeping all her stories straight. She especially has trouble with dates (there’s much more to come on that topic). Take, for example, her long and tangled real estate history. Leaving aside her claims that she attended the Lumbleau School of Real Estate at the EXACT SAME TIME she also claims to have been at the University of Southern California, Mary stated under oath that she was a real estate broker until around 2007. Here is her official statement from the deposition:
But wait – she made that claim not once but TWICE during the same deposition:
Oops! Mary’s real estate broker license actually expired in 2004 not in 2007:
Now, a lapse in memory of a year or thereabouts is perfectly understandable. But close to three years? That’s not a simple error, that’s blatantly untrue. Under oath. In a deposition. Shame, shame, Mary. And, as we’ll soon see, that’s not the only time Mary has had real trouble with the truth. Stay tuned…
The thing about crazy is that, sooner or later, it just can’t contain itself and comes out in public for everyone to view. Mary Cummins – on her own Animal Advocates web site, which everyone knows belongs to her – just posted a threat to publish people’s social security numbers, bank account numbers, and other personal information on the internet. In writing. An action which, should anyone’s identity be stolen or they suffer any type of financial loss due to this information being released, she can be held directly liable for.
See for yourself:
Has this woman just gone completely off the deep end?
Mary Cummins likes to represent herself in court. In fact, she has to represent herself as the attorneys she hires keep dropping her (gee, I wonder why?). Sometimes it works out for her but most of the time it doesn’t. Here’s a hilarious episode from the deposition files of the Bat World case in which her adept legal skills resulted in a judgement AGAINST her for $6.1 Million. In this series of questions by Randy Turner, the attorney who won the case against her for Bat World, Mary Cummins admits that she filed documents without having a clue as to what the legal language in the documents really meant. The following exchange pretty much sums it up:
Randy: So you didn’t even know what you were saying when you said “Plaintiff’s action is barred by laches”?
Mary: Um, not really.
Randy: You don’t know what that meant?
Mary: No. I read an article that said it’s good to include it.
Randy: But you don’t know what it meant?
Here’s the whole exchange. It’s pure comedy!
Mary Cummins uses an address of 645 West 9th Street, Apt 110, in Los Angeles on her California driving license. Trouble is, that isn’t her actual address – it’s a UPS Store location:
While this may be fine for conducting business and receiving mail, it is not acceptable for a driver’s license. According to the California DMV web site (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/coa/coafaqs.htm):
Can I use a post office box or temporary mailing address?
You may use a post office box for your mailing address; however, you must provide a residence address when your change of address includes your driver license or identification card. Temporary mailing addresses are not allowed
Clearly, UPS Store #4977 is not Mary Cummins’ residence (which is actually on the outskirts of Beverly Hills just up the road from some of the swankiest real estate in the country), so she is in violation of DMV regulations. Just one more example of her blatant disregard for the law.