Below is the draft post that I sent to both parties for review. Below are Attorney Jones' comments in response to my initial inquiry. He declined to provide the salient portion of the divorce decree that addresses what articles he believed he could lawfully retrieve from his former home when he was charged with a theft offense and took an Alford Plea. The matter was eventually expunged. I will publish that later today, 18 September 2017.
1. These are matters of public record.
2. My original plea is a matter of public record.
3. I believe the Court found the picture more compelling than the height and weight description. The court acted ex parte – I wasn’t at the hearing in which Ms. Pooley attempted to have the default judgment set aside. So, I just don’t know.
4. There was a mediation.
5. Ms. Pooley was well in arrears when I commenced work on the appeal. Please see my billing statements, previously provided.
6. My fees did increase from $280 to $320, but Ms. Pooley’s fees were increased as provided in the Retainer Agreement.
7. No, I didn’t urinate in a can in front of anyone, although I have had prostate issues in the recent past that have been corrected with surgery.
Christopher King Re: Removal of SCRIBD document --
KingCast/Mortgage Movies Pooley/Jones coverage
1 minute ago at 1:31 PM
From Christopher King To Richard Jones Karen Pooley
Dear Attorney Jones: There is no prohibition against publishing an expunged criminal record in Washington State. Did you or your office or any representative of you or your office cause any of my documents to be removed from SCRIBD? That is a yes or no question.
In the event I do not hear from you by 4pm today I will assume that you or your agents were responsible for the removal and I shall take action accordingly.
Very Truly Yours,
Seattle Homeowner Fights Attorney Over Botched Foreclosure Defense by christopher king on Scribd
This is a difficult piece for me to write. As you can see by the thumbnails below I have published many stories and videos relative to the case of Quality Loan Servicing Inc. (QLSC) v. Karen Pooley. Richard L. Jones was her attorney for some of this case, until there was a substantial disagreement on billing and representation that led to Jones suing Pooley and obtaining a Default Judgment against her as she denied ever receiving service.
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.
She contends that the $20,000.00 Judgment that Jones obtained is the product of Unjust Enrichment. She may 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 attached 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:
Christopher King, J.D.