Letter of Conference with Proposal re Counterclaim with Injunctions Blanked by HCA and HCA Lawyers

Total
0
Shares

Letter of Conference to HCA Lawyers re their Violation of Ethics and Response to Original Counterclaim and Application for Injunctions

Originally Published:  Nov 26, 2022 | Republished: Nov 28, 2022

Serpe Andrews, PLLC
America Tower
2929 Allen Parkway
Suite 1600
Houston, TX, 77019

November 26, 2022

By Email to ‘Case Contacts’
Harris County Case #: 2022-68307

Dear Sir and/or Madam

HCA Healthcare and HCA Lawyers Seek Injunctions on The First Amendment of the US Constitution

I refer to your frivolous court filing, dated November 23, 2022, styled ‘ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION’. Whilst hesitant to do so based on your past, present and anticipated future sanctimonious behavior, I write to comply with Judge Reeder’s Court Procedures.  A review of these procedures confirms you did not confer before filing the counterclaim and application for injunctions nor setting of the hearing date.

I wish to ‘confer’ in writing via electronic mail. HCA has proven too devious and untrustworthy to-date, relying upon your egregious violations of the Lawyers Creed and Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.  It has escalated to a level referred to as ‘Rambo Litigation’ per the Texas Center for Legal Ethics website, and where verbal conversation outside of a court setting cannot be considered at this time.

Proposal

In short, I propose you voluntarily withdraw your latest filing and hearing set for early January and expedite the video surveillance footage requested from Kingwood Hospital, as per my original Petition, related letters, emails and pleadings .

Summary of HCA and HCA Lawyers’ Filing

The facts  to be considered will require reference to your last filing. In this document you aver; (i) the gripe site at kingwooddr.com is designed to defame, intimidate and harass (at 10); (ii) the gripe site is posting negative articles about HCA Healthcare Inc (at 11); the gripe site is targeting Serpe Andrews and its counsel (at 12); same re lawyers in med mal cases posted on the gripe site and shockingly includes a picture of Judge Lauren Reeder (at 13); the ‘line has been crossed’ when posting attorney Addick’s parents home, address and professional resumes which is intimidation, harassment, stalking and not of public concern – ‘designed to interfere with counsel’s ability to represent HCA in this lawsuit’ (at 14); Burke seeks to disqualify HCA lawyers and falsely impugn the character of the law firm / lawyers (at 15); which results in the necessity for injunctions and penalties against Burke described as follows (at 16); A. Harassment (criminal), and  B. Stalking (criminal), and C. Tortuous Interference with Existing Contracts; thus requiring a Temporary Injunction (at VI) and a Permanent Injunction (at VII (incorrectly labeled as VIII); Condition Precedent has been performed (at IX) and finally Relief section (X) including damages, interest and other relief.

Response to HCA Healthcare and HCA Lawyers’ Filing (“HCA”)

Delay, avoidance, and refusal to communicate is HCA’s mantra for this lawsuit. Let it be known, this “Rambo litigation” will not be tolerated, nor allowed to continue without consequences.

First, the unethical behavior prior to your latest filing has been addressed in my filing of Nov. 22, 2022 and does not require repeating here.

Second, the delay, avoidance, and refusal to communicate has been reviewed, audited and verified by further investigation. The results show a consistent pattern of unethical behavior over many years / decades by HCA lawyers. This has been highlighted in recent posts on kingwooddr.com and confirms it is a standard tactic by HCA to frustrate opposing counsel, their client(s) and even judges.

In relation to your latest allegations pertaining to the gripe site at kingwooddr.com as listed above, and how it’s negatively impacting HCA, et al, I will leave the following case with links for review and recommend you  discuss the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (etc.) with John Serpe; (i) Defamation; (ii) Lawyer as a Witness,  and; (iii) Discovery Disputes.

The malicious attempt to counter my sanctions / disqualification motion by retaliation is both a non-starter and a serious legal ethics violation. Here, you’ve cited to the Texas Penal Code for “Harassment” and “Stalking”. Clearly, you’ve let your Rambo imagination overtake common sense.

First, it is obvious this filing was prompted in retaliation to the Nov. 22 filing and retaliation is sanctionable conduct.

Second, at #18 of your filing (harassment) and then again at #20 (stalking) you ‘cross the line’ by including the Texas Penal code. Here, you list a blanket of HCA entities and people who should be included in the injunction(s). This ‘garbage’ can be easily discounted based on John Serpe’s own case and filings as listed above. This leaves the ‘family members’, referring to Addick’s parents, who don’t work for HCA, are not a party to the lawsuit and as such, you have no standing to include them in your application.

Third, there’s no private right of action to inject criminal statutes into a civil dispute. See, Smith v. Gonzales, No. 11-17-00229-CV, at *4 (Tex. App. July 25, 2019) (“We first note that the Texas Penal Code does not create a private cause of action. Id. at 813 (citing Brown v. De La Cruz, 156 S.W.3d 560, 567 (Tex. 2004); Spurlock v. Johnson, 94 S.W.3d 655, 658 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.)). Accordingly, Appellant’s claims based on Appellees’ alleged violation of the Texas Penal Code are frivolous because they lack an arguable basis in law.”)

Fourth, based on your lawyers decades of legal experience, HCA have knowingly and willfully conspired with malice by filing the counterclaim with injunctions. It’s an improper motive “to accomplish an illegitimate end”;

Harvey v. Thi of N.M. at Albuquerque Care Ctr., LLC, No. 12-CV-727 MCA/LAM, at *26-27 (D.N.M. Mar. 31, 2015).

Summary

Considering past behavior of blanking communications combined with the fact you responded once to an email at 9 o’clock at night, HCA have 48 hours – until 17.00 hrs. (CST) on Monday, 28th November, 2022 – to either respond in the affirmative or negative to my proposal. Should you fail to agree with the proposal by the appointed time, this is formal notice of my intent to officially respond to your outrageous, frivolous, and sanctionable filing in court, applying the rules and laws in Texas to the fullest extent permitted.

Sincerely,
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct
(Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 132.001)

Mark Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr.,
Kingwood, Texas, 77339

Emails:
browserweb@gmail.com;
doctor@kingwooddr.com
Fax: (1) 866-705-0576

“I think it’s a case that needs to be prosecuted to show lawyers in the state that you can’t just file garbage and expect to get away with it.”

– Harvey v. Thi of N.M. at Albuquerque Care Ctr., LLC, No. 12-CV-727 MCA/LAM (D.N.M.).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like