District Court Case 1:15-cv-149-LO-TCB

==========================================

IN THE
UNITIED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

====================================

KATHERINE R. DAUPHIN

Plaintiff-Appellee.

v.

BEVERLY L. HENNAGER
Defendants – Appellant.
&

LOUIS A. JENNINGS JR

WRIT OF MANDAMAS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60: Relief from a Judgment Order,

Defendants/Appellants, Beverly Hennager and Louis Jennings Jr., hereby bring

this Writ of Mandamas to quash the August 27, 2015 Order issued by Judge Liam

O’ Grady, appointing Retired Judge Paul Sheridan as the Special Master for the Kay

Jennings Family Limited Partnership. Pursuant to Fed. Rule C. P. 53, the order was

deficient of all mandatory language and references. The Defendants/Appellants also

move the Court to void all Orders and Judgments of the Court resulting from the void
 2

appointment, for violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52: Findings and

Conclusions by the Court. A judgment even on partial findings must be supported

by findings of fact and conclusions of law. These Orders present no findings of fact

or laws and only reference the Master’s report, which is based upon unsubstantiated

allegations and assumptions rather than facts, with misleading and grossly prejudicial

statements. The Defendants were effectively gagged by the Special Master and the

Court, both of which denied numerous requests and motions to release or replace

their attorneys of record. The court’s estoppel, promising the Defendants one thing

in mediation and the settlement agreement, and then reversing their position is illegal.

For reasons stated herein, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) applies for Fraud upon the Court.

As no final order has been executed, the Defendants were denied appeal and there is

no other legal remedy. The Court has exceeded its jurisdiction resulting in

irreparable harm to the Defendants.

A. THE APPOINTING ORDER IS ILLEGAL

1. The appointing order is the fundamental document that establishes the judicial

adjunct’s powers, limits and responsibilities. It is the “order of reference”. The

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes a number of specific items an

appointment order must include and suggests other items that should be included.

2. The August 27, 2015 appointing order is completely deficient without guidelines

for reference of any kind. The only requirement contained within the order was for

2
 3

quarterly reports, which was completely ignored ( D. I. 67).

3. The Special Master’s First and Final Report was May 13, nine months after

settlement. This deficient and illegal order allowed the Master to overstep his

authority and must be quashed, not only to protect the parties involved, but to

protect the public from similar Abuse of Process and Abuse of Power.

4. The Order states: “The Honorable Paul F. Sheridan is appointed Special

Master to perform all of the duties enumerated in the parties’ August 10, 2015
agreement, such appointment to commence immediately.

5. Pursuant to Rule 53, it is mandatory that the order must direct the Special

Master to “proceed with all reasonable due diligence”, as per Rule 53(b)(2).

Nowhere in the appointing order or the settlement agreement referenced by this

order, is this language included.

6. Neither the settlement agreement nor the order identify what records the master

must maintain as per Rule 53(b)(2)(C) or describe how the master’s rulings will

be received and reviewed. Rule 53(b)(2)(D)

7. Rule 53(b)(1) mandates the judge to give notice to the parties and an opportunity

to be heard before the appointment of the master. The Defendants were never given

notice or the opportunity to be heard to object to this appointment.

8. The master must file an affidavit disclosing whether there is any ground for

disqualification under 28 U. S. C. 455. No affidavit was filed.

9. The order must include basis, terms and procedures for fixing the master’s

3
 4

compensation, as per Rule 53(b)(2)(E) and 53 (g) giving notice and opportunity to

be heard. No basis and procedures were stated. The order states:

“ Judge Sheridan shall be paid an hourly fee of $575.00 for all time expended on this
appointment, billed monthly, and pursuant to paragraph 9, shall employ professional
advisors necessary to carry out his duties, to be paid for by partnership funds”.

10. Federal Rule 53(a)(1)(A) mandates the court may only appoint a master to do

what all the parties have agreed upon.

11. Rather than hire impartial advisors paid for by the partnership, Judge Sheridan

authorized himself to use the attorneys of opposing counsel at their clients’ expense

without having retained them on behalf of the partnership.

“There is nothing in the Special Master contract of settlement or the court order
that governed one way or the other my decisions as to the presence of counsel
in this case.” (Sheridan in April transcript page 15)

B. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

1. On August 10, 2015 Plaintiff to lawsuit 1:15-cv-149, Katherine R. Dauphin

(“Dauphin”) Interested Party Michael Jennings (“M Jennings”), and Defendant

Beverly L. Hennager (“Hennager”) signed a written contract agreeing to the

provisions of a settlement.

2. All present were aware that Louis Jennings was very sick. His wife, Renae,

participated for him and woke him up for the final statements.

3. Kathy Holmes signed the settlement agreement on behalf of L. Jennings.

4. Judge Buchanan promised the Defendants that their attorneys would be

4
 5

released and they would have no more personal attorneys fees if they agreed to

settle, allowing a Special Master to take over management of the partnership.

5. Congruous with provision nine, the appointing order states:

“The Special Master shall employ professional advisors necessary to the

administration of duties as he or she may deem appropriate, to be paid for by
the partnership funds”.
6. The Defendants protested the Special Master using opposing counsel as his
advisors without retaining them by the Partnership. In his April 22, 2016 hearing,
the Master stated:

“They started in the Special Master early existence with claiming that
Magistrate Judge Buchanan guaranteed them or assured them there would be no
lawyers involved or they would not have signed the settlement agreement. Others
in this room were present. Others in this room have a different view as to what
was said.”(April transcript page 14)
7. Buchanan met with the parties individually so they were not privy to what she

was telling each of them in private. Renae Jennings and Hennager communicated

via email during mediation.

8. The email from Holmes to her client on the evening of August 10 confirms her

expectation that she was expected to withdraw.

“I will give my office manager a week to pull together a final statement and get it
out to you, most likely with a pledge agreement to protect my firm’s claim against
the bank’s (which I will release on payment)”. (exhibit 5; D. I. 154)
9. Hennager’s husband, Michael, listened to the entire mediation conference
on speaker phone. When the Defendants were accused of lying he gave his

wife an affidavit, confirming what she testified was true (ex 1, D. I. 154).

5
 6

10. August 14, 2016, Louis Jennings informed all of the attorneys that he was
resending acceptance of the agreement. He wrote,

“The agreement was approved by me after being harassed and told that I would
loose in court. I was also deeply sedated as I had already told my lawyer ‘no’
and expected that to be the end of it”. (D. I. 224: ex. 6)
11. A contract signed under duress while under the influence of a medically
prescribed sedative, rendering the person mentally compromised, is not an
enforceable contract.
12. Provision 2 of the Settlement Agreement requires the Master to a:
Thorough investigation and recommendation to the court, as expeditiously as
possible, as to how to maximize the value of the partnership assets with due
consideration as to lease, sale, or a combination thereof, taking into account the
property’s current, potential or future zoning, condition, and potential for
redevelopment alone or in conjunction with neighboring landowners.

13. August 14, Stephen Cochran wrote, “Kathy, is Louis repudiating the
settlement agreement”? (D.I. 224; ex. 1)
14. August 16, Kathy Holmes’ response by email to Cochran and all of the
attorneys defines the boundaries under which Louis accepted the agreements of
settlement.
“Louis continues to be in agreement with a Special Master taking over the
management of the Partnership business. As with the rest of us, he is focused on
getting a Special Master appointed this week and obtaining market appraisals that
contemplate the highest and best use of the properties so that all can move
forward to obtaining the greatest return on the properties.” (D. I. 224 ex 1)
15. As the appraisal did not “contemplate lease values or the highest and best use

of the properties” and the master did not attempt to “get the greatest return on
the properties”, this email confirms the settlement agreement’s verbal and written

contract was breeched. All counsel were copied on this email and did not object,

6
 7

indicating their acceptance.

15. The August 19, 2016 email from Hennager’s attorney, Angela France is
even more specific;

“The judge conveyed to me that she was specifically considering experienced

land use attorney in order to maximize value of the properties and it was also
clear that the Court would be picking this person.” (D. I. 224 ex. 2)

16. In her August 25, 2016 Order Buchanan states:

“However, the pleading misstates that the agreement was ‘with the provision that
he would raise the value of the property before marketing. In fact nowhere in
the agreement does it contain that provision”. (D. I. 174)
The communication between the attorneys confirms what was promised.

Estoppel prevents a person from making assertions that are contradictory to

her prior position. The Defendants relied upon the promises of Judge

Buchanan and the Settlement Agreement.

17. Fed. Rule. C. P. 53(a)(3) requires the Master and the Court to be diligent

“protecting against unreasonable expense and delay”. It is a violation of the law

to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and ten months of time to recommend

action the Master had no intention of pursuing.

18. As per 50-73.102 (F), an adjunct winding up the partnership as the legal

representative of the partners is subject to the same general standards of conduct

as a partner. The adjunct has a duty of loyalty to the partnership and all the other

partners to “hold as trustee any property, profit or benefit including the appropriation

7
 8

of a partnership opportunity”, such as increasing the value before selling it.

19. The adjunct must “refrain from dealing with any person or business having

an interest adverse to the partnership”. This would apply to using a party ruled

economically antagonistic to the partnership for management decisions or

accepting bids from a partner with a documented history of trying to get the

property “for a cheap price” (D.I. 224 please read all of it which is attached).

20. When deciding what a provision in an agreement means, it must be

interpreted according to the laws that enforce the duties of the adjunct.

C. ABUSE OF PROCESS

Drawing upon improper unsubstantiated references and conclusions without affording

the Defendants due process or even an opportunity to correct or address in court

undocumented evidence, the unreliable recommendations of the Special Master and

his appointment should be quashed. The Special Master has exposed rank bias in

favor of the Plaintiff in this case when he is supposed to be a neutral adjunct of

the Court. Although this case never went to court, the Master accepted the Plaintiff’s

spurious allegations without trial and rewarded the Plaintiff by accepting all of her

attorneys’ deliberate mismanagement suggestions effectively driving the partnership

into the financial ruin the Plaintiff testified would force it to be sold for a cheap price.

1. In December 2014, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit to dissolve the Partnership

8
 9

alleging the Partners were “unable to agree on basic and critical decisions to keep

the partnership viable”.

2. The lawsuit was filed one year after the Plaintiff testified in her 2013 deposition

that the Defendants in this case were “easy to deal with” (Pl. 2013 Depo. Tr. At 68)

“I mean that we discuss issues and we try and make good business decisions – We
want to work together”. (2013 deposition at 73 included in D. I. 224).

3. Caitlin Lhommedeau, counsel for the Plaintiff:

“I would be perfectly happy to say that my client is being the one who is so
unreasonable here that this partnership needs to be dissolved—the statute does not
care who is being unreasonable. If the three partners in this partnership cannot
come to a unanimous agreement, the partnership cannot continue and must be
dissolved “. (June 22, 2016 hearing transcript at 47)

4. Through submission of a lawsuit with claims admitted to be false (D.I.205 &

224), Plaintiff, Katherine R. Dauphin, illegally and improperly perverted the legal

system against the Defendants resulting in abuse of process.

5. There is a preponderance of evidence to prove the Plaintiff, Katherine R.

Dauphin, had ulterior motive and purpose exercising such perverted use of the

judicial system (D.I. 205; and D.I. 224 which is attached)

6. The Defendants, Beverly L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings Jr. have suffered

damages as a proximate result. .

7 In his May 13 First and Final Report with Recommendations, which is now

sealed, the Master described the redevelopment potential of the partnership property

with “tower buildings” and verified the supervisor of planning was so anxious to

9
 10

see the property urbanized that he would expedite plan amendments and rezoning.

8. The purpose of the Plaintiff, Katherine R. Dauphin’s actions and lawsuit (as

documented in D. I. 205 and 224) was to disrupt business, prevent execution of a

lease contract, and drive the partnership into financial ruin; forcing the property to

be sold before it could achieve potential value from rezoning and plan amendments.

9. The Master used the opposing parties attorneys as advisors; counsel who were

never retained by the partnership with a duty of loyalty and care to the partnership.

10. The Defendants were prohibited from replacing their counsel, who were promised

they would be “first in line” to get paid when the property sold and were thus eager

to accept whatever tasks were assigned to them.

11. The opposing counsel represented clients with the expressed purpose of

destroying the partnership. In 2008, after years of litigation brought by Michael

Jennings, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled:

“Michael's expressed desire to "control the partnership and the land” can be viewed
as antagonistic to the interests of the Partnership and the other partners. Accordingly,
we conclude that the trial court's finding that Michael had economic interest
antagonistic to the interests of the Partnership is supported by sufficient evidence
and we will not reverse that finding.”(Jennings v. Kay Jennings Family Partnership)

12. In her 2013 Deposition, the Plaintiff testified:

"Michael has repeatedly told me that he would like to own the property. And he
thinks he can. He would like to purchase the property for a cheap price. And so if
he keeps us from being able to market the property then we- then we get to a point
where we become more stressed and have - have to sell at a lower price in order to
be able to pay—pay the bills that we have," (exhibit 28 of D.I. 128)

10
 11

When asked, “What has Michael Jennings done to keep you from marketing the
Kay Jennings Family Limited Partnership Property" Dauphin responds, “He's kept
us involved in Lawsuits. He’s told people in the community that we’re
incompetent” (page 63.7.14 of 2013 deposition – exhibit 28 of DI 128 -- attached)

13. In the April hearing transcript, page 16, the Master explains using the counsel

was not for communication with the parties, but to manage the business.

“What was sought was the use of the able counsel by the Special Master to
analyze, suggest, consider everything the Special Master need to do and how to
do it – each step.” I have, for instance, used available counsel’s efforts in
selections of appraiser, accountants, people to clean up the lot – the selection
of whether to sign with CBR Ellis”. (April Transcript at16)

14. The attorneys drove the partnership into the financial ruin that the Plaintiff

testified was the goal of Michael Jennings. The insurance coverage on the

buildings quadrupled from about $4500 a year to nearly $20,000 and they did not

renew the vandalism coverage. The buildings were severely vandalized (D.I. 22

appeal: exhibits 3, 4 and 5).

15. They did not pay the taxes on time, allowing the DAMN parcel, owned by

Michael Jennings with a long- term lease to the partnership, to go into default.

(D.I. 22-1 appeal; exhibit 2)

16. M. Jennings attorney was put in charge of reporting on his client’s progress on

EPA remediation on the DAMN parcel. He reported they were expecting a letter

of closure, submitting a letter dated three years before the project was begun. (D.I.

205 ex 16)

11
 12

17. October 5, 2016, David Grimes wrote: “Re: the VRP status of the Backlick
Road site (VRP00563), there has been no change since my September 1 update--
Our review of the report was completed June 22 and we identified the need for
additional samples to support the risk assessment for the site. At the present time I
have not seen a plan or schedule for conducting the additional sampling --Since
the SCR and conceptual site model for the Backlick Rd. Property is still in
development the need for remedial action is unknown.” (Exhibit1)

18. In October, 2016 Hyland reported his client decided to pull out of the

remediation program. (D.I. 224; exhibit 9)

19. Cochran and Hyland continued to promote false claims:

“And I think the evidence in this case is not only substantial, it’s overwhelming,
you know, these three partners cannot agree on anything”
(Cochran – April Transcript page 35)

As explained in docket entry 120, 128, 148, 205 & 224) the Plaintiff and her

attorneys blamed disagreement with the Defendants as the reason the property

was not leased. In reality four companies withdrew when the undetermined EPA

remediation was disclosed to them. The partners executed a contract to sell one

of the parcels and the company decided the parcel was too small for their needs.

20. To promote their claims of disagreements and waste time, the attorneys

contrived dead end negotiations for in-kind distributions (not mentioned in the

agreement). When the Master said all of the offers were unreasonable, Hennager

wrote the Master (Exhibit 11 D.I. 148) (to which she received no response):

“We are in agreement to allow Katherine Dauphin to exit the partnership anyway
she wants. We will buy her out. We will allow her to do an in-kind distribution.”

12
 13

21. Although the Master admitted there were lucrative offers on the table, he

refused to accept any of them stating, “I thought the partnership could do better”.

(Master’s first and final report). Without income, the previously unencumbered

partnership sank a half a million dollars into debt.

22. Plaintiff’s attorney was tasked with getting the appraisal for the property and

ordered the report for the current as is use and value without consideration of lease

values or potential redevelopment. Cochran left town without giving the appraiser

keys to the buildings, delaying the report until after the New Year. When

Hennager tried to pay the difference for a full report it was denied (DI 121. Ex 32).

23. Defendant Hennager’s attorney, David Fiske, was tasked with producing and

distributing the minutes to the meetings, which he did not bother to send to the

client that he was charging for the work (D.I.121 all exhibits).

24. Fiske ignored his client’s right to determine the scope of his representation and

the means to achieve those objectives. Hennager released Fiske the end of October

but he continued to make decisions on her behalf, usually without informing her,

much less asking for consent. To date, Fiske refuses to supply the case file or

proof of authority to make those decisions.

25. Having ignored her instructions to wait for an appraisal before applying for a

loan, Fiske sent an email in December briefly stating:

13
 14

“We are unable so far to get a loan because the partnership and siblings are
completely dysfunctional to the outside observer ( D.I. 120-121; ex. 36).
This statement verifies M. Jennings’ achieved his objective of destroying the

reputation of the partnership (as testified by the Plaintiff in her 2013 deposition).

26. The court order required quarterly reports but to avoid court intervention the

attorneys told the Master they were all in agreement so it was unnecessary.

March 22 letter from Stephen Cochran to Sheridan and counsel:

"The parties have previously unanimously agreed that the real property owned by
the Partnership should be listed for sale as soon as possible. Counsel for the
parties further agree that the Special Master has the authority to list the property
for sale without reporting to and obtaining further direction from the Court."
"Therefore, on behalf of all the parties, I ask that you take whatever steps are
necessary, as quickly as possible, so that the property is listed for sale, so that the
property may still be purchased and used for automotive purposes, which is
currently its highest and best use" (exhibit 2 D.I. 148) (emphasis added).

27. To promote a quick sale, the opposing counsel maintained the false premise

that the automotive proffers were due to expire in November of 2016. Even when

an email from Cathy Lewis, head of zoning at the county, was forwarded saying

the proffers were permanent and would not expire, the court ignored it. (ex. 2)

28. During the September 23, 2016 hearing, the broker for CBRE, John Ryan,

testified the property had to be sold immediately before the auto proffers expired.

29. During the September 23 hearing Ryan falsely testified that he compared lease

values and potential redevelopment values before recommending the best financial

solution would be marketing the property for sale with the automotive proffers. He

14
 15

said he found those values in the appraisal, which is not true, because Cochran

refused to include those values in the appraisal.

D. ORDERS VIOLATE RULE 52

1) In General. In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory

jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law
separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the
close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision
filed by the court. Judgment must be entered under Rule 58.
(2) For an Interlocutory Injunction. In granting or refusing an interlocutory
injunction, the court must similarly state the findings and conclusions that
support its action.

1. Regarding the Special Master’s First and Final Report with

Recommendations, the July 7, 2016 Court Order of Judge O’Grady states,

“After de novo review of the Report and the objections thereto, and following a
motion hearing on June 22, 2016 at which all parties appeared or were represented,
the Court now overrules the objections to the Report and adopts the Report in Full.”

2. Neither the Report itself or the Order supporting it, state the findings of

fact and findings of law required by Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 52.

3. The Appointing Order required quarterly reports but the Special Master’s

first and Final Report was submitted May 13, 2016, nine months after settlement.

4. The report does not attach or reference the Plaintiff’s exhibits submitted at

(but not prior to) the April 13, 2016 hearing or any other findings of facts

and laws used to make the Master’s recommendations.

5. The Report is based upon erroneous assumptions and unsupported allegations,

rather than facts. There are no documented facts.

15
 16

6. Thereafter, the Master’s first and final report with recommendations was sealed.

7. The September 9, 2016 Order to Dismiss the Defendants Motion to Reconsider

the July 11, 2016 Order Adopting the Report of the Special Master has no findings

of fact or statements of law.

8. The Court references the June 22, 2016 hearing where O’Grady writes,

“Following these numerous opportunities for constructive debate, the Court adopted
the Report in full”.

9. The Defendants traveled thousands of miles to attend the June 22, 2016 hearing

to address violations of the agreement. Page 6 transcript, Judge O’Grady states:

“And I don’t want to a rehash of the written submission about whether I should
approve the Special Master’s report. I’m interested in the parties’ views on whether
it’s necessary to dissolve this partnership through the sale of all the assets.”

This statement does not provide an opportunity for constructive debate.

10. As per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52: Findings and Conclusions by the
Court (5), “A party may later question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the findings, whether or not the party requested findings, objected to them,
moved to amend them, or moved for partial findings.”

The Defendants question the sufficiency, as there were no supportive findings.

E. OPENLY EXPRESSED INTENT TO PURCHASE DEVALUED

PROPERTY

1. September 19, Caitlin Lhommedeau, counsel for the Plaintiff, emailed:

“ Please be advised that Randy and Mike have agreed to proceed jointly in the
purchase of the DAMN lease under the same terms as Mike offered on Friday.”
2. Although the DAMN lease was appraised at 2.9 million dollars, the now openly

joined aggressors made an offer of 1.75 million to buy the lease. (ex. 3) The day

16
 17

of the September 23 hearing, the offer for the DAMN lease was raised to 1.9

million, still one million below the lowest value.

3. The Defendants presented an executed contract to purchase the Plaintiff’s and

Michael Jennings’ interests in the Partnership after the remaining three parcels were

sold to Leckner Nessan. (ex. 4) At that time the only asset remaining in the

partnership would be the leasehold interests in the DAMN parcel. The Defendants

contract valued the DAMN asset at the appraised value of 2.9 million dollars, one

million dollars above the offer made by Michael Jennings and the Plaintiff.

4. The offer effectively terminated the Master’s and the Court’s responsibility to

“continue to administer the partnership until sale or final disposition by the

Court” (provision 4; settlement agreement).

5. The Plaintiff’s attorney stated the Plaintiff would not sell her interests in the

Partnership even though she brought a lawsuit to dissolve the partnership to force

the sale of all of the assets. (exhibits 5, 6 and 7)

Although the Master accepted the Defendants offer to purchase the leasehold

interests of DAMN, he has not responded to this contract. In fact since this offer

was submitted on October 4, all communication with the Defendants has been cut

off without explanation. The Defendants believe Leckner Nissan is a straw deal,

and they will withdraw in the 60 days allowed. M. Jennings will then move in

with the next “highest offer”.

17
 18

5. The Second Amendment to the Partnership Agreement prohibits the sale, transfer

or assignment of general shares even by operation of law, without the unanimous

agreement of the general partners. There cannot be a final disposition by the Court

without agreement. That means the Special Master can withhold the assets from

sales of the property to pay himself indefinitely and there will never be a final order.

F. PREJUDICE OF THE SPECIAL MASTER AND THE COURT

1. The Partnership has produced no income in over two years.

2. Both Defendants relied upon the Partnership as their sole source of income.

3. Both Defendants are financially indigent and cannot afford legal representation.

4. Agreeing with the opposing counsel that L. Jennings not being present was

thumbing his nose at the court, the Master stated:

“They couldn’t afford to fly. I make no comment on the credibility or merits of

that. (trans. at 9)
“I tried earlier to say the credibility of the claim that he couldn’t afford to get her
is very much—“.
Other quotes express his prejudice:
“They had a vivid – well, let’s say clear intent – from the start to have no lawyers
for anybody involved (pg 15 April transcript; D.I. 120).
“I don’t mean to be sarcastic but it is hard to leave out those pieces of everything
said in this case that show who is really trying to do things, really trying to do
business, really trying to address the merits (April transcript at 151; D.I. 120).
“I know the people from both (side of) this case their general reputations and
know what they are doing (April Transcript at 159; DI 120)
5. The Master expects the Court to define his power, capacity and jurisdiction.

18
 19

“Mr. Cochran made an argument that day that was persuasive to me that in light of
the history of multiple litigations and the nature of the disputes among the four
siblings, not just as General Partners and Limited Partner, but basically the four
participants, Mr. Cochran made the argument that the Special Master’s job in this
litigation would explode in terms of unlimited activity. Your sense of that coming
has been somewhat corroborated. The ‘somewhat’ could be deleted but basically
I’m trying to strike a balance because not everything done has been without
counsel’s participation authorized by the client. That we will argue later as to the
capacity or power of jurisdiction of the Special Master to deal with partnership
funds.” (April transcript page 23-24)
6. At the June 22, 2016 hearing, Caitlin Lhommedeau falsely stated:
“The parties have not been able to come to an agreement on which lease offer to
accept. And then even when the Special Master was given the authority to make
recommendations regarding a lease to the court, the parties have been literally at
each other’s throats”. (June 22 transcript pages 8-9)
Judge O’Grady: Yeah, I have read that”. (June 22 transcript pg. 9)
7. Judge O’Grady:
“Nor am I going to hear any argument on whether the Special Master or Judge
Buchanan should be removed from their roles. I believe that each has performed
admirably in their functions (June 22, 2016 hearing transcript at 7).
8. Judge O’Grady, speaking to Beverly Hennager ,“You need to grow up”.

The Plaintiff moved to hold the Defendant responsible for all of the costs of
the Special Master plus all of the attorneys fees – over a million dollars. This
is designed to leave the Defendants financially crushed so that they cannot
recover. The Court is still considering this motion.

CONCLUSION
It is a risk to our public legal system to allow judges to ignore the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure; to allow the wealthy to manipulate the legal system to achieve

their self -serving purposes. It degrades our government, our fundamental right to

19
 20

due process of the law and our faith in the integrity of our elected and appointed

officials. Since the Special Master has opined as to the facts in this case, due

process demands that any de novo review of the facts alleged by the Master in his

Report come only at trial by jury, on the underlying merits.

WHEREFORE for the reasons set forth herein, the Defendants/Appellants, Beverly

L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings Jr. move this Honorable Court to revoke August

27, 2015 appointing order of the Special Master, void all proceeding Orders and

Judgments, recuse Judge O’Grady, recuse Judge Buchanan, transfer this case to

another jurisdiction and ordering such other and further relief as the court may

deem reasonable and just under the circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________date_____________
Beverly L. Hennager
315 Wood Lane
Corvallis, MT 59828

__________________________date__________________
Louis A. Jennings Jr.
8502 Willow Wish Ct.
Orlando, FL 32835

20