Sunday, June 2, 2013

Mary Cummins Stalks Attorney Randy Turner

This page has been created in response to numerous blogs, websites, and social media postings created by a cyber-stalker to ruin Randy’s online reputation.

Defamation of Randy’s client

A mentally unbalanced cyber-stalker in Beverly Hills, California has dedicated much of her life to smearing Randy and ruining his online reputation.  It started when Randy agreed to represent Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary in a defamation lawsuit against a woman named Mary Cummins, who says she is the president of something she calls “Animal Advocates,” a suspended non-profit in California.  Bat World Sanctuary is the largest rescue/rehabilitation/teaching sanctuary in the world that is dedicated exclusively to bats.  Amanda Lollar, its founder and president, is an internationally renowned bat expert.  Cummins had briefly interned at Bat World in 2010 but apparently found the work too challenging to complete and left the internship disgruntled.  Almost immediately Cummins began defaming Amanda on the internet, falsely accusing her of being cruel to animals, practicing veterinary medicine without a license, getting sanctioned by animal regulatory authorities, and countless other outlandish and false claims.  She also started filing complaints against Amanda with virtually every federal and state law enforcement and animal regulatory agency in Texas.  (Needless to say, Amanda and Bat World were completely exonerated by all resulting investigations; the investigative reports may be viewed at the Bat World website.)  Randy agreed to take the case pro bono and filed suit against Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates to stop her defamation.  She initially had a lawyer but he withdrew from the case early in the litigation, telling the court that Cummins had lied and her “claims are false.”  She even claimed that Randy physically “assaulted” her during her video-recorded deposition while her lawyer was "asleep." (This absurd allegation was refuted by her own lawyer and disproved by the court reporter’s affidavit and the video.)

$6.1 million judgment against the cyber-stalker
During a four-day trial in June 2012 highly trained expert veterinarians, wildlife rehabilitators and other experts from around the United States testified that Amanda’s knowledge, care, and treatment of bats are essentially the gold standard among wildlife rehabilitators.  After listening to all of the testimony and depositions, viewing videos, scientific literature, and professional publications, Judge Bill Brigham found that Cummins’ lies about Amanda were “egregious as well as malicious as well as intentional” and said that Amanda Lollar is to bats what Jane Goodall is to primates. He ordered Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates to pay $6.1 million in actual and punitive damages as well as attorney’s fees (read Star-Telegram article.) He also ordered her to remove the defamation from the internet

An internet smear and intimidation campaign
Following the trial the cyber-stalker launched a comprehensive internet smear campaign against everyone she apparently now blames for her misery—Randy, Amanda, Judge Brigham, Judge Sudderth, Eric Shupps (the IT expert who testified at trial), and even the process server who served her with the lawsuit papers. She has created numerous websites, blogs, and social media pages designed to destroy these people’s reputations and ruin them on the internet.  She has also published on the internet as much personal information as she could dig up about Amanda, Judge Sudderth, Judge Brigham, Eric Shupps, Bat World, and Randy’s family, including home addresses, dates of birth, spouses’ employers, monthly income, a brother’s legal problems and tragic death, records of financial difficulties, eating habits, educational backgrounds, non-profit boards that a spouse serves on, bank records she obtained in the lawsuit, a judge’s personal hobby, veterinary records of pets, real estate data, and countless other items of personal information. For example, the cyber-stalker posted on the internet that Randy’s son is adopted.  (Of course there is only one reason why a person would do this; fortunately, Randy’s son already knew he was adopted.) When Cummins was unable to dig up any “dirt” on Randy, she concocted outrageous, bizarre, and sometimes despicable lies about him and posted them all over blogs, websites, and social media pages. This cyber-stalker makes money doing search engine optimization (SEO) so she knows how to spread her venom far and wide across the web.

Stalking a war veteran in a nursing home?
During a deposition the cyber-stalker repeatedly asked Amanda where her father lived and which nursing home he was in.  Amanda, quite understandably, repeatedly refused to tell her.  Cummins finally angrily announced in frustration, "I reserve the right to depose Ms. Lollar again to get the name of the nursing home!" Cummins later bizarrely posted on the internet, “I have no desire to harass her dad in a nursing home. I've known where he is living for over a year.”  Amanda’s elderly father had absolutely nothing to do with Cummins or the lawsuit. Major Luther Lollar was a kind and gentle man, quietly spending the last part of his life in a nursing home.  He was a highly decorated WWII and Vietnam combat veteran who had saved the lives of many fellow soldiers in battle.  He was a real American hero and he was none of Cummins' business.  Why did she want to know where he lived?  Why did she go to the trouble a year earlier to find out? More importantly, why did she interrogate Amanda about her dad's location and why did she feel compelled to reveal that she knew where he was? Amanda's dad had nothing to do with Cummins or the case.  This cyber-stalker's sick obsession with Amanda's loving, helpless father terrified her, especially given another unrelated post where Cummins stated, “I have a gun with hollow points. I bought this one for shooting at close range. I can instantly drop someone with this gun and these bullets.”  Amanda had no way of knowing what this depraved woman had in mind for her dad.

Punishing the trial judge
Unfortunately, even the distinguished judge who presided over the trial did not escape Cummins' vengeful wrath.  Not content with smearing Judge Brigham on the internet, she publicly posted a six-page rambling complaint that she said she filed against him with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct almost a year after the trial. The complaint is nothing more than another one of her sociopathic rants and it will be dismissed of course, which will inevitably send the cyber-stalker back to the drawing board to figure out another way to punish the judge who ruled against her.

Frivolous lawsuits
The cyber-stalker also started filing several frivolous lawsuits to get revenge. Of course no lawyer is representing her in these personal vendettas but, because she has been involved in 20 lawsuits around the U.S. and has been sued at least four times for defamation, she is savvy enough to act as her own lawyer. In fact, Cummins boasts on her blog, “I always represent myself and I always win.” She filed a federal lawsuit in California against Amanda and three perceived enemies from her distant past along with ten anonymous "John Does," alleging defamation and various ridiculous legal theories she most likely found by doing a Google search.  Incredibly, she even sued Eric Shupps, the IT expert who testified against her at trial, claiming he "defamed" her and "inflicted emotional distress" on her. (His trial testimony actually was very compelling and probably did cause her some distress.)  Although Cummins tried desperately to convince the judge that her lawsuit was not frivolous the case was summarily thrown out of courtShe tried to appeal the judge’s ruling but the Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal. She also filed another frivolous lawsuit in California against Amanda Lollar and Bat World claiming that she had been wronged in various ways, including an allegation that she had bumped her head while trying to climb through a window at Bat World and it was somehow Amanda's fault.  After ruling that Cummins had acted in “bad faith” the judge threw out most of her allegations and then transferred her bump-on-the-head claim to a Texas court.  Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is demanding $500,000 in that lawsuit for her so-called “injuries,” although the case is expected to be dismissed by summary judgment long before it ever reaches the trial stage.
Not long after her lawsuits were tossed out of California federal court the cyber-stalker decided to try her luck in state court and filed yet another lawsuit against Amanda, this time in California superior court.  Not surprisingly, because her lawsuits keep getting dismissed, Cummins has also resumed her favorite strategy of filing false reports about Amanda with the FBI, the Los Angeles Police Department and various other law enforcement agencies around the United States.  In her frustration the cyber-stalker's accusations have gotten even more insane.  Her latest harangue is that Amanda has "committed crimes" by "ordering a hit" on her by a "paid thug," by "committing identity theft," "forgery,""perjury," and "extortion," by "stalking" her, and by causing her to receive "death threats."  She proudly--and ridiculously--announced that she "got the bat lady in the national criminal database system" and that Amanda will "soon be arrested."  This Beverly Hills woman (who, by the way, claims she is actor Charlie Sheen's "neighbor") apparently believes that if she files enough lawsuits and false police reports, and if she spreads enough lies all over the internet something is eventually bound to stick, enabling her to finally destroy Amanda--a selfless woman who has devoted her entire life and virtually all of her worldly possessions to rescuing, rehabilitating, and caring for her beloved animals in Mineral Wells, Texas.

Other victims of Mary Cummins
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is obsessive, vindictive and relentless. She has been attacking and smearing her perceived enemies on the internet for many years and has claimed that she can't be held liable by courts because they don't have "jurisdiction” over her.  However, when she tried to sell that absurd argument to a Texas judge it fell flat and she wound up owing her victim $6.1 million.  Numerous websites have been set up by her victims over the years.  Here are a few of them:
Victims of Miss Cummins
Mary Cummins, A Cyber-Stalker?
Mary Cummins Google Bombs
The Truth About Mary
Mary Cummins Gets Punked
Mary Cummins, Stalker of Annette Stark and Tiffany Krog
Mary Cummins Special Series
Mary Cummins Crackpot
Stalker Alert Mary Cummins
Nutcase Mary Cummins
Unfortunately, the current laws are inadequate to deal with mentally troubled malcontents like Mary Cummins who use the internet to destroy others.  Defamation lawsuits may be filed and won but cyber-stalkers can simply hide their assets, ignore the court judgment, and keep on defaming people on the internet.