CASE_FCFCU KB

Case Log - FCFCU v. Cody Rice-Velasquez

35 min read

Case Log - FCFCU v. Cody Rice-Velasquez

Case Number: 49D03-2501-MF-002559
Court: Marion Superior Court 3
Last Updated: 2025-12-21

Related Documents:

2025-12-09 - Writ Executed / Forced Removal

TIME RANGE: Afternoon–Evening
ENTRY TYPE: Event + Legal Analysis + Reflection

SUMMARY

This entry documents a detailed discussion and analysis of the actions taken by Financial Center First Credit Union (FCFCU) during the foreclosure and same-day sheriff removal on 2025-12-09, focusing on due process failures, inconsistent application of occupant protections, disability-related issues, and the emotional and psychological impact of being treated as a criminal despite acting in good faith.

FACTS

  • FCFCU obtained an order/writ authorizing sheriff removal on 2025-12-09.
  • The sheriff appeared at the property the same day the order was granted.
  • No advance notice of a vacate date or removal date was provided to me.
  • No notice was posted on the door or mailbox.
  • No notice was sent by email, certified mail, or regular mail.
  • I was not served with the writ prior to enforcement.
  • I was treated as a potential threat during removal, including armed officers drawing weapons, despite no criminal behavior, no resistance, and no indication of danger.
  • I was forced to leave without the ability to gather essential personal items, including toiletries and grooming supplies.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS

  • Foreclosure does not automatically eliminate occupant protections or due process rights.
  • My experience contrasts sharply with prior incidents in which law enforcement refused to remove a non-owner guest (Luis) from my home and required me to pursue a civil eviction, citing occupant protections.
  • In that prior situation, police classified the matter as civil and required court action, even when the individual was violent and threatening.
  • In contrast, when FCFCU sought removal, law enforcement executed the order immediately, without notice, and without requiring any prior opportunity for voluntary compliance.
  • This inconsistency suggests unequal application of legal protections based on power, institutional authority, and financial interests rather than consistent due process standards.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES

  • I have ADHD and other neurodivergent traits that affect communication, body language, emotional regulation, and response under stress.
  • I have repeatedly requested reasonable accommodations, specifically communication via email rather than phone calls, due to disability-related limitations.
  • FCFCU refused to accommodate these requests and insisted on phone-based communication, despite email being a standard and widely accepted method of business communication.
  • Phone calls significantly impair my ability to articulate information, process stress, and advocate for myself, particularly under pressure.
  • Neurodivergent behaviors such as nervousness, shaking, over-explaining, or appearing evasive are often misinterpreted by authorities as dishonesty, even when the individual is telling the truth.
  • This dynamic creates a feedback loop where fear of not being believed increases visible anxiety, which further undermines credibility in the eyes of others.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT

  • I experienced humiliation, fear, anger, grief, and disbelief during and after the removal.
  • Being treated as a criminal, including the display of firearms, was deeply traumatizing and disproportionate to the situation.
  • I felt stripped of dignity and humanity, particularly given my lifelong efforts to help others and act in good faith.
  • The experience reinforced a sense that institutions publicly promote values like “community” and “care” while privately abandoning those values when dealing with disabled individuals in crisis.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS

  • Why are occupant protections enforced strictly against private individuals but applied flexibly or bypassed entirely when financial institutions are involved?
  • Why is same-day enforcement of a writ considered acceptable without service or notice?
  • Why are disability accommodation requests treated as optional rather than mandatory?
  • How many other disabled individuals experience similar treatment but lack the resources or capacity to document it?
  • What mechanisms exist to hold institutions accountable when due process is technically followed on paper but functionally denied in practice?

2025-12-15 - CONSOLIDATED FORENSIC CASE LOG

STATUS: CRITICAL / DISPLACED
LOCATION: Indianapolis, IN (Displaced)
WEATHER: Freezing / Winter Conditions

1. DETAILED FACTUAL INVENTORY

A. The Removal Event (December 9, 2025)

  • Execution Without Notice: Sheriff executed the Writ of Assistance on 12/09. No “Notice to Vacate” was posted, mailed, or served. No execution date was communicated.
  • MyCase Notification Failure: Cody received no email notifications from the Indiana “MyCase” system regarding the issuance or execution of the writ, despite being registered.
  • Excessive Force: Sheriff deputies drew firearms upon entry. Cody was unarmed, compliant, and non-threatening.
  • Unequal Protection (“The Luis Precedent”): In a prior incident at this same address involving a violent non-owner guest (“Luis”), police refused removal, citing “occupant protections.” In contrast, when a bank sought removal of the owner (Cody), the Sheriff executed immediately without protections.
  • Sheriff’s Assumption: Deputies stated, “It wouldn’t get this far without notice,” admitting reliance on an assumption of due process rather than proof.

B. The “Smoking Gun” Contradiction (Post-Removal)

  • Plaintiff’s Representation to Court (12/12/2025): Counsel filed a “Report to Court” stating Cody “has been advised” regarding access and that “arrangements were being made.”
  • Plaintiff’s Direct Admission (12/11/2025): FCFCU Representative Susan Abbett emailed Cody admitting:
    • She failed to respond to his initial 12/09 request.
    • She would be out of the office.
    • “No one else” was available to assist.
  • The “First Foreclosure” Admission: An FCFCU representative admitted to Cody this was “her first foreclosure” (or first in a long time), suggesting negligence/incompetence rather than malice initially, but “Fraud on the Court” subsequently.

C. Pre-Existing Notice of Disability (The ADA Evidence)

  • FCFCU Knowledge (Sep 25, 2023): Certified Mail receipt proves FCFCU received a hardship letter disclosing Cody’s ADHD, anxiety, and phonophobia.
  • AES Knowledge (Jun 8, 2025): Certified Mail receipt proves AES Indiana received an ADA notice and 36-month payment plan offer (ignored).
  • Professional Context: FCFCU knew Cody through a professional HSA program relationship, establishing they knew he was educated and capable, yet treated him as an “unknown” threat.

D. Financial & Account Irregularities

  • Deed Consideration Discrepancy: Sheriff’s Deed (12/03/2025) lists consideration of $240,464.20, exceeding the mortgage balance.
  • Tax Errors: FCFCU correspondence listed a property tax balance of ~$126, contradicting public records.
  • Fund Manipulation: Bank statements show deposited funds were removed/adjusted and restored only after Cody complained.

2. LIST OF LEGAL VIOLATIONS & CITED LAW

A. Jurisdictional & Due Process Defects

  • Void Judgment (Indiana Trial Rule 4.1):
    • Fact: Service affidavits list “Copy Service” without proof of mandatory follow-up mailing.
    • Law: Without perfected service, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. The judgment is Void Ab Initio, rendering the Writ unlawful.
  • Failure to Offer Settlement Conference (Indiana Code § 32-30-10.5):
    • Fact: FCFCU failed to send the mandatory notice of the right to a settlement conference.
  • Procedural Due Process (14th Amendment):
    • Fact: Execution of a writ without specific notice of date/time deprives the occupant of the opportunity to vacate voluntarily.

B. Fraud & Misrepresentation

  • Fraud on the Court:
    • Fact: The filing of the 12/12 “Report to Court” claiming access was being arranged—while simultaneously telling the Defendant “no one is available”—is a material misrepresentation intended to block emergency relief.

C. Civil Rights & ADA Violations

  • ADA Title II (Sheriff) & Title III (Bank/AES):
    • Fact: Refusal to use email (as requested via Certified Mail) constitutes denial of reasonable accommodation.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection):
    • Fact: The “Luis” precedent shows disparate treatment: “Occupant Protections” for a violent guest vs. “Immediate Armed Removal” for a disabled owner.

3. HUMANITARIAN CRISIS & DAMAGES

  • Zaitullah Jan Khebarkhil (Roommate): Afghan national, U.S. wartime ally. Not present during removal. Lacks winter gear, shelter, and critical immigration/medical papers locked in the home.
  • “Gigi” (Service Animal): Showing severe regression and separation distress due to the armed confrontation and displacement.
  • Cody’s Mother: Terminally ill. Cody risks missing her final days due to displacement.
  • Immediate Risk: AES Shutoff scheduled for Dec 17 despite active IHEAP and ADA status.

4. EVIDENCE INVENTORY (ARTIFACTS)

  1. Susan Abbett Email (12/11/2025): “No one else is available.”
  2. Plaintiff’s Report to Court (12/12/2025): “Arrangements being made.”
  3. Certified Mail Receipt - FCFCU (09/25/2023): Proof of ADA Notice.
  4. Certified Mail Receipt - AES (06/08/2025): Proof of ADA Notice.
  5. Sheriff’s Deed (12/03/2025): $240k consideration figure.
  6. FCFCU Tax Letter: Showing incorrect ~$126 balance.
  7. Video File: FCFCU agent entering bedroom post-writ.
  8. Sheriff Voicemail: Confirming email was acceptable.
  9. MyCase Logs: Proving absence of email notification for the Writ.

5. IMMEDIATE ACTION PLAN

  1. File Supplement to Emergency Motion: Exhibit A (Abbett Email) vs. Exhibit B (Court Report).
  2. Preemptive Gender Identity Declaration: File to prevent bias/misgendering in court.
  3. Federal ADA Complaint: File with DOJ/HUD using Certified Mail receipts as primary evidence.
  4. Public Advocacy: “They Threw Us Into the Cold” campaign launch.
  • Illegal Eviction for skipping a separate eviction case and 48-hour notice.
  • Fraud on the Court via false “refusal to vacate / unknown occupants” representations.
  • ADA Title II Violations for refusal of reasonable communication accommodations.
  • RESPA / Regulation X Violations for servicing failures and dual tracking.
  • Constitutional Due Process / §1983 for armed removal under color of law without jurisdiction.

Strategy Map

Defensive

  • Vacate default judgment, sheriff sale, deed, and writ as void.

Offensive

  • Leverage ADA, RESPA, and civil rights exposure for damages and fees.

Negotiated (Primary)

  • Cash settlement + complete credit wipe + no deficiency + confidentiality.

Credit Strategy Snapshot

  • File is thin and clean aside from FCFCU + a few stragglers.
  • Global FCFCU deletion likely yields +80 to +150 points.
  • Address remaining cards post-settlement for additional lift.

Open Items

  • Package the Attorney Intake Packet (1-page pitch + exhibits).
  • Finalize the Settlement Demand Letter with non-monetary terms.
  • Assemble evidence bundle (service returns, ADA requests, timeline proof).
  • Draft credit deletion clauses (bank-facing and bureau-facing).

Action Items

  1. Produce Attorney Intake Packet (PDF-ready).
  2. Draft Settlement Demand (cash + global deletion).
  3. Finalize side-by-side timeline as Exhibit A.
  4. Prepare post-settlement credit rebuild plan.

Restart Prompt

“Resume by drafting the Attorney Intake Packet and Settlement Demand using the Case DNA blueprint.”

2025-12-16 - Post-Removal Access Denial

TIME RANGE: Evening–Overnight–Morning
ENTRY TYPE: Event + Legal Analysis + Harm Documentation

Emails, motions, declarations, affidavits

SUMMARY

Post-removal denial of access continues. Harm escalated during freezing conditions. FCFCU acknowledged failure to respond and lack of alternatives.

FACTS

  • Removal executed.
  • Access requests sent 12/09 and 12/11.
  • Access denied.
  • Defendant unhoused without essentials.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS

Due process concerns; ADA accommodation failures; irreparable harm established.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES

ADHD/executive dysfunction impacts rapid compliance and negotiation.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT

Severe distress, exhaustion, loss of dignity.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS

Emergency access? Expedited hearing? Attorney intake?

Case Summary

Overview

Emergency post-eviction relief case involving denial of access to essential property, ADA impacts, and humanitarian harm.

Key Facts

  • Sheriff removal following foreclosure action.
  • Improper service and lack of notice alleged.
  • Two written requests for property access sent to FCFCU.
  • Access denied due to staff unavailability.
  • Defendant unhoused, freezing exposure, no hygiene, unable to work.
  • Afghan ally roommate displaced without belongings.

Status

Emergency motions filed. Supplemental declaration warranted. Attorney outreach underway.

Note on 2024-12-09 Eviction Case MasterFile.docx

Note: The original DOCX file (2024-12-09_Eviction_Case_MasterFile.docx) is a binary file that could not be automatically extracted. If this file contains additional case log information not present in the text-based logs above, it should be manually reviewed and any unique content added to this consolidated log.

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-16 TIME RANGE: Evening–Overnight–Morning ENTRY TYPE: Event + Legal Analysis + Harm Documentation RELATED FILES: Emails, motions, declarations, affidavits

SUMMARY: Post-removal denial of access continues. Harm escalated during freezing conditions. FCFCU acknowledged failure to respond and lack of alternatives.

FACTS:

  • Removal executed.
  • Access requests sent 12/09 and 12/11.
  • Access denied.
  • Defendant unhoused without essentials.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS: Due process concerns; ADA accommodation failures; irreparable harm established.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES: ADHD/executive dysfunction impacts rapid compliance and negotiation.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT: Severe distress, exhaustion, loss of dignity.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS: Emergency access? Expedited hearing? Attorney intake? END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

Ingest Cleanup Status (2026-01-16)

Folder Corrections

  • Renamed 20_EVIDENCE → 20_EVIDENCE
  • Renamed 30_VIS → 30_VIS
  • Renamed 60_OUTPUTS → 60_OUTPUTS

Moved Items from _INGEST

  • Audio → 20_EVIDENCE/audio_records/
  • CSV Records → 20_EVIDENCE/records/
  • Receipts → 20_EVIDENCE/documents/receipts/
  • PDF Reports → 20_EVIDENCE/documents/reports_external/
  • Violation Analysis → 30_VIS/analysis/
  • Legal Research → 30_VIS/legal_research/
  • Strategy → 30_VIS/strategies/
  • Narratives → 40_WORKING/narratives/
  • Logs/Trackers → 00_ADMIN/00_trackers/
  • Timeline Events (2025) → 10_TIMELINE/2025/

Remaining in _INGEST

  • working_intake/ (Preserved)

Cleanup Update (2026-01-16)

Removed Files

  • Moved all ‘index.html’ files from ‘content/’ to ‘.trash/’ with unique filenames (preserving path context).
  • Searched for ‘duplicate.html’ files but found none.

Cleanup Update (2026-01-16) - Part 2

Removed Files

  • Moved all ‘index.html’ files to ‘.trash/‘.
  • Moved all ‘WH7.00.020__index.html’ files to ‘.trash/‘.

Cleanup Update (2026-01-16) - Part 3

Removed Files (Court Binder Exports)

  • Cleaned ‘60_OUTPUTS/50_PRINT_READY_BINDERS/01_COURT_BINDER_PRINT_READY’.
  • Moved all recursively found ‘.html’ generated export files to ‘.trash/‘.
  • Preserved all ‘.md’ source files.

Restructuring 60_OUTPUTS (2026-01-16)

Created New Structure

  • 10_MASTER_BINDER/
  • 20_FILINGS_SUBMISSIONS/
  • 30_HEARING_PACKETS/
  • 99_ARCHIVE/

Migrated

  • Moved ‘01_COURT_BINDER_PRINT_READY’ to ‘99_ARCHIVE/Legacy_Court_Binder’.
  • Moved ‘20_PRINT_BINDERS’ to ‘99_ARCHIVE/Legacy_Print_Binders’.

Staged Evidence

  • Copied identifiable PDFs from the legacy binder (motions, orders) to ‘20_EVIDENCE/exhibits_staged’ for proper classification.

Implemented Output System (2026-01-16)

Created Pack Blueprints

  • content/00_ADMIN/60_pack_blueprints/
    • PACK_SELF.yaml (The Bible)
    • PACK_JUDGE.yaml (The Bench Copy)
    • PACK_OPPOSING.yaml (The Service Copy)
    • PACK_AGENCY.yaml (The Complaint Copy)

Adopted Logic

  • Layer A: Canon (Source)
  • Layer B: Targets (Generic labels like HEARING_2026-01-09)
  • Layer C: Packs (Specific recipes)
  • Layer D: Releases (Frozen artifacts)

Templates Restructure (2026-01-16)

Consolidated to content/00_ADMIN/60_templates/

  • 10_motions/ (Merged from 10_motions, dc_claims_and_motions)
  • 20_declarations/ (Merged from 20_declarations_affidavits, df_facts_declarations)
  • 30_exhibits/ (Merged from 30_exhibits, dh_hard_exhibits)
  • 40_orders/ (Merged from 50_proposed_orders)
  • 50_internal/ (Merged from 40_others, di_internal_reference)

Legacy Removal

  • Moved original ‘_templates’ folder to .trash.
  • Removed duplicate .html files (not copied).
  • Consolidated nested folders (e.g. affidavits_templates, motions_templates) into the main categories.

Template Cleanup & Standardization (2026-01-16)

Merged & Renamed

  • Renamed _Declarations.md to TEMPLATE_Declarations.md
  • Renamed _Instructions_for_witnesses.md to GUIDE_Witness_Instructions.md
  • Renamed _Exhibits_Lists.md to TEMPLATE_Exhibit_List.md
  • Renamed Proposed_Orders.md to TEMPLATE_Proposed_Order.md
  • Renamed _Advocate_Outreach_Message.md to TEMPLATE_Advocate_Outreach.md

Deletion of Duplicates

  • Removed redundant index.md files from all template subdirectories.
  • Removed duplicate exhibit_list.md (superseded by TEMPLATE_Exhibit_List.md).
  • Removed text duplicate case_conversation_log.txt (content merged into Master Case Log).

Standards Applied

  • All templates now prefixed with TEMPLATE_.
  • All guides prefixed with GUIDE_.
  • Removed all legacy underscore prefixes (_).

Protocol & Documentation Alignment (2026-01-16)

Created 00_ADMIN/15_protocols/

  • PROTOCOL_Content_Structure_and_Rules.md (Migrated from content/README.md)
  • PROTOCOL_System_Governance.md (Migrated from content/00_ADMIN/00_README_SYSTEM.md)

Updated Root README

  • Created clean, high-level content/README.md acting as a portal.

Template Standardization

  • Enforced ‘TEMPLATE_’ prefix on all generic template files.
  • Removed underscores from filenames.
  • Standardized front matter ‘type’ to ‘template’.

Deep Template Consolidation (2026-01-16)

Migrated from Scattered Locations

  • Moved ‘YYYY-MM-DD_Template.md.md’ from 10_TIMELINE to 00_ADMIN/40_templates/50_internal/TEMPLATE_Timeline_Event.md
  • Moved ‘V-000_TEMPLATE.md’ from 30_VIS to 00_ADMIN/40_templates/50_internal/TEMPLATE_Violation_Entry.md
  • Moved 5 internal templates (COURT_DOC, WAR_NOTE, etc.) from 40_WORKING/internal_only to 00_ADMIN/40_templates/50_internal/

Removed Legacy Template Folders

  • Deleted ‘outreach_templates’ from 40_WORKING
  • Deleted ‘motions_templates’ from 50_PHASES
  • Deleted ‘proposed_templates’ from 50_PHASES

Standardization

  • Applied ‘TEMPLATE_’ prefix to all migrated files.
  • Updated front matter ‘type’ to ‘template’.

Binder Deduplication (2026-01-16)

Integrity Scan

  • Scanned entire ‘content/’ directory and generated SHA256 hashes.
  • Manifest saved to ‘content/00_ADMIN/90_logs/content_manifest_hashes.json’.

Duplicate Removal

  • Targeted ‘60_OUTPUTS/90_Master_Binder’ for redundancy check.
  • Identified 127 files in the Binder that were exact binary duplicates of files existing in the Canon (Timeline, Evidence, Working).
  • Action: Moved 127 duplicate files from ‘90_Master_Binder’ to ‘.trash’.
  • Result: The Master Binder now contains only unique items (or is significantly lighter), relying on the Canon as the source of truth.

Content Root Updates (2026-01-16)

Folder Name Reversions

  • Validated current root structure:
    • 20_EVIDENCE (was 20_EVIDENCE_VAULT_IMMUTABLE)
    • 30_VIS (was 30_VIOLATION_INTELLIGENCE)
    • 60_OUTPUTS (was 60_OUTPUTS_EXPORTS)
  • Scanned all Markdown files in the repository.
  • Batch-replaced all references to the ‘long names’ back to the ‘short names’ (20_EVIDENCE, 30_VIS, 60_OUTPUTS).
  • Ensured internal wiki-links and file paths are consistent with the user’s manual folder updates.

Ingest Deduplication (2026-01-16)

Scan Strategy

  • Compared file hashes in ‘_INGEST’ against the rest of ‘content/’ (Canon).
  • Excluded ‘.trash’ and ‘.git’ from the comparison to ensure we match against active files.

Execution Results

  • Duplicates Found: 56 files.
  • Action: Moved all 56 duplicates to ‘.trash’ with timestamp prefixes.
  • Remaining Unique Files: 6 files.
    • ‘2025-12-16_case_log_entry.md’ (Log update)
    • ‘2023-09-20_FCFCU_Hardship_and_Health_Notice_Let.md’ (Markdown evidence)
    • ‘WH7.00.020__2023-09-20_FCFCU_Hardship_and_Healt.md’ (Legacy ref)
    • ‘2025-12-16_AES_Emergency_Notice.md’ (Evidence)
    • Two ‘_README.md’ files.

Next Steps

  • The 6 remaining unique files need to be manually filed into their correct canonical folders (likely ‘20_EVIDENCE’ or ‘10_TIMELINE’).

Final Ingest Clearance (2026-01-16)

Filed Remaining Items

  • Moved ‘2025-12-16_case_log_entry.md’ to ‘00_ADMIN/90_logs/INGEST_2025-12-16_case_log_entry.md’.
  • Moved ‘30_fcfcu/*.md’ to ‘20_EVIDENCE/10_primary/fcfcu/‘.
  • Moved ‘50_aes/*.md’ to ‘20_EVIDENCE/10_primary/aes/‘.

Empty Folder Cleanup

  • Recursively removed all empty directories within ‘_INGEST’.
  • ‘_INGEST’ is now clean and empty, ready for new intake.

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-16 TIME RANGE: Evening–Overnight–Morning ENTRY TYPE: Event + Legal Analysis + Harm Documentation RELATED FILES: Emails, motions, declarations, affidavits

SUMMARY: Post-removal denial of access continues. Harm escalated during freezing conditions. FCFCU acknowledged failure to respond and lack of alternatives.

FACTS:

  • Removal executed.
  • Access requests sent 12/09 and 12/11.
  • Access denied.
  • Defendant unhoused without essentials.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS: Due process concerns; ADA accommodation failures; irreparable harm established.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES: ADHD/executive dysfunction impacts rapid compliance and negotiation.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT: Severe distress, exhaustion, loss of dignity.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS: Emergency access? Expedited hearing? Attorney intake? END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

date: 2025-12-16 title: FCFCU Case DNA & Strategy Checkpoint category: Legal Strategy / Case Management keywords:

  • wrongful foreclosure
  • ADA violations
  • due process
  • illegal eviction
  • credit tradeline deletion
  • settlement strategy project_context: FCFCU VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

Executive Summary

This session focused on building the master blueprint (“Case DNA”) for a wrongful foreclosure and illegal eviction matter involving FCFCU and the Marion County Sheriff. The work consolidated facts, legal theories, leverage points, and settlement objectives into a single strategic framework designed to attract contingency counsel and support an early, favorable settlement.

What We Are Working On

  • A Case DNA / Master Protocol that anchors all filings, negotiations, and attorney outreach.
  • A settlement-forward strategy prioritizing cash compensation and complete deletion of all FCFCU-related credit reporting.
  • An attorney pitch narrative that is concise, profitable, and litigation-ready.
  • A side-by-side legal vs. actual timeline demonstrating unlawful acceleration of process.

Decisions & Changes

  • Clarified firearm facts: armed removal context with hands on holsters; one deputy drew a firearm to sweep the basement (no gun pointed at you).
  • Set realistic settlement targets:
    • 100k cash (plus fee-shifting where applicable).
    • Global deletion of all FCFCU-related tradelines, inquiries, and foreclosure reporting across all bureaus.
  • Agreed the most likely path is private settlement before discovery, not protracted litigation.
  • Confirmed credit strategy: deletion of FCFCU items + cleanup of remaining few cards = rapid rebound to 700–800+.

Legal Theories (High-Level)

  • Void Judgment due to defective service (Indiana TR 4.1/4.15).
  • Illegal Eviction for skipping a separate eviction case and 48-hour notice.
  • Fraud on the Court via false “refusal to vacate / unknown occupants” representations.
  • ADA Title II Violations for refusal of reasonable communication accommodations.
  • RESPA / Regulation X Violations for servicing failures and dual tracking.
  • Constitutional Due Process / §1983 for armed removal under color of law without jurisdiction.

Strategy Map

Defensive

  • Vacate default judgment, sheriff sale, deed, and writ as void.

Offensive

  • Leverage ADA, RESPA, and civil rights exposure for damages and fees.

Negotiated (Primary)

  • Cash settlement + complete credit wipe + no deficiency + confidentiality.

Credit Strategy Snapshot

  • File is thin and clean aside from FCFCU + a few stragglers.
  • Global FCFCU deletion likely yields +80 to +150 points.
  • Address remaining cards post-settlement for additional lift.

Open Items

  • Package the Attorney Intake Packet (1-page pitch + exhibits).
  • Finalize the Settlement Demand Letter with non-monetary terms.
  • Assemble evidence bundle (service returns, ADA requests, timeline proof).
  • Draft credit deletion clauses (bank-facing and bureau-facing).

Action Items

  1. Produce Attorney Intake Packet (PDF-ready).
  2. Draft Settlement Demand (cash + global deletion).
  3. Finalize side-by-side timeline as Exhibit A.
  4. Prepare post-settlement credit rebuild plan.

Restart Prompt

“Resume by drafting the Attorney Intake Packet and Settlement Demand using the Case DNA blueprint.”

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-21 TIME RANGE: Early Morning ENTRY TYPE: Incident + Safety Risk + Legal Harm Documentation RELATED FILES:

Timeline.md

Evidence_Log.md

Talking_Points.md

SUMMARY: During an attempt to repack the vehicle following forced displacement related to the FCFCU foreclosure and writ execution, Cody Rice-Velasquez experienced an acute crisis event involving their dog, Gigi. Due to heightened stress, overcrowding of the vehicle with salvaged belongings, and environmental chaos caused by the eviction, Gigi became distressed, escaped the vehicle, and ran off. This event occurred directly as a result of the unsafe and destabilizing conditions imposed by FCFCU’s actions and the execution of the writ. Immediate efforts were redirected from property recovery and stabilization to emergency animal search and safety response.

FACTS:

Cody was actively repacking a vehicle due to displacement from 4817 Shadow Pointe Dr.

The vehicle was overloaded with personal property retrieved under distressing conditions.

Gigi (husky mix dog, bonded companion animal) became panicked and escaped.

The escape occurred in the context of exhaustion, emotional distress, and environmental instability.

The incident created immediate risk to the dog’s safety and Cody’s emotional and physical well-being.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

Companion animal endangerment is a foreseeable consequence of forced displacement without adequate safeguards or accommodation.

The incident supports claims of irreparable harm resulting from premature or unlawful enforcement of the writ.

This event strengthens arguments for emergency relief, damages, and consideration of non-economic harm.

The situation demonstrates cascading harm beyond property loss, including safety risks and emotional trauma.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

Cody’s documented ADHD, anxiety, and trauma-related impairments exacerbated the crisis response.

The chaotic environment impaired executive functioning and situational control.

No accommodations were provided to mitigate known disability-related vulnerabilities during displacement.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

Acute panic, fear, and distress related to the potential loss or injury of Gigi.

Heightened anger and emotional dysregulation directly tied to FCFCU’s actions.

Sense of helplessness and threat escalation beyond financial or housing harm.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS:

Was Gigi recovered safely, and at what time?

Should this incident be added as a supplemental declaration or exhibit demonstrating ongoing harm?

Does local animal control or third-party documentation exist that can corroborate the incident?

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

2026-01-18 - VIS & Paperless Integration Session

DATE: 2026-01-18 TIME RANGE: Early Morning (01:00 AM - 04:00 AM) ENTRY TYPE: Operational Infrastructure Setup

SUMMARY

This session established the core operational infrastructure for the litigation, specifically the Violations Intelligence System (VIS) and the Evidence Vault (Paperless-ngx). We resolved critical “split-brain” data issues, standardized file paths, populated missing damages templates, and launched a local Knowledge Base (Quartz).

ACTIONS TAKEN

  1. Paperless-ngx Deployed: Launched a case-local Docker instance at http://localhost:8010.
    • Configured to ingest from content/B_EVIDENCE.
    • Fixed database crash loops by migrating to Docker Volumes.
  2. VIS Data Standardization:
    • Identified “Ghost Paths” in the master inventory csv.
    • Proposed canonical note_path field to resolve legacy vs. new note conflicts.
    • Scripted conversion of CSV inventories to Markdown tables for visibility.
  3. Quartz Knowledge Base:
    • Configured and built the local site at http://localhost:8080.
    • Cleaned up legacy outputs to speed up builds.
  4. Workflow Defined:
    • Created NT_System_Workflow.canvas to map the data flow from Evidence → Ingest → Paperless → Quartz.

NEXT STEPS

  • Fill the “Damages Gap” in financial_transactions_damages.csv.
  • Draft the Track B (Credit Dispute) letters using the new system.

Good question. Short answer: yes, there are relevant items in this chat—but they are limited and narrowly scoped. Nothing here hurts you. A few things help, and most of it is non-evidentiary background.

Below is a clean case-log entry capturing only what is legally relevant from this chat thread.

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2026-01-18 TIME RANGE: Morning ENTRY TYPE: Context Clarification + Strategic Risk Assessment RELATED FILES:

  • None directly created from this chat
  • Context aligns with prior motions re: service, due process, mitigation efforts

SUMMARY: Defendant discussed concerns about LinkedIn activity and potential optics during active foreclosure litigation. Assistant advised against additional social or professional outreach to Plaintiff’s employees during pendency of motions to avoid misinterpretation or adverse optics. Defendant clarified prior good-faith efforts to refinance and mitigate financial hardship before foreclosure, including attempts to contact FCFCU personnel and reduce expenses following major life disruptions. Discussion emphasized that such background is contextual and not required to prove current jurisdictional defects.

FACTS:

  • Defendant previously refinanced mortgage with FCFCU at least twice.
  • Defendant attempted to contact an FCFCU employee regarding refinance/modification prior to foreclosure.
  • Employee was transitioning roles; communications did not result in resolution.
  • Defendant’s credit score later declined by approximately 20 points, rendering refinance unavailable.
  • Defendant changed phone numbers, emails, and internal systems multiple times over several years, limiting ability to reconstruct exact contact records.
  • Defendant searched FCFCU personnel on LinkedIn but did not view profiles or initiate contact.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • LinkedIn searches without profile views or contact do not constitute communication or notice.
  • No action discussed in this chat creates adverse evidence or waiver.
  • Prior refinance attempts are contextual mitigation evidence, not required to establish defective service or void judgment.
  • Missing historical records over multi-year periods is reasonable and expected; burden of institutional records rests with Plaintiff if raised.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

  • Defendant described executive overload and difficulty reconstructing timelines due to ADHD and compounded stress.
  • Chat reflects need for containment and simplification rather than exhaustive reconstruction.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

  • Defendant expressed anxiety about optics, fear of self-sabotage, and stress related to memory gaps and lost records.
  • Assistant provided grounding and reassurance to prevent spiraling.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS:

  • No immediate follow-up required.
  • Refinance history should only be summarized at a high level if later requested by counsel or court.

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

Bottom line (plain English)

  • Nothing in this chat hurts your case.
  • One helpful item: confirmation of good-faith refinance attempts (at a high level).
  • Everything else: strategy, emotional processing, and risk avoidance—not evidence.

If you want, next we can:

  • Extract a 1-paragraph “prior mitigation efforts” blurb that’s safe to reuse, or
  • Decide whether any of this belongs in a declaration (likely minimal).

But as it stands: this chat is clean.

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-21 TIME RANGE: Morning ENTRY TYPE: Event Documentation + Legal Analysis + Evidence Preservation RELATED FILES:

  • Talking_Points.md
  • Emergency Motion to Quash/Stay Writ of Assistance
  • Photo evidence (unplugged cameras, unplugged refrigerator, mold contamination)
  • Personal incident log (timestamped note/email)

SUMMARY: Upon re-entry to the residence, Cody documented that all security cameras inside the home had been unplugged and disabled, and that the refrigerator had been unplugged, resulting in food spoilage and visible mold contamination. These actions occurred without notice, explanation, or any observable safety or emergency justification. The discovery was immediately documented with photographs and written notes to preserve evidence. This event constitutes new, post-removal harm and directly supports pending emergency motions before the court.

FACTS:

  • All interior security cameras were unplugged and rendered nonfunctional.
  • The refrigerator was unplugged, despite being functional prior to removal.
  • Food spoiled as a result, and mold contamination is now present inside the refrigerator.
  • No written or verbal notice was provided explaining the disconnection of devices.
  • No emergency, hazard, or safety condition was visible that would justify unplugging appliances or cameras.
  • Photographs were taken documenting outlets, devices, and resulting damage.
  • A contemporaneous written incident log was created and timestamped.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • Disabling cameras constitutes spoliation or interference with potential evidence.
  • Unplugging the refrigerator exceeds the lawful scope of a writ of assistance, which does not authorize alteration or destruction of personal property.
  • Resulting spoilage and mold constitute compensable property damage.
  • The incident strengthens claims of irreparable harm and bad-faith execution of the writ.
  • This event supports the necessity of an immediate stay, protective order, and court oversight of property access and preservation.
  • The conduct bolsters arguments for damages and supplemental relief at the upcoming hearing.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

  • Actions were taken without accommodation or notice despite documented disability-related needs and pending ADA-related filings.
  • Sudden property damage and loss exacerbated stress and executive-function strain during an already unstable displacement period.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

  • Increased distress, frustration, and sense of violation upon discovering preventable damage to personal property.
  • Heightened anxiety related to loss of security (disabled cameras) and health concerns (mold exposure).

QUESTIONS / FLAGS:

  • Should a supplemental declaration be filed immediately to add this incident to the court record?
  • Should opposing counsel and the Sheriff be formally notified of spoliation and property damage?
  • Should replacement value and remediation costs (food loss, appliance contamination) be itemized for damages?
  • Does the conduct warrant additional sanctions or preservation orders from the court?

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-21 TIME RANGE: Afternoon–Evening ENTRY TYPE: Event Documentation + Damages Analysis + Strategic Planning RELATED FILES:

  • Timeline.md
  • Evidence_Log.md
  • Procedural_Failure_Map_One_Pager.md
  • Utility bills and disconnect notices (AES)
  • Photos/videos of property damage, mold, utilities, unplugged equipment

SUMMARY: Cody reported additional post-removal harms discovered after complying with the sheriff’s 1:00 PM vacate deadline. These include continued utility billing in Cody’s name, negligent handling of the property (doors left open, heat running), resulting burst pipes, water damage, mold infestation, destruction of personal property (mini-fridge), and systematic unplugging/interference with cameras and electronics. The conversation focused on identifying legally relevant harms, separating signal from noise, and translating these events into damages that materially strengthen the case. A comprehensive internal damages matrix was produced, along with an estimated monetary exposure range. Cody requested that this information be formalized for court awareness ahead of the January 9 hearing and summarized for family review.

FACTS:

  • Cody vacated the property exactly at the ordered 1:00 PM deadline.
  • Sheriff personnel continued enforcement wrap-up after Cody’s departure.
  • Utilities (heat/electric) remain in Cody’s name; bills and shutoff notices continue.
  • Property doors were left open; heat left running while Cody lacked access.
  • Pipes in the laundry room appear to have burst due to freezing temperatures.
  • Standing water led to visible mold growth on walls.
  • A bedroom mini-fridge was unplugged, resulting in mold contamination and total loss.
  • Multiple cameras, routers, ethernet cables, and desk equipment were deliberately unplugged, requiring opening cabinets and tracing concealed wiring.
  • Cody was denied access and did not have keys, preventing mitigation of damage.
  • Discovery of Staged Signage: Video evidence confirms sheriff/bank personnel arrived with a Walmart bag containing “No Trespassing” signs after the removal, proving visual notice was not posted months ago as claimed.
  • Payment Portal Issues: Bank’s new portal failed on “timing lag” (under-balance at midnight due to small automated hits, cleared via deposit at 3 AM). Bank assumed “bad faith” rather than investigating technical lag.
  • **The 2,007. Bank mismanaged funds via internal transfers to locked savings accounts and inconsistent math rather than applying to mortgage.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • Continued utility consumption after exclusion supports claims of unjust enrichment and conversion.
  • Leaving the premises unsecured in freezing weather establishes negligence after possession.
  • Burst pipes, water damage, and mold are foreseeable harms tied to failure to secure the property.
  • Unplugging personal appliances and electronics exceeds any reasonable scope of “securing” the premises and supports conversion/trespass to chattels.
  • Denial of access defeats any argument that Cody failed to mitigate damages.
  • These harms are independent, post-judgment damages that strengthen the case even apart from the void-judgment argument.
  • Certified Mail Discrepancy: The bank sent certified mail to corporate institutional creditors (credit card companies) in the same case but deliberately chose NOT to send certified mail to the primary pro se defendant (Cody), despite awareness of his disabilities. This supports a pattern of inequitable conduct.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

  • Cody’s documented disabilities (ADHD, anxiety, executive dysfunction) increase the impact of sudden removal, loss of access, and chaotic conditions.
  • Lack of accommodation compounded confusion, stress, and inability to respond or protect property.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

  • Significant distress due to displacement, ongoing financial pressure, and property destruction.
  • Additional emotional harm from the loss of a mini-fridge that had personal significance as a gift from a friend who was murdered.
  • Heightened anxiety and exhaustion affecting Cody and Zai.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS:

  • Should a supplemental declaration be filed immediately to document post-removal harms before the January 9 hearing?
  • What monetary relief or interim orders (utility relief, access, preservation) can be requested now based on ongoing harm?
  • Whether to obtain formal remediation estimates to further quantify mold and water damage.

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-21 TIME RANGE: Evening ENTRY TYPE: Event + Procedural Guidance + Evidence Preservation RELATED FILES:

See timeline and documentation files in Drive (communications, access notes, evidence photos)

SUMMARY: User arrived at the property during an authorized access window and requested immediate guidance regarding the presence of surveillance cameras. Guidance was provided to ensure compliance, minimize risk, and preserve evidentiary integrity. Emphasis was placed on avoiding any conduct that could be misconstrued as tampering, trespass escalation, or bad faith, while treating cameras as potential neutral evidence rather than adversarial tools.

FACTS:

  • Surveillance cameras (doorbell/exterior/interior possible) are present at the property.
  • User is present solely for a limited, authorized purpose (retrieval of personal property).
  • Cameras may record video and audio.
  • Any interaction may later be reviewed or referenced by opposing parties.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • Touching, disabling, covering, or interfering with cameras could be alleged as tampering or misconduct.
  • Silence and factual, minimal statements reduce risk of mischaracterization.
  • Cameras can corroborate compliance and lawful behavior if conduct remains within scope of authorization.
  • Independent documentation by the user (notes, photos of personal belongings or damage) supports later evidentiary needs.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

  • Stressful, high-surveillance environments can exacerbate anxiety and executive-function challenges.
  • Clear, scripted statements and reduced verbal interaction help maintain compliance and clarity.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

  • Heightened stress and vigilance due to surveillance presence.
  • Concern about actions being misinterpreted or used adversely.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS:

  • Whether to prepare a post-access incident log summarizing conduct and observations.
  • Whether to script standardized responses for any future supervised access or confrontation.
  • Whether any observed damage or missing items warrant immediate supplemental declaration.

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-21 TIME RANGE: Late Evening ENTRY TYPE: Strategic Planning + ADA Accommodation + Client Crisis RELATED FILES:

  • Formal_Retrieval_Protocol_ADA.md
  • NT_Urgent_Delay_Notification.md

SUMMARY: User coordinated the final logistical and legal protocols for the upcoming property retrieval window. A critical delay occurred due to the physical exhaustion of the User and roommate (Zai) resulting from their displacement in freezing elements. A formal protocol was drafted to establish firm ADA-based boundaries for the retrieval, focusing on privacy, non-intrusion, and the safety of the User’s emotional support animal (Gigi). The User also reported a state of acute physical and financial distress (pain, hunger, lack of funds), which further documents the “irreparable harm” caused by the removal.

FACTS:

  • User and roommate experienced a delay due to physical exhaustion (“zai fell asleep at the charging station”).
  • User is living in a car and experiencing significant physical pain and hunger with no immediate resources.
  • Guidance was sought on how to manage the presence of bank reps and sheriff’s deputies during the high-stress retrieval.
  • The User’s dog (Gigi) is an ESA and requires space (yard/home) during loading to avoid confinement in the vehicle.
  • Coordination requires “yelling” and music for focus due to disability-related cognitive load.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • Establishing ADA protocols for retrieval as “functional necessities” prevents the Bank from using the window for surveillance or intimidation.
  • Reserving the right to retrieve remaining property later (non-abandonment) is crucial to preserving the underlying property interest.
  • Documenting the delay as being caused by “exhaustion due to elements” ties the logistical failure directly to the Bank’s actions (the removal), strengthening the harm narrative.
  • The demand for privacy and distance from the rep/sheriff is framed as a disability accommodation to minimize cognitive load and distress.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

  • Physical exhaustion and pain are significantly impacting the User’s ability to coordinate and execute tasks.
  • Surveillance presence is identified as a direct trigger for anxiety and executive-function breakdown.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

  • Acute distress (hunger, pain, homelessness).
  • Frustration with the lack of dignity offered by the bank and the “hovering” presence of enforcement agents.

QUESTIONS / FLAGS:

  • How to secure immediate humanitarian aid or funds for the User while preserving the legal stance?
  • Whether the Bank’s refusal to accommodate the “Gigi” clause or “non-intrusion” protocol will be used as the basis for a contempt or sanctions motion.

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2025-12-21 TIME RANGE: Midnight - Late Night (Hotel Crisis) ENTRY TYPE: Humanitarian Crisis + Procedural Harm + Cognitive Reframe RELATED FILES:

  • NT_Harm_Log_2025-12-21_Hotel_Deposit.md
  • NT_PROTOCOL_Low_Power_Cognitive_Management.md

SUMMARY: While attempting to secure shelter at a prepaid hotel overnight, the User encountered a procedural barrier regarding a deposit hold. Despite being a repeat guest (30+ stays) and explaining a pending hold on a $50 deposit from the previous day, the desk agent refused discretion, incorrectly explained banking mechanics, and moralized the User’s financial state (questioning food spending). This interaction, occurring while the User was in a state of extreme exhaustion and displacement, led to a significant strategic reflection on the “Superior Mind vs. Inferior System” dynamic and the necessity of a “Low-Power Cognitive Mode” for survival.

FACTS:

  • User had a prepaid room but lacked the $180 liquidity for the combined deposit/balance due to a processing hold from a previous stay.
  • 125 but was $55 short for the total check-in requirement.
  • Agent misgendered User (“sir”) repeatedly and adopted a moralizing/reprimanding tone.
  • User was forced to remain in the vehicle in freezing temperatures despite having a paid room, causing acute distress and sleep deprivation.
  • Roommate (Zai) was unresponsive for several hours during this crisis.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • Compounded Irreparable Harm: The Bank’s removal action directly created the instability that turned a minor hotel policy into a survival crisis.
  • Dehumanization as Evidence: The agent’s refusal to use historical discretion mimics the Bank’s behavior—treating the User as a “transaction state” rather than a human with a history/context.
  • Functional Exhaustion: The User is operating at “lowest of lows,” increasing the risk of accidental error or emotional outburst, which must be documented as being caused by the displacement.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

  • ADHD and trauma-related hypervigilance made the agent’s tone and misgendering acutely painful/triggering.
  • Cognition was “overqualified” for the forum, leading to high-friction analysis of the agent’s logic errors, which drained survival energy.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

  • Feelings of “defending humanity” against a system that only recognizes spreadsheets.
  • Extreme loneliness and fear due to the disconnect from support (Zai).
  • Shift from “truth energy” (fighting for justice) to “survival energy” (indifference).

QUESTIONS / FLAGS:

  • Use the “Low-Power Mode” script for all tomorrow’s property retrieval interactions.
  • Preserve the hotel incident as an exhibit for the Supplemental Declaration to prove that even with “help” (a prepaid room), the displacement creates unsolvable procedural traps.

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

============================================================ CASE LOG ENTRY DATE: 2026-01-18 TIME RANGE: Morning - Late Evening ENTRY TYPE: Housing Crisis + Health Impact + Secondary Displacement RELATED FILES:

  • NT_Harm_Log_2026-01-18_Otis_Fallout.md
  • 2026-01-18_Housing_Fallout_Otis.md

SUMMARY: The secondary “emergency” housing arrangement with Otis has collapsed as a direct result of the instability caused by the FCFCU removal. The living conditions (active cigarette smoke, bed bugs, and aggressive financial harassment) reached an unmanageable threshold today, resulting in the User’s physical collapse (passing out) in their vehicle. The User has issued a formal notice of immediate move-out to protect their health and the safety of service animal (Gigi). This completes the “cascade of harm” narrative from the initial displacement to total secondary homelessness.

2026-01-18 - LATE EVENING: FORCED TERMINATION OF OCCUPANCY (OTIS)

INCIDENT SUMMARY: The user is immediately vacating the Otis room rental. What began as “unstable housing” has devolved into a predatory situation involving financial extortion for drug use and potential residency fraud by the landlord.

FACTS:

  • Confrontation: Otis has escalated aggressive money-seeking behavior (3 times in 3 days), likely to fund a drug habit (“trying to get high”).
  • Labor Dispute: User provided substantial value upon move-in: cleaned a “nasty” room and configured a technical camera/wiring system for Otis. This labor was intended to cover the first month, but Otis is ignoring this value and demanding cash.
  • Fraud Discovery: Strong indications that Otis is a squatter himself, charging the User “rent” while paying none to the property owner.
  • Physical/Mental Toll: User passed out in the vehicle today due to sheer exhaustion. The “moving every other day” cycle is preventing any progress on the case or work.
  • New Search: Relocating to a hotel/studio (e.g., One Life Suites / Evansville Inn) at ~250/week. A kitchenette is a mandatory requirement for self-sufficiency.

LEGAL / PROCEDURAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • Compounded Irreparable Harm: The “Vulnerability Trap” created by FCFCU has now forced the User through two displacements in 40 days.
  • Work Deprivation: The instability is effectively a “litigation tactic” by default, as the User cannot be expected to prepare complex legal filings while homeless and under threat of physical/animal harm.

DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES:

  • Extreme hypervigilance; inability to focus on “work/preparation” when basic survival (where to sleep, Gigi’s safety) is in flux every 24 hours.

EMOTIONAL IMPACT:

  • “Tired. I don’t have the energy to try to grovel or beg.”
  • Desperation for 4 weeks of baseline stability to “get my shit together and work.”

NEXT STEPS:

  • Emergency Funding: Direct plea to father for one month of stable hotel funding to break the crisis cycle.
  • Document: Update Supplemental Declaration with this secondary displacement.

END OF CASE LOG ENTRY

2026-01-18 - COLLATERAL DISPUTE: EASYTAX / CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ

INCIDENT SUMMARY: The user is escalating a dispute with Crystal Rodriguez (EasyTax) for unpaid services and theft of equipment.

FACTS:

  • Unpaid Services: User completed accounting work/1099 filings for Crystal; Crystal received the benefits but failed to pay.
  • Property Conversion: Crystal/EasyTax in possession of User’s Scanner and Router; refusal to return.
  • Demand Letter: Formally sent 2026-01-07; ignored.

LEGAL STRATEGY:

  • Initiating Level 0 Enforcement Playbook: Small Claims Court + Regulatory complaints (IDOR/AG/UPL).

2026-01-18 - SECONDARY DISPLACEMENT: FORCED RELOCATION TO EVANSVILLE

FACTS:

  • Relocation: User forced to Evansville, IN, to stay with mother due to loss of housing stability.
  • Infrastructure Failure: Mother’s internet speed is extremely slow, preventing timely legal responses and professional work.
  • Client Loss: Discontinuity has resulted in the loss of repeat client base.

LEGAL IMPACT:

  • Irreparable Harm: Directly contributed to the closure of the Zai Asylum Case due to missed deadlines (Failure to Respond).

Graph View

Backlinks