Tucker's recent email communications with Knuff-Loewinsoh

From: Adam Tucker
Date: December 5, 2011 9:36:13 AM PST
To: Kerry Schonwald
Subject: Re: Knuff v. Tucker

Kerry et. al,

Cutting and pasting from your previous email, “We do not believe a telephonic mediation has been ordered by the court nor is it feasible. We remain willing and ready to mediate this case in Dallas.”

Considering your blind representation of your client irrespective of moral or ethical impacts, I find it interesting that it took 5 days for you to respond with a statement about what you believe versus what you know.

In the context of all the rescheduling that has occurred with this trial due to Mr. Knuff’s medical treatments in his home town of San Diego, CA; I can’t help but think if Mr. Knuff’s first priority was to get this resolved, efforts would be made to create a phone mediation. But as you are well aware, this is all about intimidation, not due process.

As you are aware, the last time I met or spoke with “ex” CIA, Mr. Knuff, was at his home in Bonsal, CA on the night of December 23, 2008 ~ A meeting that Mr. Knuff arranged under the pretense of networking to help me find an IT job in North County, San Diego where he was/is the president of Carlsbad, CA based Forte Inc. – A company that he sold in the late 1980’s early 1990’s but stayed on as president for what I can only assume, was to ensure the development of his “Agent” software would meet the growing needs of his government counterparts and best interests of the CIA.

Mr. Knuff told me that his focus during his 25 years as in the CIA was the Middle East, and considering the very long and public history of the CIA sponsoring terrorism, Mr. Knuff and his CIA counterparts knew from the historical success of false flag operations, the US government would be able to leverage the impact of 9/11/2001 to pass Draconian laws like the Patriot Act and ultimately further the demand for his Agent software which he made a point of telling me was being utilized by multiple government agencies to monitor/spy on internet traffic of targets inside within the United States.

http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php – after visiting the newly redesigned website I see the arrogantly used agent logo which looked like a secret agent donning a hat and trench coat, has been smartly removed.

During our meeting on December 23, 2008, Mr. Knuff had me alone as a captive audience in his rural home and made a special effort to tell me that his very secluded neighborhood was riddled with “ex” CIA. At 6 foot 5 inches, Mr. Knuff towers some 6+ inches over me, and used his trained experience, environment, and physical size to ensure the 2+ hour meeting was all about personal intimidation.

Mr. Knuff also made a point of telling me that he did not believe the public was capable of understanding how things really worked in the world, which exemplifies the arrogance of the CIA and further supports his/your arrogance now in assuming that I will travel to Dallas Texas to participate in your circus. If Mr. Knuff et al. were able to get a $4 million civil judgment against Gary Gevisser without Gevisser even attending the trial, and thus without due process, than what reasons do I have to believe that my mediation/trial would be any different?

Your client and firm were willing and able to get a judgment in absentia against Gevisser, so why not just do the same with me? Why have you made such an effort to gain my participation?

Furthermore Mr. Knuff knows that I have no assets or wealth and that I am eligible to file bankruptcy in response to a judgement, so it is apparent to me that I am just being used to make ground against Mr. Gevisser and his appeal; a witch hunt that I will not be a party to.

So to answer your question for the third time, I will not go to Dallas, TX to afford Mr. Knuff et. al an opportunity to physically intimidate me.

Adam Tucker

On Dec 5, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Kerry Schonwald wrote:

Adam,

We do not believe a telephonic mediation has been ordered by the court nor is it feasible. We remain willing and ready to mediate this case in Dallas.

Kerry

Kerry Schonwald
Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P.
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75251
(214) 572-1714 direct dial
(214) 572-1717 facsimile
kerrys@lfdlaw.com
www.LFDlaw.com

Confidentiality Note: This email is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the sole use of the named and intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies received and notify Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P. at 214.572.1700. Thank you.

From: Adam Tucker [mailto:adamtucker619@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:53 PM
To: Kerry Schonwald
Subject: Re: Knuff v. Tucker

Kerry,

As previously stated, I have zero availability to attend a mediation in Dallas as I cannot afford the traveling expenses.

If Mr. Knuff et. al are genuinely interested in mediating this case, please explain why a telephoned mediation is not possible?

Regards,
Adam Tucker

On Nov 30, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Kerry Schonwald wrote:

Adam,

Regardless of whether you will agree to sign the amended scheduling order, the parties in this case are under a court order to mediate the case. It is unclear to us whether, in light of the new trial setting, the mediation deadline has now passed, but regardless, we are still willing to mediate. The mediation will need to take place in Dallas. Please let me know your availability to attend a mediation.

Thanks,
Kerry

Kerry Schonwald
Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P.
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75251
(214) 572-1714 direct dial
(214) 572-1717 facsimile
kerrys@lfdlaw.com
www.LFDlaw.com

Confidentiality Note: This email is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the sole use of the named and intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies received and notify Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P. at 214.572.1700. Thank you.

From: Adam Tucker [mailto:adamtucker619@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:06 PM
To: Kerry Schonwald
Subject: Re: Knuff v. Tucker

Kerry,
Once again, this case is a gross abuse of wealth and power by your client, Mr. Knuff, your employer Mr. Lowinsohn, and your judge Lowry that granted jurisdiction in Texas instead of California as it should have been. With that said, I am presently unemployed and do not have the resources to fly to Dallas and participate in Mr. Knuff’s et. al affront to our judicial system.

I have maintained my position throughout our communications and only signed paperwork out of ignorance to my rights and duress at my place of work. My previous employer was not pleased to have a man claiming to represent the Dallas district court, calling our business line to tell me that I had to sign court papers. If Daniel was in fact calling form the Dallas district court, I would be curious to learn if this is a courtesy extended to all personal lawsuits or just those that are friends of the family… In an effort to mitigate the escalating harassment, I signed the papers agreeing to a previous defined court date.

Considering my debt from a failed construction business and that I can’t afford a plane ticket let alone pay on a judgment, it would appear this lawsuit against me is meant to bolster Mr. Knuff’s position against Mr. Gevisser in attempt to collect on a frivolous judgment which I’m sure is being appealed.

Based on public records for Knu
ff v. Gevisser, the judgement in absentia and the cases sited for precedence, it is obvious to me that my participation in this lawsuit is moot as the appropriate parties have already been co-opted and the verdict has already been made. Under these circumstances my best course of action is to fight what ever frivolous judgment is made.

In summary, I will not sign any additional paperwork nor will I attend any court dates.

NOTEL: I am no longer employed by StePac and I don’t presently have a mailing address – I will continue to respond to email communications, and will provide a mailing address once I have secured a place of residence at which I may receive mail.

Regards,
Adam Tucker

On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Kerry Schonwald wrote:

Adam,

I have not heard back from you regarding the attached correspondence. Please either sign and return the proposed amended scheduling order to me by Friday, December 2, 2011 so that we may file it with the court, or else let me know no later than December 2, 2011 that you are refusing to sign the amended scheduling order.

Thanks,
Kerry

Kerry Schonwald
Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P.
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75251
(214) 572-1714 direct dial
(214) 572-1717 facsimile
kerrys@lfdlaw.com
www.LFDlaw.com

Confidentiality Note: This email is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the sole use of the named and intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies received and notify Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P. at 214.572.1700. Thank you.

From: Kerry Schonwald
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:12 PM
To: ‘adamtucker619@gmail.com’
Subject: Knuff v. Tucker

Adam,

Please see the attached correspondence.

Thanks,
Kerry

Kerry Schonwald
Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P.
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75251
(214) 572-1714 direct dial
(214) 572-1717 facsimile
kerrys@lfdlaw.com
www.LFDlaw.com

Confidentiality Note: This email is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the sole use of the named and intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies received and notify Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, L.L.P. at 214.572.1700. Thank you.

<10-18-11 Tucker re scheduling order.pdf><10-3-11 Non Jury Trial Setting 1-30-12.pdf><10-18-11 Proposed Amended Uniform Scheduling Order.pdf>