This page is a copy-paste of a page created by Randy Turner, Bat World’s attorney, in response to numerous blogs, websites, and social media postings created by our 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 spreading lies about Randy on the internet and ruining his online reputation to get revenge for a lawsuit he won against her. 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.
The cyber-stalker’s own attorney tells the court she lied
Cummins initially had a lawyer but he withdrew from the case early in the litigation, informing the court that Cummins had lied and her “wild claims are false.” Cummins 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, of course, the video. Cummins would not consent to her lawyer withdrawing from the case but, after a court hearing in which her lawyer described Cummins’ bizarre claims and lies, the judge allowed him to withdraw.
$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 the gold standard among wildlife rehabilitators. Witness after witness testified about Amanda’s love, devotion and compassion toward animals and totally disproved each and every malicious lie Cummins had spread across the internet. After listening to all of the witnesses, viewing videos, and scientific literature, and after considering Cummins’ testimony as well as all her “evidence,” Judge Bill Brigham not only found that Cummins’ accusations against Amanda were completely false but that her lies were “egregious as well as malicious as well as intentional.” He further stated on the record 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 later added Amanda’s California lawyer and California Judge Goodson to her obsessive vendetta. 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 them and their families–including home addresses, dates of birth, children’s names and birth dates, spouses’ names, birth dates and employers, where children attend school, parents, monthly income, a brother’s suicide, court records from an old bankruptcy, eating habits, divorce information, educational backgrounds, non-profit boards that a spouse serves on, photographs and real estate information on a home for sale, bank records, a judge’s personal hobby, high school yearbook photographs, veterinary records of pets, 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 so she knows how to spread her venom far and wide across the web and get it near the top of Google searches.
Stalking a war hero 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. This caused Cummins to angrily announce in frustration, “I reserve the right to depose Ms. Lollar again to get the name of the nursing home!” After the deposition Cummins 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 true 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 where he lived? Cummins’ interrogation of Amanda about her dad’s location followed by her sinister announcement that she had known where he was all along were clearly intended as a thinly-veiled threat. Amanda’s dad had nothing to do with Cummins or the case. This deranged cyber-stalker’s sick obsession with Amanda’s loving, helpless father terrified Amanda, 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 judges
The cyber-stalker does not tolerate judges who rule against her. Even the distinguished judge who presided over the Texas trial did not escape her rage. Not content with smearing Judge Brigham on the internet, Cummins 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. 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. Cummins also launched an internet smear campaign against a California judge who denied her preposterous application for a restraining order against Amanda. (See below). She created a blog about the judge on the internet and published as much personal information about the judge’s family as she was able to dig up, including information about the judge’s father, husband, ex-husband, her daughter’s name and date of birth, a link to a list of all the judge’s assets and investments, the judge’s income, information about her ex-husband’s new wife and daughter and their horse hobby, and much much more. As usual–and consistent with her standard tactic of filing complaints against her victims with government agencies–Cummins announced that she will “make a report to the judicial commission.” Like her complaint against Judge Brigham it will be thrown out, of course, but not before achieving its desired harassment effect.
Frivolous lawsuits in federal court
The cyber-stalker also started filing frivolous lawsuits against Amanda in federal court to get revenge against her. Of course no lawyer is representing her in these personal vendettas but, because she has been involved in over 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 many years ago along with ten anonymous “John Does,” alleging defamation and various idiotic 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.) As usual her frivolous lawsuit against this expert witness was quickly thrown out by the judge. Although Cummins also tried desperately to convince the judge that her lawsuit against Amanda and her “John Does” was not frivolous her entire case was summarily thrown out of court. She tried to appeal the judge’s ruling but the Court of Appeals dismissed her frivolous appeal.
Because her harassment lawsuit against Amanda was a total loser, Cummins decided to file a second retaliation lawsuit in California federal court against Amanda. In this second case she added 15 new defendants–some of whom were on Bat World’s board of directors and others no one has ever heard of–claiming that she had been wronged in various ways while she was at Bat World. One of her sillier allegations was that she had bumped her head while trying to climb through a window at Bat World and it was somehow the fault of these 15 people who were not even in the same city when it supposedly happened. After ruling that Cummins had acted in “bad faith” the judge threw out most of her allegations in this second frivolous lawsuit and then transferred her bump-on-the-head claim to a Texas court. Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is demanding $500,000 in her head-bump lawsuit for her supposed “injuries.” The Texas judge, on his own and without being asked, promptly dismissed 13 of her victims from the lawsuit. Fortunately, her head-bump claim against Amanda and two others is going to be dismissed by summary judgment so that the court’s time will not be wasted on a trial.
Predictably, not long after her first two frivolous lawsuits were tossed out of California federal court Cummins decided to try her luck in state court and filed a third harassment lawsuit against Amanda to get revenge, this time in California superior court.
Frivolous lawsuits in state court
As expected, after listening to Cummins try to justify her third ridiculous lawsuit in which she requested a restraining order against Amanda, the superior court judge not only threw it out, she also ordered Cummins to pay Amanda’s lawyers over $6,000 in attorney’s fees for having to respond to such a frivolous lawsuit. The fact that the judge ordered her to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees speaks volumes, since judges normally only do this in the most blatant cases of lawsuit abuse. Of course the cyber-stalker was furious and within hours after the court’s ruling, she was back at her computer, viciously attacking and smearing the judge on the internet. It seems she didn’t appreciate the judge throwing out her lawsuit and telling her to “get out there and start working to pay the judgment.” In what Cummins’ victims would call a gross understatement, the judge also informed her that both she and her application for a restraining order against Amanda were “annoying.” As usual, the cyber-stalker filed her standard frivolous “motion to reconsider” and, as usual, it was denied….which prompted Cummins to quickly post on the internet that the judge has “major mental issues” and that “most of the reviews (of the judge) call her ‘old, crazy, lazy bitch.’” The various federal and state courts are obviously tired of her endless frivolous lawsuits, motions and appeals. Unfortunately, vexatious litigants like Cummins clog up the courts and prevent legitimate cases from being heard.
Suing her neighbor, Los Angeles, and the CEO of Google
Cummins has been filing bizarre lawsuits against her victims in state courts for many years. The following are just a few examples. She once sued her neighbor, claiming he “took a sledge hammer to my house, stalked my husband and me, tried to stab my husband with a machete, and stabbed the hedge trimmers through the fence at me.” On another occasion, when she discovered something about herself on the internet she didn’t like, she actually sued the CEO of Google and tried to get a restraining order against him, claiming he was hosting blogs that were “harassing, libelous, and defamatory.” Of course the court denied her preposterous request. She sued the City of Los Angeles claiming, among other things, “sexual harassment” and “interference with business relations” (this is one of her favorite nonsensical allegations that she likes to put in her lawsuits). She apparently hoped to get rich quick with that particular lawsuit by claiming “general damages” of “$1-2 million.” Needless to say, it didn’t quite work out that way and the cyber-stalker now claims she is “indigent.” Interestingly, she did not try to get a restraining order against the man in the Cayman Islands who, she claims, “said he was going to cut (my husband’s) penis up into tiny, little pieces.” (She later admitted under oath that, “I was never legally married.”) The list of insanity goes on and on and would take up pages to recount here.
False police reports and psychotic behavior
Sometimes instead of suing her hapless victims Cummins reports them to the police for “stalking” and “cyber-stalking” her like she did with a prominent California attorney, a well-known Los Angeles newspaper editorial writer, and now Amanda. Not surprisingly, after the cyber-stalker’s frivolous lawsuits against Amanda were thrown out and efforts were underway to collect the $6.1 million she owes Amanda, she frantically resumed her favorite attack strategy of repeatedly filing false police reports about her victim with the FBI, the Los Angeles Police Department and various other law enforcement agencies around the U.S. In her frustration Cummins’ public accusations against Amanda have gotten even more psychotic. Her latest lunatic ravings are that Amanda “murder(ed) her baby,“ and “committed crimes” by “ordering a hit” on her by a “paid thug,” by “committing identity theft,” “forgery,” and “extortion,” by “stalking” her, and by repeatedly telephoning her with “death threats” after getting drunk on beer. She says she is “living in fear” that Amanda “will have someone burn down my house and kill my animals.” Fortunately, it seems that the police have had more than enough of her lunacy and are now ignoring her (see next paragraph).
Threats to kill Amanda
The apparently delusional mental state of Cummins as seen in her frenetic internet postings clearly indicates that she is dangerous. While obsessing on Amanda this mentally disturbed woman posted on the internet: “The police actually told me to shoot her dead.” She has also posted, “I went through the police academy, took the gun class. I’ve been going to the range.” In response to her lunatic ravings about shooting Amanda, her internet followers posted things like, “Mary whatever you do…if you shoot her make sure you shoot to kill; if she survives she’ll sue you!” and “You have to do what you have to do Mary,” and “Someone needs to throw water balloons filled with urine at her.” (It should be noted that most, if not all, of her internet “followers” are believed to actually be Cummins herself using fake identities.) She proudly–and ludicrously–proclaimed that Amanda “will soon be arrested.” However, she later posted that when she went to LAPD and was unable to talk to a detective about Amanda, “I refused to leave the police station,” and “I will try internal affairs.” Police departments always attract crackpots and the Los Angeles Police Department obviously figured out long ago what they were dealing with. Cummins’ threat to go to “internal affairs” is a sure sign that she is going to sue the city again if they don’t arrest or kill Amanda soon. This pathological Beverly Hills woman (who, by the way, thinks she is actor Charlie Sheen’s “neighbor” and posts photographs of Jennifer Aniston’s house and obsesses about her on Facebook, Google, blogs, Twitter, etc.) seems to believe that if she files enough frivolous 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, filing police reports against them, and suing them for many, many years. When she has been sued by her victims she has claimed that she couldn’t be held liable by courts because they didn’t have “jurisdiction” over her. However, when she tried to sell that asinine argument to a Texas judge it fell flat and she wound up owing her victim $6.1 million. Numerous websites and blogs have created by her victims over the years. Here are a few of them:
Unfortunately, the current laws are inadequate to deal with mentally troubled deviants like Mary Cummins who use the internet to destroy others. Defamation law