My opening statement, closing argument in my lawsuit with Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary

Case #352-248169-10 taken from official court transcript of June 2012 trial. I wrote what is in parentheses for clarification. I generally speak better than this but I was a little nervous. Plus, Plaintiff goes first. I have to instantly incorporate the issues he raises in my opening statement and closing argument. 

DEFENDANT'S OPENING STATEMENT

MS. CUMMINS: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Mary Cummins. And I went to Bat World Sanctuary in the hopes of learning more about bats in order to help bats. Instead, I witnessed animal cruelty, animal neglect, violations of the Health Code, violations of Texas Parks & Wildlife Regulations --And violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Because of this, I left early. I returned home and Ireported them to the authorities. I reported -- I made my first report July 2nd of 2010. Now, I reported them to authorities to help protect animals and public safety. In retaliation for my reports to authorities, I was frivolously and maliciously sued for breach of contract and defamation. I am here today to show the Court that these accusations are completely untrue.

Now, I have gone through the Police Academy and the Humane Academy to become a humane officer to protect animals against animal cruelty and neglect. I'm very familiar with the laws and regulations. I've been trained to identify animal cruelty and neglect. I have been trained how to take reports, how to collect evidence, and how to give them to authorities.

I'm also a licensed wildlife rehabilitator specializing in all small mammals, including bats. I do coyotes, bobcats, raccoons, foxes, all the way down to bats. I also run a nonprofit animal rescue group in Los Angeles called Animal Advocates.

While my mother, grandfather, and great grandfather were all born and lived here (in Texas), I'm a citizen of the State of California.

Amanda Lollar is also a wildlife rehabilitator, and she rehabs bats in Mineral Wells, Texas. Now, earlier her attorney had stated that she runs the largest bat sanctuary in the world, and that's -- just to show that the difference in perception, she has 300 bats in her sanctuary. The largest bat sanctuary in the world -- and I want to give you the World Book of Record -- is 1.8 to 2.5 million bats. That is the disparity in perception here.

And she has stated under oath that she has not gone past the 9th grade (actually 8th), that she is not a veterinarian, yet she performs surgery on bats, surgery sometimes on conscious bats. She admits she has never taken any classes in animal care, and she's learned what she knows through the, quote, unquote, The school of life, and quote, unquote, Trial and error. She even stated that she taught herself how to perform surgery on bats, how to amputate wings. She stated that sometimes when she uses anesthesia she doesn't use it properly or legally and sometimes the bats die.

Now, people have been complaining about Ms. Lollar for about 18 years, ever since she started. In her first manual in 1994, she recommended freezing bats to death, which is not just illegal but is also inhumane and animal cruelty. And also for the past 18 years the Health Department of the City of Mineral Wells and other people in Mineral Wells have been complaining about her buildings. They have been complaining about the -- about the smell and the accumulation of guano. In fact, back in 1999 a rabid bat directly next door to Ms. Lollar's sanctuary bit a toddler on the cheek and that toddler had to go -- the bat tested positive for rabies and the toddler and had to be -- go through a string of injections.

Now, I'm also going to be bringing forth a witness named Casey Minton (Kay Singleton), she's also a wildlife rehabilitator who does small mammals, including bats. And she lives and operates here in Fort Worth, Texas. She also interned at Bat World Sanctuary when I was there in June of 2010. And she will verify what I'm telling you today, and she will agree that she witnessed what I witnessed when she was there. She also left the internship early in disgust because of what she witnessed. She was bitten by mites and lice and ended up making some complaints with the Health Department.

Now, I was invited to be an intern at Bat World Sanctuary in 2010, and I witnessed her using drugs improperly. I witnessed her possessing, giving rabies vaccinations to bats, which is illegal. I found a one-wing bat that had died under her desk. It had been dead a couple of days at least. Legally we must check every bat, every animal every day. She obviously had failed to do so. I saw a severely malnourished Pallid bat. It was shaking and it crawled out of its roost to beg for food and I gave it food. I noticed that she had all of the dogs debarked.

Now, as soon as I left the internship early, within days I reported her to authorities. In retaliation for my reporting her to authorities, plaintiffs have filed this frivolous and malicious lawsuit against me. They have also libeled and defamed me calling me a convicted felon, a convicted criminal. And I have never been charged with or convicted of a crime in my entire life. They have stated I have sabotaged doctors. I was convicted of forgery and theft. They have libeled me all over the Internet, to my family, to my friends, to my colleagues, to anyone who would listen. I was forced to file a federal lawsuit against them in California for libel and defamation. Now, they intentionally libeled me to the government agencies in the hope that they would disregard my complaints.

Now, while plaintiffs' lawyer tried to say that they received a clean bill of health, that is not the truth. The agencies did investigate and they did find problems. They were not cleared of all charges. In fact, the Health Department for the State of Texas gave them a long laundry list of regulations and instructions that they have to file, changes they have to make.

THE COURT: Just a minute, Ms. Cummins. You-all settle down over here, please. Go ahead. (John Hyatt and others were making noise, faces, shaking their head behind me)

MS. CUMMINS: And also ever since I've made complaints, I was not the only person making complaints. I have got a stack of complaints from individuals for the past 18 years that have been complaining. The Health Department for the City of Mineral Wells has been complaining for years, so has the City Manager. And even just recently, in June of 2011, there were more complaints. This is after my complaints. More complaints about the smell of guano and guano all over the streets. And Ms. Lollar has decided on her own accord, she wrote an e-mail to the City stating, "I can't be distracted by all these complaints. I'm running a world-class organization. I'm going to leave town." Well, she finally sold her building or sold -- transferred it in December and the new owner in January had to gut the entire the building. That's how bad the condition of the building was.

Now, in their complaint they state that I signed a contract. I did not sign a contract.

THE COURT: Just a minute, Ms. Cummins. There is a gentleman in the back of the room (John Hyatt) that's shaking his head and nodding back and forth. There is going to be no more of that. Do you understand? Cut it out. Go ahead. (FTR John Hyatt likes to get in my face in the hallway making menacing facial expressions and poses like he's going to come and beat me up. He's like 70 years old)

MS. CUMMINS: They stated that I signed a contract, and I did not sign a contract. When Plaintiff Lollar was asked under oath, "Where did I sign the contract?" She doesn't seem to remember. It was in my bedroom, it was in the mailroom, it was in her old office. She doesn't remember when I arrived at Bat World. She doesn't remember when I left. She states I was there four to seven days. I was there ten days. And also, there were -- there were no other witnesses except for Ms. Lollar, and her own handwriting expert stated that she doesn't think that I signed it. My handwriting expert states that I didn't sign it.

Now, plaintiffs contend that I breached this supposed contract by supposedly sharing proprietary and copyrighted data by posting photos and videos. They state that I did not have permission to take or post photos or videos. Again, that is completely untrue. I have the intern rules, which Ms. Lollar gave to me when I arrived, which give me permission to take and post photos. Not only that, but she instructed and encouraged me to take and post the photos. I even have e-mail conversations back and forth where she thanks me for taking and posting the photos.

And nothing -- none of this was copyrighted because it's a process. I haven't copied any words from her book. I haven't, like, reposted her book. And none of this could be proprietary, because she has a how-to book. How To Care For Bats, which she sells publicly, and she's posted portions of it on the Internet. Nothing that I posted could be proprietary because she hasn't tried to keep any of the information secret. She's spread it herself.

Now, plaintiffs stated that I defamed them. I reported them to government agencies. Those were privileged statements, those were fair reports. Most of the statements that they include in their complaint were made anonymously. They were made by third parties. In fact, their own expert had stated, "No one will ever know who made any of those statements."

Plaintiff has also not proven the falsity of any of the statements that I made. In fact, plaintiffs' own words and evidence will show that my statements are the truth.

Plaintiffs have stated that I have caused them financial damages. Now, the year before I went to Bat World Sanctuary they made approximately $95,000. The year after, supposedly when they were damaged, they have made almost $175,000. They have made almost twice as much money when they're trying to say that they have been damaged. Clearly they have not been damaged.

And then besides this, they have shown no causation. They have not shown that what I have said has caused them any damage. In fact, I have not caused any damage. And if anyone is to blame for any of the damage to her reputation, it is plaintiff herself.

Not only have the -- the City and the Health Department been making complaints for 18 years against Ms. Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary, but so have bat experts, true bat experts, who have Ph.D.s, who have gone to college, who have actually taken classes. They have stated in their books that people should not do what Amanda Lollar says when it comes to anesthesia or when it comes to gluing broken bones.

Now, the evidence that I will soon produce for you will show that I did not defame plaintiffs. I did not sign a contract. I did not share proprietary or copyrighted data. Plaintiffs have not suffered any financial damages as a result of my own actions. All of my actions were legal and in the public interest, besides covered under the Freedom of Speech. What I have written about plaintiffs is the absolute truth.

I'm here today without an attorney because I can't afford one. I will be representing myself to the best of my ability, but I'm not a lawyer. I will take the stand and testify to exactly what happened. I will present to you physical evidence supporting all of my statements and witnesses. Based on this evidence and my legal arguments, I shall ask that you will find in my favor and award costs, fees, and any other amounts that may be proper. Thank you.

DEFENDANT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT

MS. CUMMINS: I went to Bat World to learn more about bats, to help bats. While I was there, I instead witnessed animal cruelty, neglect, violations of the Health Code. When I returned home, I reported plaintiffs to authorities. In retaliation, I was frivolously and maliciously sued for defamation, libel, breach of contract, sharing proprietary and copyrighted data. I did not defame or libel Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary. What I wrote was the truth.

I did not sign a contract. My actions never would have even been considered a breach of this supposed contract or a violation of any law. I had permission to take and post photos and videos. I did not share proprietary or copyrighted data. I did not cause any financial or other damages to plaintiffs. If she has any damages, they're self-inflicted.

Now, in order -- The claim against me is for breach of contract and defamation. In order to show the essential elements of breach of contract that must be proven are, number one, there was a valid contract. Number two, the plaintiffs performed or tendered performance according to the terms of the contract. Number three, that the defendant breached the contract. And, number four, the plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of the breach.

Now, number one, there was no valid contract, because I didn't sign it. If you were to even just eyeball the signature, you could tell. In fact, their handwriting analyst in writing stated that it was merely probable. It wasn't even -- there is one level above probable, and then there is one which is complete identification. She was only willing to put in writing that it was merely probable.

And the plaintiffs did not perform according to the contract. I was told I would be trained on how to take care of ill, injured, and orphaned native bats. Instead I just cleaned and fed babies all day long and I just cleaned the wild sanctuary once. I didn't learn anything new.

And, number three, they would have to show that I actually breached the contract, and they haven't proven this. And also, number four, the -- the plaintiffs must show that I -- the supposed breach of the contract caused damages.

Now, most importantly you saw their financials. They're making a lot more money than they ever have before. And their only proof that they have damages is their Exhibit 36, which is merely a chart that she made up. There is absolutely no proof to see if donations or grants are down. There is no underlying documents here.

In their claim, they stated I shared proprietary data. Proprietary data would be confidential information about a company, like a secret formula. And the plaintiffs have not tried to keep any of the information secret. They have a -- This is their public book which they sell on the public Internet. Anyone can buy it. This is a how-to book which shows you how to take care of bats. If they didn't want anyone to know this information, they shouldn't have written a how-to book and sell it on the Internet.

They also stated I shared copyrighted data. Now, copyrighted protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves, it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work. Plus, copyright is a Federal claim. But I didn't copy their book and sell it. I haven't copied all their videos and sold them.

Now, the fair use of Copyright Act Section 107 states, There are various purposes for which the reproduction of a portion of a particular work may be considered fair, such as; criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. And now I think I posted about half of a page of their book, so I could compare it to another book to show that they're almost identical word for word. (Amanda Lollar's book is basically plagiarism) So that was just a portion of the book.

I also posted her 1994 manual to show that she did recommend freezing bats to death. And it states here, "This manual may be duplicated in part or in whole." So I didn't violate any copyright.

So plaintiffs has -- they have not shown that there was a valid contract. They -- They have not shown that they performed according to the contract. They have not shown that I breached the contract and they have not shown any damages as a result of the breach.

They also requested attorney's fees. Pursuant to Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code in order to recover the reasonable attorney's fees -- they cannot collect reasonable fees attorney's fees because it's barred because there was no valid contract. The plaintiffs did not perform according to the terms of the contract. The defendant did not breach the contract, and the plaintiffs were not damaged as a result of any alleged breach.

Now, the second claim of action against me is for defamation. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 73.001 states, "A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation. And thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury. Truth is a defense."

Now, there are -- to prove a cause of action for defamation, the plaintiffs must prove the following six items. Number one, the defendant published a statement of fact. Number two, the statement was defamatory. Number three, the statement was false. Number four, the defendant acted negligently -- negligently in publishing the false and defamatory statement. Number five, the plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. And in this situation, there is also a number six. Ms. Lollar states that she is a public figure when it comes to bats. So she's considered legally a quasi-public figure. That means she must also show that there was malice. And this has to do with the Supreme Court ruling of New York versus Sullivan.

Now, to the first cause that they must show, the defendant published a statement of fact. Number one, they have to show that I posted the statement. I think about 95 percent of these items here I didn't post. They were posted anonymously. There is no way to even find out who posted them. In fact, Ms. Lollar demanded that the items be removed and the users be deleted. She destroyed any evidence they would have been able to subpoena to see who actually posted some of those items. So there is no way to show that I posted them.

Now, they got their authorship expert to state that, Yes, I definitely posted these anonymous articles. But I'm sure you've heard the phrase, garage (garbage) in, garage (garbage) out. Their expert (Eric Shupps) downloaded a free software off the Internet which was in beta, and it clearly states it cannot be used for a legal case.

And one of main problems with their expert is that the JGAAP program it is a -- the main thing is that the open class problem. If you give the software program a copy of Moby Dick and you tell the software program the possible authors are the Marx Brothers, it's going to pick one of the Marx Brothers. It will never pick the person who actually wrote Moby Dick. The software can't do that.

And another main problem with the software program is co-authorship. I didn't write --The main problem is he didn't authentic any of the samples of my writing. I didn't write most of those blogs. I didn't write all of them. Many people edited them. And I quoted long passages from other people.

Now, the handwriting -- the authorship expert stated on the stand that he removed all the quotes. That's it. He didn't remove anything that was in quotes but he doesn't state that in his report.

So basically, that is garage (garbage) in, garage (garbage) out. Plus, that expert he's never professionally used that software before. He has never been an expert witness for authorship before. He has never testified in a deposition or trial using this authorship software (he never even went to high school or college).

So they have not proven the first point that the defendant published the statement. And also, they have not proven that the defendant published a statement of fact. In -- I just found out yesterday that the supposedly highlighted materials are what they consider defamatory. Some of these are questions. It's not a statement of fact.

And they also have to prove that the statement was, number two, defamatory. I stated she debarked her dogs. In here -- because that's what she told me. In here, she stated, that statement is defamatory. She stated that she just "soft barked" her dogs. There is no such thing is -- you debark a dog, that's it.

Now, they also have to prove that the statement was false. I stated that I witnessed animal cruelty and neglect. Now, I have researched the animal cruelty laws of the State of Texas. Title 9, Chapter 7 of the Penal Code Section 42.09(a)2. Cruelty to animals is if you fail to provide necessary care. And all -- this includes cats, dogs, and it also includes wild animals which were previously captured. The ill and injured bats in her sanctuary were previously captured. They were previously wild animals and now they're in her captivity. According to recent rulings, you don't have to prove that they intentionally were trying to torture the animal. It would be anything that causes any unjustifiable pain and it is also not given the animal sufficient and proper care and shelter.

When I was at Bat World Sanctuary, I witnessed -- I found a dead, one-wing bat under the desk. That I believe is neglect. And I saw her performing surgery without anesthesia. I saw the animals in pain. She could have -- She -- She should have given proper veterinarian care by taking it to her vet, which is right down the street. So I believe all the statements that I made were true.

And then it states, number four, the defendant acted negligently in publishing the false and defamatory statements. I posted about this to warn the public. I made honest reports, fair reports to government agencies. My main purpose is to protect the animals and to protect public safety and people.

And, number five, they have to show that the plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. Now, you have, again, seen their financials. They're making more money than ever before.

And number six, the quasi-public figure. For this reason they must show that I intentionally with malice posted all these things about them just to be mean and cruel. Just to -- Just to harm her. And the main purpose for me to post these things was to report her to authorities and to warn other people.

If I had seen any of these items, if I had known even just ten percent of this, I never would have gone to Bat World Sanctuary. I never would have exposed myself to rabies. I never would have wanted to witness what I witnessed.

Now, in order to show their cause of action for defamation they must prove for every statement in these Exhibits 17, 18, 19 that they meet all six of the qualifications. I'm just going to go -- read a couple of these so you can see that they don't meet all six of the qualifications.

She states here that the results of my Freedom of Information Act requests are all defamatory. Now, these are items I received from government agencies, and I posted them as-is and I stated I received them. And she states -- and I didn't even write them. So number one, she can't prove the defendant published a statement of fact. I didn't write them.

And she can't prove it was defamatory. These are government reports. I mean, people have been complaining about her for almost, gosh, 18, 19 years. And she herself stated, three people in Mineral Wells, one person on City Council, one person on the Historical Society, and then her neighbor have been complaining forever. And I absolutely don't blame them.

And she states -- I'm going to go to one here. Here is one statement she says is defamation. I stated, "I reported Amanda Lollar of Bat World Sanctuary for animal cruelty and neglect." That's absolutely true. In retaliation, she sued me for defamation, on top of this she defamed and libeled me. Absolutely true. I stated, "Her building is a public nuisance, a threat to public safety, and it smells horrible." That's absolutely true. People have been complaining about the same thing for years, including the health inspector. Here is another one. It's not even a statement of fact. "Did Amanda Lollar disgorge (forge) yet another document?" That's a question. That's not a statement of fact.

I posted, "She did indeed give the rabies vaccination to Sara Kennedy aka Winged Sonar." Now, yesterday on the stand I asked her, "Did you give Sara Kennedy the rabies vaccination?" She said, "Yes." That's the truth. Here is another one. "Her vet is credited in the manual which recommends freezing bats to death." Here is the manual. Her vet is credited, and it recommends freezing bats to death.

Here is another one. It's not a statement of fact, it's a question. "Could it be she was kicked off the task force because she lied to the Mineral Wells Health Department when she told them, quote, unquote, 'White-nose Syndrome has come to Texas earlier than expected. It is the beginning -- It is the beginning of the end.'" She actually stated in writing to the Health that was entered into evidence.

And this the task force -- this is a question, it's one. "Guess who was libeled and defaming me on Guide Star and Great Nonprofits? Amanda Lollar of Bat World Sanctuary." She posted on my account that I had been sued over 20 times and was found guilty of criminal contempt of Court. That's not true. And I got a subpoena to find out that she was the person who posted that.

"She is obviously keeping those fruit bats in cramped quarters. Her own standards prove they are too small." And here I quote her exact standards of how many bats per how many square foot, and then I do the calculations to show that based on having that many fruit bats, it's way too small. Again the truth.

"Amanda Lollar has basically admitted that the bat castle was a failure." Amanda Lollar stated on her Facebook account that she keeps taking the bats to the bat castle and they keep flying back. That's the truth. I won't go through all of them, but this is what she considers defamation, not a statement of fact.

Here is another. And in Exhibit 18, which she says is defamation, these are all websites I don't control. I didn't write anything in here except for the last page. And not only that, but their authorship person said they didn't know who wrote a couple of the blogs. I checked last night. The names of the people who own those blogs are right on the blogs.

So I didn't write anything that's in here except for this one press release which I sent out. And it states -- I wrote, "The complaint states that defendants also posted on the Internet that Cummins commits cruelty and tortures animals." I have gotten some of the results with the subpoenas that I know that she did post some of these things, but I don't have all of the results yet. Also, if I said, "The complaint also states that defendants e-mailed some of these same false allegations of animal -- of criminal activity to government agencies, such as the USDA and the Department of Fish & Game which controls Cummins' permits." One I said, Defendants. I didn't say Amanda Lollar or Bat World, and two, she actually did. She even gave me a copy of one of her e-mails and then I received another one through subpoena. In here she states this is defamatory. "The comments were posted in Yahoo, Facebook, Google blogs, Indymedia, and other websites." How can that be defamatory in any way when I don't even mention her name?

Here in Exhibit 19 she has lists of all the reports I made to the government agencies. Now, reports made to government agencies are privileged. They're considered FAIR reports. Obviously, if someone could get sued for defamation every time they reported a crime, there wouldn't be anyone reporting crimes. That's why they are privileged and that's why they're FAIR reports.

I wrote in my report, "This woman is breeding bats." She already admitted she's breeding bats. That's the truth. That's not defamation. I wrote, "She cannot see very well and lost the needle in the bat in surgery. I had to fish it out even though I wasn't wearing gloves. Her first two stitches ripped out and tore more flesh. The bat almost died from the anesthesia." She admitted to me that many have died from the anesthesia. That, again, is the absolute truth.

In fact, I admitted an exhibit where she admits sometimes bats die from anesthesia. Here is another one. "Holds a rabid bat in her bare hand." Ms. Lollar held a bat in her bare hand. She told me it most likely had rabies. She then just threw it in the trash. She didn't send it in for testing.

I will just go through a few more. And she believed the title of one of my complaints is defamation. "Complaint against Amanda Lollar of Bat World Sanctuary." I don't see anything defamatory. I made a complaint about her. She admits it.

I hit my head on an obscured window and also injured my back. The other intern hit her head as well. That's the absolute truth. The other intern admitted it today. Even though I warned her, she still hit her head.

I was bitten by insects and developed blisters. I was infested with mites, lice and so was the intern. That's the truth, and you heard the other intern state that today. "I just received this from the State Health Department in response to my complaint about rabies and rabies vaccinations at Bat World Sanctuary." How is that defamatory? And it was -- I'm not stating Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary did anything. I did just receive it. It's a copy of it.

"She uses the Isoflurane to anesthetize bats while she performs surgery. She also uses it to euthanize them." She admitted that herself. This is out of the loop (book). I also witnessed her do this personally. Yes, I did. She told me some had died from too much Isoflurane. I admitted it as one of my exhibits where she says, "Sometimes they die from the anesthesia." I'm not going to go through all of them, but that is basically what all these statements are.

They haven't proven that I have published the items, that I posted it as a statement of fact, that the statement was defamatory, or that the statement was false or that the defendant acted negligently in publishing the false and defamatory statement, the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result, and because she's a quasi-public person, she also would have to show that I did it with malicious intent.

And my entire life I spend trying to help animals and people. I used to out security -- people who commit securities fraud. I outed Action (Ashton) Technology. I stated that their IPO was boiler roomed by the Mob. I went out there and put myself with my name on the Internet and I stated this and I showed a lot of documents and facts to protect people from being ripped off.

Pursuant to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.003 plaintiffs request for exemplary damage is barred because defendant did not commit defamation, libel, or libel per se, and there was no malice involved.

Plaintiffs request for a permanent injunction against defendant is also barred because the videos and photographs that I posted, they don't violate the contract. One, the contract doesn't say that I can't post photos and videos. And, two, I didn't sign the contract and it was void, because -- and also, plaintiffs did not perform according to the contract. And plaintiffs were not damaged by any breach. Plus, most certainly, plaintiffs have not proven that I made all statements in question -- in question.

Now, Amanda Lollar's vet, Dr. Tad Jarrett got up here and he spoke, and he stated when he went to vet school, he didn't take the exotic animal track, so he wasn't trained. He said that Amanda Lollar trained him. And then I asked him who trained her he said, No one trained her. He seems like a really nice guy and I'm sure he's probably a good vet for cats and dogs. But he doesn't seem to -- I wouldn't call him a bat vet expert.

In fact, there are books that are written by bat vet experts. He didn't realize it was inhumane and illegal to freeze bats to death. He didn't understand the basics of torpor or hibernation. I don't really -- while I'm sure he's a nice friend to her, I don't think he was the best witness to state that she does a good job.

And her other vet, Dr. Messner, seems like a wonderful woman, too. Probably a really nice vet, and I'm sure a good friend of Amanda Lollar. Again, the only training in bats she has is from Amanda, so she doesn't know any better. She doesn't know if there is a better way or a more humane way of doing something. She hasn't taken any classes with all the other experienced bat vet experts.

Now, Dottie Hyatt, I know she loves bats and she really cares about Amanda Lollar. She's her really good friend who probably would do anything for her. But she was not there when I was at Bat World Sanctuary. She did not witness what I witnessed.

And Sara Kennedy, the intern, definitely, definitely loves bats really, really infatuated with them, but she is not a wildlife rehabilitator and had no other training. The only thing she knows about bats is from Amanda Lollar. So if the only thing I knew about bats was from Amanda Lollar, I would think, well, this is great. But I have met other bat experts. People with double Ph.D.s who have over 40 year's experience and I have learned the correct and proper legal, humane ways to treat bats.

And what I witnessed Ms. Lollar do was not humane. I absolutely believe it was animal cruelty and neglect. I'm not saying that she wanted to, like, take a hammer and beat a bat to death to torture it. That's not it at all. I believe she's really lost her way and cannot see what she's doing and should really being seeking outside expert help to learn more to take care of the bats humanely.

In summary, I rescue animals in California. I have been doing this since I was a kid. I think I rescued a fawn when I was six. And baby bunnies and squirrels when I was seven. I also lobby for the protection of animals to get animal friendly legislation and bills passed. I have spoken in Sacramento, I have spoken at City Council.

Now, I went to Bat World Sanctuary because I wanted to learn more about bats. I wanted to help bats. I wanted to help the people with bats. Instead I witnessed animal cruelty and neglect. As my civil duty, I reported Amanda Lollar to the authorities. Now, in retaliation, I was sued frivolously for defamation, breach of contact, and sharing -- supposedly sharing proprietary and copyrighted data.

Ms. Lollar was upset because I reported her to the Health Department. Ms. Lollar was upset because I reported her to Fish & Wildlife. She was upset about that, and she got Mr. Turner to file this suit against me. And the -- the original complaint alleged that I had no permission to take the photos or videos and I posted them all -- I took them and posted them without her knowledge after I left.

Now, the evidence which I have shown to you shows I had written permission and oral permission to take and post the photos. She encouraged me. She told me to post them. She liked having them up there. She was proud. It wasn't until people started making negative comments about her holding a possibly rabid bat in her hand did she start to get upset.

And I also showed that I posted all of the photos and videos before I left and I gave her e-mails which showed that I had posted them. And she even said, "Thank you."

Now, I have spent probably $18,000 on this case and I only an attorney for a short period of time and I paid him $4,500. Plaintiffs in this case have been filing motion after motion, hearing after hearing to drag me back here to Texas. He's dragged me out here repeatedly. He knows that I don't own a home. I have no assets. I barely have any money. I had to give him my bank statements so he could see that I barely have any money. I was down --

Anyway, my main purpose for reporting Amanda Lollar was to protect the bats and to protect the public. I do believe that her organization -- I mean, her personal part of it is a threat to public safety. I most certainly didn't post anything with malice. I posted the truth in the hopes of warning the public, so that to protect bats and animals in the future.

And I would like to ask the Court to rule in my favor. I would like to also ask the Court to award me costs and fees and any other amount to which I may be entitled. I would like to ask the Court to write an order stating that the temporary injunction is not permanent. Thank you.