Karen Marie Kline
Santa Fe, New Mexico  98507


June 28, 2006


State Bar of New Mexico
PO Box 92860
Albuquerque, New Mexico  87199-2860


Dear State Bar of New Mexico,

I hired Tami Schneider to help me get my condo back, which was foreclosed and
sold without any papers coming to me from the time of service of the amended complaint during
my bankruptcy, in violation of the automatic stay.

Ms. Schneider wrote in a pleading that I am incompetent, which I am not. I am disabled. I would
expect a lawyer I hire to be true to the facts.

When I wanted to talk to Ms. Schneider about this, she wouldn’t return my calls. Since Ms.
Schneider uses a cell phone, her records of use for the days in question will show conclusively
that she did not call me for days after I asked by email.

Later on she refused to call me again, until after I called the Bar and they called her. At that time
she said she always returned her calls promptly. So, again, I would like to have her cell phone
records brought forward to show that she did not return my calls promptly.

Ms. Schneider missed the deadline for the Rule 59 Motion. Further, in her amended Rule 59
Motion she brought up the issue of the very low sales price, but failed in any way to substantiate
with evidence the amount my condo would have sold for in contrast to the very low amount paid
by Rick Green. The judge said there was no evidence to support her claim.

Ms. Schneider consistently ignored the fact that the Amended Complaint had been served on me
by personal service while I was in bankruptcy, and in court she failed to make the point that it
had been served when I was in bankruptcy, even though I kept writing her a note that it had.
The fact that it had is clearly shown by the Docket.

The fact of my disability and the service of the amended complaint during my bankruptcy
affected the amount of time I should have had to answer before the foreclosure was carried out
without any word to me.

I spent thousands of dollars on my condo preparing it for sale, and I had offers to buy it, all
without knowing that it had been sold at a foreclosure sale. I clearly would not have spent all that
money if I weren’t going to contest the foreclosure. I trusted that the amended complaint served
in violation of the automatic stay had to be reserved. Because I trusted the rules I was penalized
by having my whole retirement equity taken from me.







Ms. Schneider ignored the fact that I kept asking her to set a hearing on the Rule 59 Motion, and
Ms. Schneider instead appears to have concentrated on a jury thing that she filed. She did not
explain it to me, and when she billed me for the jury thing, I thought it had to do with the
immediate problem of getting my condo back.

Ms. Schneider had kept telling me that she’d gotten her real estate license and that it was very
wrong for the agency which had my condo listed to have allowed one of its agents to buy my
condo at the foreclosure sale, without telling me that such a sale was scheduled. Ms. Schneider
said that the damages were nine times. I said that I wanted to concentrate on getting my condo
back because of not having had any hearing or any way of knowing about the foreclosure sale
until after it had happened.

In court Ms. Schneider quoted the wrong rules, according to Leverick, opposing attorney.

At the end of the hearing Ms. Schneider started crying and said she could not continue as my
lawyer. The thing was, she had entirely missed the Rule 59 Motion deadline, and according to
Leverick, that made the motion be denied as a matter of law. Schneider had no response because
I guess it was true. So that was all lost.

Ms. Schneider’s quiting left me without any of the papers and the second part of the hearing was
a few days later. I had no idea about the cases in relation to the jury thing she had filed, I really
had no idea about that thing at all. I had thought she had found a way to have a jury on the issue
of whether I was to get back my condo. I didn’t know she was filing to sue Sotheby’s. She
should have been clear about this with me, and perhaps she didn’t want to talk to me on the
phone because she was feeling guilty about going off in this wrong direction.

I want my money back. Ms. Schneider charged me $5,000 for two weeks work, and she
frittered away her time pursuing the 9 times damages thing when I had wanted her to concentrate
on getting my condo back and the due process issue.

She completely deserted me, not just in court when she tearfully quit, but all along when she
started dividing her attention and failing to concentrate on the immediate issue of getting my
condo back when I had no notice of the foreclosure judgment or foreclosure sale, and when the
whole default thing was filed before my time to answer had passed.

She told me at length how seriously wrong the things were that Leverick did, but then she just
stopped thinking about them, I guess, because she got involved in suing Sotheby’s which I had
not hired her to do. I think the reason she quit was that she knew she’d gone way wrong in
where she was putting her attention, and she knew she’d lost my condo on the real issues.

In Schneider’s Rule 60 Motion she completely gets it wrong about the service of the Amended
Complaint. See page 5, and refer to the docket copy for the pertinent dates. I was served the
Complaint on March 18, 2006, and I told her that over and over again and that’s what the docket
shows.






Because I have a disability I hope that this letter will be sufficient to initiate the return of my
money for incompetence of legal representation.

Sincerely,




Karen Marie Kline

Copy: Tami Schneider
PO Box 2311
Santa Fe, New Mexico  87504
(505) 930-2407
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
______
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
__
___
__
_____
__
___
__
___
Privy
Pit
Going to Court Pro Se
My Appeal

Summary
Disposition

Reasons Not
2nd Notice
General
Calendar
Attempt 2