So after Laur had the cockroach luck to get her eviction stay pleading adjourned for two more weeks, she just couldn't resist the temptation to flood the docket with further nonsense. I mean, it worked the first two times; surely it will work for infinity and they will never pay rent again?
So, as the judge requested, Laur's previous attorney attended the hearing. Jasmine asked to be discharged from the case, and requested the money Laur still owes her (recall that early document Laur filed demanding that her lawyer refund her $650? Lol, nope.) The judge must have said something about Laur needing to pay up to Jasmine, because in addition to an Affirmation of Service of Discharge of Counsel (document 92), Laur also filed what she calls a "rebuttal to counselor's money claim" (document 95.) But Laur filed these documents under Motion 3 - which is her schizoid demand to seal the record because she's a persecuted individual - and not her motion to remove counsel, Motion 2.
Document 93 seems to be just another version of Laur sending in her past due bill for "Earl's" HRA loan; this is also filed under schizoid Motion 3, rather than the request to stay the eviction, Motion 1.
Finally, document 94 is Laur reporting that she sent supplemental affirmations to someone called Mr. Dong (again, filed under Motion 3, the request to seal.) I think Mr. Dong is the lawyer for the landlord, Vincent Zhen. I don't think Laur copied him on many of her numerous filings, probably on purpose.
What I'm gathering from Laur placing all these documents under her third motion, rather than to the related motions, is this: I think they're already evicted. I think Laur was told that her request to stay the eviction was basically moot; to pay her lawyer and fill out the proper paperwork to release her from the case; and that they'd meet back in two weeks. Because Laur is a crazy person who cannot hear "no", I think she left the courtroom determined to pile all of her "evidence" against the landlord and her lawyer into the Motion to Seal, which she believes will vindicate her in her battle against everyone and everything.
I first suspected they were already out when Laur filed a motion to
reinstate tenancy: why would tenancy need to be reinstated if they never left? Now that she's trying to shove all of her arguments under Motion 3, essentially preparing to abandon motions 1 and 2, it seems the Truemans might just be on a great American poverty road trip already.
ETA: Seems like it's going to be a busy day at Kinkos for Laur: she's written another letter to the judge.
Laur wants the judge to lecture her (former?) landlord's lawyer about the stringent safety protocols required by Laur over her personal information, which is already public and widely distributed. Laur wants this lawyer to coordinate the sealing of her lunatic documents with her.
