Ohsu Direct Deposit: Fill & Download for Free

Because the questioner - Karellen Stephens - has made this about her specific case, and not about the general idea - it’s appropriate to respond to her history, specifically.STEPHENS v. MULTNOMAH COU | No. 3:12-cv-00171-MO. | 20120718a69 | Leagle.comIn short, the Court has found you, Ms. Stephens, to be a “vexatious litigant” due to repeated inappropriate filings. This means that without prior approval, you cannot legally file anything in that court. That right there is why nothing will happen when you file a complaint such as this, regardless of its content.You have had due process, but the court has found that you abused that process in an inappropriate attempt to do wrong. I have no, personal, knowledge of your history other than what I’m reading here. I have no opinion about your case, or you. I can merely see clearly that you have misplayed whatever hand you held, and as a result put yourself in a very rare and very difficult position.Then, you appealed this ruling, and the appellate court affirmed the lower court:KARELLEN STEPHENS V. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, No. 12-35672 (9th Cir. 2017)You see, you had your due process. Process isn’t about being entitled to an outcome; it’s about being entitled to take appropriate part in the deliberative process.EDIT: based on the statements made by the questioner, it’s worth updating this answer:The court record for her original law suit is online here:http://docshare04.docshare.tips/...Her statements here have repeatedly contradicted her own sworn testimony. She wants us to believe she didn’t know about the infections at the time she testified? Yet, her daughter’s deposition (where she said it healed in two weeks) took place on 2/26/08 (see page 62 of the record), and the questioner’s testimony took place on 8/11/2008 (page 224 of the record) and the incident date is 4/12/2007 (page 253 of the record).In other words, 14 months after the incident, she testified. According to Stephens’ claims here, she was still in the middle of treatments for her daughter’s cancer (which she edited later to remove claims of cancer). How, exactly, is it possible that she then testified that it took “two weeks” to have the burn be healed?In short, this questioner appears to have become delusional about the facts in the case, to the point of directly contradicting her sworn testimony and the testimony of her daughter and husband. That certainly goes a long way to explain why the court, now, is barring her from filing anything without review.SECOND EDIT:One last thing: why, you might ask, would the court think this litigant vexatious? Look at one of the cases they filed in this matter:Qadira Stephens v. Multnomah County OHSU Providence for Malpractice, Child Abuse, Burn, Hate Crime.Go to the end, 68 of 71, and read their demands for relief: They ask for $11,110,000 (yes, more than eleven million dollars), ask the court to re-write the summary judgment laws, compel the FBI to investigate, to somehow erase both federal and state cases which were already closed, convene a grand jury about alleged crimes, and more. In all the years I’ve practiced law, I’ve never seen such demands in a legitimate filing. This is the epitome of a vexatious filing, not to mention the litigant’s history as a whole.