Re: Terrances Two Letters for Twice the Billing attempting to pre-empt a Judge's authority through personal knowledge of the Clerk of Court Terrance Denefe wrote two separate letters to the Clerk of Court on May 3, 2010, addressed as follows: 1. "Dear Barb": intended to capitalize unfairly, and unethically, on his first name basis and personal knowledge of the Clerk of Court, encouraging her to change the hearing date sooner. Terrance, assuming the role of a Judge, states "I suggest that this matter be presented...so that we can have hearings on a court service day prior to May 14, 2010." The court date was set by the Judge at May 14, 2010. Terrance is trying to use a "back door" approach, to capitalize unfairly by an earlier date, knowing that Oksana and I have full time jobs in Washington DC and would find it difficult to take time off, and travel 1000 miles to attend. I do not believe the Clerk will be unduly influenced by Terrance's slimy tactic, and that she will immediately see through it. But it is telling that he addresses his letter in this way. 2. "Dear Clerk": on the same date, to the same person, this time, properly and professionally addressed to the Clerk of Court. This was the only letter that should have been necessary, that he is submitting a motion. In this letter, at least he is not trying to improperly influence the Clerk of Court with a personal request to reschedule the "court service day priort to May 14, 2010" the date set by the Judge. Only this letter was appropriate. Why two letters, instead of one? Terrance no doubt will bill my wife double. The "Dear Barb" letter was not necessary, and was not appropriate. At a billing rate of $300 per hour, he will probably bill $300 per letter, for a total of $600. Neither of the letters were requested by my wife. She and I cohabit in Washington dC, and she told me she never asked him to write even one the two letters. Terrance should disclose any plans he has with the person he purports to represent, and let her know the cost of any action first.