This is another Chapter in the American Nazi Lawyer/Judge Mafia “Secret Combinations” Secret Society Shadow Governments (as predicted by the Ancient American Indian Scriptures).
Fighting Against Jesus!!!
One of the main problems in American governments today is we neither have an Ounce of Prevention OR a Pound of Cure when it comes to wide spread and open government corruptions. After siting dozens of notorious and publicly exposed police department corruptions across America the author states:
“Incidents like these are only a sampling of the extent of police corruptions across the country. But large or small, they have one thing in common. The ordinary police officer, however honest, looked the other way, or got out [of the department], or once in a great while anonymously reported a specific payoff. In none of them was there a cop willing to blow the whistle on his own [the Blue Code of Silence], and then step forward, as would be expected in any other criminal proceeding, and testify openly in court. In none of them was there a Frank Serpico.” Page 140, SERPICO, by Peter Maas, 23rd printing August 1976, copyright 1973.
What the visitor will witness in these seven OCDC BAR Cover-up pages is nothing less than what had gone on in the police departments that so outraged the Public, the People, Society, to the extent that a book like Serpice had 23 printings in four years. My copy is a 23rd printing and I am unable to find how many printings there are after that.
I suppose that I, Jim Kelley, would be comparable to Frank Serpico when it comes to my willingness to stand up against the American Nazi Lawyer/Judge Mafia of today. It would seem no one else has the guts to really join me with the one public servant exception of the Honorable Josh Hawley, former Missouri A.G. and current U.S. Senator, and a hand full of people who gave their names on gofundme.
The state BARs should be the Ounce of Prevention for lawyer and judge corruptions. And if the BAR doesn’t do their job then it falls on the Missouri Supreme Court to meter out the Pound of Cure because they have the direct responsibility to personally supervise the BAR activities. So in any case IF the BAR was to do its job and meter out an Ounce of Prevention then the Supreme Court would not have to meter out its Pound of Cure. As is often the case, when those who are initially responsible for the ounce of anything does not do their jobs, then it falls upon the supervisors to meter out their pound of solutions to make up for the failure of the first ounce to be successfully. So in this case the Mo. Supreme Court might have to expend 16 times the efforts to right the wrongs that the BAR’s ounce should have done. Mo. Supreme Court; blame the BAR, not me, or blame yourselves for not properly supervising the BAR. The “buck stops” at the Mo. Supreme Court when it comes to anything pertaining to anything with Mo. lawyers and judges! And if the BAR and the Mo. Supreme Court does nothing, like they have been doing nothing, then the American Nazi Lawyer/Judge Mafia will keep taking over America and eventually America will become radical Muslim and the U.S. Army will be fighting against Israel and Jesus Christ (Zechariah 14:1-3). It is not a good position to be in for anyone to fight against Jesus Christ.
OMERTA AND COSA NOSTRA
“Omertà and Cosa Nostra are a Southern Italian code of silence and code of honor that places importance on silence in the face of questioning by authorities or outsiders; non-cooperation with authorities, the government, or outsiders; and willfully ignoring and generally avoiding interference with the illegal activities of others. Retaliation against informers is common in criminal circles.
“An individual who has been wronged is obligated to look out for his own interests by finding a patron [in the case of the American Nazi Lawyer/Judge Mafia another lawyer] but not the state to do the job.
“Omertà implies “the categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities or reliance on its services, even when one has been a victim of a crime.” A person should absolutely avoid interfering in the business of others and should not inform the authorities of a crime under any circumstances.
“Omertà is an extreme form of loyalty and solidarity in the face of authority. One of its absolute tenets is that it is deeply demeaning and shameful to betray even one’s deadliest enemy to the authorities.
“Omertà is a code of silence, referred to by its own members as Cosa Nostra (“our thing”), is an organized crime syndicate in Sicily, Italy.”
Many people have observed that when the guilty have friends in high places and there is a trial of some kind (in or out of the court room), then Justice is not tempered with mercy but is corrupted with that most dangerous of all elements, misguided loyalty.
This ***OCDC Nancy Page is intended to illustrate to the Politician, and the citizen who may contact their Politician, that even when comprehensive, well documented, truthful, complaints against an Unethical, Shyster, Lawyer are properly made to the Mo. BAR, OCDC, the Missouri BAR Swamp is so deep, so full of alligators, a Missouri Licensed Lawyer openly and notoriously violating the Missouri Rules Of Professional Conduct (Code of Ethics for Mo. lawyers) doesn’t matter to the Mo. BAR, OCDC, and apparently the Missouri Supreme Court that personally supervises the actions and performances of the Mo. BAR and OCDC.
How low (low ethically) and how high (Supreme Court is as high as it gets in the Legal System) does the Swamp’s unethical conduct and behavior have to get, has to be, for this type of Criminally Insane, Double-Crossing, No Class, No Dignity, Ungrateful, Perpetual Complainer, Pathological Liar, Kleptomaniac, Narcissist, Control Freak, Selfish, Malicious, Nefarious Predator, Blood Sucker, Bottom Feeder, Cold Blooded, Parasite, Unethical Shyster Lawyers, Mental Nut-Jobs, associated with “a den of thieves” Law Firm (The English language is incapable of adequately describing these low lifes but God will have the words, in God’s language, to adequately describe them, and every soul will know just what low lifes they were.) are allowed, permitted, to prevail over, and against, the Truth and Justice?
Pictured at the very top of this page above is a photo of Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter to illustrate, to demonstrate, just how nervous Trustee Nancy must have been to come out of the shadows and present such a Dark Spirited Satanic Letter like this with 8 bold face lies. Apparently the Mo. Legal System Swamp bought those lies because they chose NOT to do a damn thing to an obviously Unethical, Shyster Trustee/Lawyer Nancy Yendes.
Those eight lies are adequately covered and explained in this Complaint featured on this Page.
Either a Code of Ethics means something or it does NOT mean a damn thing. Apparently the Mo. BAR, OCDC, and the Mo. Supreme Court thinks the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct mean nothing!
A Google search for Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct will get a person enough information to understand the basis of the following Complaint against Trustee/Lawyer Nancy and then the visitor, Politician, can make up their own minds if the OCDC was justified in NOT investigating or was the OCDC in total denial (mental disorder) and involved a cover up that would include the Mo. Supreme Court?
[This is the OCDC Inquiry that I sent to the Mo. BAR.]
January 9, 2019
Subject: Inquiries to determine if Nancy Yendes’ conduct as a licensed lawyer, acting as a Trustee, and in some acts in private capacity while a licensed lawyer, rises to the level of serious professional misconduct according to the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct.
Reference: Dale E. Kelley Will and Trust, Greene County Probate Court Case No. 1731-PRO1048
Lawyer: Nancy Yendes, BAR # 28182, 1617 W. LaSalle, Springfield, Mo. 65807
To: the Honorable O.C.D.C. and the Honorable Missouri Supreme Court,
Most respectful greetings,
First Special Note: I sent a letter dated August 14, 2018, to the O.C.D.C. which apparently triggered a “Back Ground Letter” from a nervous Nancy Yendes to you. So you may have a file number assigned to this Case already.
Second Special Note: What I am presenting here is only the tip, of the top of the ice berg of unethical behavior of what I consider as Selfish, Malicious, Predator, Blood Sucker, Bottom Feeder, Shyster Lawyers whose behavior has elevated into control freak narcissist lawyer butchery at the great expense of two innocent victims. The first innocent victim would be my Dad, a WW II, D-Day, captured behind enemy lines, POW for 10 months, veteran and the second innocent victim would be myself, Jim Kelley, the #1 Son and Beneficiary of my Dad’s Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust.
For some proof what I am presenting here is only the tip, of the tip of the ice berg, of what I could present can be observed with a walk at apowtwice.com where there are over 100 subjects, with many hundreds of pages of information, and counting, as irrefutable evidence that they fully qualify as control freaks, shyster lawyers. The reason for the name, A POW Twice, is my Dad suffered as a POW in WW II and then again, as I see it, a POW a second time, in 2011 to 2015, in the War of Elder Abuses at the hands of these unethical lawyers and one Next, Next, Contingent Trustee that is not a lawyer.
Third Special Note: My standing up for my Dad had about 10% to do with Nancy Yendes’ Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult. The Cremation Insult was one symptom of what I see (as my opinion) as a whole train of abuses probably aggravated by dysfunctional laws and apathy that are obviously intended to give lawyers unethical power, and in reality take away unalienable Rights from the People. So my pointing out the Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult is a Red Flag Warning for much more serious unethical offenses. In many ways whatever happens in these Inquiries will be too late for my Dad, for he is dead, but it is better late to do positive things, than never, for the benefit of the innocent who are still living.
Fourth Special Note: Please forgive me, as a citizen one man army, for my imperfections. The one thing I do have is the Truth and I hope and pray that the Truth will muster the Justice worthy of the Truth.
One of my imperfections may be that I am too forgiving of others, and for this cause I have tried to avoid these Inquiries, in favor of settling this whole mess, Family Curse Will and Trust, outside of any government agency but the lawyers and Trustees seem to not be willing to budge for the sake of the truth and the expressed will of my Dad specifically instructed in his Will and Trust. So I would have presented these Inquiries several months ago, instead of trying to work with the others in the meantime, but since the others have no desire to work things out I am presenting these Inquiries now.
Fifth Special Note: May I thank everyone in advance for investigating and taking into consideration what these Inquiries report?
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
- The Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust…………………………….…………..………………..page 2
- The unethical “Capture” and “Taken for A Ride”……………………………………..………..page 7
- Nancy Yendes’ failure in her Duty to Inform of a Trust…………………………………..….page 9
- A Train and Pattern of Entrapments………………………………………………………..………….page 10
- Perjury in the Court to achieve an unethical Judgment…………………………..………….page 15
- The Throw In The Towel Letter and Nancy’s BRIBE……………………………….………………page 19
- Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter to the O.C.D.C……………………………………..………page 21
- May My Dad’s Will Be Done………………………………………………………………………………………page 25
- Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………….………page 27
- An Honest Plea For Help To Bury My Dad And Mom…………………………….……………page 31
- 1/10 Or Just The Tip Of The Ice Berg………………………………………………………….….……..page 31
The Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust
My Dad’s Will and Trust was written, obviously on purpose with malice, as an Unconditional Surrender against my Dad, and myself, in violation of a host of ethics rules. Read what was obviously snuck in as a shyster lawyer trick. In my Dad’s REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT the language, “Grantor, DALE EDGAR KELLEY, reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to alter, amend, or revoke this agreement in whole or in part, and to add, subtract or withdraw any property therefrom only with the written consent of the Trustee [Nancy Yendes].” Trust, page 2, bolding and underlining added.
There was NO court ordered guardianship to justify this language so this was obviously achieved by shyster lawyer tricks, by entrapment techniques, to trap the Grantor into signing away his life to the Trustee Nancy Yendes, with the help and cooperation of other unethical lawyers, and a “den of thieves” Law Firm, in an obvious crime of collusions, and entrapments, to rob the Grantor of his unalienable Rights, that as a “competent” (Will page 1) person, and as a person “of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence” (Will, Notary Statement), no person would ever knowing sign this Unconditional Surrender provision. Question: Would the O.C.D.C. investigator reading this ever sign such an Unconditional Surrender provision in your Will and Trust as a person that is “competent” and of “sound mind,” with no court order? Can there be any other Trust found with this kind of language in it?
It was obviously pretty easy to trick my Dad into signing because at the time he was 94 years old, virtually blind, partially deaf, and obviously relied on others for information like what was in his Will and Trust before he signed. To help prove this was a lawyer trick fraud this Will and Trust signing was done behind my back, without any notice given to me, so I could have come and advise my own Dad not to sign this Unconditional Surrender.
There are additional Unconditional Surrender provisions listed under the “only with the written consent” Provision that gave Trustee Nancy Yendes 100% Power and Authority over my Dad’s own money and where and how he would live out the rest of his own life without any court ordered guardianship.
In addition to my Dad’s Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust being an Unconditional Surrender for my Dad, there was Unconditional Surrender language inserted against me, the #1 Son, without my knowledge, my not even knowing beforehand. Read for yourself:
“EXCEPT THAT I specifically declare that in no event shall my son JAMES WILLIAM KELLEY OR HIS SPOUSE ever be authorized or allowed to act as my Trustee because I specifically desire that JAMES WILLIAM KELLEY OR HIS SPOUSE not act on my behalf in any capacity whatsoever.”
I mentioned in the Court Hearing on January 17, 2018, that this language was rude, unnecessary, and in reality put everyone else in the phone book ahead of me as a Trustee which doesn’t make any sense at all. The proper procedure to not have me, or my wife, in the succession of Trustees is just to not list us. The Trust Lawyer, Paul Sherman, tried to mock me and claimed this did not put everyone in the phone book ahead of me and I was a fool to think such a thing. Obviously only a fool would NOT think such a thing.
This language is much more sinister and evil when properly analyzed. Considering my Dad’s Will and Trust was in reality an Unconditional Surrender in the 21st Century War of Elder Abuses, signed behind my back, the lawyers and Trustees knowing full well if I saw the Unconditional Surrender Provisions before my Dad signed, I would have rescued my Dad and taken him out of that “den of thieves” Law Firm for his own good and his own safety, before they did their evil acts in secret to me and this “not act on my behalf in any capacity whatsoever” was obviously what they wanted as their guarantee that even if I was to discover elder abuses against my own Dad at any time, with enough evidence to convict, I would be forbidden to help my own Dad “in any capacity whatsoever.” If a person is honest they have to admit that this is sinister, evil and of the dark side, and no ethical person, even a lawyer, would ever place their signature and/or name to such an unethical thing as this?
The Trustee Nancy Yendes did use this “not act on my [Dad’s] behalf in any capacity whatsoever,” against me when I got copies of the Will and Trust, over two years after my Dad’s death, when I discovered that my Dad wanted to be buried in a casket. I went to the Veteran’s Cemetery, where my Dad and Mom are housed in the Columbarium (urn lockers), and asked the management what it would take to move my Dad and Mom to a grave like what my Dad instructed in his Will and Trust. The answer was very favorable and the management advised me they would do that without any cost to us if my two sisters would also sign an authorization to do that.
I dutifully reported this to Trustee Nancy and her irreverent and rude response was that I was not supposed to act for or in behalf of my Dad in any matter or capacity what so ever and if I ever talked to the management of the Cemetery again she would see to it that I lost all of my Inheritance and she and Maureen (the other sister and Nest, Nest, Contingent Trustee) were perfectly satisfied with were their father and mother were now. Does this not speak volumes pertaining to an Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust with an obviously vindictive, Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult?
My Dad’s language and instructions in the Will was, “I desire to be buried in a military veterans cemetery…I also desire that my wife’s remains [already in an urn] be placed in my [“my” indicating preconceived ownership already] casket with my remains for burial,” Will page 5; and the Trust, “After Grantor’s death…pay…Grantor’s funeral and burial expenses, including any expenses of a grave marker and /or monument,” Trust, page 4. Does that sound like my Dad wanted to be cremated? Does this sound like I had a Right, as the #1 Son, to inquire of the Cemetery if my Dad and Mom’s urns could be placed in a casket and buried in a veteran’s earthen grave, to conform as much as possible according to my Dad’s instructions in his Will and Trust? Does Trustee Nancy’s response sound like a sinister, dark spirited, control freak narcissist person? I sure think so.
The Will and Trust are incorporated (Will, page 3) as an incorporated Trust Agreement and when Trustee Nancy Yendes signed by notary the Trust she obviously promised in front of her own father that she would make every effort to bury him exactly like the Will instructions stipulated. So Nancy had a First and Primary, Fiduciary Duty to bury my Dad’s remains without cremation, and my Mom’s urn placed by Dad’s side, in Dad’s casket, in an earthen grave with “a grave marker and/or monument,” which did not happen because of the vindictive Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult.
Trustee Nancy Yendes did have Right of Sepulcher, but the evidence is the Funeral Home did not honor that because of a Code of Ethics that they follow as members of the Cremation Society of Missouri which stipulates that if a Grantor of a Will and/or Trust give instructions to be buried in a casket then the funeral home cannot cremate. Apparently there was some conversation at the Funeral Home as to how Nancy would still be able to carry through with her Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult and it was decided if Nancy could achieve my signature on an Authorization for Cremation certificate then the Funeral Home would go ahead and cremate.
So in order for Nancy to do an end run around the Will and Trust instructions, and the C.S.O.M. Code of Ethics, Nancy came to me and lied to me, knowing I had not read the Will and Trust, saying that she and Maureen decided to go along with my Dad’s will to be cremated, but she needed my signature. So I gave Nancy my signature, not knowing any better, not knowing to what level my own sister was capable of lying to me.
If anyone would want to call the Funeral Home to check if they have a file on this with any notes on how, and why, this cremation was achieved contrary to the Will and Trust instructions, it is the Greenlawn Funeral Home, (417) 833-1111, and it would be the Dale Kelley cremation on, or about, January 24, 2015. I tried to contact them in the past about this and they were reluctant to talk with me.
In reality my Dad “was led as a sheep to the slaughter” (Acts 8:32) by the hand of Trustee Nancy Yendes, into a “den of thieves” (Matt. 21:13) Law Firm, where he was obviously deceived, by fraud and lawyer trickery, into signing his own life away as a virtual POW in the 21st Century War of Elder Abuses, with the abuse ridden Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust. The unethical lawyers have resisted these Bible descriptions of their law practice but in an actual comparison the Law Firm example is of a higher crime, higher offense, than the Bible example for the following two reasons:
- In the Bible example the Savior called the activities of the money changers business, and those who sold sacrifice animals, for their excessive scalping profits, the crimes that made the Jewish Temple “a den of thieves.” In reality these activities would be called “free enterprise” in today’s free market society and vigorously defended by many as only free enterprise. Obviously the Savior saw excessive profits the same as stealing.
- In the Bible example all of the Temple patrons who were scalped of their money for currency exchange and/or sacrifice animal purchases, were not robbed of their Rights they had under the law. In the shyster lawyer, “den of thieves” Law Firm example, my Dad was scalped of his good money for a no good Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust that did not even give him his casket funeral and casket burial that he paid for in advance, but in addition to all of that, my Dad lost almost all of his unalienable Rights to the Trustee Nancy Yendes. So in this respect the “den of thieves” Law Firm example is a higher crime and higher offense than the Savior’s Jewish Temple example, and deserves the title “den of thieves” even more than the Jewish Temple.
- Also in the Bible, Jewish Temple, example, the merchandise was of good quality. In the “den of thieves” Law Firm example, the Will and Trust merchandise purchased was of inferior quality.
In addition to the “den of thieves” activity in items 1 through 3 above, it is pretty obvious the Law Firm stole some things from my Dad, and myself, and gave those stolen items to Trustee Nancy Yendes as the Law Firm’s unethical payment for bringing in her Dad for the Law Firm’s business to write the Will and Trust, clearly in violation of the MROPC, for the following reasons:
- The “only with the written consent of the Trustee” Provision was not an idea of the Grantor or the Law Firm, that would be clearly the idea of the Trustee Nancy who would be the only one involved that would benefit. The Law Firm would not benefit and my Dad, the Grantor, had a huge negative benefit because of this, so why would the Grantor come up this this robbery from himself? This control freak narcissist Provision was obviously the idea and invention of Trustee Nancy Yendes because she was the only one who would have any benefited, the only one who would have reason for this provision and the only one would insist on this, and in fact the only one who implemented this for her control freak narcissist desires against Nature’s Laws, the Laws of God, most probably against Civil rights Law, and against the Mo. BAR’s publication, Probate Law Resource Guide, page 7, council; “A will can be changed through a codicil with the same formalities as when the will was signed.” Obviously this against State Probate Law or why would the Mo. BAR give its council like it did? So the Law Firm clearly stole Rights away from the Grantor, and gave these Rights to the Trustee Nancy as something of great value to a control freak narcissist Trustee, in exchange for the job to write a Will and Trust and the Law Firm clearly allowing/permitting Nancy’s influence in the writing of that Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust, would also be in clear violation of the MROPC.
- The natural and unalienable Rights for me, the #1 Son, were stolen from me without my knowledge and consent, my Right to help and/or rescue my own Dad should the occasion and/or need present itself to me with irrefutable evidence. This is also something of great value the Law Firm gave to an obvious control freak narcissist Trustee in payment for writing the Will and Trust, as well as allowed/permitted the Trustee Nancy Yendes to influence the writing of that same Will and Trust to include this theft from me, obviously in violation of the MROPC.
- The Law Firm assisted and gave Nancy Yendes her Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult, over the obvious objections of their own paying client, as obviously something of great value to a control freak narcissist Trustee like Nancy Yendes, that the client, Grantor, specifically instructed differently. The Trust lawyer, Paul Sherman, during the first Deposition (toward the very end), stupidly admitted (without me even asking) that he was present at my Dad’s funeral!!! This is huge because Sherman would have obviously been an eye witness that there was no casket and just as obviously did nothing about that. Just as obvious is that Sherman was not there as a friend of the Grantor (or he would have complained about no casket), but was there as a friend of his good buddies, Nancy and Carl Yendes. No wonder these three lawyers were so confident to include each other in their united frauds, lies, collusions, lawyer trickery entrapments, against my Dad, and myself, during the time of the writing and signing of my Dad’s Will and Trust; they were all real good buddies, and perhaps unitedly did unethical lawyer tricks against others in the past!!! Remember: Nancy and Carl Yendes were/are career lawyers for the City of Springfield and this Law Firm is a steady Law Firm Contractor for the same City, so obviously they have worked together for the interests of the City, and no doubt have taken unethical advantage of others to prove their worth to the unethical City of Springfield.
I could go on and on with the MROPC violations pertaining to the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust but I think it is perfectly clear this Unconditional Surrender included fraud, lying, deceptions, thefts, all with malice, premeditated collusions to commit entrapments, with planning and forethought, are all violations of the MROPC, and should be enforced because this is a whole string of offenses that represent a pattern that very well may extend into other Law Firm business too. How likely would it have been for Trustee Nancy Yendes to have achieved this Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust from any other law firm? Obviously no chance or the lawyer profession is in bigger trouble than I could have even imagined.
The sheer magnitude of these offenses proves this Gang of Four Lawyers have done some serious unethical things like this in the past or they would not have had the confidence to ask, go along with, confide with each other, collude with each other, with anything like this Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust at the times of its conception, writing and signing. Or in other words, if these shyster lawyers would have not been in cahoots with each other in past shyster lawyer ethical violations, then there would have been no chance my Dad could have been led by the hand by Nancy Yendes “as a sheep to the slaughter” into a “den of thieves” Law Firm, because out of these four (actually five) lawyers someone would have blown the whistle and said stop! This is how unethical these unethical Blood Sucker, shyster lawyers are with pretty solid, irrefutable, evidence to prove this!
Anyone, any lawyer, any Trustee, and in this case both Law Firm Partners, that would give their signatures, give their names, give their support, and worse yet to enact the unethical provisions of the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust, has no shame, has no ethical foundation, has no moral compass that is working at all, because what the lawyers, and the Trustees, have done under the disguise of a legitimate family Will and Trust, is craft, write, tricked the Grantor to sign by fraud, put into motion by their choices, an instrument of abuse and terror that has ended up being a Family Curse for all involved. This Family Curse has ended up in the unnecessary abuse and terrorism of my Dad and myself, but it has become a Family Curse for the unethical lawyers and Trustees who knowingly invented and supported this Family Curse, because their plans to harm others have now backfired on them and exposed them as the unethical and dark spirited people for whom they really are.
The Unethical “Capture” and “Taken For A Ride”
Before the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust was signed, there was a “capture” of my Dad out of his own paid for Hickory County home, and he was “taken for a ride” to Greene County, 70 miles away, where these lawyers and the Law firm were located, lived, and worked as their safe haven which proved to be a unsafe haven and hell hole as a POW for my Dad.
A few days before the Memorial Day Weekend in 2011, I was visiting my Dad, doing a few chores for him, and when I was about to leave, my Dad stopped me before I went out the door and said to me, “Jim, Nancy wants me to move to Springfield” to the Gardens. I didn’t even have to think about that much because I immediately answered back, “Dad, what do you want to do?” My Dad formed a frown on his face and shrugged his shoulders obviously gesturing that he would not be happy moving out of his home to Springfield. I then told my Dad, “Don’t let Nancy talk you into doing something that you don’t want to do,” and then I left confident that my Dad could stand up to his own daughter, not knowing to what extent of lawyer trickery Nancy Yendes, and her husband Carl Yendes (a lawyer too) were capable of in coercing their own father into making a move like this against their own father’s will and desires.
The next time I visited my Dad, a few days after that infamous Memorial Day Weekend, my Dad was gone. The neighbor told me my sisters had moved my Dad out and I should have seen the moving van they came with, Two Men and a Truck. Then I told this neighbor that I did not know my sisters were going to move my Dad out like this. This neighbor then looked at me with a stare of disbelief and asked, “Your sisters moved your Dad out without telling you?” I had to admit in front of this neighbor that that was correct.
There are two elements that can be proven that make this “capture” about as sinister, evil, and dark spirited as is possible.
First element is that this was done behind my back, without my knowledge, obviously because Nancy Yendes, Carl Yendes, and Maureen Royce (a sister and future Next, Next, Contingent Trustee, but not a lawyer) and her husband Bob, all knew that if I was there, or if I was to discover this move in the act, I would have stopped it dead in its tracks if my Dad even hinted that he did not want to make this move, even if I had to call the Sheriff for his help to stop it. Remember in Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter she stated, “We have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.” If this is true then why do so many things in secret to me behind my back without telling me ahead of time?
Second Element is in an e-mail from Maureen Royce to me, dated January 28, 2018, where Maureen Royce stated, “Bob [Maureen’s husband] and I were there when Dad’s belongings were packed and he was hesitant, but willingly made the move.” This is a classic example of a claim that “no means yes” in date rape where the woman says no at first, and then the a-hole guy gets her liquored up or drugged, some foreplay, and then the unwanted intercourse happens usually by sneaking in the penetration without the woman knowing what is actually happening at that unguarded moment. In this “capture” and “taken for a ride” act, Nancy and Carl prove themselves to be unethical and that they are no better than a date rape suspect at best, and may be guilty of Civil Rights violations or worse.
Apparently Nancy went to the trouble to arrange for Two Men and a Truck to follow her, Carl, Bob and Maureen, 70 miles one way, most probably unannounced to my Dad and for sure without notifying me. To say Dad was “hesitant” at first is the same as admitting my Dad said “no” at first or how else is someone hesitant? At the very least a hesitant person would say, “I just do not know if I should do this,” meaning the same thing as no, and any ethical person, with any moral compass working at all, would then say, “OK, we understand you being hesitant for now and when you are sure you want to move give us a call,” and then they would have left with the Two Men and a Truck, and paid for the bill of the moving van out of their own pockets as a lesson learned to not just show up like they did without knowing for sure that that person really wants to move. How can anything be any more obvious and plainer, when my Dad “was hesitant” that meant that he was NOT ready to make the move, at the very least not at that time.
Apparently there was some coercion that went on, as lawyer tricks, like, father, we have already paid for the Two Men and a Truck to move you today, we will be out that money if you do not move today, etc.
Anyway, it is pretty plain to me my Dad was “captured” against his will and “taken for a ride” like a gangster would do, to Greene County where these unethical lawyers had a better chance to get their father to sign the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust, which contained much abusive and prohibitive language helping to support that this was in fact a “capture” against the will of my Dad or there would be no need for the “only with the written consent of the Trustee” language along with the Trustee’s 100% control of my Dad’s money and living conditions until his death without his ability to change that without Trustee Nancy’s written consent. This was obviously conditions similar to my Dad being a POW at the hands of Commandant Nancy or else these unethical lawyers would have not further violated my Dad and left my Dad without his legal and unalienable Right to change his own Will and Trust if he chose to do that later on. The Will and Trust abusive and prohibition language are the same as fingerprints left behind, with the criminals’ own signatures, at a crime scene, and in reality these unethical lawyers were stupid enough to do that. “Stupid is as stupid does,” and these unethical lawyers cause their own captures and deserve the punishments that go along with their crimes against ethics.
Again, no ethical person would move someone who “was hesitant,” especially behind the back of the #1 Son, and then insure that the capture is complete and final by tricking the Grantor of his own Will and Trust into signing away his unalienable Rights to change his own mind later pertaining to conditions of that Will and Trust, which proved to be an Unconditional Surrender in a 21st Century War of Elder Abuses.
Nancy Yendes’ Failure In Her Duty To Inform Of A Trust
Nancy Yendes has no excuse on this one because on the day of my Dad’s funeral, February 6, 2015, I asked Nancy, point blank, “Will there be a reading of the Will?” since everyone is here today, in one place? Nancy’s abrupt and rude answer was, “NO! That only happens on TV!”
According to the BAR’s own Probate Law Resource Guide, page 15, “The Trustee’s Duty to Inform” happens when “the settlor dies or becomes incapacitated.” “The trustee [must inform the beneficiaries] about the existence of the trust…and that a copy of the trust will be given to a beneficiary who requests a copy…and the balance [of the Trust shall be reported], at least once a year.”
According to Nancy Yendes’ own letter to the Attorney General, dated July 6, 2017, Nancy states, “On June 25, 2012, I placed my Dad in a full-time Alzheimer’s unit on 24 hour lock down. The POA was active from that time right up until his death.” Considering Nancy did not notify me of anything pertaining to the Trust until her first letter of distributions, on March 13, 2017, and Nancy never notified me of my right to a copy of the Trust ever, Nancy was almost 5 years late in her Duty to Inform me of the conditions of the Trust, and never informed me of my right to a copy of the Trust. This is if being placed in an Alzheimer’s unit on 24 hour lock down, activating the POA until the time of death, qualifies as being “incapacitated?” If my Dad was not considered “incapacitated” from June, 2012, and on, there is no way to deny Dad was dead on January 24, 2015, which would still mean Nancy was over 2 years late in her Duty to Inform me of the existence of an active Trust, annual reporting of the conditions of the Trust for 2015 and 2016, and especially my Right to have a copy of the Trust. Remember, the day of my Dad’s funeral, February 6, 2015, I specifically asked about a “reading of the Will,” which should have jogged Nancy’s memory of her Duty to Inform me in case she had forgotten.
So did Nancy Yendes’ fail in her Duty to Inform, and why? Was that a part of the cover up of Elder Abuses performed behind my back, and in secret to me, and the Will and Trust revealing the truths of an Unconditional Surrender which perhaps Nancy desperately did NOT want me to know about? Did it have to do with waiting out the Statute of Limitations for the past elder abuse crimes against my Dad should I discover those? Was this a part of her plans to keep me in the dark for her Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult, knowing if I had a copy of the Will and Trust I would have known early on, perhaps before the death of my Dad, what my Dad’s will was, and Will instructions were, and could have made a difference so my Dad would have gotten his casket funeral and casket burial just exactly the way my Dad wanted, paid a shyster “den of thieves” Law Firm to write in a Will, and paid for the casket in his Trust? Where was the Law Firm Trust Attorney’s advice about Nancy’s Duty to Inform on this one? Good question and will be asked again in the Formal Inquiry for Paul Sherman.
Also, was Nancy’s failure in her Duty to Inform me of the Trust her backup plans of entrapment should I get a copy of the Will and Trust after distributions and I did some complaining about how my Dad was treated by two wicked sisters and Trustees as well as the obvious entrapment process that the “den of thieves” Law Firm used to get my Dad to sign his Unconditional Surrender complete with the hook for the entrapment, a promise to be buried in a casket, which ended up being a lie for the purpose of entrapment?
A Train and a Pattern of Entrapments
It is pretty easy to see how my Dad was tricked by lawyer strategy and entrapped into signing his Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust. My Dad was 94 years old, virtually blind, partially deaf, and totally dependent on others to know what a document contained. As has been already explained in the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust section on page 2, only a fool would have signed such a document so there is little room to doubt there was an entrapment process of lies, fraud, misrepresentations, and taking advantage of my Dad’s trusting nature to entrap him for his signatures that day within the walls of the “den of thieves” Law Firm by a gang of shyster lawyers.
Now may we examine the entrapment process that led to a barbed Blood Sucker Lawyer Harpoon to my heart that drug me through two unnecessary Court Hearings and two unnecessary Depositions needlessly because on December 28, 2017, I gave the lawyers and Trustees everything they asked for, everything that they claimed that they needed, to close out the Trust, in the form of my Throw In The Towel Letter?
Here is the chain of events for this entrapment process against me, Jim Kelley:
The year 2011: The capture of my Dad behind my back and the writing of the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust with its abusive provisions against me was obviously intended to provoke me at a later time, so I would make objections, especially after I would receive a copy of the Will and Trust and read for myself the abusive Unconditional Surrender language and provisions against my own Dad and myself.
The year 2015: When Nancy lied to me to get my signature on the Authorization For Cremation certificate was also designed, by her obvious lies, deceptions and frauds pertaining to that, to provoke me at a later time. Who wouldn’t be provoked when they found out later that their own sister lied to them to get their signature on anything as important as that with lies, fraud, and deceptions?
Nancy also lied to me about any Duty To Inform me of the Trust on the day of my Dad’s funeral when I point blank asked, will there be a reading of the Will…and Nancy answered NO.
March 13, 2017, Trustee Nancy’s First Trust Distribution Letter with all manner of provoking information like the fool’s errand of holding the Trust open for 20 years and a specific mention of the POW Diary that I loaned to my Dad, through Nancy, and Nancy promised that she would make sure I got that back. Nancy purposely included several things in this letter that she knew would get my attention and cause me to make objections.
Within 30 days I made my original objections which Trustee Nancy followed some of my suggestions but never fully addressed all of my objections.
Apparently Trustee Nancy prematurely authorized my Trust distribution checks without our coming to any mutual understanding about all of my objections. Nancy’s prematurely authorizing any Trust distributions checks before all objections were fully addressed and satisfied to all of the Beneficiaries satisfaction would clearly be the fault of Trustee Nancy and she cannot honestly, or ethically, pass that blame onto anyone else. Trustee Nancy owns this premature authorization of Trust distribution checks.
May 12, 2017, I endorsed and deposited a check from the Trust for $19,700.00.
Then there was Trustee Nancy’s Second Trust Distribution Letter that came I believe the first part of July inviting me to make any objections within 30 days. I do not have a copy of Nancy’s second letter in hand, but I do have a copy “in a pile,” but I remember this as an invitation for me to submit, or resubmit, my objections with no specific warning that if I did write a letter of objections I would be in conflict with a State Law that after a Beneficiary accepts a distribution then they are forbidden to make any further objections because they signed their rights away on that. It would seem Trustee Nancy would have a Duty To Inform me of the specific law, and the specific potential consequences, especially if Nancy’s second invitation for me to submit objections was not required by law, but was only bait to harpoon me later in a scheme of entrapment.
Obviously, if this second letter of distributions with an invitation for objections was not required by law, then what could be the motivation, the purpose, of this second invitation for objections if it was not for a process of entrapment? And if this second Trust distribution letter was an element for an entrapment process how much input did the “den of thieves” Law Firm have in a collusion to steal away my Inheritance?
July 18, 2017, I sent in my Worn Out Objections, that were nothing new, but just two objections previously given which Trustee Nancy did not (or was not able to) address to my satisfaction, with some points of facts, basic observations, and two objectives (“not objections”). A point of procedure would seem that if I did not respond again with my Worn Out Objections, at Nancy’s specific invitation to address these Worn Out Objections, then it could be demonstrated later that I had in fact withdrawn anything I had earlier intended with my Worn Out Objections, making my earlier Worn Out Objections null and void for any future actions. In other words, Trustee Nancy presented a “Catch 22” situation to me and I sure didn’t want to give up any future rights pertaining to my original objections that Trustee Nancy failed to properly address to my satisfaction.
So how would this law read that I was supposed to have violated? Before a Trust check is issued, is it the Duty of the Trustee to warn a Beneficiary that if they are not satisfied with the Trustee’s handling of an objection(s) then the Beneficiary should not sign and deposit the Trust check, even if issued, until all objections are resolved? Obviously for a Trustee to not warn a Beneficiary of the law, that if a Beneficiary signs a Trust distribution check they are giving up any future rights to make any further objections, or reinforce a past objection(s), and then make obvious moves to enforce the law that the Trustee made sure that the Beneficiary was ignorant of, is a clear case of entrapment with the bait of the Trust distribution check that the Trustee prematurely, on purpose, authorized. Obviously a prudent person under these same circumstances would have done exactly like I did and cashed the check that was authorized by Trustee Nancy.
Obviously, any law that would allow a Trustee to entrap a Beneficiary like this would be at the least unethical and I would think unconstitutional.
It seems the reality is that Trustee Nancy on purpose authorized my Trust distributions checks prematurely before all of my objections were resolved, taking advantage of my ignorance of any law, then asked a second time, inviting me to resubmit my “Worn Out Objections” again, knowing a reasonable person would do just what I did, not knowing the entrapment effects of doing so. The very nature and purpose of entrapment is to entice an innocent person to do something that they would normally not do. Trustee Nancy in this case was doing exactly the same things to me as she did to my own Dad when my Dad was enticed into signing his own Unconditional Surrender with the hook of a promise to be buried in a casket, which promise proved to be a big fat lie.
Perhaps a point of law: Does the law require the Trustee to fully address the previous objections fully before authorizing/issuing Trust distribution checks? If so then Trustee Nancy would be clearly in the fault and in violation of the law on this one. Also, does the law require the new objections, after the Trust distributions, be objections of a new nature and not of a previous objections? If that is the case then the fault would clearly be of Trustee Nancy’s making on this one too.
However the law plays out, however the law reads, it is pretty clear and obvious Trustee Nancy baited me into submitting my “Worn Out Objections” without any fair and obvious warning about the consequences of the law, which ethically, perhaps legally, Trustee Nancy had an Obligation and Duty to fully inform me of that since I had already signed and cashed a Trust distribution check that Trustee Nancy obviously authorized prematurely, and apparently I ignorantly signed away all of my rights to object. And since Trustee Nancy obviously would know I had already signed away my rights to object, when I signed the prematurely authorized Trust check, then what was Trustee Nancy’s motivation in asking again for my objections if it was not to purposely entrap me? What other motivation could there be?
Also without proper and timely warning to an innocent Beneficiary of a family Will and Trust, by the lawyers associated with the Will and Trust who knew, or should have known, of this law, how valid would the application of this law be in this instance? Surely there has to be a requirement and mechanism contained within this law for an adequate warning or how ethical would a law like this be that has the potential of a Trustee holding a Beneficiary hostage like this and punish the Beneficiary for the obvious, clear, and present deficiencies of the Trustee prematurely (on purpose) authorizing Trust distributions checks first, then after the Beneficiary ignorantly signs the check (which any normal person would have done), then the Trustee(s), and lawyers, pounce on the innocent, unsuspecting, Beneficiary, unethically, without any adequate previous warning(s)?
Another element to this is, if I would have not followed through with my Worn Out Objections then in reality I would then be in violation of the NO CONTEST CLAUSE as being “indirectly…[involved to] invalidate [the buried in a casket] provision…[becoming an] opponent [and] shall forfeit any [inheritance].” This is why what Trustee Nancy presented to me qualified as a “Catch 22” scheme for the purposes of entrapment. (Trust, page 18)
In mid- November, 2017, after waiting for four (4) months after Trustee Nancy’s Second Trust Distribution Letter and my sending in my Worn Out Objections, I wrote a short note to the Law Firm, and Trustee Nancy, my stating that I had not heard from them in four months.
November 25, 2017, I was served with a summons that I was being sued by Trustee Nancy.
December 28, 2017, I sent in my Throw In The Towel Letter, that should have stopped all legal actions against me IF Trustee Nancy, and the other lawyers, Trustees, and the Law Firm did not intend to harm me, with malice, and did not collude to entrap me with their vicious barbed Blood Sucker Lawyer Harpoon to my heart. I think that it is self-evident if these lawyers were fair and honest with their dealings with me they would have gladly accepted my Throw In The Towel Letter as a victory for them, they are right and I am wrong jester, and a sure path to winding up the Trust very soon after that.
Trustee Nancy, the lawyers, the other Trustees, and the Law Firm by their not accepting my Throw In The Towel Letter as their choice is proof positive all of the legal expenses after December 28, 2017, are on them and would include any legal expenses before not already taken out of my money as not collectable because there was no Judgment for me to pay anything before my Letter and to force me to pay for legal expenses before my Letter would be an unethical hit below the belt after a Throw In The Towel.
So apparently I was being set up well beforehand for a preplanned fall, by the lawyers and Trustees, where there was bait provided for me to make objections in the first place, then an on purpose, without any warning(s) premature check sent to me authorized by Trustee Nancy which I cashed like any normal person would do, then another inappropriate invitation by Trustee Nancy for me to make more objections without any adequate warning to me if I made an objection that would be a specific violation of State Law because when I signed the Trust distribution check I signed away all of my rights to object anymore which was the keystone of their entrapment plans and process.
With Trustee Nancy, the other lawyers, the Trustees, and the Law Firm, ignoring my Throw In The Towel Letter they proceeded to drag me into two unethical Depositions, and two unwarranted Court Hearing, by their barbed Blood Sucker Lawyer Harpoon in my heart, by their choice because my choice was clearly spelled out in plain English in my Letter, I withdraw all of my objections and let’s get on with the ending of the Trust, and my Letter is their insurance that I will not hold them accountable legally for any wrong doings.
The lawyers, the Trustees, and the Law Firm ignoring my Throw In The Towel Letter, by not accepting this Letter, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt their united intentions was to entrap me, to do as much harm to me as possible, in spite of their previous and obvious lies that they wanted to wind up and closing out the Trust as soon as possible, or they would have gladly accepted my Throw In The Towel Letter as their victory to close out the Trust as soon as possible.
Can there be any doubt in any reasonable thinking person’s mind on this one? The primary goal and objective for the lawyers, Trustees and the Law Firm was to harm me, Jim Kelley, as much as possible and to hell with winding up and closing the Trust as soon as possible.
Also it would seem as this entrapment process all played out, with whatever the law was, with the Judgment stating that the Will and Trust documents (my Exhibit A) presented in the Court was ruled “not supported by the evidence, not credible and are without legal basis or authority,” then the logical conclusion would have to be that an entrapment process is superior to and trumps the center documents of a Trust, that being the Will and Trust documents themselves. That is really hard for me to get my head around that, as well as 99.99% of the people out here too, so what is wrong with that picture?
Also considering the Mo. BAR’s own pamphlet, Probate Law Resource Guide, page 7, clearly states, “A will is self-proving…,” making the Judgment’s statement that the Will and Trust (my Exhibit A) “are not supported by the evidence, not credible and are without legal basis or authority” as a questionable Judgment, or the Mo. BAR was wrong in their advice right in their own publication.
Question: How is a family Will and Trust dispute supposed to be handled like what I have presented? The Trustees and lawyers (including the Law Firm) were clearly in violation of the Will and Trust provision that my Dad instructed that he was to be buried in a casket, with their united Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult. Then I dutifully objected so as not to be myself an “opponent” to the Grantor and his Will and Trust. So could a Trustee in violation of the Grantor’s Will and Trust Provisions, keep an honest Beneficiary hostage indefinitely by withholding the Inheritance, just because the Beneficiary will not succumb to a lie that the Trustee wants the Beneficiary to agree to, and that lie would be that the Trustee has done nothing wrong when the overwhelming evidence is the Trustee violated the Grantor numerous times?
Is there any doubt, in any reasonably thinking person’s mind, of the great and urgent need for a Grantor and Beneficiary, Will and Trust, Bill of Rights like I have presented on apowtwice.com, Bill of Rights page? If such a Bill of Rights been in place during the life of my Dad’s Will and Trust, I don’t think these lawyers and Trustees would have dared to violate my Dad or me, and for sure this Grantor and Beneficiary, Will and Trust, Bill of Rights, would have trumped everything these unethical lawyers threw on the wall in the Court Hearings.
Perjury In The Court To Achieve An Unethical Judgment
As can be clearly demonstrated Nancy Yendes is so morally and ethically challenged it means nothing to her to lie and even commit perjury by lying under oath. It is dangerous enough for any person to be free with their lies outside of the court room but for an Officer of the Courts to be so willing to commit perjury puts the Honorable Courts and Honorable Judges in a dangerous situation of giving a wrong verdict in the legal process to wrongfully convict or punish someone who is innocent.
Perjury is a tough one to prove most often. However I will present two classic examples of Nancy Yendes purposely misleading and misinforming the Honorable Court to bolster her Case, puff up her wears, to get her way, even if she has to lie and mislead the Court under oath to achieve her way.
#1 Misrepresentation: Nancy spent about 30 minutes testifying that I was the only reason she could NOT wind up the Trust and finish the Trust up before the end of 2017, according to her original plans and wishes to end the Trust by the end of 2017, in order to save the Trust funds. This drama queen act included some tears, Kleenex time, the Trust Attorney Paul Sherman giving words of comfort and accommodations with leading questions that seemed to be rehearsed with some precision of executions including Nancy Yendes had no other choice than to sue me, Jim Kelley, too wind up and finish the Trust in a timely fashion.
Consider these six (6) facts compared to Nancy Yendes’ testimony of “no other way:”
Fact #1. Nancy waited over two years after the death of my Dad before she even notified me of any Trust assets to distribute and wind up. This over two years would be more than an extra year of waiting on the part of Nancy compared to most Trusts start actual distributions one year after the death of the Grantor. Obviously Nancy was in no hurry to wind up the Trust by her own time schedule.
Fact #2. According to Nancy’s own first Trust Distributions letter dated March 13, 2017, Nancy’s plans, Nancy’s intentions, in her own words, were to “keep the Trust open with part of funding to pay expenses” for the “loan of items [within the Trust] for up to 20 years.” (page 2, top two paragraphs). In reality I was the one who “objected” to this keeping of the Trust open unnecessarily for any length of time past 2017, and embarrassed Nancy into changing her mind on this. So I was the one who was the reason for the Trust to not stay open for up to 20 extra years, but according to Nancy’s testimony I was the only one who was the cause for the Trust not being able to close up and wind up on Nancy’s pretended original time schedule of closing out the Trust before the end of 2017.
Fact #3. Nancy claims she had/has a duty to preserve the Trust funds is why she wanted to wind up and close out the Trust as soon as possible. Nancy failed to preserve the Trust funds when in 2017, she charged the Trust over $800 travel and lodging expenses to take a box of my Dad’s WW II stuff to a South Bend, IN museum when UPS would have delivered the same package for $35. So Nancy cost the Trust $800 in unnecessary expenses at that time, so where was Nancy’s concerns for preserving Trust funds then?
Fact #4. According to the Trust Provisions the Trustee has complete power to do a lot of things including winding up the Trust for a provisional cause. Trust, Article VI, page 14, specifically states, the Trustee has to terminate the Trust if “the assets of the trust do not exceed Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00)” (Trust, Article VI, page 14). So if Nancy would have made inheritance distributions a bit more generous, so the balance would have been below $25,000, then there would be no choice other than to wind up and close out the Trust right then, no ifs, no ands, and no buts with no one able to complain, but then there would be no one left for Nancy to punish and abuse like me either.
There was a reason Nancy carefully planned the balance of the Trust to be a bit above $33,000, and kept that balance for almost a year, so she could go ahead with her punitive law suit against me. Otherwise Nancy would have made distributions so the balance would have been below the $25,000 mark and continue with the winding up and closing out of the Trust with no interference from anyone, by specific Trust Provision that required that. End of story, end of case, end of Trust, without going to Court by Nancy.
Actually there was no need for Trustee Nancy to have a Trust value of $25,000, or more, after distributions had started unless there was some kind of ulterior motive, which apparently there may have been several, including a control freak narcissist need to punish me as much as she could.
Fact #5. I sent a “Throw in the towel to wind up Trust” letter on December 28, 2017. The first sentence of that letter was, “I will throw in the towel, withdraw all of my objections and demands, if the Trustees and the Law Firm withdraw all of their court actions and go ahead with the final distributions of the Will and Trust.” Does that sound like I, Jim Kelley, was the reason there had to be two Court Hearings, two Depositions, and all of the other dog and pony show stuff Nancy directed after my Throw In The Towel Letter, to purposely, with malice, harm and punish me without just cause?
Time Line: My Worn Out Objections Letter dated July 18, 2018. I am served for Nancy’s law Suit on November 25, 2018. My Throw In The Towel Letter sent December 28, 2017. Nancy’s infamous BRIBE petition (obviously in response to my throwing in the towel letter sent 2 weeks prior) sent to me on January 12, 2018. 1st Court Hearing was on January 17, 2018. Two Depositions in March, 2018. Finally, on April 4, 2018, the 5 ½ hour Court Hearing when Nancy Yendes perjured herself claiming that there was no other way to wind up and close out the Trust except with her law suit along with the demand that Jim pays for all of the excessive and unnecessary legal expenses that obviously occurred after December 28, 2017, the date of my Throw In The Towel Letter.
Point of Interest: If Nancy really wanted to speed things along and close out the Trust before the end of 2017, then why did she wait over four (4) months after I presented my Worn Out Objections (meaning noting was presented that was new) before she filed her law suit? If Nancy would have really been interested in ending the Trust by the end of 2017, then she would have filed her law suit in August at the latest instead of conveniently waiting until six (6) weeks before the end of the year 2017, so the law suit would obviously have to drag the Trust into the next tax year and it would seem this was by design. (End of Point of Interest.)
I did present this Throw In The Towel Letter in Court (My Exhibit E) and I did mention that if Nancy would have taken advantage of that Letter then there would have been no need for any court hearings and depositions, saving most all the $18,000 of the bogus and excessive legal expenses that the Lawyers had obviously purposely run up and presented. I have no idea why the Judge apparently did not give this Throw In The Towel Letter any consideration. I will ask this same question when I address the Court Judgment in that Inquiry.
All of the lawyers, Trustees, and the Law Firm knew of this letter’s existence even before I presented it as my Exhibit E, and it was BOLD FACE PURJERY TO IGNORE THIS LETTER AND CLAIM THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH THE TRUST EXCEPT THROUGH THIS LAW SUIT, when they obviously knew differently!!! Again, Nancy had knowledge of this letter when she made her false claim and Paul Sherman, as well as Carl Yendes, had the same knowledge of this letter as Nancy did when they questioned Nancy under oath as if this letter did not exist!!! Sherman and Carl Yendes knowingly led Nancy by their questions into circumstances of perjury under oath when they should have known better than to ask any such questions with this letter lurking in the background that could be used against Nancy for a case of perjury later.
I have no idea why the Judge seemed to ignore my Throw In The Towel Letter but it seemed to have not make any difference pertaining to the Judgments of the court.
Fact #6. In Nancy’s Infamous Letter To The Attorney General, dated July 6, 2017, Nancy stated, referring to the Trust, “I want to close this out within the next six weeks.” Six (6) weeks after July 6, 2017, would be August 17, 2017, and the Trust did not close out until June 1, 2018, or ten (10) months additional time after what Nancy told the A.G. that she wanted to close out the Trust. So what happened to Nancy’s plans to close out the Trust “within the next six weeks” from July 6, 2017? Good question.
Boy, all of this looks close to perjury to me and perjury to falsely convince the Judge to assess the rich Trustees’ excessive legal expenses onto the poor, and defenseless, in an obvious attempt to elder abuse the old and poor making this type of perjury even worse and more serious! As a Beneficiary whose only real crime (actually no crime) was to stand up to the “opponent” Trustees, and the “opponent” Law Firm, to question at first the cremation only, and stand up for the Grantor pertaining to the Will and Trust instructions, as the one and only person involved who would stand up for the Rights of my own Dad, that was my crime!!! Was that a Crime???
Add this up: A. Nancy waited over two (2) years after the death of the Grantor to notify me there was any Trust left. + B. Nancy’s original intent was to keep the Trust open for 20 years.+ C. Nancy charged the Trust excessive expenses of over $800 to deliver a Trust related package that UPS would have charged $35 to deliver.+ D. If Nancy would have been sincere about winding up and closing out the Trust before the end of 2017, she could have distributed Trust funds faster so the balance would drop below $25,000 and then end the Trust right away. Nancy could have done this by August of 2017, with no recourse from me or anyone else by specific Trust Provision. + E. Nancy could have accepted my Throw In The Towel Letter and avoided both (2) Court Hearing and both (2) Depositions if she would have wanted to. + F. Nancy, as well as the other Trustees and lawyers, knew of my Throw In The Towel Letter that could have ethically stopped both Court Hearings and both Depositions and yet they all acted as if I never tried to avoid the costs of all of that and wanted to charge me for the rich peoples’ legal bills. + G. Nancy claimed in her statement to the A.G. that her plans were “to close this out within the next six weeks,” but she failed to keep her own time schedule on this. BOTTOM LINE: Does this all add up to Nancy wanting to wind up, close out, the Trust as soon as possible to save the Trust money, or drag things out, rack up more bills, to punish her own brother as much as she could possible do?
#2. Misrepresentation: Nancy testified in Court, with drama queen tears, helped along in this act, by the Trust Attorney Sherman, with Kleenex, and words of comfort, that the soul reason my Dad was cremated was the Veteran’s Cemetery was prone to flooding and gave all manner of fictional reasons as to why, that were not documented or verified one bit in this Court.
My response to this in Court was, the Cemetery has never flooded since it was opened in January of 2000, and even if it did, by law the casket has to be air and water tight so if there would be some standing water over the grave the contents of a casket would be safe, even if the water soaked down the four feet it would take to reach the top of a casket.
Obviously, whatever knowledge Trustee Nancy would have had prior to the opening of the new Veteran’s Cemetery in 2000, in any Springfield, City Zoning meetings as a City Attorney at that time, Trustee Nancy would have had the same knowledge in August, 2011, the time of the crafting, writing, and signing of my Dad’s new Will and Trust, so why didn’t Trustee Nancy come forward with her “concerns” at that time; unless, Trustee Nancy planned all along to withhold any such privy information from my Dad, go ahead and let him think that he is going to get his casket funeral, and casket burial, and then if necessary Trustee Nancy would use this privy information in court to justify the Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult.
No matter how well planned that this privy Zoning meeting information was kept back until the Probate Court Hearing, the obvious faults with this flood plain excuse was, A. The new Veteran’s Cemetery has never flooded since 2000, B. The City Zoning did approve the location of the Veteran’s Cemetery because it did get built, C. Nancy seems to place herself at a higher level of expertise and competence concerning the location of the Veteran’s Cemetery, than all of the City Engineers and all of the Army Corps of Engineers who worked on this project, combined, who obviously unitedly approved the building of the Veteran’s Cemetery because the end result was it got built exactly where it is at.
Also, Trustee Nancy testified that my Mom was afraid of water so that would not go well for my Mom (mind you my Mom is in an urn, cremated) to be under flood water in a casket. My Mom was also claustrophobic too, so it surprises me a bit that my sister did not use that as an excuse as to not put my Mom’s urn in a casket because that might just kill her. See how ridiculous these kinds of excuses can be?
Also, Trustee Nancy makes no mention of flooding in her April 11, 2017, e-mail response as to a reason that she cremated my Dad, giving some proof this flooding excuse was manufactured later on, after this e-mail exchange, for the benefit of the Judge’s ears. Trustee Nancy’s response on April, 11, 2017, was, “The will is not binding in that regard,” obviously indicating that in the mind of Trustee Nancy, the Will means nothing and she can do anything that she damn well pleased.
Recap: Two big lies by Nancy Yendes under oath in this Probate Court, aided by the lawyers Paul Sherman and Carl Yendes, that I successfully refuted in court, but didn’t seem to make any difference for the Judgment.
One, the Veteran’s Cemetery has never flooded.
Two, Nancy is the one who prolonged the winding up of the Trust by her own choices.
Three, if one and two above were not enough defense in my favor, the Throw In The Towel Letter was absolute proof if Nancy’s main objective was to wind up the Trust and close it out she could have done so after my presenting the Throw In The Towel Letter because it gave Nancy everything she claimed that she needed to close out the Trust without any delay pertaining to me.
It is pretty obvious the objective of the Trustees all along, from day one, was not to ethically administer a fair and honest Will and Trust. By design my Dad’s Will and Trust was an Unconditional Surrender against him but also against myself and the entrapment process against me was planned out in advance to get me to make some objections, then Trustee Nancy would prematurely authorize a partial distribution to me without resolving two of my original objections, and then invite me to make objections again after she knew that I cashed the partial distribution check, hoping to entrap me into doing something a normal and rational thinking person would do and that is I resubmitted two of my original objections that were not properly addressed by the Trustee beforehand. Was there any legal requirement for Trustee Nancy to ask for objections a second time after the partial distributions and if so would there be a legal requirement for a Trustee to give adequate warning to the Beneficiary that when they previously had signed the prematurely authorized partial distribution check they legally waved any rights to make any more objections, even if they were old Worn Out Objections?
Actually it seems logical, ethical, and should be the law, before a Trustee gives any partial distributions they get a legal waver signed by each Beneficiary that states the law, and clearly explains that when they sign the Trust distribution check they are waving their rights to object any more. Actually what Nancy did was invite me to do something that she obviously knew I did not have a right to do in submitting again my objections, and that is a clear cut case of ENTRAPMENT with all capital letters.
The Throw In The Towel Letter and Nancy’s BRIBE
First of all may I present my Throw In The Towel Letter dated December 28, 2017, which should be all of the PROOF anyone should need to prove that I should NOT be held accountable, I am NOT responsible, for the costs of the two Depositions and two Court Hearings that did not take place until well after my Letter. In Professional Boxing when someone throws in the towel, that is it, fight is over and to continue the fight, especially hitting below the belt, is so reprehensible that any professional boxer that does NOT honor a throw in the towel signal is held in contempt of the Professional Boxing Sport Authority Rules and would most probably be barred from Amateur and/or Professional Boxing for life. So why not professionally licensed lawyers?
Here is the time line pertaining to my Throw In The Towel Letter:
December 28, 2017, Throw In The Towel Letter
January 12, 2017, received Nancy’s infamous BRIBE, that if I signed away all of my unalienable Rights, admit I was the only one wrong, and I had to apologize to everyone else, and agree that the Court Records would be sealed forever, and agree to a 100%, universal, gage order, then she would drop the law suit and wind up the Trust as soon as possible so I would get some money.
So as anyone can plainly see it was possible for, Trustee Nancy was capable of, the two (2) Court Hearings and the two (2) Depositions to have been stopped and not charged to me as “legal expenses” if Trustee Nancy would have wanted to.
This BRIBE is 15 days after my Throw In The Towel Letter.
Just out of curiosity, when the O.C.D.C. investigator reads Nancy’s BRIBE, ask yourself, would you have agreed to this total admitting to guilt when you knew you were the only one that was not guilty?
January 17, 2018, 1st Probate Court Hearing. This is 21 days after the Throw In The Towel Letter.
March 16, 2018, 1st Deposition. This is 2 ½ months after the Throw In The Towel Letter.
March 31, 2018, 2nd Deposition. This is 3 months after the Throw In The Towel Letter.
April 4, 2018, 2nd Probate Court Hearing. This is 3 months and 1 week after the Throw In The Towel Letter.
So as anyone with eyes to see, can plainly see, the “legal fees” came well after my Throw In The Towel Letter, most of the fees were caused months after, proving beyond any doubt that if Nancy Yendes would have honored my Throw In the Towel Letter, which contained nothing unusual, unethical, unreasonable, or unrealistic, all of the Court Hearing and the two Depositions could have been totally eliminated and avoided as unnecessary because Nancy Yendes was given the go ahead by me as my “withdraw[ing] all of my objections and demands…and go ahead with the final distributions of the Will and Trust [as Nancy planned].” It was Nancy’s fault if she did not honor my Throw In The Towel Letter or at least counter with something reasonable. Trustee Nancy’s BRIBE was NOT reasonable!!!
I presented this in the Court, my Throw In The Towel Letter was entered into the Court Record as my Exhibit E, so I have NO IDEA how the Judge missed this, how this could have fallen through the cracks, don’t know how I could be assigned the rich peoples legal fees that they themselves initiated without any legitimate cause especially after my Throw In The Towel Letter? There was NO cause, there was NO reason(s), to continue the Law Suit after my Throw In The Towel Letter unless Nancy Yendes wanted to punish me with her barbed Blood Sucker Lawyer Harpoon in my heart and lied and/or manipulated the Court somehow on that? Of course for Nancy’s Blood Sucker Harpoon to keep working she would have to lie, misrepresent, and steal from me with the Court’s help and that took a lot of careful planning and apparently Nancy’s Plan worked because Nancy was awarded almost everything she asked for.
Actually it makes no difference, it does not matter, for this Inquiry, even if the Judge made some kind of a mistake, got confused with about 200 throwing a lot of mud on the wall exhibits Nancy’s side presented, my Letter got lost in the shuffle or fell through the cracks; because Nancy knew, had known, about this Throw In The Towel Letter, and so did her legal team, Carl Yendes and Paul Sherman, so it was unethical for them to proceed with their personal knowledge of this Throw In The Towel Letter.
If a lawyer can file a law suit against someone, level all manner of abuses, the respondent gives a Throw In The Towel Letter giving the lawyer(s) everything they said they wanted, and the lawyer is allowed to continue the law suit, running up huge legal fees, wouldn’t the huge legal fees be the fault of the lawyer for not accepting the Throw In The Towel Letter? And when the lawyer petitions the court to assign those legal fees against the poor defendant, isn’t that a FRAUD with the lawyer knowing the legal fees could have been totally avoided if the lawyer would have just honored the Throw In The Towel Letter? If this is somehow legal and not to be considered a FRAUD, with the approval of the courts without lies and fraud presented in the court, this has the potential of wide spread lawyer abuses everywhere, against anyone.
For sure, when Nancy Yendes testified under oath that there was NO OTHER WAY than to continue the Law Suit to wind up the Trust, that was a blatant lie and perjury, because as demonstrated before, Nancy knew better, and so did her lawyer team, because they had personal knowledge of, and personal knowledge about, the Throw In The Towel Letter.
Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter to the O.C.D.C
I cannot believe the GIFT that Nancy Yendes has given to me, and by extension to the O.C.D.C. with her Infamous Background Letter that she insisted should be used as a background concerning her. I couldn’t agree any more with this and may I present Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter as proof positive that Nancy Yendes may actually qualify as a pathologic liar.
May I address Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter, lie by lie, for the revelations that it contains:
Lie #1: Nancy claims that I am trying to prevent her “from collecting on a valid judgment” with her evaluation that I am using extortion. My letter to her only suggested that since I had recently received a letter from the O.C.D.C. inviting me to make an Inquiry, it would be imprudent for Nancy to schedule some kind of collections process to drive up the costs on herself until the Inquiries play out. That seems reasonable to me especially for the multimillionaires who would not suffer one bit to delay their collections process for a few months.
Perhaps these Inquires will reveal the Judgment for me to pay the “legal fees” was based on fraud, misrepresentations, etc. and as a direct result is an ill gotten gain that would be uncollectable because it is not “a valid judgment?” So the risk of discovery of the fraud and corruptions by the lawyers and Trustees would be the real threat to them and not any fabrications of some kind of extortions by me. I have no power to extort anyone but these lawyers and Trustees have had that kind of extortion powers and have unethically used it against my Dad and myself in the past and threaten to use it against me in the future.
Lie #2: Nancy claims that I have been “raising frivolous claims, wasting Trust assets…[and generally being] outrageous.” I think that the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust along with the Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult was all outrageous along with the “capture” and detention of my Dad as a virtual POW against his will in the War of Elder Abuses is “outrageous!” So who are the “outrageous” ones pertaining to Nancy’s lie #2? As an O.C.D.C. investigator reads my Inquiries, are these Inquiries I am presenting frivolous or outrageous, or some things that needs to be addressed?
Lie #3: Nancy claims the Judge never asked Carl Yendes, the opposition lawyer representing Nancy Yendes, during his asking the Court to assess the legal fees to me, “Are you sure you want to do this?” I had a front row seat and I heard it just that way. My wife Linda was in the public seating and heard it this way too. Nancy’s quote “we wanted” doesn’t even make sense that the Judge would say that, that way, when asking Carl this kind of question from the Judge’s bench.
Lie #4: Nancy claims, “As the Trustee it was my duty to preserve the assets and seek reimbursement of the fees and costs.”
It has been demonstrated previously in these Inquiries, that Nancy’s original intent, original Trust plans, included an open Trust with $25,000 funds to support this open Trust for 20 years, to do the fool’s errand of supervising a museum exhibit worth a few hundred dollars. So where was Nancy’s “duty to preserve the assets” of the Trust on that fool’s errand?
Also Nancy charged the Trust over $800 in travel expenses to deliver a box of Dad’s WW II things to a South Bend, IN, museum, when the UPS would have delivered the same package for $35. So where was Nancy’s concern for preserving the Trust assets on that? What actually happened on this was Nancy took a personal vacation to visit relatives near South Bend on the Trust’s $800.
Nancy waited over two years after the Grantor’s death to even notify myself, as a Beneficiary, there was even a Trust with assets. That delayed the winding up and ending the Trust by an additional year plus by Nancy’s choice, so where was Nancy’s “duty to preserve the assets” of the Trust by her purposely incurring an extra year of Trust expenses including over $500 in IRS tax return preparation for another unnecessary tax year for the Trust, at Trustee Nancy’s discretion?
Obviously Nancy is very selective in her “duty to preserve the assets” of the Trust developing a conflict in what she says and what she does depending on if she gets the benefits or can blame someone else for doing some imaginary wrong(s).
Lie #5: Nancy claims, “The court exercised its discretion to award fees and costs based on Mr. Kelley’s conduct and its statutory authority.” And here I thought all along that the Court’s hands were tied with the Probate Law and case law, and the Court had no discretion of its own and could not give any other Judgment than what the Court did. I am going to address this in an Inquiry about the Court’s Judgment to determine if the Court’s Judgment was according to the law or was based on the Court’s discretion because this very well may be an important question that I may be asked, and have to answer, during any Legislative Hearings. What Nancy says here seems to be in conflict with the language of the Judgment, “not supported by the evidence, not credible and are without legal basis or authority.”
According to the Judgment language any discretion was to follow the law and not make an arbitrary decision that could have gone two ways. The way I read the Judgment language the Judge’s hands were tied to the law with no discretionary choices otherwise.
It is puzzling to me how my Throw In The Towel Letter did not figure in on the “legal fees” after December 28, 2017, but I will ask about that in my Inquiry for the Judgment too.
Lie #6: Trustee Nancy’s claims again of my frivolous claims and wasting Trust assets. Answer, ditto as to Lie #2 above.
Lie #7: Nancy claims “an offset for gifts received by beneficiaries from my father during his lifetime.” Wow, that is a big lie and can be easily proven a lie and Nancy should have known that and not have been stupid enough to say that! This Indian Giver provision is found in the Trust, Article II, B., (2), (a), page 5.
First of all Nancy lied claiming this time line was “from my father during his lifetime.” The actual language in the Trust is, “…on or after September 27, 2008, but prior to my death,” which was January 24, 2015. So here we go again with Nancy’s misrepresenting, speaking a bold face lie, to trick the O.C.D.C. into thinking the offset for gifts was a lifelong process that would affect all of the beneficiaries equally. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Apparently the Trustees got mad at my Dad because he favored my family with Christmas and birthday gifts and not their families after September 27, 2008. Nancy added up the Christmas and birthday checks my Dad wrote to my family, this would include money to my adult son married with children, and subtracted that from my Inheritance. Nancy claimed all of the Trustees’ families did not get any gifts what so ever from my Dad during this same time period, 2008 to 2015.
If this would have been a “during his lifetime” offset for gifts then my two sisters would have had to pay back my Dad’s giving them a full ride college education in the 1970s, which full ride opportunity I did not take but went into the trades and served a Carpenter’s Union apprenticeship that cost my Dad nothing.
Nancy was very specific with her statement about the timeline being “from my father during his lifetime,” but it can be easily proven that the Trust states, “on or after September 27, 2008, but prior to my [Dad’s] death.” There can be NO misinterpretations here and the proof is positive and accurate!
Actually this Indian Giver Provision is suspicious on the basis of “minimum participation,” and the ex post facto legal concept, because the time period that there was any monetary transfers was the three years before the signing of the Will and Trust. I am actually surprised that Nancy (as well as all of the others) did not think this provision out better to the point that they would fake some Christmas gifts from my Dad to Nancy’s and Maureen’s families, and deduct that from their inheritances to fulfill the minimum participation element of this Indian Giver Provision. I guess that they just didn’t think of that, or didn’t think that I would think of that.
Similar to Nancy’s lie claiming this Indian Giver Provision was “during his lifetime” cannot be misinterpreted on that; likewise, this Indian Giver Provision is so narrow, aimed so directly at me, my name may as well have been on the introductory heading statements. Obviously since this Indian Giver Provision is obviously ex post facto, does not meet the ethical criteria of minimum participation, and Nancy Yendes subtracted $4,600 from my inheritance using this Indian Giver Provision as an excuse, giving pretty good evidence this Indian Giver Provision was nothing more than a premeditated fraud to steal $4,600 from the brother Beneficiary, actually giving $4,600 value to Nancy and Maureen for the two way favor by the Law Firm to Nancy for bring the Grantor to the Law Firm where my Dad was picked clean of his unalienable Rights and his money by what I consider vulture lawyers writing a fraud of a Will and Trust.
Lie #8: Nancy claims, “We have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.”
If this is the case then why is Nancy so desperate, so defensive, about an Inquiry she has not yet read when she wrote her Infamous Background Letter containing so many lies? Why all of the secrecy when my Dad was “captured” and the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust was signed behind my back? Why did Nancy not do her Duty to Inform me I had a right to copies of the Will and Trust, when my Dad was incapacitated on June 25, 2012, unless Nancy never wanted me, never intended for me, to see the Will instructions of my Dad’s “desire to be buried…,” because if I had seen that before my Dad’s death Nancy would not have ever gotten my signature on the Authorization For Cremation certificate that she ended up desperately needing, because the Funeral Home refused to honor her Right of Sepulcher pertaining to cremation, to carry out her Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult.
What does Nancy, and the other lawyers, have to hide to take such desperate measures like they have, are now doing, and no doubt will continue to do like Nancy’s tried to do with her BRIBE with total lock down, sealed Court Records, and a total, 100%, gag order for anyone to discuss the Case, that is if they “have nothing to hide?”
It looks to me Nancy, and her Gang of Four Lawyers, have a lot to hide and they are trying their very best to hide it.
Special Note: The last paragraph is a pack of lies and fabrications, with an obvious threat “of future legal actions against Mr. Kelley,” obviously meant as a terroristic threat and action against me, as a poor elder person, poor financially, $17,000 fixed annual income, and unable to hire adequate legal representation, designed to disturb my peace of mind and my home life, Nancy being a home wrecker against me in the past. See Poisoning the Well page of apowtwice.com. (End of special note.)
So what we have here, in just a one page letter from Nancy is, eight lies, and a blatant bully threat against an innocent person. If Nancy is capable of making eight lies in just a one page letter to the O.C.D.C., and by extension to the Missouri Supreme Court, then how many lies, misrepresentations, and thefts is Nancy Yendes capable of elsewhere, has done, and is capable of doing again?
Nancy insisted, “Please let this letter serve as background for you…” I AGREE WHOLE HEARTLY!!! Actually, it would seem Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter could stand alone, by itself, as proof positive that no one can believe a word that Trustee Nancy says.
May My Dad’s Will Be Done
As the last living person who knew my Dad the best, these sisters were too far removed from my Dad to know my Dad very well, may I suggest a real easy solution that my Dad would want and approve of (It is as if my Dad is whispering in my ear right now.) to happen here:
We all go back to the day of cremation and enforce the Will and Trust to its most logical conclusions as it is written and consider it to be “self-proving” and self-governing just like the BAR pamphlet, Probate Law Resource Guide, on page 7 says. All of the Trustees, who were also Beneficiaries too, obviously violated my Dad with their Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult so they self-imposed the NO CONTEST CLAUSE on themselves, effect at that moment in time, from then on and to the present.
The last standing, eligible, Beneficiary would be Jim Kelley, and therefore all the assets of the Trust would fall to Jim Kelley including where the WW II items should be housed in a museum. There were no “legal fees” that had been run up at the time of cremation so the ones who initiated those several years later (and after my Throw In The Towel Letter that Nancy took off of the table when she countered with her BRIBE) would pay for those legal fees out of their own personal pockets, as their own personal debts, that they personally initiated, as their own personal obligations.
As the last standing legitimate Beneficiary, Jim Kelley gets a variance to bury his own Dad and Mom in a casket (urns placed inside), in an earthen grave with a grave marker/monument coming as close as possible to the Will and Trust instructions, considering the two urns now involved because of the unethical cremation of Dad.
And whatever else the Will and Trust would have for the last standing Beneficiary retroactive to the date of cremation, including any win-fall items, would fall to Jim Kelley.
These conditions can easily be verified as my Dad’s will because that is my Dad’s written instructions in his Will and Trust. NO CONTEST CLAUSE, Trust, page 18.
These conditions can also be verified as that is what the lawyers and Trustees agreed to by their united participation in the Will and Trust, including, but not limited to, its crafting, writing, presenting to my Dad, and their signatures and/or implied consent as their specifically accepting being named as Trustees and Beneficiaries. They all agreed to this, before they all disagreed to this in Court. (Does that sound like a politition?)
These conditions can also be verified by the Missouri BAR by their specific guidance, in their pamphlet, Probate Law Resource Guide, page 7, that “a will is self-proving,” so the BAR, O.C.D.C. should be on board for this suggestion of my Dad’s will to follow his instructions.
An additional safeguard for all parties would be a mutual agreement no one will sue another over the issues arising from this Will and Trust Case including I will be free to pursue the legislative, and executive branches of governments, to achieve a Grantor and Beneficiary, Will and Trust, Bill or Rights, without any interference including the 1st Amendment Right to have apowtwice.com in full operation to promote the Grantor and Beneficiary, Will and Trust, Bill of Rights.
The second part of my Dad’s personal will in this matter would be if the lawyers who are the Trustees, “opponent” Beneficiaries, and the Law Firm do not willingly agree to this as their process of repentance then they should suffer the consequences of their own violations of the MROPC and be disbarred.
It does not take a lot of imagination to understand this is what my Dad would say if he were able to speak on this today. Actually, my Dad is speaking on this subject today, just like I outlined here, through his instructions in his Will and Trust and I agree whole heartedly with my Dad’s personal will on this.
So here is an easy way out for everybody, and there is a hard way penalty, outlined here if the O.C.D.C. rules and regulations allow for self-appraisal of a lawyer, and a repentance process after an honest self-appraisal by the guilty lawyers, with the Inquiries withdrawn by me as if they were never submitted, with the adequate fruits of repentance given by the guilty lawyers.
Is there any reasonable person that would not agree with my Dad on this? Considering my Dad was the Grantor, who paid all of the bills of the Trust, it was his Trust money and property, and this was his Will and Trust, shouldn’t my Dad’s Will and Trust instructions be considered in all of this as prevailing, “self-proving,” and self-governing?
In addition Nancy Yendes signed by notary obviously testifying in front of my Dad that she would be a “trusted” Trustee and follow the Will and Trust completely as Dad wanted, irrespective of what Nancy wanted to do. All of the “opponent” Trustees and the Law Firm gave their names to the Will and Trust so by implied consent they agreed just the same as Nancy to follow the Will and Trust instructions too. Where is everyone’s moral compass on this one? Apparently broke and jammed up with vice!
The name of the Trust contains the word and concept “AGREEMENT,” so apparently all of the Trustees and the Law Firm at least pretended on the day of signing to be in agreement to be faithful , “trusted,” Trustees and the Law Firm accepted money as their bond of fiduciary “agreement” with my Dad to follow the Will and Trust instructions faithfully. These Trustees, and the Law Firm, are either people of their word or they are not; and the “are not” is probably the root and center of all of the problems, start to finish, with this Will and Trust Case. When a person’s word is not their bond, then that puts everyone else that they deal with in jeopardy. When licensed Officers of the Courts, and licensed Law Firms, are not bonded by their word of honor then Society, even this whole Nation, is in terrible jeopardy for we are no longer a Nation governed by laws but are slaves to the lawyer lies and frauds.
Obviously all of the Trustees, and the Law Firm, made an “agreement” on August 31, 2011, to bury my Dad when he dies, and they all promised that if they did not bury my Dad in a casket then they would suffer the NO CONTEST CLAUSE consequences voluntarily. So why can’t these same people keep their “agreement,” their promises, today, that they all made on that today?
Never the less, not my will, but may my Dad’s will be done, as well as God’s Will in this case.
It is obviously dangerous when a person with an obvious vendetta against the Grantor, and a Beneficiary, to have the power of being the Trustee, especially when that Trustee had enough unethical influence over a “den of thieves” Law Firm to have a strong influence in the crafting and the writing of an unethical Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust, with multiple provisions designed for nothing else than to abuse the innocent.
The O.C.D.C. would have a better understanding of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct than I would have. None the less it seems pretty evident some of the infractions would include numerous frauds with numerous lies, numerous misrepresentations, and several paybacks from the Law Firm to the lawyer, Nancy Yendes, for bringing in her own father to the Law Firm to be fleeced of his good money for a no good Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust, that failed to serve my Dad’s best interests, but obviously served the control freak narcissist interests of all of the Trustees.
The fact that my sister, Nancy Yendes, obviously introduced my Dad to Paul Sherman of the Law Firm to write the Will and Trust would be no secret. My Dad was 94 years old, virtually blind, partially deaf, and would have had no reasonable way to find Sherman on his own, and Nancy admitted to introducing Sherman to my Dad.
It is pretty obvious Nancy received several “Rights” by the peculiar writing of the Will and Trust that were stolen from my Dad. For example the Will and Trust could not be changed “only with the written consent of the Trustee [Nancy].” Nancy also received all Rights and control over Dad’s money, belongings, housing and even where Dad was to live for the rest of his life without any court ordered guardianship.
I know, and it would seem most logical, that my Dad did not knowingly sign his life away like this. My Dad’s signature was obviously achieved by fraud, trickery, and entrapment deceptions, one deception was the written instructions that my Dad was to be buried in a casket when the lawyers, Trustees, and the Law Firm purposely made that instruction(s) as “The Will is not binding in that regard,” proving to a prudent person the lawyers, Trustees, and the Law Firm never intended to have my Dad buried, but all along planned their Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult from the early days of the writing of this Will and Trust. (See Nancy’s e-mail dated April 11, 2017.)
These unusually abusive provisions had no value for the Law Firm, and were a negative value for the Grantor, so it is obvious and reasonable Nancy was the instigator and inventor of these unusual punitive provisions as her coaching and advising Sherman in his lawyer work for the Grantor which is clearly against the MROPC on two counts: as the Law Firm giving something of value to a person for referring a person to the Law Firm, as well as it is unethical for the referral person to be allowed to influence the lawyer’s professional decisions for a client that was referred.
In addition Nancy Yendes got, as value to her, the peculiar provision that the #1 Son could “not act on my [Dad’s] behalf in any capacity whatsoever,” obviously giving her cover and protections (however superficial it was) against me exposing her, and the other lawyers and Trustees, for their unethical activities and deeds against my Dad should I discover enough evidence to turn them in to the authorities. Authorities like the O.C.D.C. now. Remember, Nancy Yendes in her Infamous Background Letter claimed, “We have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide,” so if that is true then why was this provision of protections included in a family Will and Trust?
Another provision of monetary value given by Sherman to Nancy as a Beneficiary, and Maureen as a Beneficiary, obviously written by Nancy, was the Indian Giver “offset for gifts” provision that was so narrowly written Sherman may as well had my name on the heading. The dates were stated as from September 27, 2008, and up to the Grantor’s death. Here are the peculiarities of this:
Peculiarity #1. The only time this provision would even apply would be from Sept. 27, 2008 to the date the Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust was signed, August 31, 2011, because after the date of signing Trustee Nancy had 100% control of Dad’s money and no one was going to get any gifts from Dad after that by Nancy’s own declaration to several family members, “No one is getting any more money from father, that is a thing of the past!” So this provision was in reality just less than three years duration and 100% of this time was before the provision was signed and in violation of the concept and spirit of ex post facto law if not actually legally in violation of a law.
Peculiarity #2. With my siblings being multi-millionaires, and myself a poor carpenter by trade, I would have been the only one who would even come close to receiving any money from my Dad if I needed help. I did need some help when I had cancer and I lost my right kidney in the operation. I needed to take off from work for a recuperation time. My Dad offered to help as charity.
I accepted some money from my Dad as his charity, and there never was any mention from my Dad of expecting his charity back. This charity to help me with my living expenses while I recuperated from a cancer operation that took my right kidney was a mutual understanding that my Dad wanted to help me out during an unfortunate time of need with generosity as its root with no expectations that I was to pay it back. My Dad offered to pay for some of the hospital bills too but I told my Dad I could do that with payments to the hospital after I went back to work. Those payments to the hospital and doctor took about three years for me to pay off and amounted to about $24,000, out of my own pocket interestingly enough with no help from my wealthy millionaire sisters or brother-in-laws, but I didn’t ask for their help either.
Peculiarity #3. Trustee Nancy claimed during the Trust distributions that my family was the one and only beneficiary family that received any Christmas and/or birthday gifts from my Dad. That seemed quite peculiar considering if the other families did not receive Christmas or birthday gifts from my Dad, and my family was the only one that did, then why were the other families favored to be Trustees and my family was specifically disallowed to even “act on my [Dad’s] behalf in any capacity whatsoever?” Does anyone else see something very wrong with that picture too?
Peculiarity #4. Trustee Nancy went to a lot of trouble to find and add up all of the checks that my Dad gave to myself and my adult son, who was married with his own children, including my Dad’s charity when I had cancer and Christmas and/or birthday gifts including to my adult son and his family. The total was right at $4,600.00 taken directly out of my Inheritance and transferred to my two millionaire sisters.
So obviously this Indian Giver Provision (my Dad was never an Indian Giver) was crafted and presented to Sherman of the Law Firm as a pay back from the Law Firm, taken out of my pocket, for Nancy bringing my Dad to him to write the Will and Trust. The other payback provisions only have value to a control freak narcissist Trustee but this payback provision had cash value for Trustee Nancy for her payback to bring my Dad in to the Law Firm and the money came directly out of my pocket.
These Christmas gifts given to my adult son’s family, and captured out of my Inheritance for the dirty hands of Beneficiary/Trustees Nancy Yendes and Maureen Royce, is an incredible concept of blasphemy against God for the following reasons:
Reason A. The Christmas Spirit of gifts is in similitude of the Wise Men’s gifts to the Christ Child and also of the Savior’s Atoning Sacrifice Gift to the world. To take advantage of, to manipulate, or use Christmas gifts as an form of punishment against another is a form of mocking the Christmas Spirit of giving, mocking the Christ Child, mocking the Wise Men’s gifts, and by logical extension mocking Christ Himself for His Atoning Sacrifice Gift to the world. This is blasphemy against the Savior in the form of mocking the Christmas Spirit and we should all know God will not be mocked without some form of judgment being metered out to the guilty of those who mock and those who support such mocking.
Reason B. These Christmas gifts by my Dad, given to my adult son, was identified early on, six years before Trust distributions, during the crafting and writing of the Will and Trust as the Indian Giver provision which included, “offspring have received…MONETARY GIFTING” and that gifting will be subtracted from the Beneficiary’s Inheritance. So this was premeditated with malice years before hand with some knowledge of these gifts to my son prior to the writing of the Will and Trust, as an obvious ex post facto planned abuse and insult against me.
Reading the Indian Giver provision (Trust, (a), page 5) a normal person with good eye sight has some trouble understanding the back and forth language. How reasonable is it that my Dad, 94 years old, virtually blind, partially deaf, would have adequately understood this Provision when he signed his Will and Trust? Remember, how reasonable would it have been to think my Dad would have signed his life away at the same time without lies, fraud, lawyer trickery, with misrepresentations for entrapment, being the reason for his signature on that fateful day? So it seems reasonable that my Dad was lied to about this Indian Giver provision too so my Dad would not know that I was being set up to have my Dad’s charity gift stolen from me. Remember, Nancy Yendes obviously felt comfortable lying to the O.C.D.C about this Indian Giver provision in her Infamous Background Letter when she knew you have good eye sight to see the lie, so why would it not be plausible that on the day of the signing of my Dad’s Will and Trust, my Dad was lied to about this Indian Giver provision too when my Dad was virtually blind?
Reason C. The Trustee Nancy took her time and efforts to search the Grantor’s checking records to identify the Christmas gifts that the Grantor gave by check to my adult son and his family. The Trustee Nancy no doubt knew these were Christmas gifts by the memo that no doubt stated “Merry Christmas.”
I did not see a copy of these checks to my son. I asked for a copy of those checks and Trustee Nancy refused to give me copies so it is possible the memo said, “Happy Birthday.” But it makes no difference, it does not matter for this illustration, if the memo was for a birthday gift, because if the memo would have stated, “Merry Christmas,” there is no doubt that Trustee Nancy would have subtracted that Christmas gift just the same anyway.
Reason D. This is obviously a case of abuse, a showing of unethical power by a Trustee, against an innocent Beneficiary, to subtract Christmas (or birthday) gifts that were given to a Beneficiary’s adult children, purposely subtracted from the Inheritance of a third party Beneficiary not involved in the gifting or receiving of that Christmas gift. In reality I am the one who gave those Christmas gifts to my children because the money came out of my Inheritance and that just seems wrong, as wrong as wrong can be. Is it even possible that my Dad made note on the cards, Thank your Dad for this money because it is coming out of his inheritance?
Reason E. How unethical, how much of a Blood Sucker, does any person have to be to steal money from the poor like my two millionaire sisters have done against me in this Indian Giver illustration here? This is like stealing from Jesus Christ Himself when a thief steals from the poor, for the Savior Himself said, “Verily [this is very important] I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt. 25:40-41)
This doing things for, or against, the poor is obviously a two edged sword with doing good things will bring eternal good rewards, and doing bad things will bring “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Is there any wonder why an angel from God visited me in the early Sunday morning on April 2, 2017, the day after I thoroughly read my Dad’s Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust for the first times (two years after my Dad’s death), and gave me audible revelations to believe that these lawyers involved with the abominations associated with the obvious abuses of my Dad’s Will and Trust would be at the head of the line for the first group the Savior would send to a “burning in hell” reward in “the first second, of the first minute, of the first hour, of the Lord’s Work on Judgment Day?” At that time I only had a particle of knowledge pertaining to the evil and corrupted events associated with the lawyers’ abuses of my Dad and no understandings pertaining to their preplanned abused towards me.
Peculiarity #5. Is there anyone besides just me, that sees a strong resemblance and relationship with these Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust, entrapment, in secret to me, with the ex post facto element, provisions against me that resulted in taking money ($4,600) out of my poor person pockets to give to my two millionaire sisters during the Trust distributions; and the unethical Judgment achieved by entrapment, lies, fraud, and perjury before the Court Judge, to take money ($18,000)out of my poor person pockets to give to my two millionaire sisters to pay for their decisions to incur “legal bills,” especially after my Throw In The Towel Letter was thrown in the ring well before the two Depositions and two Court Hearings?
No matter what these shyster lawyers and Trustees may want to say, may want to claim, about anything I have done, or are accused of doing, after the Trust distributions farce began, the fact is as plain as the nose on anyone’s face; these evil sisters, evil layers, evil Trustees, with the help of a “den of thieves” evil Law Firm, declared war on me years before I ever read the Will and Trust on March 31, 2017, two years after my Dad’s death, and almost six years after the signing of this Unconditional Surrender, that applied to my Dad’s 100% Unconditional Surrender, but also had built in provisions for my partial surrender and their abusive punishments directly against me as well, without my knowledge or any ability on my part to fight back beforehand. May I suggest: what kind of low life, blood sucker, persons does this to anyone, let alone their own kin, especially behind their back? Remember, they were back stabber, low life, Blood Suckers (protecting the will money for their inheritance) for what they did to my Dad too, so this is not some kind of Jim is the only bad guy that needed to be punished somehow by some “righteous do-gooders” that they would no doubt want to claim as their titles.
After reading these Inquiries, is there any doubt in any reasonable person’s mind that my Dad and myself were seriously wronged by these unethical lawyers, and these unethical lawyers also tricked the Honorable Probate Court into giving them aid and comfort in their crimes against the innocent?
An Honest Plea For Help To Burying My Dad And Mom
May I ask that my attached plea to help me bury my Dad and my Mom, as was originally instructed in the Will, as close as is possible now with the urns in a casket, be handed to anyone in authority to give me the variance that would require the Springfield Veteran’s Cemetery to allow me the exclusive privilege to have my Dad and Mom’s urns moved from the Columbarium (urn locker) to an earthen grave site within that Cemetery. The Cemetery Management is OK with such a move as long as the legal requirements for authorization are met for the move. The phone number of that Cemetery Office is (417) 823-3944 if a call there would be helpful.
1/10 Or Just The Tip Of The Ice Berg
What has been presented to the O.C.D.C. in this Inquiry is only the tip of the ice berg. For proof of that take a walk at apowtwice.com.
If what I have presented in this Inquiry does achieve the proper disciplinary results that Nancy Yendes’ deserves then there was no need to pile on more charges with a pile of more evidence. If what I have presented does not achieve the warranted disciplinary actions against Nancy Yendes then I suspect no amount of additional evidence would achieve anything different.
I also would hope since the O.C.D.C. seems to be by design a citizen friendly government function then during these Inquiry investigations the O.C.D.C. would give myself, an honest retired carpenter citizen who is poor in money, the benefit of the doubt and help make up for any shortcoming I have given in this Inquiry so that justice will be properly served.
It is obviously a great shame and abomination that there are so many fruits of abuses that have sprung out of my Dad’s Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust that polluted by Dad’s life and have polluted my life. But remember that the seeds of abuse were sown in the minds of the lawyers, Trustees, and the “den of thieves” Law Firm, well before the writing and the signing on August 31, 2011, for evil actions are always preceded by evil thoughts which gives proof in this case of the evil natures and evil dispositions of these evil lawyers, evil Trustees and the “den of thieves” Law Firm obviously were.
Obviously when professionals are caught violating their Code of Ethics, and the law, it is the responsibility of the professional controlling authority to make the right call pertaining to discipline. To let professionals get away with unethical, and illegal, professional activity, especially when that activity severely hurts the innocent, is not doing the professionals any favors because they will think that their unethical behavior is acceptable. “When policemen [also government and lawyers] break the law then there isn’t any law, just a fight for survival.” Billy Jack, in the movie Billy Jack, 1971.
May I again thank everyone who took the time to investigate this Inquiry and I do pray that the Spirit of God was in attendance for those investigations. May God’s Will be done with these Inquiries, and may God bless America.
(signed, James W. Kelley)
James W. Kelley, Beneficiary, and #1 Son of Dale E. Kelley, a WW II, D-Day, captured behind enemy lines, POW for 10 months, honorable veteran, that obviously did not deserve the multiple elder abuses, including the Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult, he received at the hands of the daughter he loved so much and gave so much of himself to, Nancy Yendes.
My Exhibit A, Will and Trust, with cover letter indicating that I did not receive a copy of this Will and Trust until after March 29, 2017.
My Exhibit B, The Authorization For Cremation certificate, clearly showing Nancy Yendes’ actions on the day my Dad died was cremation, and I testified that I was asked by Nancy to sign this same certificate but I do not have a copy of that.
My Exhibit C, E-mail Exchange, clearing showing that on April 11, 2017, (12 days after I received copies of the Will and Trust and discovered Nancy lied to me to get my signature on the Authorization For Cremation certificate), I was clearly upset but my attitude was “Nancy, you screwed up, admit it…[let’s go ahead with] the distribution of the Trust assets from here on out.” And Nancy’s obvious insult to any reasonable thinking person’s intelligence reply, with a forward obviously written for the eyes of a judge later because I never even hinted that I was contesting anything up to that time, “Jim if you are contesting the will or trust just tell us…,” and then her entrapment hook, “…The will is not binding…,” and that should upset every reasonable thinking person who would ever read that. Clearly, Nancy’s entrapment process was well underway with this April 11, 2017, e-mail exchange.
My Exhibit D, My two “Worn Out Objections” dated July 18, 2017, obviously demonstrating that Trustee Nancy Yendes had failed to satisfy me pertaining to these two previous Objections that my Dad was cremated against his Will instructions and that the NO CONTEST CLAUSE was not enforced pertaining to the direct violation of the to be buried in a casket provisions. Clearly Nancy authorized a Trust distribution check for me prior to this date, knowing full well she had not adequately satisfied for me these two objections, and then her invitation for me to again submit objections clearly putting me in a Catch 22 position of, if I did not follow through with these two objections I would then be in violation of the Will and Trust NO CONTEST CLAUSE, by my “indirectly” being an “opponent” to the “Grantor’s estate” instructions, by not continuing to stand up for the Grantor’s own, clear and direct instructions to be buried in a casket.
My Exhibit E, My “Throw in the towel to wind up Trust” Letter, clearly proving that the two Court Hearing, and the two Depositions, were unwarranted, unnecessary, and frivolous because they came well after this Throw In The Towel Letter that gave Trustee Nancy everything she said that she wanted and needed to go ahead and wind up and close out the Trust.
Maureen Royce’s E-mail dated January 18, 2018, clearly stating that my Dad “was hesitant” when he was captured and taken as a virtual POW against his will. Also this contains what would obviously be Maureen’s personality dysfunction of denial claiming when my Dad was cremated against his will that was “handled with dignity…as was reasonably prudent.” In addition Maureen falsely claims “the fault is entirely on you,” meaning me, Jim Kelley. Also there is what seems to be a control freak narcissist trait that Maureen states, “I look forward to the upcoming hearing…” What normal thinking person ever looks forward to a court hearing, especially if they know they can only win with perjury and misrepresentations, unless they are a true blue control freak narcissist?
Nancy’s BRIBE with Sherman’s cover letter. This is what Trustee Nancy’s counter was to my Throw In The Towel Letter, proving that Trustee Nancy was the one that took my Throw In The Towel Letter off the table according to standard negotiating rules. Just read this Unconditional Surrender that Trustee Nancy crafted for me to sign and ask yourself two questions: Question 1, Would you sign this, especially when you knew you were not guilty of any wrong doing?, and Question 2, Does this not resemble the Unconditional Surrender language that was in my Dad’s Will and Trust, giving some proof that Trustee Nancy was a major contributor to that Will and Trust in direct violation to the MROPC?
Also, if Paul Sherman would have been ethical, if he would have been smart, he would have told Trustee Nancy that he was not going to dirty his hands with this outrage against good conduct and good character and told Trustee nancy that she would have to give this to Jim directly, he would not have anything to do with it.
Trustee Nancy’s First Trust Distribution Letter, dated March 13, 2017, clearly showing Nancy waited over two years after the death of the Grantor to even notify me of any active Trust with any assets. In additions are the outlines to keep the Trust open and active for 20 years clearing showing that Trustee Nancy’s original intentions were never to close out and wind up the Trust in 2017.
Trustee Nancy’s Infamous Background Letter to the O.C.D.C., proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that Nancy Yendes is more than capable of lying numerous times in her attempt(s) to get her way(s) and is so much dependent on lies, and uses lies so frequently, she forgets that there is proof luring around the corner to disprove her lies. There are eight (8) lies in a one page letter! At this rate would this qualify Trustee Nancy Yendes as a pathological liar? Does this frequency of lying by Trustee Nancy Yendes give some added proof that when Nancy Yendes signed the Will and Trust, obviously promising her own father that she would bury him in a casket, Nancy Yendes never intended to bury her own father in a casket as she promised but had her Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult in her mind from the very beginning. Does this also give additional evidence that my Dad was captured against his will, and taken for a ride to Greene County, never to see Hickory County again, and tricked into signing his own Unconditional Surrender, Will and Trust, through lies, deceptions, and lawyer trickery entrapments?
Court Judgment, ruling that the Will and Trust are not “self-proving” like the Mo. BAR pamphlet claims on page 7. Also all of my Exhibits, and my testimony, “are not supported by the evidence, not credible and are without legal basis or authority,” which is at the very least “amazing” to the average person I have shown these things to.
Trustee Nancy’s letter to the Mo. A.G., clearly showing my Dad was incapacitated on June 25, 2012. Nancy states that she was a Trustee of a family Will and Trust without fee. Though Trustee Nancy does casually mention Right of Sepulcher, she does not use Right of Sepulcher as her Authority to cremate, but refers to the POA and “majority vote” as her Authority, obviously sidestepping the Right of Sepulcher as her Authority in case this got investigated further. This letter gives some evidence that the Funeral Home denied Trustee Nancy’s Right of Sepulcher or Trustee Nancy would have waved Right of Sepulcher in the face of everyone who would read this letter, especially me.
My letter to President Trump and his reply, proving my honest intentions of relocating my Dad, and my Mom, to an earthen grave, with a casket, and a grave monument, as instructed in the Will and Trust.
My letter to Governor Mike Parsons, asking for his help in relocating my Dad and Mom to an earthen grave, with a casket, and a grave monument.
Special Note: After reading all of this, and seeing all of the evidence and documentation as to what these unethical lawyers and Trustees did to my Dad, and now me, is there any doubt that the stench of this has already reached heaven and God is very upset?
“And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin in very grievous [Gen. 18:20]…Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven [Gen. 19:24].” Obviously the Lord God watches what is happening on earth from His throne in Heaven and when the sins are ripe enough He will rain down his judgments, in His own ways, and some of the Lord’s ways are to use people in positions of power and authority to hold the guilty accountable according to the guilty’s crimes, according to man’s provisions in the law and/or codes of ethics, where and when appropriate.
Is there any doubt as to who the guilty ones are here, according to any measure of standards, any measure of ethics, and any measure of legitimate laws?
[Honestly, after reading this Complaint is there anyone with an I.Q. higher than their age really think that the Mo. BAR, OCDC, and the “Honorable” Mo. Supreme Court are NOT involved in a major, large scale, cover up?]
This website is political speech for the purpose to convince enough politicians who are in the Missouri State Legislator to pass a Grantor’s and Beneficiary’s, Will and Trust, Bill of Rights. By necessity this political speech has to be straight forward, containing the raw truth, to raise the awareness of the State Legislators for the real and desperate need of this Bill of Rights to protect the innocent Grantors and Beneficiaries from the evil designs of unethical shyster lawyers. This is a Human Rights matter and I would think it should receive bipartisan support; I pray so, I hope so.
This website represents “a never ending battle for Truth, Justice and the American Way” which concepts it seems most lawyers are trying to take/steal away. Like all evil, if you give evil an inch, then evil will take a mile. It seems most lawyers think “the arm of flesh” knows better than God what Truth and Justice are as the Lawyer Profession blunders down the black hole of evil and sin, while trying to suck America with them to a hell on earth. Just say NO to evil, STOP evil, say NO to corrupt lawyers, STOP corrupt lawyers, for a better America today for ourselves and tomorrow for our posterity.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This whole Page, and this whole Website, has to be considered “legally” to be my own OPINION, and nothing else, because there are four Lawyers, and a Law Firm, poised, waiting, to pounce on me and this Website. The Law Firm petitioned The Court to order this Website taken down; first time January 17, 2018, and a second time, April 4, 2018. Obviously this Website is in jeopardy for telling the Truth about a WW II, D-Day, captured behind enemy lines, POW for 10 months, veteran; Elder Abused by a team of unethical lawyers, and a Law Firm, the PROOF preserved in the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER WILL AND TRUST, that led to this Veteran being held as a POW in the 21st Century War of Elder Abuses, and they are obviously afraid of that.
What is my opinion today, will no doubt become the opinions of millions of other Americans soon, and perhaps will evolve into obvious self-evident truth for the future. To get to an obvious self-evident Set of Truths pertaining to a Grantor’s, and Beneficiary’s, Will and Trust, Bill of Rights, it is going to take the efforts of millions of Americans, that can legitimately claim the Title of Americans, to come together and say “STOP!” to the lawyer abuses so prevalent pertaining to Probate Laws that would go against the ideals of all Americans, especially American Veterans like my Dad, in unified efforts to stomp out the symptoms of Socialism in the Probate Laws.
As always if the Trustees, lawyers, and Law Firm would like to give me any short statement to explain their side/opinion I would probably include that if they would wish. They all have declined to my honest and sincere offers like this in the past.