5. Will & Trust

Another Chapter in the American Nazi Lawyer/Judge Mafia “Secret Combinations” Secret Society Shadow Governments (as predicted by the Ancient American Indian Scriptures).

This Will & Trust Page is intended to illustrate to the Politician, and the citizen who may contact their Politician, that the specific language of the Will and Trust make it an obvious, notorious, unethical, shyster, Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust that no ethical person would ever let, allow, permit their name to be associated with. In addition to Trustees and Lawyers, Nancy, Carl, Maureen, Paul and Gary eagerly letting their bad names be attached to this; the Probate Judge, with their Judgment, gave their name and stamp of approval to this too! I am not in contempt of the Honorable Court or the Honorable Judge; the contempt is on the part of the Judgment against my Dad, myself, Society in general, and every honest lawyer everywhere. I didn’t write this contemptuous Judgment, the Judge did.

Like I have said before on this website, “Truth is stranger than fiction” pertaining to this Will and Trust Case and a story more bizarre than Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland or Through The Looking-Glass.

Is not this photo of page 2 of the Trust PROOF POSITIVE of an Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust against a WW II veteran?

Of course it helps the “con men,” associated with “a den of thieves” Law Firm, to con their “mark” when the mark is 94 years old, virtually blind, half deaf, and about 99% dependent on others to tell him what is going on. And then place this “mark” being “led as a sheep to the slaughter” (Acts 8:32) by his own daughter/lawyer into “a den of thieves” (Matt. 21:13) con game Law Firm where virtually every unalienable Right was stolen from him. Is this the United States of America or are we living in Cuba?

What ethical anyone, especially lawyers, would attach their names to such an unethical Trust as is pictured above where the Grantor has no Rights without “the written consent of the Trustee?” This would also includes the Law Firm partner whose name appears in association with this Unconditional Surrender Trust as the Law Firm name, which Law Firm Partner  is reported to be an Elder in a local church so what is up with that? Also this “only with the written consent of the Trustee,” is without any court ordered guardianship, and was behind my back, in secret to me!!!

So we have a WW II veteran, considered “to be competent,” “of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence,” some how signed his Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust. That is right! Now go and figure out what really happened because it makes no sense for any person of sound mind to sign this Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust unless they were tricked somehow. Is there anyone else, other than the Trustees and Law Firm who have a big dog in this conflict of interest fight, who would disagree with this?

On this Will and Trust Page I will quote some selected parts directly from my Dad’s Will and Trust with some comments and the reader can determine for themselves what is true, what is right, what was transfigured by the lawyers in what I think (based on actual experiences as my opinion) was an unfair and biased enforcement by the Trustees and the Law Firm, and what is wrong with how the Grantor was treated before and after death. As you read through this ask yourself pertaining to some of the Provisions, is this a normal Will and Trust and is this what I would want for my Will and Trust? So you be the judge for yourself.

And speaking of being the judge, ask yourself what could possibly be the motive/motivation for a Probate Court Judge to render a Judgment that supported all of this Unconditional Surrender stuff, with rewards for the guilty, and punishment for the one and only supporter of the Grantor, and the Will and Trust Provisions strictly, in the face of, and opposition from, these dark spirited, Satan in their hearts, lower than whale deification, excuses for any kind of pretend human beings, Unethical, Shyster, Lawyers and Trustees as well as Bob?

Here we go.

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT

OF

Dale Edgar Kelley

“I, DALE EDGAR KELLEY…believing myself to be competent…”

This is normal and standard Will and Trust language and the supervising lawyers, at the Law Firm, should be responsible to some degree to insure this is an accurate statement. I believe my Dad was competent enough to sign his Will and Trust if he could have read and understood it which being virtually blind and somewhat deaf may be questionable without comprehensive explanations by the lawyers present at the signing. To bad my Dad did not insist on my being at the signing with him so I could advise him to NOT sign and advise, let’s find an HONEST LAWYER and leave this “den of thieves” Law Firm and Shyster Nazi Lawyer Paul Sherman.

According to Trustee Nancy, there was a team of lawyers present at the explaining and signing so it would seem there were plenty of witnesses who should have been able to determine if my Dad was “competent.” So if my Dad was competent, and it is reasonable that a competent person would not sign away their rights like in this Will and Trust, a reasonable thinking person would have to conclude the Grantor (my Dad) was tricked into signing by some kinds of acts of fraud. See for yourself as we read along.

ARTICLE V

Speaking of the Trust in relation of the Will, the Grantor stated, “I do hereby incorporate said Revocable Trust Agreement, by reference, as though set out verbatim herein [meaning the Will].” (page 3).

So obviously the Will and Trust are incorporated as if one continuous document meaning every Provision of one applies to the other as if specifically written in the other document.

ARTICLE IX

“Should any of the beneficiaries of my Will or my Trust Agreement contest, oppose, or in any manner seek to impair or invalidate any provision of this will or my said Trust in any manner, I revoke any gifts or bequests to him or her…”

This also is normal and standard Will and Trust language, and is obviously a kind of embedded insurance policy for the Grantor of the Will and Trust, should any beneficiary, as a Trustee or not, seek to impair or invalidate any of the terms of the Will and Trust they lose their inheritance at the specific direction of the Grantor which was my Dad.

ARTICLE XIII

“I desire to be buried in a military veterans cemetery in or around Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, or another cemetery in or about Springfield, Greene County, Missouri. I also desire that my wife’s remains [already in an urn] be placed in my casket with my remains for burial.”

Would there be any question in any prudent person’s mind, with the least degree of knowledge pertaining to the English language definitions and Proper English Grammar Rules, what the Grantor must have understood what he was going to get based on what this Provision clearly and plainly states?

When I received a copy of the Will and Trust (the Law Firm charged the Trust over $300 to send that to me) on March 31, 2017 (That would have been my Dad’s 100th Birthday) and discovered my Dad’s instructions to be buried I e-mailed the Trustee Nancy about how she violated my Dad and this in part was her e-mail reply, dated April 11, 2017, “The trust says nothing about burial. The will is not binding in that regard.” Question: was this explanation explained to my Dad, the Grantor, before he signed this Will? And if this was not explained like the Trustee Nancy explained it in her e-mail to me, then where is the required full disclosure to be ethical before signing for the Grantor? Is this also not a fraud by lawyers who couldn’t care less about their client while their hand is out to take their client’s good money?

In court Trustee Nancy testified that the Grantor was cremated because the Veteran’s Cemetery grave area was in a flood plain. That Veteran’s Cemetery has been in operation since January 2000, some of those years there was severe flooding in the surrounding areas, but the grave areas did not flood. Also the Will instructions allow for the choosing of “another cemetery” that is not a veteran’s cemetery, but does not allow for the absence of a casket.

Even if the grave sites were to flood the casket, by law, has to be water and air tight so what is it going to hurt if there is some water standing over the graves for a few hours? Obviously Trustee Nancy tried to act like she knew more than the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, or any other engineering firm(s), designing this Cemetery from planning to creation. The excuse that there was a “concern” about flooding just doesn’t hold water (pun intended) and for sure is a direct violation of the Will Provision instructing burial in a casket.

Did, or didn’t, the Trustees (who were Beneficiaries also) violate the Provision to be buried in a casket and impose the No Contest Provision earlier quoted in ARTICLE IX?

All of the Trustees were given copies of the Will and Trust on the day of signing, so the Trustees, two who were also Beneficiaries, would be without excuse pertaining to knowing what the Grantor “desired” and therefore guilty of violating the bury me Provision automatically invoking the No Contest Provision, forfeiting any inheritance they thought they were entitled to.

What does the reader think?

Notary Statement At End Of Will

“…certify that Dale Edgar Kelley…of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence.”

I agree with the “sound mind” for a 94 year old man, but I wonder about the “under no constraint or undue influence,” and the Trust will perhaps shed some light on my suspicions about this.

REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT

ARTICLE I

DURING GRANTOR’S LIFETIME

“I. 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 there from only with the written consent of the Trustee.” (Page 2, bolding and underlining added to provide emphasis.)

Did the reader see what I saw? What kind of a right is it when a Grantor has to have the “written consent of the Trustee” for anything? Who is subordinate to whom? The Grantor was paying his good money for this Trust so the lawyers, the Law Firm, and the Trustees (two were Beneficiaries) should be subordinate to the Grantor in all things, especially if the Grantor is consider to be “competent,” and “of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence,” as was documented in the Will. This reads to me, my opinion, as if the Grantor was incompetent and needed a court appointed guardian. If the Trustees, or the Law Firm, thought the Grantor needed a guardian to watch over him then they should have gone to the Probate Court to secure guardianship by a court order. It is doubtful a Judge would have given guardianship to Trustee Nancy and for that reason no attempt was made in the courts to do so but this is an obvious attempt (in my opinion) to circumvent the Authority of the Probate Court for Guardianship of the Grantor by inserting guardianship language in the Will and Trust.

It actually gets worse.

“II. [If Grantor decides, or anyone else decided for him, to move residence to another place than where he is, that can only be done] as agreed to by the Trustee.” (Page 2)

The Grantor has no rights to choose where he is to live, even though he is “competent” and “of sound mind,” without the approval by agreement of the Trustee.

When you think it can’t get any worse just read on.

“III. The Trustee shall [manage all of the Grantor’s money and pay all of the Grantor’s bills, including] food, care, shelter or maintenance miscellaneous expenses to be paid directly from that [Grantor’s] account by his attorney-in-fact, [Trustee Nancy];” (Page 2)

So the Grantor, considered “to be competent,” and “of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence,” after the signing of the Will and Trust did not have control of his own money even to the point that he could write a check on his own checking account and/or buy his own food, or even buy himself a hat without “his attorney-in-fact” approving and writing the check. Apparently this Grantor, after he signed his Will and Trust, didn’t have two nickels to rub together unless Trustee Nancy gave them to him, or someone else gave them to him, because he did not have any personal control over his own money whatsoever.

Question: What Grantor that is mentally competent, of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence, signs such an Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust like this unless they are tricked somehow?

The reason I called this an Unconditional Surrender is this Trust language (I. II. III.) is consistent with a “capture” (in my opinion), “taken for a ride” as the gangsters would say, and detainment against the Grantor’s will, as if the Grantor were a POW in the War of Elder Abuses (as my opinion). Anyone else agree? (See POW Page)

In my opinion there are some serious ethics violations here and I brought this up in the Probate Court Hearing. Apparently Probate Laws superseded anything that I brought up because I lost in Court.

Here, in my opinion, I will attach the Trustees’ and Law Firm’s embedded insurance policy (in my opinion) in case I, Jim Kelley, were to discover enough evidence of elder abuses, etc., to go to the authorities, this is a legal document signed by the Grantor (my Dad) forbidding me to “act on my [Dad’s] behalf in any capacity whatsoever,” and I suppose if I did act in my Dad’s behalf somehow(even to report criminal activity), the additional penalty for me would be I would lose my inheritance for violating four separate provisions of the Will and Trust because this same language is repeated four times throughout the Will and Trust.

“III. (d) …EXCEPT THAT I specifically declare that in no event shall my son JAMES WILLIAM KELLEY OF 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;” (Page 3)

Aside from just being rude, excessive, inappropriate, it is also a clear and impermissible hostility, this language was obviously inserted, in four different places of the Will and Trust, to mark myself and my wife, with a Kings X forbidding myself or my wife from ever coming to the aid of my own Dad, the Grantor, should I discover enough evidence of elder abuses like what is written in this Will and Trust had I gotten a copy while my Dad was still alive. This was NOT to eliminate myself, or my wife, from ever serving as a Trustee because the proper procedure would have been to just not mention myself, or my wife, in the Trustee succession.

This cannot serve as a Trustee Provision is much more sinister, dark, evil and devilish than to not have myself, or my wife, as a Trustee or Personal Representative; it is to insure we are forever bared from making any waves for the Trustees, and the Law Firm, pertaining to elder abuses that in my opinion obviously did happen. We would be barred from rescuing my Dad in case I discover enough evidence of elder abuses even if my own Dad called me on the phone and asked me to come and take him away from elder abuses.

In the first Probate Court Hearing, January 17, 2018, my observation that this language placed everyone in the phone book ahead of me as my own Dad’s Trustee, was mocked by the Law Firm Partner, Paul, as ridiculous and untrue. There were so many things that the Law Firm did not like in that first Hearing the Law Firm asked for the records to be sealed and I think some of that was sealed. So any legislators who will review this Case in the future be aware of that and look for sealed records you may have to unseal to complete the Case.

Incidentally I was asked by another WW II veteran to be his Trustee for his Trust and I directed him to his bank’s Trust Department which Bank Trustee handled all of the Trust affairs very well according to the instructions in the Will and Trust including a casket funeral and a casket burial in the same Veteran’s Cemetery. Too bad someone didn’t give the same advice to my Dad to go to a bank trust department where his Trust would have received fair, impartial, and neutral enforcement instead of the biased against my Dad (my opinion), and biased against myself, clearly recorded and preserved in this Will and Trust as obvious flaws (in my opinion) that no honest lawyer, or anyone with the least bit of integrity (my opinion), would attach their name to.

What is the opinion of the reader?

ARTICLE II

ON THE DEATH OF THE GRANTOR

“A. …After Grantor’s death…pay:

“(1) …burial expenses, including any expenses of a grave marker and/or monument.”

Does this read like “the Trust says nothing about burial,” like the PT claimed in her e-mail dated April 11, 2017?

ARTICLE V

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

“D. No Contest. Should any beneficiary of this Trust Agreement, or of Grantor’s estate, directly or indirectly contest, oppose, or in any manner seek to impair or invalidate any provision hereof [Will and Trust are incorporated], then Grantor revokes any gifts or bequests to him or her…”

Here again, spelled out in plain English, if any Beneficiary were to knowing cremate the Grantor against his will and “desire,” instead of burying him in a casket as he instructed, they lose their inheritance which was NOT enforced and did NOT happen in the Probate Court Hearing. I am sure the Probate Court Judge was as giving to the Grantor as they could be but the Probate Laws must have superseded the instructions of the Grantor to be buried in a casket somehow and that is exactly why this website has been launched, to educate the legislators there is a desperate need to change the Probate Laws and I think the best way would be a Grantor and Beneficiary, Will and Trust, Bill of Rights, where no one can ever again insult the Grantors or honest Beneficiaries, with absolute insults to the intelligence of any reasonable thinking person that what a Grantor instructs in his Will, and pays for in his Trust, shall be executed as instructed or the Trustees and/or Beneficiaries responsible shall lose their inheritance, and face criminal charges.

DALE EDGAR KELLEY

TRUST FIDUCIARY POWERS AND PROVISIONS (TFPAP)

“1. From time of creation of the trust until final distribution of the assets of the trust…

“2. The following provisions and powers…are controlling if they in any way conflict with the statutory powers:… [Page 16]

“R. NO CONTEST CLAUSE: Should any beneficiary of this trust, or of Grantor’s estate, directly or indirectly, contest, oppose, or in any manner seek to impair or invalidate any provision hereof, or endeavor to succeed to any part of Grantor’s estate otherwise than through this trust or Grantor’s Last Will and Testament, then, in each such instance, such opponents [“opponents” language would obviously also include the LF] shall forfeit any bequest, devise or interest [“interest” meaning any official title, powers or position like a Trustee or the LF] given under this trust to such person or persons.

If anything could have summed this all up here it is. The TFPAP are in effect, in force, from creation to final distribution, in this Probate Case when the Judge released Nazi Trustee Nancy Yendes as the Trustee, and this No Contest Clause nails it for the Trust as well as the Will also by specific reference. And it includes the Trustees and the Law Firm even if they are not a Beneficiary, and I presented this in the Probate Court Hearing but apparently Probate Law superseded this somehow too and I lost, OR there were “secret combinations” between the Judge and the “den of thieves” MANN, WALTER, BISHOP & SHERMAN Law Firm where it did NOT make any difference what I said, what I presented, it didn’t matter, the Shyster, Nazi Lawyers were going to win.

Incidentally, the words “Grantor’s Last Will and Testament” were all capitalized, as compared to the word “trust” which was NOT capitalized, so that would seem that the Will was on a par at least equal, perhaps superseded by comparison, to the trust for this Provision/Clause?

On a Scale of 1-10

On a scale from 1-10, 10 being the most sever, how sever, punitive, and abusive was the Trust language for the Grantor, where the Grantor obviously lost his unalienable Rights to change his own Will and Trust, lost his unalienable Rights to decide for himself where and how he was to live, and lost all his Unalienable Rights to spend his own money how, where and for what he decided to spend his own money on?

On a scale from 1-10, 10 being the most desirable possible, how desirable do you think this Will and Trust was for the Grantor. What would you change to make it more desirable for the Grantor (especially if the Grantor were you)?

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being exactly what YOU would want, how much would you want a Will and Trust exactly like this one for yourself?

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest level of enforcement, how well was the No Contest Provisions of this Will and Trust enforced considering all the Trustees, and the Law Firm, were on board in an obvious collusion effort for a Screw You Father, Revenge Cremation Insult (my opinion) against the Grantor’s own will, “desire,” and instructions; and not a darn thing was ever done to hold the Trustees, and Law Firm, accountable even when this was presented in a Probate Court?

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest degree of satisfaction for the Grantor, how satisfied do you think the Grantor would be when he finds out he did not get his casket funeral or casket burial he obviously wanted, instructed, and paid for? How satisfied would you be if you were the Grantor in this Case remembering the issue is NOT cremation or burial, but how your instructions were carried out in your Will and Trust irrespective of what those instructions were?

The Bottom Line For This Unconditional Surrender Will and Trust Case:

  1. The Grantor went to the LF, who obviously had a fiduciary relationship with their client, the Grantor/my Dad, to write a Will and Trust that instructed that he would be buried in a casket, etc. The Grantor was obviously faithful in paying his good money for this Will and Trust. Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the Grantor was confident in his own mind that he would have his casket funeral and casket burial, in a grave with a grave marker like the Will and Trust instructed, or why would the Grantor/my Dad pay for and sign such nonsense if he knew it was nonsense at the time of signing? What happened? What is wrong with this picture? How bad does a Trustee, and a LF, have to hate their own father, and client, to do this to them? Remember, my Dad was virtually blind and partially deaf at the time of signing so how much could he read, how much could he hear, and how faithful and honest were the lawyers explaining to the Grantor that what he was paying for and signing wasn’t worth the paper it was written on if he wanted to be buried in a casket?
  2. The Trustees failed to honor their own father in his Will and Trust (as well as the Ten Commandments of God) by ignoring their own father’s instructions to bury him in a casket irrespective of how unenforceable the Will was considered. All of the Trustees, and the LF, knew full well what the Grantor intended, expected, and paid for with his instructions to be buried in his casket. If there was any problem with the legality of the enforcement of the Will, is that the fault of the Grantor (94 years old, blind and deaf), or would it be the fault of the LF who wrote the Will and Trust? Was this not enforceable quality of the Will intended so the cremation was a Revenge Cremation Insult planned from the very beginning?
  3. The Trustees initiated their own Revenge Cremation Insult (my opinion) against their own father and even lied to their own brother, Jim Kelley, when they came to me to sign the Authorization For Cremation certificate, saying, cremation is what father wanted. I had no way of knowing, I didn’t have a copy of the Will and Trust until over two years after Dad died. I didn’t know I had a right to a copy and no copy was ever offered to me and my reading of the Will and Trust I think there is good evidence contained in the Will and Trust the Trustees, and the LF, hoped I would never get a copy.
  4. Apparently because of lawyer trickery permitted by a flawed Probate Law Code the Probate Court Judge had to rule in favor of the Trustees and LF even though it is as plain as the nose on anyone’s face the Trustees, and the LF, failed in their fiduciary duties for the Grantor, my Dad, otherwise the Grantor/my Dad, would have gotten his casket funeral and casket grave with grave marker. If the Probate Laws are in favor of the Grantor(s) then there would have been some ruling in the Court Judgment that the Grantor would have gotten his casket, earthen grave, and grave monument, even if by Court Order during the April, 2018 Probate Hearing.
  5. There desperately needs to be a Bill of Rights for Grantors and Beneficiaries and this is long overdue. I will present an outline for what I think a good and workable Bill of Rights might contain.

I hope and pray for many legislators to become Friends of my Dad/Grantor in this Case and do everything in their Powers to pass a workable Grantor’s and Beneficiary’s Bill Of Rights that will supersede any other laws that would be in conflict.

May God bless all of our righteous efforts.

Bro. Jim Kelley

———————————–

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.