Dr. Mary's ex-banker and The System versus her Trust and her legacy!
 |
Click only if you have a Yahoo ID. Without a Yahoo ID, subscribe by sending an email to: metagroups-subscribe@yahoogroups.com |
Short e-mail reminders are sent out twice a week: Tuesday and Friday. They redirect you to an online reminder that includes events scheduled each weekend, plus special messages. Click link below to read the latest ONLINE REMINDER |
OVERVIEW
NOTE: This overview was written in late December 2008 or early January 2009 when I first began creating this webpage. Hpefully, I have removed the names of the others involved in this case. It is not my intention to make those names public.
This section contains information regarding the ongoing lawsuit against the Mary Horgan Trust and me. It will only be linked from the Ron's Articles page of the website. Why am I doing this after more than three years? There are many reasons. I list the quintessential ones below.
1) I have always believed in being open. Only fear makes me (or anyone) think there is something to hide. There is nothing hidden in the Cosmos from the spiritual perspective. As written in Mark chapter 4: 21 And He was saying to them, “A lamp is not brought to be put under a basket, is it, or under a bed? Is it not brought to be put on the lampstand? 22 “For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would come to light. 23 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” ~ New American Standard Bible (1995)
2) When the lawsuit first came to my awareness, even before the papers were officially served three years ago, I felt victimized. That feeling continued for most of the time since; although for a long while I simply did not think about it. Now, after more than a year of silence, the court has accepted motions from the plaintiff’s lawyer to try to take my home from me. At first, this increased my feeling of victimization. However, God has made it clear to me that it is actually an opportunity to recover parts of me that have been latent, to awaken parts that have slept. Standing up for the trust and Dr. Mary's wishes is my heavenly assignment. I am to bring the Kingdom of Heaven into the lawsuit and to those who are involved. How this is to occur is being revealed one step at a time.
3) Others may be facing similar challenges; in fact, many are as "The Shift of Ages" continues to accelerate. The old ways that have seemed so entrenched are being uprooted with all the dirt coming to the surface. This is true both on the personal level for individuals and for society as a whole. My hope is that by sharing openly, others will be encouraged to stand in Truth, for Justice with Mercy. Together, we are changing the world.
4) People may want to help me! Some might be willing and able to provide legal assistance. Others might want to help financially. As those who know me best realize, I long ago made the choice to focus on spiritual matters, specifically service to the community. My income is very low - poverty level by official standards. Still, I do net feel impoverished. God meets my needs...sometimes through people's generosity, often by simple daily miracles of consciousness - the ever-expanding awareness of the interconnectedness of all things.
5) It provides for me a way to release the energy through creativity, sending it out to the Universe for transformation and transmutation. I am still learning the importance and value in this.DETAILS
Various communications will be posted here in reverse chronological order. The newest items will be at the top.
My response in February 2009, titled: FREEDOM & SOVEREIGNTY is found in Ron's Articles and was submitted to other websites.
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
MOTION TO DISMISS or TO REACH MUTUAL SETTLEMENT or TO MOVE TO COMMON-LAW COURT FOR JURY TRIAL BY PEERSWhereas this matter before the court has gone on since the original filing on July 26, 2005, and as of today’s date of December 4, 2008 over forty months have elapsed, defendant, Ronald Van Dyke, a Freeman, as Trustee of the Mary Annetta Horgan Revocable Living Trust (hereafter called the Trust or the Mary Horgan Trust) and Personal Representative of the Mary A. Horgan Estate, does hereby petition the court named above to move on the following items as claimed and/or supported by attached documents.
Let it be noted that individuals named herein are referred to, not in their legal, corporate capacity as STRAWMEN, but as living-soul, human beings possessing inalienable and unalienable rights under the inexorable Laws of Nature, Natural or Cosmic Law, as set forth in the United States of America, which became a Constitutional Republic thereafter, in the Declaration of Independence of 1776. The Magna Carta and other declarations regarding the freedom of Man have been produced throughout recent centuries in the previous millennium. Each party is, therefore, equal with all others and none hold rank, privilege or authority over any other, i.e., all are Freemen and Freewomen as endowed by their Creator from the beginning of time, albeit lost through ignorance of these immortal facts of individual personhood and natural rights.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Whereas the plaintiff, Eugene Wilhelm, had a fiduciary responsibility as Dr. Mary Hogan’s banker to “keep an arm’s length” from her assets, which precluded him from filing any claim against her estate, other than for services rendered as indicated in Dr. Mary’s 1995 Will – let the court rule for dismissal.
Whereas there have been numerous irregularities from the onset of this case; and whereas the plaintiffs have amended their complaint three times since the original filing; and whereas they originally petitioned the court for a jury trial, then moved to have it switched to Probate Court and most recently have moved to have the court set a date for a non-jury trial; and whereas they seem to be desperately attempting to remove this matter from being heard by a jury of impartial peers rather than lawyers – let the court rule for dismissal.
Whereas the second of the defendant’s (Mary Horgan Trust and successor trustee Ron Van Dyke) attorneys, Mr. Robert Bickford, has now unethically, if not illegally, entered a motion to the court against the very Trust he had been hired to defend, which seems to be an obvious breach of the rules of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines for attorneys – let the court rule for dismissal.
Whereas the defendant: SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN, through their lawyer ______, has failed time and again to defend the Mary Horgan Trust as written since the onset of this matter; and whereas it has recently been discovered that he had been a partner in the law firm representing the plaintiffs prior the his affiliation with his current law firm, which, under conflict of interest guidelines seems to be yet another code of ethics violation in this case – let the court rule for dismissal.
Whereas other parties, i.e., the plaintiffs, the defendants: SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN, former Trust defendant attorney, [my lawyer #2], representing [Dr. Mary's nephew] in his personal capacity rather than merely as a named beneficiary of the Trust, and third-party defendant, NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION have all filed illegal claims against the protected homestead property located at 473 Thomas Drive in Melbourne, Florida, also known as The Mary A. Horgan Center for Spiritual Development; and whereas said property was obtained from funds specifically granted by the Trust to the Successor Trustee, Ronald Van Dyke, and paid through a mortgage on the Trust property (not the homestead property); and whereas said mortgage is asserted to be invalid for various and sundry legal reasons enumerated in other documents filed in this case by several parties on both sides; and whereas this property is also, ipso facto, a church protected under Freedom of Religion statutes that state: “Congress [governing bodies] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” – let the court rule for dismissal.
MOTION TO REACH MUTUAL SETTLEMENT
If, in fact, the court is unwilling to dismiss this case, the following is proposed.
Whereas heretofore in this matter, lawyers on both sides have acted as supposed authorities demanding response; and whereas in previous attempts to reach settlement, the Trust’s ONLY representative, Ronald Van Dyke, was barred from the proceedings; and whereas he will not voluntarily submit to coercion and other fear tactics employed by lawyers challenging his natural rights; therefore, let the court order a settlement hearing in which all parties meet face to face, including [the Plaintiffs], [Trust beneficiaries other than the Shriners] and the various attorneys involved in this matter. Let no party be shielded from his or her personal responsibility or deprived of his or her personal rights. Let this hearing conclude with mutual settlement agreement; or let the case proceed to its final solution.
MOTION TO MOVE TO COMMON-LAW COURT FOR JURY TRIAL BY PEERS
Should there be no dismissal and no mutual settlement, let the Trust issues be adjudicated by an impartial jury of common folk, not lawyers, in a Common-Law Court under common law rules. In order to maintain its integrity, the Trust shall NOT be subjected to Admiralty Courts under Maritime Law that has been subverted to the interests of an elite establishment in service to their greed and lust for power and control. They only have authority over those who, through ignorance, do not know their God-given rights as sovereign souls. The knowledge of the truth is overcoming that ignorance allowing many to stand up for our rights ignorantly squandered in the past. Let the Jury hear ALL the evidence; then, without prejudice or bias, render a verdict based on truth rather than allegation.
<> <> <>
This document, along with copies of letters from Ronald Van Dyke to the other parties in this case, is being submitted to the Clerk of the Courts in Brevard County, Florida. Copies of the letters will not be resubmitted to the various parties, only to the Clerk of the Courts. In addition, two documents not previously submitted, i.e., webpage information showing [Shirnger's lawyer] involvement with two separate law firms as indicated herein previously, are included for all to see.
Copies of all documents have been and/or will be submitted to all parties involved in this matter with the exception of the judge who is expected to receive his copy from the Clerk’s office. This submission will be made through email or personal delivery.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald Van Dyke
Trustee, Mary A. Horgan Trust
Facilitator, Mary A. Horgan Center
473 Thomas Drive
Melbourne, FL 32935
321-426-4948
paradoxman@cfl.rr.com
The following is partial information found on the web page indicated and saved on my computer. It shows [Shirnger's lawyer] as a business partner with both _______, current lawyer for the plaintiffs, and _________, the original lawyer who filed the case. Then he moved to his current law firm. Even with his prior connection to the plaintiff’s attorneys, he took the case in opposition, though he never seemed to defend the Trust, always siding with the plaintiffs’ lawyers, a fact that puzzled even the two lawyers I hired to defend the Trust, as indicated in previous statements and letters. (His current business card shows the middle initial “S” that was not included in the most recent web listing.)
The websites confirming this information are not included online here, although they were in the original document.
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
Dear Sirs:
Earlier today I sent the following by email to Mr. Whitehead's office. An email copy was also sent to Ms. Kimberly Rezanka, Mr. Robert Bickford, Ms. Sandra Oak, Mr. Marion Johannesen, and Mr. Bob Wilhoit.
I received Mr. Whitehead's notice for non-jury trial. It states at the end of the first sentence, "...on the original action." The original action was for a jury trial. No other option exists in this case except for mutual settlement. The Mary Horgan Trust will NOT be subjected to a non-jury trial. Other parties will be notified.
Sincerely,
Ron Van Dyke
Trustee,
Mary A. Horgan Trust
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
To the Court, the Judge and All Parties Currently Involved in the Above Matter:This letter is in response to things that have happened in the above-mentioned case since my last letter of July 17-24, 2008. That letter was my response to the plaintiffs, action as well as the partial response to the motion by National City Bank. I will not repeat myself here, since I covered all the bases in that document. Let that document stand as my response.
Once again, I debated whether to try to answer the current motions in the language of lawyers. What I see in that language is much jargon and redundancy. To me, this is unnecessary for obvious reasons, since I am a presenting myself before the court as a free man under common law, not as a strawman under maritime or statutory law that now exists in most Admiralty Courts. I will not answer, item by item each point made in the Shriners latest motion, nor in the plaintiffs request/demand for materials already provided over two years ago to my then lawyer, ________. I have no intention of providing those documents again; if the plaintiffs lawyer needs them let him request the same from _________.
Let me give a brief overview of how I respond to the Shriners latest motion. It strikes me as peculiar that after three years the Shriners lawyer finally acknowledges that the trust speaks for itself. If that position had been taken from the beginning, the case would have been all over by now. Of course the trust speaks for itself. Dr. Mary signed of her own free will, after having entered into many discussions with myself, _________, ___________ and others in the preparation of that document. Yes, I did influence her in the creation of that document. Once again, not for my own benefit, since she wanted to give me her house, but to honor those who had stood with her in her final years as well as her promise to her late husband Leroi. Believe it or not, I even encouraged her to leave something for the [Plaintiffs] – although I'd never met them before 2002 nor heard her speak of them – indeed, whatever their motives, they did perform services for her. However, whenever I brought the subject up of leaving the [Plaintiffs] something, she would respond, "Why a should I leave them anything?" As I have said many times, she had lost all confidence in them, which is why he she approached me for help.
So now, the Shriners want to honor the trust. However, they are not satisfied with just their portion; they want it all … just like the plaintiffs. Let them fight between themselves. I have made myself abundantly clear. My settlement offer remains true today as it was when I agreed to it over a year ago – actually, nearly two years ago. I will still relinquish my claims to the property on the south tropical Trail, feeling the objectives of the trust had been satisfied, provided I remain in my home at 473 Thomas Drive in Melbourne, also known as the Mary Horgan Center for spiritual development. In addition, as stated previously, the monies that I have paid out to ________ and ________ are to be returned to me in full: $22,000. However the litigants chose to divide the property is up to them. For me, the game is over! No one will take this property from me.
As for the legal fees mentioned by the Shriners lawyer: it is a ludicrous claim. The only party that should be responsible for all legal costs is the plaintiffs themselves. Were it not for their frivolous lawsuit, the estate would have been settled long ago and all distribution of assets made by me as the trustee of the estate according to the trust. I was not derelict in my duties as trustee! The plaintiffs and the legalized greed of court system that allows frivolous lawsuits, without a prior investigation of the particulars, to proceed prevented me. Again, I was forced to turn down offers from legitimate buyers because of the lawsuit.
Furthermore, I had a responsibility as trustee to sell the property. That is exactly what I attempted to do. Before I could sell it, however, I needed to have a place in which I could move the items of Dr. Mary's personal property and my own. I had to have some place to go, since I lived on the property and I had, in my mind, a moral obligation to fulfill my oral agreement to further her work and heritage of fee thinking that she had left for all of us. The mortgage that was obtained was, as I saw it at the time, about half of what I expected to receive as my portion of the estate once the property was sold for approximately $900,000-$1,000,000. That was what realtors were telling me it was worth the time.
As indicated in my 14-hour deposition, when asked why I did not notify the Shriners when Dr. Mary died, I did not trust them based upon what [male Plaintiff] had said about them, although he denied it in his deposition. Bear in mind that it was me who insisted that Dr. Mary leave them the SAME PORTION of her property, as they would have received in her 1995 will that surfaced when we were preparing the trust documents. Prior to that, she had settled on 30%, although at one point in the preparation the $5,000 figure came up that was in the document prepared on behalf of the [Plaintiffs]. Yes, for whatever reason, she was balking at leaving the “substantial portion” she had promised Leroi. There is no way in hell that I would have deprived them of their rightful bequest she promised him, as was substantiated in not just one, but two wills, the oldest dating back to 1974 when he was still alive. I was the one who challenged her on leaving a lesser amount. This is why I called their claim ludicrous.
If the plaintiffs and the Shriners wish to fight with each other other over the Shriner’s portion, so be it. I want no part of it; and neither can I, nor will I, ever pay any more legal fees to legalized criminals who pillage estates and subvert justice. Common law offers no remediation for such injustices and perversions of trusts from the desires of those who execute such documents and the trustees they appoint.
Sincerely,
Ron Van Dyke
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
NOTE: The following document was provided to all parties involved in this matter. Names have been replaced with letters to protect their identities. A, A1 and A2 are the plaintiffs; X is the plaintiff's lawyer; Y is the bank's lawyer; B & C are named beneficiaries in the trust; W is the lawyer who helped Dr. Mary get her property back from the As; V is the lawyer who created the will for the As; J is a friend of Dr. Mary's; L2 is one of the two lawyers I hired to assist me earlier in this case.
Ron Van Dyke , successor trustee
Mary A. Horgan Trust
Mary Horgan Center for Spiritual Development
473 Thomas Drive
Melbourne, FL 32935
To the Judge and All Parties Currently Involved in the Above Matter:
Since I am representing myself, I beg the court’s indulgence that the format and language of this correspondence is not that used by lawyers. I am not a lawyer; and until this lawsuit I never had reason to consult with an attorney in any matter, at least as I recollect. I am, however, deeply committed to re-establishing my personal freedom under God. In fact, I am not responding as RONALD VAN DYKE, the strawman created without my consent and, until recently, my knowledge. I am a human being made in the image of God with unalienable, God-given rights not granted by any government or agency thereof. I speak in my defense as a sovereign citizen to each of you who are equally sovereign citizens, recognizing that we all have within us that quintessential element of Divinity.
This case before the court has gone on for three years. Understandably, it is complicated by allegations and counter allegations. From its inception, the plaintiffs asked for a trial by jury. That is likely the only way the issues surrounding the challenge to Dr. Mary’s Trust will be resolved – unless all parties are willing to sit down and work together as equals until they reach consensus. In fact, I will not settle for anything less than a jury trial, a prior mutual settlement, or total dismissal. That is my right both under common law and the US Constitution.
There are, as I understand, two new motions before the court in this case: the first by X on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the second by Y on behalf of National City Corporation. Please accept this document as my immediate response to these motions, especially that by X, due for a hearing set for Friday, August 1, 2008. If the court requires that I look up the appropriate laws to support my claims, I shall need more time: sixty (60) or even ninety (90) days at least. However, I appeal more to the spirit of the law rather than the letter thereof.
As I read X ’s fourth amended complaint, I get the distinct impression that he is asking the court to render a judgment without further negotiation or trial. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly and/or misunderstanding some of the terms; however, I certainly hope our country has not sunk to that level of injustice whereby a judgment can be rendered based upon unproven allegations. In any case, I will respond herein to many items and allegations in that document.
Regarding Y ’s motion for partial summary judgment, I will make limited comment at this time in lieu of X ’s challenge to the mortgage itself. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, he does not even address some of the more serious issues regarding the mortgage. I do reserve the right to bring certain issues about the mortgage to the court’s attention at a later time should the need arise, and ask the court to withhold National City Corporation’s motion as the previous judge in this case so ordered…until the case is resolved or adjudicated.
Concerning X ’s attempt to have the mortgage cancelled, it seems absurd to make a judgment based, at least in part, on the mortgage company’s failure to file the papers by a certain date. That’s human error, and we all know that we are subject to mistakes. The mortgage was implemented more than three weeks prior to the filing of the lis pendens. That should be sufficient from the common sense perspective of common law: spirit, not letter.
Now, I will turn my attention solely to the plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to file the fourth amended complaint. While I see that it is commonly used in court documents, I have no idea what “motion for leave to file” means, exactly; nevertheless, I will do my best to respond to what I think I understand to some degree in the rest of the document.
In item (2) on the first page of the document it is claimed that a “recent discovery” is the basis for the amended motion. This was no “recent” discovery. These facts were discussed in prior proceedings, including depositions.
Moving to the fourth amended complaint, general allegations: Unless they have moved back within the past year, the As reside in Lakeland, Florida – not in Brevard County. B lives in Texas. C lives in Bradenton, Florida – also not in Brevard County. Human error?
How can a deed be canceled before the issue of the validity of the trust is resolved or adjudicated? It appears the plaintiffs and their lawyer are attempting to jump over the main issue in this case: the validity of the trust? Again, that has not been determined; and I strongly object to their seeming effort in this matter to render their own judgment.
(10) A1 served as Dr. Mary’s banker and financial adviser. Though she was friendly with him, the nature of their relationship was fiduciary. I knew Dr. Mary for ten years before her death, and lived in her garage apartment for four years before I ever met the As. She never mentioned them to me at all during that time. The first time I met or knew anything about them, they came to my door to have me warn Dr. Mary about J. Not long thereafter, they were taking her to their lawyer to create a new will. (J also came to my door on the same day to have me warn Dr. Mary about the As.) As testified by A1, himself, he was never involved in her church in all the years he knew her; and that was her passion in life. His “friendship” was based on business dealings only; and both previous lawyers “helping” me told me that he had a fiduciary responsibility to keep arms length from her assets. How, then, was he allowed to help her create a will in which he was to receive over 99% of the estate, and then to file a lawsuit against the trust created to protect Dr. Mary’s long-standing interests? Amazingly, in his deposition he actually testified that he knew nothing about a lawsuit or being involved in any will, that he was only there because she (pointing to his wife) told him he had to be. She, herself, was never deposed.
(11) & (12) I reserve the right to comment on these matters at another time, except that the date in (12) appears to be incorrect. In fact, the year itself is incorrect in both documents. It was 2002, as the documents indicate. Another human error!
(13) The words, “…she was concerned that she might be talked into giving her property to the Shriners of some other person or entity...” are most interesting. I submit that it was the Wilhelms who were most concerned with this, which is precisely why they came and asked me to warn Dr. Mary about John Calvert. They did not want anyone else to do what they had done. An important fact is excluded here (though it was admitted later). The Quit-Claim Deed had a cover letter from V that stated Dr. Mary would need the A’s permission to revoke the conveyance. This non-binding letter attached to the legal document was for the As. Why, if she retained the right of revocation as plainly indicated in the deed itself, did she need their permission? That she acted properly was shown later when she actually did revoke the deed and take back her property with the help of W, which is a matter of record.
(14) Dr. Mary NEVER gave me any money whatsoever during the time I lived there, although she did buy ads in the magazine I published from 1996-2001. Then, as now, I lived frugally and saved my money so that I would not be a burden on anyone. Also, I was more than simply a tenant living in her garage apartment. She often said publicly that I was “like a son” to her. Furthermore, I worked for the same company from 1995-2002, leaving that employment for medical reasons after I died and was revived…. There is an obvious attempt here to cast doubt on my character, which, with my long history of community service can be easily disproved…. I moved no chair(s) while in V ’s lobby. I merely moved to the chair closest to the door. I heard V challenge her again and again, “Is that what you really want to do?” At one point, sounding exasperated, she replied to him, “What do you think I should do?” Yes, I was angry when I heard her telling him what she wanted to do, only to have him challenge her again and again. If she seemed confused, it was because he wasn’t listening to her…. As for contacting the Elder Abuse Hotline, yes, many unusual events occurred that day, prompting me, on advice from my then employer at Western Judicial Services, to make the contact.
(17) New information! In my many conversations with Dr. Mary, this material was never discussed that I recall.
(18) She did not “purportedly” terminate the A’s interest in her property; she terminated it with the help of attorney W.
(19) Atlantic Non-Lawyer Services, Inc. (ANSLI) was next door to her long-time hairdresser. She had done business with them previously. She only went to W to get her house back and to revoke the power of attorney she had previously given to A1 because they (ANLSI) could not help her with that. I took her to ANLSI for the creation of the trust at her request. Before these events, I had no previous contact with them as she had.
(20) Again, there was nothing “purported” here. That is what she did.
(21) This is my human error for not carefully reviewing the document prepared by ANSLI before signing it. However, as plainly evidenced on the document itself, I signed as “successor trustee” for the trust. It was not until my deposition last year that I realized it did not include “successor trustee” at the top of the document. I never had any intention whatsoever other than to fulfill Dr. Mary’s wishes as expressed in the trust, and saw myself merely fulfilling my obligation to her as I had promised. Again, this was the first and only time I have ever been involved in such matters. As I said before, I am not a lawyer. I was acting as best I knew how.
(22) Again, Dr. Mary did terminate the A’s interest in her property; and their allegation of “undue influence” has never been proven. One thing is certain: Dr. Mary knew what she was doing and signed the papers of her own free will!
Before the plaintiffs can demand judgment, don’t they first need to prove their case? As I see it, until proven otherwise the trust remains in effect with me as the trustee. It cannot merely be brushed aside based on allegations. In fact, I have read on the Internet that “ Trusts are rarely challenged in court, and are rarely overturned.”
(23) Illogical deduction! First they claim the trust is invalid and seem to dismiss it in their pleading, asking for the deeds to be canceled, including the one made before the trust came into effect. Now, they are bringing an action against the others named in that very trust, admitting that these have a just, though now contested, claim. What am I missing here?
(25) This requirement by V was mentioned previously. As indicated, Dr. Mary terminated those documents privately in the office of W in December 2004. How can a lawyer create a document that has “no legal effect” when it was signed and executed by Dr. Mary herself in his presence? To him, she had every right to revoke the conveyance, the cover letter on the deed notwithstanding. The legal document is the deed – not the cover letter – and on the deed it is plainly stated, “MARY ANNETTA HORGAN…also retaining the power to revoke this conveyance and recovey the property described below,” …. She merely exercised her rights. She did not sign the cover letter; therefore, she was not a party to it. Even I know that a contract or agreement requires the signature of all or both parties, otherwise it is invalid. I allege that the cover letter added to the deed by V did not in any way protect Dr. Mary’s rights, but was rather an attempt to protect the monetary interests of his friends from the Rotary.
(23) While the property is still legally in my name, and I still mow the lawn and other yard work as needed, I have never, nor do I now, see it as “my” property. It is to be sold with the proceeds divided according to the wishes of Dr. Mary; and that would already have been done were it not that the lawsuit prevented the sale of the property in 2005.
(27) Of course they are in doubt. Dr. Mary lost confidence in them and changed her mind! All who have been involved in this case from the beginning know the story; and I have page after page of her journal showing her concern over money they had borrowed from her and were not paying back. This is why she asked for my help.
Again, how can the plaintiffs demand judgment prior to proving their case? I know I have to prove my case, which is my essential and justified demand: that I be given the opportunity, which is mine by right of law, to do.
(32) What conditions preceding this filing have been met, waived, excused or otherwise occurred? I know of no such conditions.
(35e) Yes, in my individual capacity; however, I had been a leader in two metaphysical groups that began in Dr. Mary’s church for several years prior to her death. She often went with me to these meetings and even spoke at some of them, including the month prior to her death. I had a long history of common interest with her spiritual pursuits; and immediately upon her death began making plans to establish the Mary Horgan Center for Spiritual Development, which was indeed established at 473 Thomas Drive in Melbourne in August 2005. Meetings have been taking place there every week since. This was her passion…and mine! In addition, both previous wills (1974 and 1995), [compared to the one drafted on behalf of the As (2002)] show that she wanted 50% to go to the Shriners and 50% to the church, which closed in 1997. The trust was patterned after the 1995 will. The 1974 will was found in her papers after her death.
(38) This was and is my sole intention. It is the only lawsuit itself that prevents fulfillment of my responsibilities to the other beneficiaries and myself, also a beneficiary of the trust.
(40) The first sentence needs to be rewritten; and the conveyance error on my part has been explained and is demonstrated by the way the document was signed…NOT as an individual, but as successor trustee. Again, I had no legal experience prior to this lawsuit, other than a few traffic violations and two divorces, none of which required counsel. I operated then as now: with intent to harm no one, to be fair with everyone, and to serve the highest good.
(41) This is and has been the unproved allegation. There was no lawful distribution due to the As under the terms of the trust. Dr. Mary had lost confidence in them and no longer wanted them in her will, which she repeated many times as she worked with me to create her trust. Even in her videotaped will I asked about the Wilhlems receiving something in the trust; and she responded, “Why should I give them anything?”
Again, the plaintiffs are demanding the court to make a judgment before the case has been heard in a court of law before a jury of our peers as they demanded when they filed this suit; and, besides, when I can finally fully comply with all the terms of the trust, the As are entitled to nothing, since they are not listed in the trust.
I commented briefly on this issue at the start. I further comment…
(44) The last I knew, they had moved from Satellite Beach to Lakeland. Perhaps they have returned?
(47) Again, what conditions preceding this filing have been met, waived, excused or otherwise occurred? I know of no such conditions.
(49) In order to make distribution according to the terms of the trust, I had to first remove personal effects from the property in preparation for the sale thereof. I had a legal 50% (less $50,000 to others) interest in the property. It was appraised for $800,000 in mid 2005, and was listed for $999,999. I lost two offers during that time ($870,000 and $850,000) due to the complications caused by the lawsuit. How was I in violation of my fiduciary responsibilities?
(51) As I understood my responsibilities, I had not only legal authority, but was required to sell the property in order to fulfill those responsibilities and make full distribution to the other beneficiaries. Having a place where I could move AND conduct meetings for the Mary Horgan Center was a prerequisite to such sale in my understanding.
(53) The previous judge in the case, according to my first lawyer, said there could be no foreclosure until the case was adjudicated. My means for paying the mortgage was the sale of the property, which the As, through their action, prevented me from doing.
An incredible demand, and yet a further attempt to dissolve the issues without adjudicating on the trust’s validity.
(55) The plaintiffs, if I understand what is being said here, are asking the court to impose a new trust that favors them, instead of the real trust created and signed by Dr. Mary. This would totally subvert Dr. Mary’s intentions.
(59) Once again, what conditions preceding this filing have been met, waived, excused or otherwise occurred? I know of no such conditions.
(62) Answered previously.
(65) This is an allegation, not a fact.
(66-67) This property is my homestead, which, as I understand the law, is protected in many ways from legal actions. It is also the location of the Mary Horgan Center for Spiritual Development where multiple scores of people (about 200) have attended the weekly meetings, seminars and workshops. It is dedicated to Dr. Mary and to the Spiritual Hierarchy to recognize the mission of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, which is planetary ascension.
(69) Again, these are allegations that have not been proved.
(70) I am holding nothing for the As except prayer that their soul’s purpose be fulfilled and a desire for A1’s healing since his strokes. As Dr. Mary did, I have a bit more trouble being so gracious with A2.
How can the judgments listed be demanded before the more relevant matter of the trust created by Dr. Mary is adjudicated?
(73) Allegation denied. Reasons already provided elsewhere in this document.
(74) Ludicrous! The mortgage was executed BEFORE the lis pendens. While I am no proponent of current banking practices or corporations in general, that the law would make a later date primary seems preposterous.
(75) Unproven allegations once more.
(77-78) As reported to me by my first lawyer and confirmed by the second, the bank was forbidden to foreclose until the case was adjudicated. Had this not been the case, they would have filed for foreclosure long before now.
(79) The As have not proven any legal rights on their behalf. They have only made allegations from the onset. How can they be claiming to be beneficiaries of the trust if they believe the trust is invalid? What am I missing here? They only have a right, as I do, to have their case heard and decided by an impartial jury of peers.
How can there be a judgment for temporary and permanent injunction? The temporary injunction was already given.
This concludes my commentary and response in regard to the plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint … for now.
There are, however, other issues that must be raised for the court’s consideration.
1) A year ago I brought complaints to the Florida BAR against my two previous lawyers. Not surprisingly, the BAR sided with the attorneys. The fact is my second attorney, L2, still holds property that belongs to me. I refer to the videotaped will made by Dr. Mary in November 2004, the videotaped deposition of J (a then 94-year-old, 32nd Degree, Scottish-Rite Mason and honorary Shriner) made in September 2005, and papers generated by my previous lawyer. All of these items came into his possession during his representation and were, in fact, generated prior to it. Although I am still not in a position to pay L2 ’s final bill, I would ask the court to order these items returned to me. He can keep the ones he generated, even the ones I already paid for, until I am able to pay him his fees.
2) The J deposition is most interesting. While I have not seen it in a long while, I know he testified that he considered the As to be con artists. He also testified that Dr. Mary considered me “like a son” and wanted me to have her house. This is a matter of record vital to this case.
3) Many others can also testify that this (like a son) is how Dr. Mary often referred to me. I was not merely a tenant as alleged. We spent many, many hours conversing on spiritual and other matters. We regularly went to meetings together as mentioned earlier. We were involved in and had a passion for the metaphysical community. Others in the community also know that she wanted me to have her house; nevertheless, I insisted that she honor the commitment she had made to her late husband, repeating many times since I had known her that he wanted a “substantial portion” of the estate to go to the Shriners. If that is “undue influence” and “self serving” as alleged, why does the trust reflect wills created in 1974 and 1995, unlike the one created in 2002, which appears to be an aberration and self-serving (the As) when compared to the others.
4) Dr. Mary had asked me on at least two or three occasions prior to 2002 if I would like her house. As God is my witness, I always replied, “Whatever you feel is best, Dr. Mary.” Since she never brought up the idea of creating a will or other estate planning document, neither did I. If I was “self-serving” as claimed, where are other attempts to take advantage of her kindness towards me? It was not my place to get involved in her finances, and I never did until she asked. The only way anyone can make or believe such allegations is because they do not know me. Certainly theAs were never involved in our spiritual pursuits.
5) When I asked Dr. Mary why she had taken the actions she took in regard to the As, she said it was because they promised her she would never have to go into a nursing home, that if she gave them her house she could live there the rest of her life. At the time, I was in a relationship and engaged to be married. I was spending more time with my fiancé in Melbourne, although my computer stayed at Dr. Mary’s place and I went there almost every day to check on Dr. Mary and take care of my emails, the community calendar, etc. My phone service was maintained without interruption at the Merritt Island address from 1998-2005. Again, I was there almost every day.
6) A little more than one year ago, an attempt was made to reach a settlement. As trustee, I was not allowed in the room where settlement options for the lawsuit were being discussed. Since I was not permitted to participate for myself, The Trust had NO representation in the meeting. That attempt resulted in deadlock. On that very day and following the stalemate, as I was going to thank the mediator I overheard Y say to him, “Principles do not matter when you have kids to put through college.” This was documented last year (2007). It is my sincere belief that she blocked any reasonable settlement in the case at that time, although, with the current system in place, it is entirely understandable how a person might feel that way; and I hold no malice towards her. After all, it is obvious that principles have come to mean less and less for those both elected and choosing to serve the public. This state of affairs needs to be addressed and righted so that no one need feel the inclination to sacrifice justice for financial gain and security. Certainly greed should never enter where matters of justice are concerned, since injustice ultimately affects everyone – even lawyers who love their children.
7) My research has shown that our current system is bankrupt, morally and financially! With this and other realizations, I consider the current lawsuit invalid since it was brought against my STRAWMAN, and not against me personally as a human being. Such is the way of the Uniform Commercial Code pushed in admiralty courts under maritime law. It’s all about money and circumvents common law while undermining constitutional law. I also consider the mortgage invalid, though for vastly different reasons than stated on behalf of the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, I believe in negotiation and reasonable compromise. Therefore, in my opinion the ONLY way we can possibly move forward with the lawsuit is either by a settlement process in which all parties have an equal opportunity to speak their truth and work together to form a consensus, or by submitting the case to trial by jury of my peers in a common-law court or an admiralty court that abides by common law principles rather than the contrived complexity of the Uniform Commercial Code. In either case, I will stand up for my rights so that they may never be trampled upon again. I will also stand up for the rights of others until peace is firmly established on Earth. It would be wonderful if all lawyers and judges did the same. I hold that vision for all of us. What a wonderful world this could be! And it will be….
8) “The world is changing, I want you to see; the way it has been is not how it will be!” That’s the opening of a poem I wrote earlier this year. What does it have to do with this case? When I first read Mr. Whitehead’s motion, I felt as if I was being thrown into the lion’s den or the fiery furnace. Injustice, long the way of the world, was raising its ugly head, apparently against me. At first, I felt victimized; but then I found inner resources that raised my vision with the hope that some or all of you will awaken to your own heart and soul. As you can see, I have chosen to stand in MY truth. I have chosen to use this as a fire of purification within myself. I will continue to serve the community as I have for years, trusting that God in everything and everyone is here working in and through us for the final triumph of TRUTH and JUSTICE. Mercy and grace are freely given to those who honor the Light within their own being, which automatically allows the honoring of the Light in others. Be part of the change. We are all at the crossroads in the valley of decision. As St. Paul wrote to the Romans, “Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…”
Sincerely,
Ron Van Dyke
PS – I invite each of you to come to the center and see what has been set up to honor Dr. Mary. Would the As have done the same? You all know the answer. The difference is: I really love her; and it never was about money for me. Dr. Mary was, and still is, a spiritual mother to me! And if you choose to get really quiet and ask her, she can still reveal her intention to your heart! May each of you dare to stand in Truth and Love! Justice is automatic from that vantage point! So is wisdom.
ONLY LOVE PREVAILS!
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Top of this Page
AWAKENING FROM THE TYRANNY OF IGNORANCE & RECLAIMING PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY
NOTE: On the same evening that I finished this article (yesterday), I removed two envelopes from my mailbox containing legal documents: one from the plaintiff’s lawyer and the other from the bank’s lawyer. The bank wants to foreclose, not only on the property connected to the mortgage, but, for the first time, on my home as well. The plaintiff is also after my home; and they have moved to have the mortgage removed, which means their motion is also against the bank. More will follow; and I will not be sending anything out to the lawyers as indicated below...at least until I decide my next step. Without changing anything following the new information, I decided this morning to post it anyway ... for this reason: please keep me in your prayers.
Monday, July 14, 2008
To All Who Seek Freedom from the Tyranny of Mind-Controlled and Government-Sponsored Slavery!
Some teach that we, assumed to be our egos, create our reality! But that’s not really true…actually it’s our subconscious! Our egos may pretend to be all-powerful; yet, isolated from the greater reality, they are weak beyond measure and extremely fearful of losing the illusions of their self-definition and goals of control. Too bad! Our familiar illusions cannot be maintained. The world is changing…very fast…as things long hidden are coming to the surface! Every event and every person we meet is our teacher, our reflection of unfinished business with our soul. For me, one of my greatest teachers has been a lawsuit now completing its third year. Things had been silent for about a year; and now activity has resumed, prompting my response at this time.
Allow me to address some of the issues raised by this lawsuit. Learn whatever fits your consciousness in this moment. Bear in mind that this serves a dual purpose: (1) to inform the parties involved in the lawsuit, including the lawyers representing the various parties concerned; and, (2) to inform any others who may be drawn here for his or her own consideration of the matters facing everyone in America and around the world. In both instances, it is a sharing of information about the reality/illusion of the way things are and/or appear to be.
I am not a lawyer, although I have allowed myself in the past to be intimidated by lawyers who have been well trained to speak and present their cases in a certain, authoritative-looking format that bolsters their false sense of power and self-importance (ego). They follow a predetermined formula to plead their cases before the court. This document is not intended to be even close to that format or formula; neither is it intended to be a pleading before any court. It is, as stated above, merely information to many who are concerned with the state of injustice in the current system, the establishment many of us see as horribly corrupted by greed and lust for power. Some of those who are troubled by the status quo may indeed be lawyers, or even judges; however, this is NOT a legal document as defined by current practices in the field of Admiralty Law and Courts.
What I am is an individual human being pressured by circumstances to speak and act from the integrity of my own heart, and from my value system. I am honoring my essential self, knowing that all things reflect aspects of personal experience throughout the long journey of my soul. This is for my healing…if I will avail myself of the wisdom embedded in the experience. Like you, I am inherently a freeman – as opposed to a strawman – and I speak here as a spiritual citizen having unalienable rights granted, not by any government or agency thereof, but by the Creator of All Life Itself. I was born free; yet I was taught and learned slavery! I intend to express myself in declarations that are as clear and factual as possible. The issues are emotional as well as rational. Please bear that in mind. Think and feel! You ARE involved! Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
Since this is to be posted on the Internet, only first names will be used (except for Dr. Mary Horgan and myself) in regard to other people involved in the lawsuit. A final, physical letter will be sent to the lawyers concerned; emails will be sent to the private citizens on the defense side. These letters and emails will draw their attention to this page on my website. Thereafter, all correspondence from me to all parties will be open and up front, posted on my website, including references to their written and other reactions. My correspondence to those parties will be by email only. Nothing will be done in secret, since secrecy often involves conspiracies that serve and maintain the errors of injustice; of course, discretion will be applied in some sensitive areas to protect personal privacy. Government entities have no personal privacy to protect, since they exist to serve the people. Classified information claimed by governments generally protects the criminal enterprises of public servants who twist the law to commit fraud and other crimes against humanity. The current American administration is a classic and prominent example. Many others exist currently and in our history.
For nearly three years now, this frivolous lawsuit – Gene and Phyllis vs. Ron Van Dyke, Marion, Sandra, Bob, the Shriners Hospitals for Children, and Harbor Federal Savings Bank / National City Corporation – has been allowed to continue as if it had actual merit from a common-sense approach. My opinion: it does not! I deem it a frivolous lawsuit for one very important reason: the Dr. Mary Horgan Trust is being challenged by none other than Dr. Mary’s personal banker who, with his wife, are the only plaintiffs in the case. Though retired, that was his relationship with Dr. Mary for many years; and as he, himself, has already testified in deposition, he was never connected with her in any other way. This was true until he and his wife attempted to obtain over 99% of her estate, which was totally inconsistent with all previous documentation of her estate planning, and which was the basis, in fact, used in the creation of The Trust being challenged. As Dr. Mary’s friend John (a then 94-year-old, 32nd Degree, Scottish-Rite Mason and honorary Shriner) testified in his September 2005 deposition on the matter, they (Gene and Phyllis) are ‘con artists’… an opinion derived from his personal contact and interaction with them. Anyway, the law requires of such individuals a ‘fiduciary responsibility’ to keep ‘arms length’ from their customer’s assets. That alone disqualified them from having any just claim on the estate of Dr. Mary Horgan; but they paid no attention to such legalities and required ethical behavior, and after several years of no contact, all of a sudden became her ‘friends’ and helped her create a will that was self-serving to say the least. Of course, when she realized what they were doing, she had that will voided along with the power of attorney she felt was in error.
Many can testify that I was, in fact, Dr. Mary’s friend, that she often said publicly that I was “like a son” to her. For years prior to her death, I was leading groups that had started in her church. For years, I took her with me to metaphysical meetings on Sundays and Wednesdays. Even since her death, I have conducted meetings every single week along with periodic workshops and seminars at The Mary Horgan Center that I founded in her honor. I faithfully continue her work, which is why she named me in her trust. She trusted me! While I may have influenced her in the creation of The Trust documents, it was at her request after over nine years of non-involvement in her financial affairs. From The Trust, I actually received far less than she wanted to give to me: a fact that was also revealed in John’s deposition mentioned in the preceding paragraph. I insisted that she honor her commitment to her late husband that she had told me about many, many times over the approximately ten years I knew her, as also documented in two previous wills alluded to earlier. Again, The Trust created coincides with her long-standing wishes as a matter of record.
Furthermore, the relationship of the lawyers for the latter two defendants – the Shriners Hospitals for Children and Harbor Federal Savings Bank / National City Corporation – towards me as trustee of The Trust has been hostile and confrontational from the onset. They have never behaved in a manner defending The Trust, often acting to undermine the very defense thereof. It stands to reason that they are acting out of character for their role as ‘defendants’ in this case. I don’t know what the law is, but it stands to reason that they cannot be both defendants and plaintiffs. As defendants, they have a moral and ethical, if not legal obligation to defend The Trust that is under attack by those who have no legal or ethical right for such actions. Are these lawyers serving principles of justice, or not?
Interjecting a curious point: The Shriners, under the voided will created with the plaintiff’s help, would get $5,000. Under The Trust and all previous wills, they would receive 50% on the sale of the property that was listed at $999,999 in 2005. Still, they have maintained a position of aggression towards The Trust and me, as the trustee. Even my two previous lawyers could not comprehend this strange behavior.
A little more than one year ago, an attempt was made to reach a settlement. As the trustee and personal representative of the estate, I was not allowed in the room where settlement options for the lawsuit were being discussed. Since I was not permitted to participate for myself, The Trust had NO representation in the meeting. That attempt resulted in deadlock. On that very day, following the stalemate, I heard the lawyer for Harbor Federal Savings Bank / National City Corporation say to the mediator, “Principles do not matter when you have kids to put through college.” This was documented last year (2007). It is my sincere belief that this lawyer blocked any reasonable settlement in the case at that time, although, with the current system in place, it is entirely understandable how a person might feel that way. After all, it is obvious that principles have come to mean less and less for those both elected and choosing to serve the public. This state of affairs needs to be addressed and righted so that no one need feel the inclination to sacrifice justice for financial gain and security. Certainly greed should never enter where matters of justice a concerned, since injustice ultimately affects everyone.
It is interesting to me that it is this lawyer, wanting to ensure that her children are educated, that now seeks to move the case forward in regard to the mortgage obtained on the property involved in The Trust. She makes demands of me in writing, demands to respond to certain questions in relation to the mortgage. Again, a defendant’s lawyer seems to be seeking redress against another defendant, me, prior to the case being settled. Even the judge who presided in the early stages of the matter declared, as my first lawyer informed me, that the bank could do nothing until the case was decided. This has not occurred; therefore, The Trust remains in force! It seems reasonable that the bank’s lawyer cannot, as a co-defendant, make demands on me as the primary defendant in the case. I do not feel the need or have the desire to answer such demands.
This entire matter has awakened me to explore many things about the system that condones such frivolous lawsuits and other perceived injustices. Among the “many things” I have explored is the nature of mortgages. Most importantly, I have learned that most, if not all, commercial mortgages are not valid instruments; in fact, they are fraudulently produced and executed on an unaware public by a corrupt banking system that has operated with impunity for the last few centuries at least. Most mortgages are not even legal contracts, despite all the legal jargon contained in the many pages that constitute a mortgage agreement. This is due to one simple fact: ONLY ONE PARTY SIGNS THE PAPERS! Even though that signature is witnessed, there is NO SIGNATURE by a lending institution representative. As I learned, “A mortgage is not a contract. A contract requires two (2) or more parties (Offeror and Offeree) who, at the time of its execution or adoption, covenanted to be bound by it as evidenced by the signature s.”
There’s more. In signing the mortgage (and many other documents created in the Admiralty System throughout my life), I, once again, unknowingly accepted the role of strawman, a legal fiction created in concert with a perverted government that has done everything in its power to defraud others and me of our unalienable rights. Temporarily, I became an ignorant and voluntary debtor/slave of such a nefarious system of pure evil that enriches a few at the expense of many. Such servitude is not required of me – or anyone else – by common, natural law. Of course, I was not informed of this critical fact by the bank at any time during the process. There was no disclosure of many material facts relating to the mortgage I was signing…facts I had a right to know.
What I have learned is that my signature actually created a negotiable instrument (like money) for the bank, not the other way around. In addition, they convinced me that I had to give them a right to the title of the property (a lien) in exchange for my own credit that I gave them. It was not the bank's money that bought the house: my promissory note supplied the credit since it was eventually sold as a derivative, perhaps multiple times, without my permission or precise knowledge, even though it belonged to me. In monetizing my promissory note, the bank may have increased its wealth ten times according to the current and fraudulent rules of reserve fractional banking. In other words, if I understand how this works, the bank was able to take my $250,000 note and obtain $2.5 million in the derivatives market. Whatever the multiplier, they have already received their money from greedy investors that they also defrauded! I no longer owe the parties with which I negotiated the mortgage! By greedily selling the papers, they removed themselves, and me, from the mortgage. I made no agreement with any party to whom they sold my mortgage; therefore, I owe other parties nothing at all!
From the article, "Let the Lawsuits Begin: Banks Brace for a Storm of Litigation" by Ellen Brown, July 13, 2008, on www.webofdebt.com/articles/bracing-storm.php: “Many loan sale contracts provide by their terms that lenders must take back loans that default unusually quickly or that contain mistakes or fraud. An avalanche of rescissions could be catastrophic for the banks. Banks were moving loans off their books and selling them to investors in order to allow many more loans to be made than would otherwise have been allowed under banking regulations. The banking rules are complex, but for every dollar of shareholder capital a bank has on its balance sheet, it is supposed to be limited to about $10 in loans. The problem for the banks is that when the process is reversed, the 10 to 1 rule can work the other way: taking a dollar of bad debt back on a bank’s books can reduce its lending ability by a factor of 10. As explained in a BBC News story citing Prof. Nouriel Roubini for authority:
“’Securitisation was key to helping banks avoid the regulators’ 10:1 rule. To make their risky loans appear attractive to buyers, banks used complex financial engineering to repackage them so they looked super-safe and paid returns well above what equivalent super-safe investments offered. Banks even found ways to get loans off their balance sheets without selling them at all. They devised bizarre new financial entities - called Special Investment Vehicles or SIVs - in which loans could be held technically and legally off balance sheet, out of sight, and beyond the scope of regulators’ rules. So, once again, SIVs made room on balance sheets for banks to go on lending.
“’Banks had got round regulators’ rules by selling off their risky loans, but because so many of the securitised loans were bought by other banks, the losses were still inside the banking system. Loans held in SIVs were technically off banks’ balance sheets, but when the value of the loans inside SIVs started to collapse, the banks which set them up found that they were still responsible for them. So losses from investments which might have appeared outside the scope of the regulators’ 10:1 rule, suddenly started turning up on bank balance sheets.... The problem now facing many of the biggest lenders is that when losses appear on banks’ balance sheets, the regulator’s 10:1 rule comes back into play because losses reduce a banks’ shareholder capital. ‘If you have a $200bn loss, that reduced your capital by $200bn, you have to reduce your lending by 10 times as much,’ [Prof. Roubini] explains. ‘So you could have a reduction of total credit to the economy of two trillion dollars.’” (See: Michael Robinson, “City of Debt Shows US Housing Woe,” BBC News, December 30, 2007).
“You could also have some very bankrupt banks. The total equity of the top 100 U.S. banks stood at $800 billion at the end of the third quarter of 2007. Banking losses are currently expected to rise by as much as $450 billion, enough to wipe out more than half of the banks’ capital bases and leave many of them insolvent. (See: “Is the Latest Liquidity Crunch in Remission?”, NakedCapitalism.com, March 26, 2008). If debtors were to deluge the courts with viable defenses to their debts and mortgage-backed securities holders were to challenge their securities, the result could be even worse.”
If there should ever be a foreclosure filed in this matter, I will demand at least one thing of the Harbor Federal Savings Bank / National City Corporation: Show the judge and me the original document! It is highly probable that even the bank’s representatives do not know where it is, since it has likely been bundled and sold many times over; and the bank with which the mortgage was created no longer owns it. That’s how the Internationalist Banker’s system of fraud works; and people, slowly, are waking up to this criminal behavior of these who create money out of nothing and then expect their duped victims to pay it back with interest. People are waking up to the fact that greed does not serve any sustainable good whatsoever, not even for the greediest people of all on this planet. Their house of cards is coming down, folks! Think about it, lawyers!
Yes, for the privilege of using my promissory note to increase its assets, the bank, Harbor Federal Savings Bank / National City Corporation, wants me to pay back the $250,000 plus interest; and now legal fees for another banker’s frivolous lawsuit that prevented me from selling the property and honoring my commitment in the first place. It amazes me how ‘the system’ creates wealth for those at the top of the pyramid who undermine the peace and prosperity of the entire world. They thought they owned us! Wrong!
Yes, the pattern of the mortgage-lending industry shows: (1) that every mortgage lender intentionally obtains their customer's promissory notes by non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts; (2) that the mortgage lenders risk nothing of their own assets in the transactions; and, (3) that the lenders intentionally obtain their customer's notes by concerted action, which would accomplish the unlawful enslavement of a personal sovereign, with full knowledge of the end results of their individual participation. In a just society, they would be charged with fraud, larceny and conspiracy to defraud (RICO).
While there are many sources of information regarding this issue on the Internet, most of the materials I have used in the preparation of this article come from www.webofdebt.com/articles/bracing-storm.php by Ellen Brown and www.the7thfire.com/debt_elimination/morality_and_debt_elimination.htm. There is no byline on the latter article used; otherwise full credit would be given. While material above reflects edited information from the second website shown, the following paragraphs are used verbatim from that source and restate some points already made above. More is included from this source as a postscript at the end.
“A Mortgage Lender is not a party to a mortgage under the laws of contract. No agent/principal for the mortgage lender will sign a mortgage contract. The reason for the missing signature is because the agent/principal is fully aware that the mortgage lender is not tendering any consideration in the transaction. Therefore, having provided no consideration and having given no indication of any desire to participate as a party to the contract by signing the contract, neither the mortgage lender nor any other third party who may acquire the mortgage, has any legal authority to impose the terms of the mortgage. The contract fails for lack of consideration.
“There is no power of attorney in the mortgage granting the mortgage lender the legal right to use the individual's promissory note for the mortgage lender's personal financial gain, without compensating the maker of the note. There is no written granted authority, or disclosure in the mortgage for the mortgage lender, or any other party, to ‘pool,’ ‘encumber,’ ‘pledge,’ ‘hypothecate,’ or ‘trade’ the individual promissory note on the secondary market where all trades are cleared by the [illegal, private] Federal Reserve and are trades ‘off the books’ without compensating the maker.
“You, the maker of the note in the mortgage ‘contract,’ have made no appointment of representative status to any agent/principal of the mortgage lender. After obtaining the note, the non-authorized actions of the mortgage lender concerning the individual promissory note creates implied obligations for the maker to undisclosed and unknown parties to the original transaction.
“If the mortgage were a contract, then the mortgage lender would have had to tender consideration and possess the original unmarked and unaltered note in order to sell the note or enforce the contract. Otherwise the contract is ‘voidable.’
“When the mortgage lender obtains the customer's promissory note without consideration, they have committed an act of ‘Constructive Fraud’ by acts of concealment of material facts. These acts of concealment of material facts establish a Breach of Contract, since the mortgage lender has a legal duty to act in good faith and disclose all material facts relative to the transaction.
“Having obtained the customer's promissory note by constructive fraud, the mortgage lender is not justified by ‘implied consent’ to enforce the contract, as that consent, implied or otherwise, cannot be given under a cloud of non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts, or a state of duress.”
All of this relates to the method of the deceitful, albeit government-sanctioned and privately created fiat money as instruments of debt forced upon all citizens through banking fraud established for enrichment of the elite at the expense and enslavement of citizens…all citizens, including lawyers and judges. When enough of us see it and expose it, it will change. Many already are exposing it.
As reported in The San Francisco Chronicle and posted on www.webofdebt.com, attorney Sean Olender suggested the real reason for the subprime bailout schemes being proposed by the Fed was not to keep borrowers in their homes as much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. As reported, “The plan then on the table was an interest-rate freeze on a limited number of subprime loans.” Olender wrote:
“’The sole goal of the freeze is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value – right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
“’... The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC....
“’What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people [bankers] to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.’” ( “Mortgage Meltdown,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 9, 2007).
“That thought could send a chill through even the most powerful of investment bankers…. Mortgage fraud has not been limited to the representations made to borrowers or on loan documents but is in the design of the banks’ “financial products” themselves. Among other design flaws is that securitized mortgage debt has become so complex that ownership of the underlying security has often been lost in the shuffle; and without a legal owner, there is no one with standing to foreclose. That was the procedural problem prompting Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko to rule in October 2007 that Deutsche Bank did not have standing to foreclose on 14 mortgage loans held in trust for a pool of mortgage-backed securities holders. ( See Ellen Brown, “The Subprime Trump Card,” webofdebt.com/articles, June 26, 2008.) If large numbers of defaulting homeowners were to contest their foreclosures on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) could be at risk. Irate securities holders might then respond with litigation that could indeed threaten the existence of the banking Goliaths.”
As you can see, we all, including lawyers and others in our country and around the world, have been duped by this massive fraud perpetrated on the human family by the International Banking Cartel that has created the best governments money can buy…to serve themselves! This is the Illuminati we hear so much about; and they are actively attempting to conclude their plan for world domination under a fascist state. They know people are waking up to their Ponzi schemes, and, as I said before, their house-of-cards is coming down…fast! Of course, our self-serving government continues to prop up the failing structures with tax-payer bailouts as revealed in the article shown above and many, many others in both mainstream and alternative news media. Yes, this is a current event, the comprehensive meaning of which is not yet widely covered in the mainstream media, which is the best media money can buy! Certainly, t he institutions that have propped up our governments are facing collapse, and the whole structure will prove inadequate to accommodate the incoming Cosmic and global changes taking place.
So, along with a multitude of others around the world, I am reclaiming the personal sovereignty I allowed myself to be tricked into forfeiting. Bear in mind, that I am merely taking what is mine by Divine Right of Birth as a human being made in the image of God. Dr. Mary is so proud, and smiling that she laid the foundation for me to not only learn these things, but to actually have the opportunity to exercise my rights by standing in Truth and the integrity of my own heart. I am not a slave of the false system of the Uniform Commercial Code of Admiralty Law under which the BAR Associations operate our prejudiced court systems. Rather, I am a FREEMAN, under God and in Christ. I ONLY have to answer to common law, not admiralty law! …Of course Divine Law, too, as all of us do!
My research has shown that the current system is bankrupt, morally and financially! With this and other realizations expressed herein, I consider the current lawsuit invalid since it was brought against my strawman, and not me personally as a human being. I also consider the mortgage invalid for reasons already stated in detail. Therefore, the ONLY way we can possibly move forward with the lawsuit is either by a settlement process in which all parties have an equal opportunity to speak their truth and work together to form a consensus, or by submitting the case to trial by jury of my peers in a common-law court. In either case, I will stand up for my rights so that they may never be trampled upon again.
In closing, let me humbly encourage others to see the futility of egocentric and self-serving mindsets and to promote principles of truth and justice for all. It is my sincere prayer that all of us, including the lawyers, judges, politicians, and even bankers wake up and begin to treat everyone and each other as the Children of God we all are. If we choose to honor and respect each other, we can reach a just conclusion to this and many other matters with which we are confronted as a human family. Otherwise, new energies on the planet will not support those who resist truth and justice. There is a new day dawning; and people everywhere are becoming aware of the illusions. I am thankful to be able to play my small part in this amazing process of planetary ascension.
Many are awakening from the tyranny of ignorance that has been manipulated by the unbridled greed and the lust for power over others exercised by the International Banking Cartel known to some as the Illuminati! Let freedom ring! NESARA now!
Sincerely,
Ron Van Dyke
Founder of The Mary Horgan Center
Creator of the Metagroups Community Calendar
Brother to People of the Heart everywhere
P.S. Here are some final thoughts from the aforementioned website: www.the7thfire.com for those who are willing to see the level to which we have fallen from our Divine Right as Children of God.
If the sovereign has the rights of sovereignty over himself and his property, then each is capable of entering into a social contract. But by the use of mortgage, those who are sovereign are deceived into use by privilege, of what they think they possess by right. A privilege is granted by an authority, whereas a right is a natural heritage implying ownership. Because the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has placed the sovereign under the protection of the United States CORPORATION which administers the District of Columbia and all other Federal territories and possessions, the mortgage lender, the lawyer and the judge take advantage of the Sovereign under the undisclosed concept that the individual is a perpetual child who is incompetent, a ward of the State, and not legally capable of entering into ANY contract, while yet enforcing an implied contract.
But, a contract creates the law. Therefore, a contract is a living body of law and is an agreement made between living people. When a contract's sponsors and promoters reduce to a document words and terms that convey privileges and authority, which those sponsors and promoters have no right or lack the capacity to convey, it is illegal.
You think YOU have a moral responsibility? The moral issue is instead the banking industry's long-term practices of constructive fraud by breach of contract and nondisclosure as well as larceny.
There's much more that demonstrates that your moral issue is rather to uphold your right to be considered a Sovereign rather than a subject. At the moment you are considered before the law to be incompetent and in need of caretaking. Your employees, the several levels of government, have taken without permission your substance to be collateral for the debt they've created.
Since you have not taken the position that you are capable of accepting responsibility, you are treated as though you were irresponsible. You seek licenses to be granted by them as though they were the Lord of the Manor and in seeking privileges from them continue a subservient status of subject by presumption. They presume that since you have not taken control of your own affairs, you are content to remain under their care. So morally, to avoid this issue you are permitting the governments to usurp power from you and collectively from all other Sovereigns who do not know they have lost their status under a constitutional republic. By default you and all others who are unaware have created the impending dictatorship by inaction. There will be hell to pay for that. Here is a moral position that cannot be overlooked.
Since 1933, the US has been bankrupt and money is no longer available but for the debt instruments that, when used to repay debt, actually increase the national debt. Having withdrawn substance for commerce, only the government can extinguish our debts. That is the action of the surety bond and a bill of exchange instrument to discharge your debts.
Furthermore, by "switching chairs" with you, the mortgagor manages to become the acceptor of your offer and ends up holding the contract in due course...meaning as holder they retain the right of ownership whereas you obtain the privilege of its use. When title is registered, the true owner of the property – car, house, boat, etc. – is the state. Therefore you must pay rent to the feudal lord who owns the property to which you have acquired the privilege of its use--taxes, license fees, etc. You own nothing and retain privilege at the sufferance of the State.
Similarly, getting a marriage license, a driver's license, or a dog license establishes ownership and privilege. Just as a serf would have to obtain permission from the Lord of the Manor to join in conjugal bliss with a mate, the first right of intercourse went to the Lord of the Manor so that the first child would be his. Today the marriage license legally assigns all produce from the partnership as first right of the State. You have obtained a privilege of companionship and children but not the right to protect and nurture them as you see fit. Hence, the State can determine whether the children can be raised by their parents or taken from them and placed in foster care as wards of the State. And once in foster care, many of the children disappear.
Do you note the immorality of the system? This is the system you support by non-action, and establishing your rights to your own substance which has been taken from you without your knowledge or permission is the beginning of taking back the power you inadvertently let slip away. Not your fault. The schools, attorneys, the media, the government, the banks do not provide you with the information to make an informed decision. That does not diminish your own responsibility to become informed. Now you have a clearer idea of what the stakes are, you understand some of the consequences of being uninformed, and you have the choice of pretending you don't know or that it's too complicated for you.
© By Ron Van Dyke, www.metagroups.info, all rights reserved.
My sincere thanks to the authors of materials quoted herein. They too will receive this article. And finally, I thank all those across the globe who seek the Truth and act for the highest good of all upon learning to discern the difference between reality and illusion. We should all be especially grateful to those willing to help educate others in regard to these important matters.
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Top of this Page
NOTE: The lawyers mentioned in the two letters below are labeled L1 & L2, my first and second lawyers in this case. Obviously, I filed complaints against both with the Florida BAR, which did nothing! As above, names have been replaced with letters to protect their identities. A, A1 and A2 are the plaintiffs; X is the plaintiff's lawyer; Y is the bank's lawyer; B & C & D are named beneficiaries in the trust; W is the lawyer who helped Dr. Mary get her property back from the As; V is the lawyer who created the will for the As; J is a friend of Dr. Mary's; L2 is one of the two lawyers I hired to assist me earlier in this case. U is the plaintiff's first lawyer, who apparently dropped the case. T is an attorney that I talked with at the church I attend.
THE FLORIDA BAR
1200 Edgewater Drive
Orlando, FL 32804-6314
Re: Complaint by Ronald T. Van Dyke
Case Nos. 2007-31,777(18C) & 2007-31,824(18C)
Dear Ms. S:
This is my response to both L1 and L2. L1’s letter was dated June 26, 2007 and received the following day. L2 ’s was dated 29, June, 2007 and was also received the following day.
L1’s denial of the fact that he, himself, informed me that he had contacted the Wilhelm’s directly is all the more surprising to me since he presented himself to me as a Christian. I took him seriously on that point; and I can hardly believe that he has denied the truth. The only way I knew what happened was because he told me he had sent them a letter, though he never showed it to me. L1 ’s statement, “I have never spoken to Plaintiff at any time…” while it may be technically true in the literal sense (just as it is true that I have never spoken with you. Ms. S) yet, correspondence occurs when one writes to another. Furthermore, he never indicated to me a name of any other lawyer besides U as representing the As. I have no recollection of knowing about X’s representation until the very end of January 2006 when notification of the amended complaint ordered by the court on November 1, 2005 was finally filed, nor, I believe, did L1. Furthermore, my subsequent counsel, L2 was informed of U ’s action at the time he was brought into the case.
As for L1 filing the motion to dismiss, yes, he did file it, though from my perspective not in a timely manner. It took more than a month after the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court order within twenty days had elapsed. Had he filed in a more timely matter, there might have been some resolution by the end of 2005 or early in 2006.
L2 ’s letter, while mostly factual in nature, contains information of which I am unaware as well as nuances that might distort the facts without clarification. Specifically, I do not know whom the second defendant is that he claims to represent; only B is known to me since we remain in communication with each other. He told me in our most recent conversation a few weeks ago that he has only ever paid L2 $200. Knowing the situation of the other two defendants, C and D, I find it hard to believe they are or have ever paid L2 for counsel.
As for his statement that the case has been turned over to Probate Court, I did receive an unsigned letter with no return address on the envelope stating what L2 says. I do not know of its source or validity, nor do I have any intention of ever submitting the Mary Horgan Trust to any Probate Court as stated in my letter dated June 7, 2007. It has no jurisdiction or authority in this matter!
Though we communicated fairly often, we did not communicate on a weekly basis. Sometimes two or three weeks passed between our contacts. In addition, I had come to the point where I considered L2 a friend, and some of our communication had little or nothing to do with the case. We talked about spiritual matters, politics, birds, flowers, relationships, and other things.
As for L2 not filing any motion to dismiss, he is correct that L1 had already filed that motion. Still, he did not act on the motion in the judge’s chambers according to his own statement at the time, wanting to determine the position of the other lawyers in the case, especially the representative of the Shriners. Yes, I continued as his client, trusting that he was acting on my behalf.
When he states that I was advised “on numerous occasions…of the amount coming due,” that is simply not true. We talked very little about money; and, as stated before, the ONLY invoice I ever received from him was in the Fall of 2006. He had been informed, as he admits, that I had very little liquid assets left after paying him $2,000 in June—without him even asking for it. So, why did it surprise him that I did not pay his invoice when received? I had no job at the time other than my volunteer work in the community and the Mary Horgan Center—hence, no income! I did not tell him that I would not pay any further fees; I told him that I could not, that I did not have the ability to pay. Yet, I have always made provision for his payment in any settlement with which I could agree, and still do. It’s not that I am waiting to see how much I will gain, it’s purely my inability to pay due to lack of liquid assets, which, he knows to be true.
As for documents, what I want returned to me without delay or damage are Dr. Mary’s VHS will made in November 2004 and the DVDs of the deposition of J taken in September 2005—both existing prior to L2 becoming my counsel. These have nothing to do with payments made or not made; they are merely exclusive and single records having great bearing on the case. Both attorneys have already provided copies of most, if not all of the paper documents produced in the case including the settlement offer made by X in October but not including the depositions taken in September 2006. Thereafter, he stopped providing anything as shown in email records.
As for L2 ’s alleged conversation with T, I have not see her in church for many weeks now. She and I spoke following the letter in which I told of hers and my communication, and was told not to worry about it. (Her office had contacted me following the mailing of my letter.) Then she stopped singing in the choir and stopped coming to church altogether. That she would deny the scope of our conversation is incredulous to me, seeming totally out of character for what I know about her. Someone is not telling the truth.
As for questioning Y, yes, she did respond to me in writing, denying my statements in the June 7, 2007 letter. However, when I was going to thank the mediator for his kind words and efforts in trying to reach a settlement, I actually heard, with my own ears, her saying to him as nearly as I can remember, “Principles do not matter when you have kids to put through college.” I heard nothing else and nothing more, as whatever conversation they were having ended when I appeared in the doorway. The other lawyers and the plaintiffs had already left, and I had used the bathroom prior to my approach when only Mr. R, the mediator, and Y were in the room.
Human beings were not created to lie, to compete, or to fear; yet, in the culture we have created that is exactly what happens to the detriment of our souls. We have created a justice system that metes out injustice rather than justice because lies are allowed to prevail and greed is encouraged. By the grace of God, I am committed to stand in my own integrity to the best of my ability and to exercise my personal sovereignty as a son of God. Together, many of us around the world are transforming the system by exposing the corruption and by standing in our own truth. I wish no ill to any of the lawyers named in this document; and only wish that we could all work together to reach an agreement where everyone can me heard and understood, when we could, once again, each find our souls restored to become what we were created to be.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ron Van Dyke
NOTE: The Florida BAR, true to form, sided with the lawyers, believing their lies rather than the truth.
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
THE FLORIDA BAR
1200 Edgewater Drive
Orlando, FL 32804-6314
Re: Case No. 05-2005-CA-9048
Dear Sirs:
This is a complaint against two members of the Florida Bar in regard to the above case, which has been ongoing since July 25, 2005. Those lawyers are: L1, P.A. and L2, Esquire, P.A. The first, I dismissed; the second gave me a bill he knew I could not pay and has subsequently been dismissed by the court per his request and my agreement. I am now representing myself, since I cannot afford to pay a professional advocate; and neither lawyer represented the Mary Horgan Trust or me well anyway.
Over the Easter weekend (Saturday-Tuesday), Dr. Michael Mirdad, a minister and healer, stayed with me at my home, which is also The Center. He used the Mary A. Horgan Meditation Room and Library to conduct healing and counseling sessions with several individuals during his stay. One of those was a lady from church who had never been in my home before; and, knowing of my situation, suggested afterwards that I contact her, since she is a lawyer. I didn’t know that. Her name is T; and she and I talked after church on Sunday afternoon. When I told her my story, she strongly advised that I contact you as soon as possible and register a complaint.
I will insert portions of letters written to the judge and the several lawyers in the case whose names and addresses will appear at the end of this letter. However, L1’s letter from me this March came back as undeliverable; and he is not listed in the new, local phone book, indicating he has likely moved. An Internet search produced no address or phone number either; so I do not know how or where to reach him.
In a letter dated March 13, 2007, I wrote, “I drove to Titusville and was sitting at the table when [the judge] heard L2 ’s motion to withdraw as my counsel. After the motion was granted, the judge asked me if anyone had contacted me in response to my letter, which was in front of him, dated December 12, 2006…. When I told him that no one had, he informed me that it would have been unethical for them to have done so, since L2 was still my counsel…. Of course, he had ceased being my counsel back in October from my perspective, withholding information from me, as well as documentation he possessed that was created prior to Dr. Mary’s death, created by my former counsel, L1, and even that which he had created and for which I had paid him. I had been taken out of the loop in my own case.
“As stated in my earlier letter, my previous counsel, L1, had done exactly what the judge said was unethical. He personally contacted the As in December 2005 when their side failed to respond to the judge’s twenty-day order, given on November 1, 2005, to amend their complaint. He said it was because their counsel, U, had dropped the case and moved from Florida. However, his address is still listed in the current phone book as the same as X, for, indeed, he was a member of that law firm. In fact, I saw his “shingle” displayed on Malabar Road in Palm Bay just west of Babcock Street in the autumn of last year. However, a Google search of his name still shows him at the Melbourne, and not the Palm Bay address. Anyway, my point is that my counsel was allowed to act unethically by contacting the plaintiffs directly rather than the law firm that represented them. That, alone, should be grounds for dismissal in my opinion.”
It seems appropriate to reiterate that my March 13 th letter to U, et. al., was addressed to the same law firm that still represents the As. It did NOT get returned to me as L1 ’s letter had, indicating the probability of delivery at that address or at least proper forwarding. In addition, that law firm did not file the amended complaint due by November 20, 2005 until January 26, 2006…over two months beyond the judge’s order. More grounds for dismissal, in my opinion! Would the court have been as lenient with me had I failed to respond in the time allotted by the court?
L1 was a young man who was diligent and professional in working with me; however, as time went on and he failed to move for dismissal as I kept on insisting, I began to realize that he was excited about having his first court case, one he was confident he would win. I wasn’t looking for a court case at all. My intention was to get past the whole ordeal as quickly as possible. Anyhow, I let him go because he had directly contacted the plaintiffs and failed to do what I had been insisting needed to be done quickly after the Judge’s November 20 th deadline had passed.
In addition, during this same time an offer was made to purchase the estate/trust property (which was listed for $999,000) for $850,000. I made it clear to the Realtor that the potential buyer be notified of the lis pendens, since a previous buyer had already withdrawn an offer of $870,000 when that fact was revealed. Had L1 moved on this as I wanted him to do, the property might well have been sold, the mortgage paid off, all bequests paid, and the entire matter closed. Therefore, I contend, my lawyer’s intent to have the case go to court, even directly prodding the plaintiffs to follow through, caused me tremendous undue financial and emotional hardship.
As for L2, he knew from the onset that I wanted him to move for dismissal, which is why I replaced L1. At his first hearing before the judge, he chose to “get a feel” for where the other lawyers were in the case rather than making the motion I had expected of him. He too seemed to drag things out rather than serving the wishes and highest good of his client.
I now quote from my letter of December 12, 2006, “After I accepted the settlement offer presented following the depositions at the end of September, nothing was immediately forthcoming. This surprised me. Then, after three weeks or so had passed, I received a copy of a letter from the plaintiff’s lawyer suggesting mediation. From my perspective, there is nothing to mediate. I accepted the offer to sign over the property in dispute to the Shriners, Harbor Federal, and the plaintiffs (even though Dr. Mary said repeatedly that she did NOT wish for the latter to receive anything because she had lost confidence in them). To see the whole ordeal end, I was and remain willing to relinquish all further claims to the real estate at 10090 South Tropical Trail, so long as that which is in my possession remains unencumbered so that I can continue my work with The Mary Horgan Center for Spiritual Development; and so long as the other three beneficiaries receive from the real estate sale their bequests totaling $50,000. (Yes, this means that I would get back the $22,000 already provided as loans against their bequests made in good faith to D and C, which would enable me to pay my lawyer, etc.)
“Immediately following my rejection of the offer to mediate, L2 sent me the first invoice ever received in this case from him. Previously, because we had an oral understanding rather than a written contract, I had simply paid him monies without being invoiced—a total of $3,500. When I paid him $2,000 some months back, I informed him that I was nearly out of money and did not know if I could pay him any more before closure of the action. Despite knowing this, he sent me an invoice for $6,640.50, informing me that he would no longer represent me without payment; and that he would not provide me any further information regarding correspondence with other parties. Nearly the entire amount of that invoice was for services just prior to the depositions and thereafter. In other words, I had paid him through the middle of September according to his invoice. When I reminded him of my situation, he indicated that he was going to withdraw as my counselor; and that he would turn over my files to any counselor I hired when he received payment of his final invoice. I have not responded to him on this, although parts of that file are mine by reason of payment for services and prior possession before he was hired to provide representation, i.e., papers and DVDs generated during L1 ’s representation, and the VHS video will made prior to Dr. Mary’s passing.”
When I told T* this on Sunday, she said emphatically, “He can’t do that!” She said he was obligated to return my filed to me whether I could pay his invoice or not. This is why she insisted that I contact you.
Had L2 followed through with the settlement offer on the table last October, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of me, the entire matter might have been settled by now. As it is, the lawsuit, exacerbated by the delaying tactics of my two representatives, has cost me somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 in trust funds that would have gone to expanding the Mary Horgan Center and the spiritual work that she and I had done jointly in the metaphysical community before her transition.
From a human perspective, I feel as if I have been dealt with unfairly and unjustly in this entire matter; although the spiritual perspective indicates lessons my soul is teaching me, if I will but learn them. In any case, I have brought these matters to your attention with hope that these issues will be addressed and remedied. Please advise if there is anything else you need from me.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ron Van Dyke
*T is not my counsel in this case, and only listened to me as a friend. The fact that she is a lawyer is relevant only insofar as she knows what lawyers can and cannot do under the terms and ethical procedures required of BAR Association members.
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - Letter to Shriner's Hospital for Childrem
Shriner’s Hospitals for Children
Attn. Tom V, Legal Department
2900 Rocky Point Drive
Tampa, Florida 33607
Dear Mr. V:
Hopefully, the case regarding the Mary Horgan Trust is nearing completion. I am enclosing, as an afterthought, today’s correspondence with the judge, the mediator, the lawyers, and other parties directly involved.
At a previous time we spoke, you advised me that your attorney, Mr. K, was handling the matter and that we should not be discussing issues in the case. I have honored that for a long while; however, the reason I felt to send this to you now is because several people have told me, over the months that this has dragged on and on, that I should let the Shriners know what appears to be your lawyer serving interests other than those who Dr. Mary intended to serve through her bequest. As indicated in the enclosed document, almost from the beginning he has insisted in avoiding steps that might have led to early resolution. If this is your position, forgive me for having bothered you. Nevertheless, if your interest is truly in helping children, please advise him to do everything in his power to reach a quick settlement rather than prolonging the process to enrich himself. To me, that serves neither Dr. Mary’s will nor the children’s highest good.
Sincerely,
R on Van Dyke
NOTE: He did not respond.
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I drove to Titusville and was sitting at the table when [the judge] heard [my lawyer's] motion to withdraw as my counsel. After the motion was granted, the judge asked me if anyone had contacted me in response to my letter, which was in front of him, dated December 12, 2006. (The text of that letter is included at the end of this letter for the benefit of [a mediator], [my 2nd lawyer], [my 1st lawyer], [plaintiff's 1st lawyer],[3 beneficiaries named in trust], who did not receive it from me then.) When I told him that no one had, he informed me that it would have been unethical for them to have done so, since [my 2nd lawyer] was still my counsel…. Of course, he had ceased being my counsel back in October from my perspective, withholding information from me, as well as documentation he possessed that was created prior to Dr. Mary’s death, created by my former counsel, [my 1st lawyer], and even that which he had created and for which I had paid him. I had been taken out of the loop in my own case.
As stated in my earlier letter, my previous counsel, [my 1st lawyer], had done exactly what the judge said was unethical. He personally contacted the [plaintiffs] in December 2005 when their side failed to respond to the judge’s twenty-day order, given on November 1, 2005, to amend their complaint. He said it was because their counsel, [plaintiff's 1st lawyer], had dropped the case and moved from Florida. However, his address is still listed in the current phone book as the same as [plaintiff's 2nd lawyer], for, indeed, he was a member of that law firm. In fact, I saw his “shingle” displayed on Malabar Road in Palm Bay just west of Babcock Street in the autumn of last year. However, a Google search of his name, still shows him at the Melbourne, and not the Palm Bay address. Anyway, my point is that my counsel was allowed to act unethically by contacting the plaintiffs directly rather than the law firm that represented them. That, alone, should be grounds for dis-missal in my opinion.
Furthermore, both of my attorneys were puzzled by the strange behavior of the Shriner’s attorney, _______. Neither could figure out whose side he was on, even though the Shriners are also defendants in the case. [my 1st lawyer] indicated to me that it was [the Shriner's lawyer] who advised him not to file for dismissal when the plaintiffs had not responded within the twenty days allocated by the court. To me, it was simply a matter of greed on the part of all the lawyers involved, milking Dr. Mary’s estate for all they could get.
During the deposition, where I was grilled for about fourteen hours, it often seemed as if the other three lawyers were working as a team; and my own lawyer seemed least prepared of the four in the room, which I thought at the time was because he knew I did not have more money to give him until the case was con-cluded (based on my expectation that at least some funds from the trust would still be forthcoming). Unlike his allegation that I have refused to pay him, my intention, even as indicated in that December letter, was the opposite. In addition, after sending him Christmas greetings in December, he sent me this email: “Some people are having a tough Christmas because they trusted their client and got screwed. They do not need well wishes from such clients. They are working very hard to fill in the broken pieces, greedy as they may be, because they have a home to pay for and children to feed and the client's bills to pay. Yes, Ron, there are people that I am paying out of my pocket as a result of your problems, and I am making damn sure that they have a merry Christmas with their families….May you have no peace or love until you take care of your promises.”
When I heard that [a mediator] had been chosen as mediator, I immediately approved. Not only have I heard of his reputation for fairness, I had contacted his son, _____, for representation in my case back in August 2005 because I was a friend of his sister, _____, whom I have known since 1994. She and I are both meta-physicians working to bring love and truth into a world that often seems insane. (Dr. Mary, by the way, was also in that category.) We met in a spiritual ceremony; and she blessed me with her poem, which I thought was a prophecy, Masters of Love. I was the first person she ever graced with a copy of her creation, which I believe is the best poem I ever heard, and which I have recited and even published with her blessing.
However, ladies and gentlemen, I do not have funds to pay [a mediator]. I continue to operate the center without taking any financial remuneration; and I am involved in many spiritual endeavors in the community. I also work a part-time job with Conscious Living Partnership for $7/hour, ten to twenty hours a week. You see, I am not now, nor have I ever been money motivated. I did not even look for that job either; in fact, it came to me the way many things in my life have come to me, as gifts of grace, including Dr. Mary taking me under her wings and believing in me and my mission in life. That, unfortunately, is something so few seem to understand at this point when they can only see through eyes of greed rather than hearts of love.
I will be happy to sit down with any of you to work through this; and I will do so as a sovereign child of the Living God seeking truth, justice, love and understanding. I am not against [my 1st lawyer] or [my 2nd lawyer], and thank them for trying their best to help me. Neither am I opposed to any of the other attorneys in this case; in fact, I had really good feelings in regard to [plaintiffs 2nd lawyer] during the deposition. [bank's lawyer], too! If we will communicate with each other, I’m sure we can find a workable solution.
Neither am I against the [plaintiffs]. I actually feel sorry for[husband], and pray for him. As was evident to those attending the deposition in September 2006, he is clueless regarding the actions in his name. I have always known that it was [wife] who was manipulating Dr. Mary; and it was her interference that so often troubled Dr. Mary. Yet, I am not even against [wife]. Nothing happens by mistake from the spiritual perspective. Yes, I know that [plaintiffs] never understood that essential, spiritual reality in Dr. Mary’s life; but maybe, just maybe, they, too, might find grace in all of these proceedings, including forgiveness.
For the record, however, let me state, again, emphatically: Dr. Mary was asked many, many times during the creation of the trust and estate planning in 2004 what and how much she wanted the [plaintiffs] to re-ceive. Always, her answer was the same: “Why should I leave them anything?” Had she wanted them in her trust, they would have been there. Contrary to what some of you try to portray, I only ever wanted fairness, to honor those who truly cared about Dr. Mary. It was I, as I have stated many times, who insisted that the Shriners get 50% as Leroi and Dr. Mary had wanted. Prior to finding her 1995 will (and I never found the 2002 will in her papers, other than the copy provided by [lawyer friend of plaintiffs] in 2004), her plan was to leave the Shriners 30%. Dr. Mary wanted the “crippled children” to be benefited, she had simply forgotten the percentage agreed upon until that document was found.
One other item comes to mind here. In the deposition, [Shriner's lawyer] questioned [plaintiff husband] regarding his membership in the Shriners. ____ said he was a Shriner. [Shriner's lawyer] stated to ____, “So, then Mr. Van Dyke lied.” (My lawyer did not respond.) Nor I did not. The only lie I told during the entire deposition was a partial truth that I corrected on the record. I cannot live with a known lie; something I wish the entire world would get. According to [J, 32nd degree mason friend of Dr. Mary], ____ was NOT a Shriner; and when I talked with him on February 22, 2007 (he called me at 10:32 pm—caller ID), he reiterated that fact, saying that he had personally checked the records at the local temple. I admit, I never checked them personally; but on this I am convinced J is telling the truth. [plaintiff husband] is not.
I am ready and willing to compromise in order to get my life back and proceed with the work Dr. Mary and I talked about many, many times. This has been the most challenging thing I have ever had to face in my life; and I want it over. To me, justice would require the [plaintiffs] to pay everything—all costs for all parties. If they ever truly wanted to honor Dr. Mary, they would never have initiated the injustice of these proceedings; however, if the other parties wish to reward them for their action, I will not attempt to stop it in my role as personal representative and trustee of the Mary Horgan Trust. No one can escape the karma of his or her actions; and the day of reckoning is closer than many may think.
In closing, let me challenge each of you to go within, to listen to that still small voice inside of you. This case is about honoring the wishes of a lady who dedicated a large part of her life to helping people become spiritually aware. That may not be your passion; therefore, it is not your job. It is, however, your job as a human being to seek truth and justice, which, in this case, can only be honored by honoring HER wishes.
May the Light of God inspire you to do right,
Ron Van Dyke
PS – I invite each of you to come to the center and see what has been set up to honor Dr. Mary. Would the Wilhelms have done the same? You all know the answer. Dr. Mary was, and is, a spiritual mother to me!
cc:
[other beneficiaries]
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The seeming long silence from my side in this action is due to circumstances between my lawyer, [#2], and me. I had hoped he would change his mind; however, today I received the letter whereby he officially petitioned the Court to withdraw as my counsel.
After I accepted the settlement offer presented following the depositions at the end of September, nothing was immediately forthcoming. This surprised me. Then, after three weeks or so had passed, I received a copy of a letter from the plaintiff’s lawyer suggesting mediation. From my perspective, there is nothing to mediate. I accepted the offer to sign over the property in dispute to the Shriners, Harbor Federal, and the plaintiffs (even though Dr. Mary said repeatedly that she did NOT wish for the latter to receive anything because she had lost confidence in them). To see the whole ordeal end, I was and remain willing to relinquish all further claims to the real estate at 10090 South Tropical Trail, so long as that which is in my possession remains unencumbered so that I can continue my work with The Mary Horgan Center for Spiritual Development; and so long as the other three beneficiaries receive from the real estate sale their bequests totaling $50,000. (Yes, this means that I would get back the $22,000 already provided as loans against their bequests made in good faith to Sandra Oak and Bob Wilhoit, which would enable me to pay my lawyer, etc.)
Immediately following my rejection of the offer to mediate, [lawyer #2] sent me the first invoice ever received in this case from him. Previously, because we had an oral understanding rather than a written contract, I had simply paid him monies without being invoiced—a total of $3,500. When I paid him $2,000 some months back, I informed him that I was nearly out of money and did not know if I could pay him any more before closure of the action. Despite knowing this, he sent me an invoice for $6,640.50, informing me that he would no longer represent me without payment; and that he would not provide me any further information regarding correspondence with other parties. Nearly the entire amount of that invoice was for services just prior to the depositions and thereafter. In other words, I had paid him through the middle of September according to his invoice. When I reminded him of my situation, he indicated that he was going to withdraw as my counselor; and that he would turn over my files to any counselor I hired when he received payment of his final invoice. I have not responded to him on this, although parts of that file are mine by reason of payment for services and prior possession before he was hired to provide representation, i.e., papers and DVDs generated during [lawyer #1 ’s representation, and the VHS video will made prior to Dr. Mary’s passing.
I do not intend to hire, nor can I afford to pay for additional legal representation. I will represent the trust and my work at the center that honors her from here on out and for as long as the case remains unsettled. I have accepted part-time work in order to keep the basics going; and continue to do the spiritual work that Dr. Mary and I discussed many times and upon which our entire relationship was based—years before the [plaintiffs] reappeared in her life and, of course long before she asked me to get involved in her estate planning.
This entire lawsuit, from my perspective, is without merit and the attempted subversion of Dr. Mary’s intent and signed trust, the purpose of which, among other things, was to keep the courts out of implementation of the estate distribution. If I used any “undue” influence at all with Dr. Mary in the preparation of her estate planning, it was to take less than she wanted to give to me, and to include others who had helped her so much in her waning years. She knew what she wanted and what she did not want. She had many opportunities over the six-month period from June to December 2004 to think about how she wanted her assets distributed and was well pleased with the results of her trust; even though she had told several people that she wanted me to have her house, a fact testified to by {her 32nd degree Mason friend] in his videotaped deposition in September 2005. I was the one who insisted that she honor her previous will in the amount she would leave to the Shriners, since that was what she had always indicated before my involvement with her estate planning that began in June 2004. I did not know the amount or percentage; but am fully persuaded that 50% was in line with her long-time wishes as promised to her late husband and verified in wills dating back to 1974. That the Shriners seem more antagonistic towards me than even the plaintiffs is beyond belief, and was puzzling to both attorneys representing me. [My 2nd lawyer’s] take was that they were trying to eliminate me and then eliminate the plaintiffs, as it made no sense why they would want the 2002 will enforced when the 1995 will and the 2004 trust gave them far more. The $5,000 the [plaintiff’s] intended to leave them would not even cover their legal expenses in the case.
Furthermore, this case should have been duly dismissed a year ago when the plaintiffs failed to respond within the twenty days given by Judge _____ on November 1, 2005. I fired [My 1st lawyer] for not following through on this and for corresponding directly with the plaintiffs without my consent. [My 2nd lawyer], as well, did not follow through even though this was the specific task for which I hired him to replace [my 1st lawyer]. Neither counsel provided representation that served the interests of the trust; and both tended to drag things out much longer than was necessary. (In point of fact, the plaintiffs did not respond to the judge’s order until near the end of January 2006, more than two months after their deadline.)
The previous paragraphs, of course, are speculation based on private conversations/personal experience with my lawyers, as well as observations and opinions on my part. Anyway, I am willing to settle now. Let’s set a time and place where we can sit down and sign the papers. We can still wrap it up by the end of this year as requested by [plaintiff's 2nd lawyer].
Sincerely,
Ron Van Dyke
Home Brevard New Way Orlando Out of Area Food for Thought Links Weekend Events Politics in America