We have found that an organization out of Washington D.C. investigates and publishes their findings on state integrity
We were not surprised that Nevada Judiciary received a grade of F on Judicial Integrity. We have been reporting on corruption in the Nevada Courts for decades. What did surprise us is that the other states have for the most part deteriorated to such an extent that a grade of D is good.
It seems that our country has been hijacked by an out-of-control legal system that no longer follows the law. The most important agenda of all courts has become to pay all the lawyers.
This trend is extremely dangerous to the citizens of the United States. We elect officials to do our business and one of the most
important duties is to follow the laws of the United States and abide by U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
We have been reporting on a Nevada District Court Case that was initiated for no more than access to bank records that would prove misappropriation of funds held in trust.
Trust law has been well known and in existence for centuries. There has been several US Supreme Court Decisions that have established certain Trust law principles as the law of the land. Hanson v. Denckla (1958), Pennoyer v. Neff (1878), Livingston v. Jefferson (1811) are three such precedents. All courts must abide by these binding precedents as controlling (Stare Decisis).
The Nevada Case we have been reporting on is one in which the Judge, Allan Earl, ignored binding precedents and the law of the land when he made a ruling that awarded obscene legal fees (over $600,000) to Nevada attorneys to be paid from an out-of-state Trust.
This action by a sitting Judge in Nevada is exactly the reason why Nevada rates an F grade on integrity. Judge Earl did this to enrich attorneys that practice law in his courtroom, and that action does violate the Constitutional rights of beneficiaries and is a very serious violation of the law of the land.
Last week we reported on the New Hampshire Governor’s apparently deciding to add weight to that state’s overall D grade by ignoring the law of the land as established by the US Supreme Court. Looks like the goal of the New Hampshire Governor is an F grade in integrity. On May 23, 2010, Nashua Telegraph writer Albert McKeon wrote an article that ranked the state as least corrupt and it reads as follows: New Hampshire ranked as least corrupt state in U.S.
By ALBERT McKEON
Under Governor Hassan’s leadership the state’s ranking has taken a big dive. Recently a Kentucky town hall clerk went to jail for five days because she refused to follow the law of the land. That is of interest to the Las Vegas Tribune that a Town clerk goes to jail for failing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple that did not result in any significant monetary loss to any of the parties, The Nevada Judge and Governor of New Hampshire have not followed the law of the land and a family loses a home that has been in that family for fifty years. The agenda for this was to pay attorneys obscene legal fees of over $600,000 to date. The newspaper wonders, why are these officials not all in jail?
We must emphasize that these criminal acts were perpetrated to enrich attorneys who were not entitled to legal fees from the corpus of a spendthrift Trust. Follow the money is a well known doctrine. The judge in Nevada and the Governor of New Hampshire have no excuse for their failure to follow the law.
The rulings and orders signed by Judge Allan Earl are proof positive that he did not follow the law. The letter from MaryAnn Dempsey, Governor’s legal counsel, is an example of how no one answers the questions presented as the main issue. They refuse to answer to the law of the land. That is an absolute confirmation of corruption. Answer the question!
The Las Vegas Tribune is committed to reporting corruption. Obviously the report cards of all the states indicate that this country is in trouble. When judges and Governors ignore the law of the land to enrich attorneys, we are doomed. First lawyers chase the tobacco companies, then the fat in burgers, drug companies, and anyone else they can attack to be enriched. The baby boomers are scheduled to inherit trillions of dollars over the next ten years and you can be sure lawyers will be stealing your money with judges and governors in on it.
The Las Vegas Tribune will seek an answer to two questions. Is the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Hanson v. Denckla the law of the land relating to Trusts? Is a bank obligated to honor their commitments and pay Cashier’s Checks that they issued for good value?
Lawyers are famous for muddying the waters. This newspaper is not interested in mud but the truth, so answer the questions. The people have a right to know.
Here at the Las Vegas Tribune our research indicates that if Hanson v. Denckla is the law of the land then the Feeley Case has already been decided. The Cashier’s Check must be paid because Clark Feeley bought the check to protect the Trust, and he was right. The Nevada Judge was committed to enrich his lawyers and he thought he was the law.
Clark Feeley told this Editor in Chief that he believes in the law of the land and all he has asked is that the law be enforced. If Hanson v. Denckla does not mean anything, then he will go away.
However, he notices that everyone that has ever been asked about that Decision avoids answering the question or they parse the meaning and misinterpret it. MaryAnn Dempsey on behalf of Governor Hassan states “The Governor cannot overturn a legal decision of the Supreme Court.”
That is the exact point: the decision was not legal and must be overturned. She refused to answer the question is Hanson v. Denckla the law of the land?
The Governor will not uphold the law of the land. Apparently, all property held in Trust in New Hampshire is only for the enrichment of lawyers.
The Las Vegas Tribune has received several legal comments on this Decision agreeing with what the newspaper has been reporting.
HANSON & DECKLA EXCERPT
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment an exercise of jurisdiction over persons or property outside the forum State was thought to be an absolute nullity.  but the matter remained a question of state law over which this Court exercised no authority. With the adoption of that Amendment, any judgment purporting to bind the person of a defendant over whom the court had not acquired in personam jurisdiction was void within the State as well as without. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714. Nearly a century has passed without this Court being called upon to apply that principle to an in rem judgment dealing with property outside the forum State. The invalidity of such a judgment within the forum State seems to have been assumed — and with good reason. Since a State is forbidden to enter a judgment attempting to bind a person over whom it has no jurisdiction, it has even less right to enter a judgment purporting to extinguish the interest of such a person in property over which the court has no
jurisdiction. Therefore, so far as it purports to rest upon jurisdiction over the trust assets, the judgment of the Florida court
cannot be sustained. Sadler v. Industrial Trust Co., 327 Mass. 10, 97 N.E. 2d 169.
The overwhelming fact that grabs the attention of an impartial reader of the above is that the Decision states very clearly that no state has jurisdiction over property outside the forum state.
The New Hampshire home was undeniably in that state and not Nevada. The Nevada Judge dictated that real property outside his jurisdiction be sold to pay lawyers in his jurisdiction. Absurd. CASE CLOSED.
This newspaper has also come into the possession of numerous cases that have identical facts. All the cases looked at have cited the Hanson v. Denckla precedent as controlling.
One Case is important because the Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled in 1986 that they could not control a Trust that was located in Massachusetts because of Hanson v. Denckla. Another case was between the founder of the New Hampshire Union Leader’s estate and Nevada.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a Trust created in Nevada that contained Union Leader stock with situs in Nevada was controlled by Nevada and not New Hampshire.
These rulings follow the law of the land. It is interesting to note that the above cases were correctly ruled, and lawyer’s fees were not an issue. It seems that the issue of legal fees may take precedent over the law.
There are numerous cases that The Las Vegas Tribune investigators looked at and the conclusion is that in every case a state cannot control Trust assets outside their borders, period. CASE CLOSED.
“This case is very interesting because it is the poster child for the out of control court systems and corruption as reported by the State Integrity Report Card. This country is in trouble if Judges and Governors can participate in crimes to steal beneficiary’s assets held in Trusts,” says Aaron Feeley.