Why will no one investigate, bring proper charges against, and prosecute Judge Earl in Feeley Trust Case?
The Las Vegas Tribune articles concerning the Feeley Trusts — which concern a ruling entered by a Nevada District Court Judge who did not abide by long-standing legal doctrines, statutes, and property laws under the US Constitution — has the newspaper, the attorneys and everyone else who has been following the series of articles coming to the conclusion that the Nevada District Court Judge made severe mistakes that actually violate long-standing and binding US Supreme Court precedents.
The orders entered by Judge Allan Earl must be considered void by a competent Appellate Court following laws of the land. That will be good for the State of Nevada and their Trust industry.
However, that correct ruling ultimately has no real direct effect on the other action taken by Judge Earl in his quest to pay a non-prevailing Nevada attorney.
Judge Earl directly perpetrated and participated in a scheme to induce a federally chartered and FDIC insured bank to stop payment on a Cashier’s Check.
The invalid actions taken by Judge Earl in the Feeley ruling currently awaiting decision on Appeal, are pale in comparison to stopping payment of a negotiable instrument considered to have cash equivalency by Federal Banking laws and which have been seriously violated.
Las Vegas Tribune has investigated the act of stopping payment of Cashier’s Checks, and has found laws, statutes, and Uniform Commercial Code regulations adopted, and enacted in all fifty states that specifically forbid an issuing bank to not honor their Cashier’s Check when presented for payment.
The newspaper has even looked at numerous case precedents where banks have stopped payment of legitimate Cashier’s Checks and in every case the bank must not only honor the check but pay interest, expenses, and
consequential damages as well.
Clark Feeley bought the Cashier’s Check to protect the Feeley family Trust from the void Orders issued by Judge Earl.
When paid, he will purchase property to replace the home that was jeopardized by Judge Earl’s contemplation and dictate that Howard Roitman arrange to sell the New Hampshire property so that Judge Earl could disperse Trust funds to unentitled Nevada lawyers.
The bank will have a burden to recover any lost funds from Judge Earl and the State of Nevada for issuing an illegal and fraudulent order based on a lie; in addition, the scheme perpetrated by Judge Earl and his associate, Randall Thoman, along with the Nevada and New Hampshire lawyers, is a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1014 and1344.
“These are Class ‘A’ Felonies carrying penalties of 30-year jail terms with $1,000,000 fines,” Clark Feeley reminded the newspaper during this week’s sit-down interview.
The above crimes were committed by a mere scheme; the law establishes the scheme as the crime and success is not even required. However, here they were successful in inducing the bank to send funds to Nevada on the premise that the Cashier’s Check had been lost.
Judge Earl signed an order dictating that Howard Roitman sign a Fraudulent Affidavit attesting to that lie. Everyone knew that Clark Feeley had the Cashier’s Check and it was not lost.
The above actions perpetrated by Judge Earl and all other parties are serious felonies that must be prosecuted. The action of Judge Earl is particularly specious because he was a District Court Judge approving fraudulent affidavits under the color of law, abusing the power that his position granted him.
Judges are supposed to uphold laws, not break them; the newspaper is concerned for the integrity of Nevada when Judges do not obey laws.
Every single person that has been asked by the Las Vegas Tribune staff knew that Cashier’s Checks could not have payment stopped. That is common knowledge.
It’s even more disturbing when law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, Department of Justice, Attorney General, and District Attorney do not do their job and investigate the above.
Cashier’s Checks are extremely important to financial transactions and their integrity in the banking world must be absolutely enforced. Most all cases that have been decided by courts have similar clauses contained in their decisions.
Excerpt from: United States District Court. S. D. New York. KAUFMAN V. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, NATIONAL ASS’N A cashier’s check circulates in the commercial world as the equivalent of cash…. People accept a cashier’s check as a substitute for cash because the bank stands behind it, rather than an individual. In effect, the bank becomes a guarantor of the value of the check and pledges its resources to the payment of the amount represented upon presentation. To allow the bank to stop payment on such an instrument would be inconsistent with the representations it makes in issuing the check. Such a rule would undermine the public confidence in the bank and its checks and thereby deprive the cashier’s check of the essential incident, which makes it useful. People would no longer be willing to accept it as a substitute for cash if they could not be sure that there would be no difficulty in converting it into cash.
Clark and Aaron Feeley have contacted many people in the above-mentioned agencies and they all seem to evade their oath of offices or they are extremely incompetent. They mostly state that heir office does not have jurisdiction; this seems to be the pat answer. Most defer to the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC) as the regulatory agency as seen in a below letter from the OCC stating that Congress has not given them the authority over UCC regulations.
They defer to the courts and Clark Feeley has stated that “courts determine facts that are in dispute.” Here is no dispute.
On June 26, 2013 People’s United Bank used good funds on deposit in the Feeley Trust and issued a Cashier’s Check to Clark Feeley, the New Hampshire Trustee named in Trust documents.
These facts can never be in dispute and a Court’s findings of fact would serve no purpose. The issue is enforcement, which must be carried out by Attorney Generals in Connecticut and Nevada.
The Attorney Generals have jurisdiction to enforce their state banking statutes adopted and enacted through UCC proposed uniform regulations they are also obligated to enforce Consumer Protection litigation in their states as well.
Clark Feeley bought a negotiable instrument, and that falls under Commerce and Consumer laws, People’s United Bank is located in Bridgeport, Connecticut and an officer located there signed, and issued the stop payment order.
A Nevada District Court Judge approved the Agreement with the bank and that necessitates the Nevada Attorney General to participate with theFBI in the investigation. Crimes were committed in both Connecticut and Nevada.
The OCC does not have jurisdiction over UCC regulations that have been enacted as statutes in all 50 states. The UCC is not federal law; therefore there is no conflict over enforcement of UCC statutes enacted in the states. National banks are subject to the jurisdiction of the OCC over other issues not related to negotiable instruments. States have exclusive jurisdiction over Cashier’s Checks.
A federal enactment may preempt state law either through (1) express statutory preemption; (2) implied preemption where the intent of the federal law is to occupy the field exclusively (“field preemption”); or (3) implied preemption where state and federal law actually conflict (“conflict preemption”).
Congress never enacted UCC regulations as Federal law, and did not give the OCC jurisdiction over UCC state adopted and enacted statutes.
(1) There is no express statutory preemption. (2) Federal law does not occupy the field at all. (3) No conflict can exist where there is no federal law.
Uniform Commercial Code
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a comprehensive set of laws governing commercial transactions between U.S. states and territories.
These transactions include borrowing money, leases, contracts, and the sale of goods. The UCC is not a federal law, but a product of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute. Both of these organizations are private entities that recommend the adopting of UCC by state governments.
State legislatures may either adopt UCC verbatim or may modify it to meet the state’s needs. Once a state’s legislature adopts and enacts UCC, it becomes a state law and is codified in the state’s statutes. All 50 states and territories have enacted some version of UCC.
Even if the UCC was federal law it would not conflict with state statutes that enacted state law by following UCC suggestions. There is no conflict. Cashier’s Checks must be paid.
It is assumed that a Cashier’s Check issued by payment of good value must be paid to the holder. Cashier’s Checks are considered cash equivalent. Courts have interpreted that as meaning a bank cannot stop payment of a check any more than they can take cash back once given.
Various enforcement agencies are ignoring the fact that banks have a binding duty to honor checks they issued. Agencies attempt to evade their duties by saying they do not have jurisdiction. Negotiable instruments such as Cashier’s Checks are controlled by state statutes adopted through UCC suggestions and enacted as state statutes.
The bank has the burden of paying the check. The Connecticut banking department must inform People’s United Bank to pay the check. If they have to go through the Attorney General then the bank should face serious consequences. There exists in state statutes provisions that a bank which wrongfully refuses to pay a Cashiers Check issued for good value is liable for interest, expenses, and consequential damages.
The state has a burden to guarantee that their enacted statutes will be enforced. The state must stop pointing fingers at other agencies and enforce their laws. The bank must realize that they cannot stop payment of a properly issued Cashier’s Check and they must either pay to the holder or face serious consequences.
The bank signed a Stipulation Agreement that states the check had been lost, destroyed, or stolen. That was a fraudulent agreement because the bank officers knew that the person who was issued the check still had it in his possession. An officer of the bank participated in bank fraud and that fact places the bank stockholders is serious double jeopardy.