Judge Allan Earl decided to participate in a scheme to convert Trust assets from entitled beneficiaries to unethical attorneys. The LasVegas Tribune has been relaying the events of the Feeley Case to readers for six months. Our staff believes that the results of the Feeley Case are so bizarre that it becomes nonsensical to try to figure out why a District Court Judge took the actions he did. The most pressing question is why the New Appellate Court would not take steps to mitigate the damages caused to innocent beneficiaries. All
the District Court orders were to enrich Nevada attorneys. That is not justice, Judge Earl and Peoples United Bank both knew that the Cashiers Check was not destroyed, or lost.
Last week the Las Vegas Tribune published a story updating the Feeley Case with the new development that the State of Nevada has decided to cover up the actions of Judge Allan Earl. The new Appellate Court has affirmed a flagrantly unconstitutional void order. This latest maneuver confirms the Nevada Judiciary is not capable of correcting mistakes made by lower courts. Their goal is to protect the corrupt system as is. The District Court rulings were unconstitutional. The actions that Judge Earl perpetrated to stop payment of a Cashier’s Check that was obtained by Clark Feeley to protect the assets of the New Hampshire Trust were criminal. Judge Earl signed a Court Order attesting that the Cashier’s Check was lost, destroyed, or stolen; but by reading minutes of some of the hearings it is very clear that Judge Earl and People ‘s United Bank knew that the Cashier’s Check was not lost, destroyed, or stolen. Clark Feeley has always possessed the Cashier’s Check since Issued and Judge Earl knew that. Judge Earl even threatened to jail Clark Feeley if he did not turn the Cashier’s Check over to him. “It is embarrassing to all Nevadans that our Court system and now the new Appellate Court would stoop so low as to protect a criminal Judge,” Clark Feeley told the Las Vegas Tribune after reviewing the New Nevada Appellate Court affirmation. “It is too bad that the events occurred,” Feeley lamented. “My sister, Wanda Feeley, could have stopped everything by admitting what she did immediately after our mother died and she started misappropriating Trust assets for her personal use,” stated Feeley. That was a terrible mistake, but look what it caused. Her greed spread to judges, multiple lawyers, banks, Attorney Generals, Governors, Legislatures, State Supreme Courts, FBI, and the Department of Justice, and now a US Senator; three states have been involved. The above greed was caused by love of money, the root of all evil. If People’s United Bank had not stopped payment on a Cashier’s Check and then had its funds to the Nevada Court, none of the money would have been depleted and the appeal would not have been necessary.
Money caused the mess and People’s United Bank supplied it. Dan Caron, an officer of People’s United Bank, knowingly entered a fraudulent agreement that proves that People’s United Bank was complicit in the scheme to illegally stop payment of their properly issued Cashier’s Check. The home office of People’s United Bank is in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Because the home office made the decision to not honor their binding commitment the Connecticut State enacted statutes are the applicable law. People’s United Bank must be forced to honor their commitment by the Attorney General of Connecticut, whose office has a duty to enforce the laws of Connecticut and they must do so. Further, Cashier’s Checks are very important to business to conduct commerce in an efficient manner. The Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal sits on the Senate Commerce Committee and Consumer Protection; his position is very important to ensure that the business of commerce is allowed to be conducted in the United States efficiently and consumers are protected. To overlook People’s United Bank’s complicity in a fraudulent scheme was to destroy the credibility of Cashier’s Checks; allowing such actions in all probability from Senator Blumenthal unqualified to serve on the Commerce Committee and Consumer Protection. The bank participated in the lie that the Cashier’s Check was lost, destroyed, or stolen. UCC regulations enacted by Connecticut statutes are very specific. To accept a statement that a Cashier’s Check needs to be reissued the bank must follow the law as set out in the statutes. If the bank fails to follow the provisions exactly the bank loses all protection. Should they reissue a check under the provisions of 42A-3-312 and 3-309 and a claimed lost check is presented for payment, the bank would have to pay the original Cashier’s Check. Their only recourse would be against the party that had claimed the Cashier’s Check lost. Judge Earl and the State of Nevada.
EXCERPT OF CONNECTICUT UCC STATUTE
Sec. 42a-3-309. Enforcement of lost, destroyed or stolen instrument. (a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
Here People’s United Bank did not follow the law and as a result they are subject to double jeopardy. They must pay the original Cashier’s Check in the possession of the holder, Clark Feeley. Since issue: Provision (i) the person was in possession of the instrument. The only person ever in possession of the instrument was Clark Feeley. (ii) loss of possession implies that the claimant had possession at some time. This is untrue. (iii) does not apply. The check is not destroyed, its whereabouts were known, Clark Feeley is a primary beneficiary, remitter, holder, Trustee named in the document, he is not unknown, and he is the Plaintiff and prevailing party before a Court in Nevada, the holder of a Cashier’s Check is not subject to any service from courts concerning the check because of UCC 4-303 and he is obligated to protect the assets of a spendthrift Trust from any Court action. The Las Vegas Tribune has extensively looked into the cash equivalency of Cashier’s Checks and learned that banks cannot stop payment without a valid defense for doing so.
Because Clark Feeley paid good value for the issuing of the Cashier’s Check, the bank has no defense for not paying the Cashier’s Check. Our legal staff has literally looked at hundreds of cases that have all been decided against the bank with damages awarded in cases with similar facts as the Feeley Cashier’s Check. Our staff has failed to find any case where the bank actually participated in the creating of a false indemnification agreement. Any such Agreement is for protecting the bank.
Our staff cannot get over the fact that People’s United Bank did not protect the bank and their stockholders. The Las Vegas Tribune has recently learned from Aaron Feeley that he is communicating with Senator Blumenthal’s office in Connecticut.
Apparently, Ruth Quiles in the Senator’s Office has informed Aaron that a US Senator cannot do anything. We will be very interested in reporting whatever actions the Senator decides to initiate. Should the good Senator refuse to use his authority given to him by the people of Connecticut they should seriously consider not sending him back to Washington in November.