When Mrs. Feeley (Clark Feeley’s mother) created the two-family Trust back in the year 1992, she appointed her two children as Trustees; they were both to be the beneficiaries. Somehow, and perhaps for
unknown reasons, after she died and the will was read, only her daughter (Clark’s sister) was listed as Trustee, on both the real estate and the financial Trust.
Wanda, the sister, presented paper work that she had claiming that she had been made sole Trustee just months before her mother had passed.
This was very suspicious because the mother had Alzheimers and dementia for over four years.
After several requests from brother Clark Feeley for his sister Wanda Feeley to summit a financial statement of the monetary Trust, all of which requests had been ignored, he filed a lawsuit in Nevada courts to have the court order Wanda to present the financial statements as she was obligated to do, as the sole Trustee.
At a hearing in the Eighth Judicial District Court assigned to District Court Judge Allen Earl, Judge Earl must have realized that Wanda Feeley was not capable of being the Trustee of the financial or real estate Family Trust and was going to appoint Clark Feeley the Trustee of both New Hampshire Trusts. However, since there were no assets left in the Financial Trust, since Wanda had misappropriated all the assets to herself, the judge appointed Clark Trustee of the real estate Trust alone.
That was a very simple judicial transaction that would have ended there if it were not for the greed of the attorneys involved and the judge’s desire to please those attorneys.
Wanda Feeley’s attorney has taken the representation of his client on contingency, and now that Wanda was no longer the Trustee controlling the money in the Trust, he was not going to be able to get paid by Wanda, who had no money and no income; so what was there to do but ask his friend the judge to order attorneys fees for the losing party so he could get paid.
In a normal courtroom preceding the judge would not order the prevailing party to assume the financial responsibility of the losing party; but as we have learned on many occasions, nothing is normal in Nevada courtrooms; Judge Earl started a nightmare for the whole Feeley household by ordering that the Trust pay the losing party’s attorney’s fees.
The new Trustee refused to allow an award from the corpus of a Trust to pay the grossly inflated and at that unauthorized losing attorney’s fees.
But it seemed that Judge Earl was not going to let his local friend get financially burned by having taken a case for an irresponsible client that had no money for her legal responsibilities.
Judge Earl then removed the Trustee he himself had appointed, Clark Feeley, and appointed a friend of the losing attorney to be the Trustee so he could travel to New Hampshire to sell the property and use the profits from the sale to pay themselves. Judge Earl had no money within Nevada to pay his lawyer’s friends, so he ordered a home outside the borders of Nevada sold to pay the losing defense attorneys. This violates a United States Supreme Court Case Law and cannot be done. Nevertheless, he appointed an acquaintance of his to be Trustee so that said Trustee would do what he said, thereby removing Clark Feeley as Trustee without cause. Clark Feeley, however, was obligated under New Hampshire law to protect the Trust from any inalienable actions, including that of courts.
After Clark Feeley learned of the judge and his cohorts’ plan, he flew to New Hampshire and sold the house that had been in the family for more than fifty years.
His banker at Peoples United Bank, where the Feeley family has banked for many years, suggested that he make a cashier’s check to keep the money safe and protected, as has been reported in previous Las Vegas Tribune articles by Alexandra Cohen.
When Judge Earl and the attorneys in the case learned of Clark Feeley’s move, all of them — with the help of the New Hampshire bank — conspired to lie to the bank and everyone else by saying that the cashier’s check was lost, placing a stop payment on that never-lost cashier’s check and issuing a new cashier’s check that was sent to Judge Earl to distribute among themselves, leaving perhaps what was left of the money for the bank executive that allowed the theft to be perpetrated when they placed that stop payment on the cashier’s check that the bank knew was not lost to begin with.
A Ruling stated that all parties had agreed to subject matter jurisdiction. “That statement is absolutely false and all court records, transcripts, and trial recordings prove it,” Aaron Feeley told the Las Vegas Tribune. “No parties ever agreed to subject matter jurisdiction and had told the judge that on so many occasions that the judge made a statement on the minutes recorded at a December 8th, 2011 hearing that
he was “disinclined to hear any more discourse over jurisdiction, which it believes is properly within this court.”
The only way a stop payment could be ordered on a cashier’s check is when the cashier’s check is lost or stolen; and then, only to the person who purchases such instrument.
The bank knew that the cashier’s check was not lost or stolen; the bank knew that the person who placed the stop payment on the cashier’s check was not the one who had earlier purchased the cashier’s check yet allowed the farce to take place just the same.
Nevada court has no jurisdiction over a New Hampshire Trust; and every attorney, including two sitting judges, that has been consulted for this article has confirmed that fact.
Excerpt from the Hanson vs Denckla U.S. Supreme Court Decision of 1958: Prior to the Amendment an exercise of jurisdiction over persons or property outside the forum State was thought to be an absolute nullity , but the matter 250*250 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.
Shortly thereafter the bank saga took place, Judge Allen Earl conveniently decided not to run for another term on the bench and quietly went away. What is there for Clark Feeley to do when the FBI, the US Attorney, the Attorney General in New Hampshire and every other judicial institution refuses to act on the case?