Author: Chat Tech Support

THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT

  By , , , ,

Exhibit # 001-1 THE TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF COURT All shall be considered rebutted Canon 3228 A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true [Or as “truth in commerce”]. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Executor De Son Tort, Incompetence, and Guilt: 1. The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Courts is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and 2. The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and 3. The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of “public officials” who… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

ACFE When Caretakers Empty the Coffers: A Look at Guardianship Fraud By Brett Darken

  By

In nearly every state, guardians are considered fiduciaries. As such, they have a duty to act in their clients’ best financial interests. Sadly, that’s not always the case Anti-fraud professionals know that fraudsters often target victims when they’re most vulnerable. When people are processing strong emotions — like dealing with the mental or physical decline of a family member — it’s easy to ignore red flags that something’s amiss. During these times courts may appoint a guardian with the idea that an impartial third-party is better equipped to handle the financial responsibilities involved with taking care of an incapacitated individual. Unfortunately, in some cases, this can open the door for fraudsters to commit fiduciary fraud. Guardianships Guardianship can be ordered by a judge when they determine that a person is unable care for their own affairs. The judge orders an independent guardian, or conservator, to oversee and look out for the well-being of the person who can’t care for themselves. Guardianships frequently involve the elderly, or adults who have some form of dementia or mental incapacitation, but as demonstrated in the recent Brittany Spears case that garnered worldwide media attention, a ruling for guardianship can be made for people of any age. In nearly every state, guardians are considered fiduciaries. As such, they have a duty to act in their clients’ best financial interests. Sadly, that’s not always the case. In 2017, a federal jury awarded $16.4 million to Julian Bivins who sued two West Palm Beach attorneys, among others, for breaching their fiduciary duties. Bivins’ suit alleged that his father was “held captive” by the guardianship so the attorneys could liquidate real estate assets. A RICO Case in Ohio One guardianship battle in Ohio that has been ongoing for… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE