Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

How do we attack a man without an oath of office who sits at a bench?

Expand Messages
  • Randy Conn
    Dear All: My cousin Tracey was having issues with a probate judge in Michigan over her father Norman s guardianship. The quick story is the judge appointed
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 25 9:48 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All:

      My cousin Tracey was having issues with a probate judge in Michigan
      over her father Norman's guardianship. The quick story is the judge
      appointed his son-in-law's firm as guardian, Norman was left drugged
      up in a care home where he was allowed to wander and broke a hip. At
      one point, there were 5 lawyers billing the estate of one ward. The
      judge ignored valid power's of attorney, etc. I have included
      Tracey's longer doc at the end.

      Tracey shared this with me and I flippantly remarked, "Did you look to
      see if the judge has an oath of office?" It turns out Mr. Grant did
      for some 10-15 years prior to 1995, but for the last 12 years, NONE.
      Tracey got certification from the Sec of State about the missing oath.
      Mr. Grant's daughter is a circuit court judge, but hers is filed.

      Tracey had lawyers that advised her to file a complaint with the
      Judicial Tenure Commission, where Mr. Grant happens to be a member. I
      had concerns about filing a complaint against a non-judge.

      I told Tracy:
      ------
      I have done my part and spent 25 minutes putting in my suggested
      changes. I left it in Show Changes mode so you can see exactly what I
      did. I have also attached a PDF if dealing with ShowChanges is
      problematic.

      I focused on 2 issues:

      Barry M Grant has the status of a private citizen and not a judge.
      You can't refer to him as a judge and argue he is not a judge.

      Supposing that Barry M Grant was a real judge, his acts and negligence
      would have then been in violation of the following judicial canons of
      ethics [list as you have done]
      If he is not a judge, the judicial canons of ethics do not apply to
      him. Saying that he has violated them presumes he is a judge. Using
      supposing or arguendo makes these arguments more clear.

      I also said to Tracey:
      Do not refer to the man as Judge Grant or Chief Judge Grant. You have
      counteracted your argument that he is not a judge by referring to him as
      a judge. Your statements need to explicitly and implicitly make it
      clear that he is not a judge, rather than saying he is a judge with
      missing paperwork. I suggest using Mr. Grant or Mr. Barry Grant, and
      nothing more.


      I think Tracey is starting to get it, but this is where I ask for
      input from list members. If anyone contacts me off-list, I can send
      the formatted docs.

      randy,

      i have an attorney who is interested in meeting w/me regarding
      potentially suing grant. here is the dilema:

      1. since he is NOT a judge we will sue as a privte citizen.
      2. then as a private citizen what are we suing him for? all his
      actions are null and void. he is not party to the suit so what is the
      tort and can you find a case w/authority?
      3, i suggested to sue under frand ........ it may be a possibility but
      if you can find any case law (i am looking for the same) then please
      let me know immediately. our meeting is scheduled for friday.

      tahnks
      t


      LONG SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE:

      MEMO COVER LETTER
      TO: The Press
      Date:
      From: Tracey Conn-Burnstein
      Re: Attached

      Good afternoon. The following attachments are factual. The issues
      that follow, starting on page 3 - 7 have to deal with a "private
      citizen"; who happens to be an attorney (and is REQUIRED to take an
      Oath for submission to the State Bar and other licensing
      requirements); who happened to have run for Judgeship; and who
      apparently has decided to NOT follow the LAW of the US Constitution,
      The Constitution of the State of MI, the federal election laws and our
      State election laws.
      Yet, this same person is rendering decisions every day that effect
      people's lives, their liberties and their Civil Rights. How can a
      Judge uphold the Law, and even be called a Judge, if he has failed to
      follow the Law, as a matter of law, in at least four areas, and NOT
      submitted in his Oath of Office? Where's the accountability?
      The Oath is your agreement to uphold the law; the Constitution and the
      State of 's laws, your legal and Constitutional requirement. Whether
      by appointment or election, the OATH and its submission are required,
      BEFORE you occupy the office, as your acknowledgment and agreement
      that you will do your job, you will uphold the law.
      So in essence, this private citizen, is occupying the Oakland County
      Probate Court, yet has failed to quality for office by simply
      following the law as it Is written in the: US Constitution, the
      Constitution of the State of MI, the federal election law and the
      State of MI election law. These are the four areas I reference above.
      Some of you receiving this communication know me or know of me. I
      have been fighting the Probate System in this State and have done a
      tremendous amount of research, for at least the past 6 years. My
      research has taken me all over this great State and Nation seeking
      solutions to apparent and obvious problems as they exist between the
      diminished trust the public has on the `profession of law; the legal
      community in general; all the way up to the Justices; and then one's
      concern for their own health and protection should they become
      `vulnerable' and then become someone's "Ward". What about the
      marketing tools of trusts, Durable Powers of Attorney, Medical Patient
      Advocate; thinking and worse believing that your words, your desires
      will be upheld in a court of law.
      A court of law, let's think about that …. The court of law is the
      people's court, our court. We pay Justices to do their job and uphold
      the law. It is right there in their job description, Judge,
      ajudicator of fact. In order to adjudicate "fact", you must seek
      truth by way of proof, not mere utterances that might be spoken by an
      adversarial attorney who may have his/her own agenda, which might be
      simple to create `their living, their billable hour" at the direct
      expense of the Ward, the Ward's family and so forth.
      And so, it is the Judge that is the gatekeeper for our laws. If the
      Judge chooses to ignore the law, society is harmed. Society includes
      both the private citizen and big corporation. It is important for
      private citizens and corporate to realize, whether one chooses to
      acknowledge this or not, these systems effect every single person in
      this State and frankly the country.
      As the baby boomers age, more people will have to take off work to
      care for their aging relatives. If issues are not addressed and the
      current system receive TRUE accountability, our social systems are at
      risk because someone, if even government, will have to pay for the
      care of the Ward, the elderly or the infirmed. There are not enough
      medical professional for that task and there is not enough money to
      assist, which is evident as our own State has serious financial problems.
      The Probate System in , is apparently one of the most corrupt systems
      with little, if any accountability for the LAW as a matter of LAW.
      The probate system has become a race, for some, as to how many
      billable hours they can create; YES CREATE, to substantiate their
      fees, with little if any accountability. It is time for neutral
      accountability where criminal or civil misconduct becomes sanction
      able which will only create funding to assist in the care of those in
      need.
      One of the biggest problems in the Probate System is the lack of
      accountability for law and the apparent relationship between some of
      the Judges and some of the attorneys. The Probate case of my parents
      and their decedent estates, in simplistic form, seems to be
      The blue print for what went wrong. The following assists in
      addressing some of those issues and more …………
      We the people, now rely on you the press, to assist in the matter of
      JUDICUAL ACCOUNTABILITY to protect both the private citizen and
      businesses in , regardless of their size.
      We the people need your assistance to turn around the Probate system
      which effects every single person though taxes, social security,
      Medicare and Medicaid to name a few.
      To many stories are being reported in , and other counties. Now
      Oakland County, where my father died prematurely as a sitting private
      citizen, held himself out as a Judge, yet did not adjudicate law and
      worse apparently did NOT follow the law and therefore became a
      trespasser on the US Constitution and the Rights of the people of this
      great State.
      Thank you.



      To the Judicial Tenure Commsission:
      Norman E. Conn, Esq.
      Ethel
      GD 2001 - 0000-276552
      GD 2001 – 0000 - 276554
      CA 2001 - 0000-276553
      CA 2001 – 0000 - 276555
      DE 2005 – 296-594
      DE 2005 – 296 755
      ATTACHMENTS
      Judge Barry M. Grant, Chief Judge, Probate Court, , according to the
      Secretary of State, Office of the Great Seal, State of , has not
      qualified as a Judge of Probate Court.
      The Constitution of the State of , Article 11, Section 1 states as
      follows:
      "All officers, legislative, executive and judicial, BEFORE entering
      upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe
      the following oath or affirmation. I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
      that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the
      constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the
      duties of the office of ... according to the best of my ability. No
      other oath, affirmation, or any religious test shall be required as a
      qualification for any office or public trust.".
      That attached hereto is Exhibit 1, which is a document under Seal of
      State of Michigan, from Secretary of State, indicating that Barry M.
      Grant, as Judge of the Probate Court, does not have on file an Oath of
      Office since 1995.
      That the Michigan Dept. State Bureau of Elections, under the
      department of the Secretary of State, requires the filing of an Oath
      of Office in addition to other paperwork that MUST be filed when a
      person is elected to a Judgeship. Attached hereto, as Exhibit 2, is a
      copy of the Oath of Office that the State Bureau of Elections sends to
      every NEW or incumbent Judge, EVERY TIME they are elected. In fact,
      in the packet the Elections Bureau sends out to ALL candidates, the
      paperwork that needs to be submitted is included in the same for the
      submission of the Oath of Office.
      Barry M. Grant has not signed the required Oath of Office. There is
      NO Oath of Office on file for Judge Grant at the Clerk's Office. See
      Exhibit 3.
      All acts and rulings of Judge Barry M. Grant, in my parents
      Guardianship and Conservatorship cases, as well as their deceased
      estates are NULL and VOID.
      This form that is required by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission,
      apparently, also believes that an Oath is very important as I am
      required to sign this request form under Oath and under SEAL This is
      your requirement for me to submit this "Request for Investigation" form.
      The State of , is NOT the only State that requires the Oath to be
      signed and filed, BEFORE a JUDGE can take office and assume the duties
      as a Judge, under color of title.
      1. The State of New York has a Constitutional provision regarding
      Oaths of Office, Article XXIII Sec. 1 states as follows: "Oath of
      office; no other test for public office."
      The Attorney General of the State of New York, in a formal opinion
      dated April 28, 1998, formal opinion No. 98 – F6, indicates that
      BEFORE Justices of the Supreme Court undertake the duties of their
      offices, they MUST take the required Oath of Office; and I quote: "…
      A person may serve as justice of the Supreme Court, if he or she meets
      Constitutional or statutory qualifications within 30 days of
      commencement of the term of office and timely files his or her oath of
      office." See Exhibit 4 and 4 A.
      2. The State of Illinois Constitutional provision, 705 ILCS 35/2
      states, and I quote: "…The several judges of the circuit court of
      this State, BEFORE entering upon the duties of their office, shall
      take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be
      filed in the office of the Secretary of State: "I do solemnly swear
      (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution
      of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois,
      and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the judge of …
      court, according to the best of my ability."
      ( does not have "probate judges" per se. They are considered circuit
      court judges.)
      3. The State of Constitutional provisions, Article 20, MISCELLANEOUS
      SUBJECTS {Required Oath of Office}, provides for a required Oath of
      Office, "BEFORE entering upon the duty of the office of judge". See
      Exhibit 5.
      4 MCLA – 600.812 Oath States, and I quote: "… REVISED JUDICATURE
      ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT Act 236 of 1961. Sec. 812. A Judge of probate
      after being elected or appointed shall qualify by taking the
      constitutional oath of office and shall subscribe the same and FILE it
      in the office of the county clerk, or in the instance of a probate
      court district created pursuant to law, file it with the secretary of
      state."
      There are four people in that sit as Judges. They are, by last name,
      , Hallmark, Pezzatti and Grant. Only one has intentionally chosen to
      not follow the LAW. That Judge is Chief Judge Barry M Grant, as noted
      by our own Secretary of State, since at least 1995.
      As you can see, the Oath of Office is important to every court across
      the country, to this Honorable Judicial Tenure Commission (as you
      require the same on this form), to State Constitutions and the Federal
      Constitution.
      The Oath is the pledge, your agreement that you will undertake
      whatever position in public office it is you might have but especially
      that of jurist. The Oath is your acceptance, your agreement with the
      people, whether you are appointed or elected. For neither an
      appointment nor an election mean that you have decided you want the
      position, until you take and subscribe to your acceptance via The OATH
      of Office. There is NO EXCUSE to not file the REQUIRED Oath of Office.
      So the question becomes, what good are our laws if there is no
      accountable for our law as the framers to the Constitution intended
      the same to be and that of our State, the State of . And where an
      elected official, by the people and for the people, is held to one of
      the highest offices, breaks the law, it erodes the publics trust in
      the people's court, our court, where equity and fairness are to be
      adjudicated in the confines of the people's court in front of someone
      who takes an oath to uphold the laws of the US Constitution, the State
      of Michigan and faithfully discharge their duties.
      The consequences of allowing a Judge who does not qualify for office
      are now expanded upon in the misconduct and egregious actions as noted
      in the Guardianships and Conservatorship of Norman E. Conn, Esq. Yes,
      my father was an attorney. My father was an Air Force Captain in
      WWII, fighting for the freedoms that all of us enjoy today. My father
      died a horrific and premature death due to actions and inactions of
      Barry M Grant as he chose to ignore law and the Constitution.
      My mother, too, was a Ward of the . Her guardianship and
      conservatorship estates were both adjudicated in the Courtroom of
      Barry M. Grant.
      Both of my parents deceased estates are or have been adjudicated in
      the Courtroom of Barry M Grant.
      My parents Civil rights taken from them. Their estates were once
      worth in excess of two million dollars. Today, the IRS has been
      defrauded, the US Bankruptcy trustee may have been defrauded, the
      State of Michigan may have been defrauded, a host of creditors may
      have been defrauded; my parents files and transcripts have been
      ordered "SUPPRESSED" and hence a fair, honest and equitable trial is
      not to be had as fraud has been perpetrated on all. Part of that
      fraud may be in the fact that Judge Barry M Grant chose to trespass on
      the Constitution and that of the State of , laws as a matter of law,
      period.
      I have taken the liberty of copying the media (and others) on this
      submission and complaint.
      MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE BARRY M. GRANT
      Complaint is made that Barry M. Grant has committed
      MISCONDUCT as defined by the Michigan Constitution, Article VI, Sec
      30, MCR 9.205(B) persistent failure to perform judicial duties; (B)
      (1) (b) persistent neglect in the timely performance of judicial
      duties; (B) (2) Conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct
      i.e. Canon 2, Canon 2 (A); MCR 9.205 as amended 2003 and as amended
      1-1-2006; in the case In re Brown, 461 Mich 1291, 1292-3 (2000) Standards:
      "[E]verything else being equal:
      "(1) misconduct that is part of a pattern or practice is more serious
      than an isolated instance of misconduct;
      "(2) misconduct on the bench is usually more serious than the same
      misconduct off the bench;
      "(3) misconduct that is prejudicial to the actual administration of
      justice is more serious than misconduct that is prejudicial only to
      the appearance of propriety;
      "(4) misconduct that does not implicate the actual administration of
      justice, or its appearance of impropriety, is less serious than
      misconduct that does;
      "(5) misconduct that occurs spontaneously is less serious than
      misconduct that is premeditated or deliberated;
      "(6) misconduct that undermines the ability of the justice system to
      discover the truth of what occurred in a legal controversy, or to
      reach the most just result in such a case, is more serious than
      misconduct that merely delays such discovery;
      "(7) misconduct that involves the unequal application of justice on
      the basis of such considerations as race, color, ethnic background,
      gender, or religion are more serious than breaches of justice that do
      not disparage the integrity of the system on the basis of a class of
      citizenship."
      SPECIFIC MISCONDUCT OF BARRY M. GRANT
      1. Failure of Judge Barry M. Grant to perform Judicial duties
      relating to the condition of Norman E. Conn, Esq. while a Ward of the
      Oakland Co Probate Ct via a Guardianship and Conservatorship; leading
      to the deterioration in the health of Norman E. Conn and his untimely
      and premature DEATH.
      *See attachment: the Petition of Jay Schwartz, Esq., Filed May 2003
      and heard .
      *See attached copy of photographs of Norman E Conn taken in March
      2003, April 2003 and February 2004.
      *See attached Court transcript , whereby Barry M. Grant failed to act
      and listen to witnesses present in Court. Those witnesses being:
      Sharon Harris – Adult Protective Services; John Pochas – State of MI
      licensing, Lut Tim Diamond – WBPD (INS Claims involving the WB Condo
      and Police Incident Reports), Deb Spizak – CtYd Manor.
      2. Judge Barry M. Grant appointed his son-in- laws firm as Guardian
      and Conservator before the Guardian/Conservators mentioned above.
      This same law firm drafted the Durable Power of Attorney on Norman E.
      Conn. Judge Grant never ruled on the Durable Power of Attorney and so
      no decision could have ever been challenged as NO decision had ever
      been rendered. To this date, NO decision has ever been rendered on
      Norman E. Conn's Durable Power of Attorney, which completely averted
      the need for any Guardianship or Conservatorship. The Durable Power
      of Attorney was drafted by the law firm. Barry M. Grant's son-in- law
      is/was an attorney with the firm.
      *See attached letter of , submitted to the new Conservator or Counsel
      for the same.
      *This is one of many suppressed transcript from around June 2002.
      *The original blue back of the Durable Power of Attorney is in my
      possession. The Court was aware of the existence of the Durable Power
      of Attorney in January 2002.
      3. Barry M. Grant, in a Court hearing held June 30th, 2003 removed
      both Co-Guardians
      for cause. However, while the Co-Guardians and Co-Conservators were
      two lawyers acting in both capacities, one of the Co-Guardians removed
      was retained as Co-Conservator. Upon appointment of both attorneys,
      in October 2002, I complained of a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The removal
      of the two attorneys for cause yet retaining one in the position of
      Conservator makes no sense. (It should be noted, that ultimately this
      same attorney, retains himself and his law firm, as the attorney to
      represent himself as the fiduciary.) Additionally, to `watch' the
      Co-Conservator remaining, Barry M. Grant appointed another
      Co-Conservator and so the estate continued with two Co-Conservators
      and a new Guardian. Three attorneys now appointed, independent of one
      another and two of the attorneys now hire perspective Counsel (even if
      it is themselves they retain) for their needs and desires. In total 5
      lawyers and or firms representing one Ward, who had a Durable Power of
      Attorney in place and the Court never made a ruling on the legal
      instrument or reviewed its legal contents. This ONLY led to further
      dissipating estate assets and increased legal billings, fees, costs
      and legal maneuverings at the direct expense of the Ward. Apparently,
      the only ones benefiting from Barry M. Grant's decisions, or lack
      thereof, were the attorney's that Judge Barry M. Grant appointed and
      approved of their fees. (See attached transcript from December 2004.)
      The remaining Co-Conservator's law firm had incorporated the Adult
      Foster Care facility where Norman E. Conn was overdosed on
      prescriptive medications, had multiple elopements walking down the
      busy intersection of 15 and Franklin Road, in the winter without
      appropriate clothing and then had both a head injury and a fateful hip
      fracture, whereby he was then left for over 14 hours with NO Medical
      attention, as State of MI records indicate. When was finally called,
      Norman E Conn was found sprawled across the bed, delirious in pain and
      Morphine was needed and administered before transport.
      Therefore, the remaining Co-Conservator (prior Co- Guardian) was
      enraged that I had his client's facility receive a "Summary
      suspension" from the State; he slander me to the Court in an effort to
      destroy my credibility and have him retain his control. It worked.
      Judge Grant stated within the confines of the June 2nd hearing, as you
      will read the enclosed transcript:
      *See "suppressed" transcript from .
      *See attached transcript from , Page 25 lines 18 - 25.
      4. Barry M. Grant's failure to follow-up on information presented to
      the Court regarding the IRS liens filed against both Norman E. Conn
      and Ethel Friedman Conn; as the IRS stated Taxes were NOT filed for
      the Wards since the year 2000, lead to the eventual foreclosure of the
      property and federal liens being placed.
      Yet, fiduciary accountings, submitted to the Court for approval of
      fiduciary fees, in this case the attorney's that were removed for
      cause as Guardians, show that one or two of the Co-Conservators were
      submitting billable hours for taxes and extensions NOT filed,
      according to the IRS. Regardless of this knowledge, Judge Grant
      allowed the fiduciary accountings and the attorney's were paid from
      estate assets. The estates were left with the federal lien of well
      over $150,000.00.
      *See attachment, Affidavit of the Court Appointed CPA, stating that
      well over $320,000.00 was apparently UNaccounted for in fiduciary
      accountings. The Court was aware of this issue in BOTH Conservator
      estates and decedents estates. In other words, the money wasn't where
      it was suppose to be, in the fiduciary accountings of the estates.
      Yet, the Wards or the estates are responsible for the money. The
      Federal lien is filed in two states. In it is filed with the Oakland
      Co Register of deeds.
      *See attached cover sheet from the IRS and my email notifying ALL
      attorneys, that the one Co-Conservator that Barry M. Grant allowed to
      remain on, did not share information with the other attorneys and
      notify them of such issues as the IRS. The undersigned delivered and
      disseminated that information to ALL parties, in June 2004, when I
      immediately found out.
      *See Cover sheet from the IRS faxed to the Court Appointed CPA.
      5. Failure to Act – "Special Court Appointed Investigator" wrote an
      Interim Report, dated September 2004 and a copy is attached hereto.
      Barry M. Grant failed to act upon the recommendations of the Court
      Appointed Special Investigator or heed his words and investigate
      further, even when a Motion was filed by a Co-Conservator.
      6. Failure to Act – upon warnings and proofs submitted by the
      undersigned and Counsel, throughout the proceedings, specifically at
      the September 2004 hearing. This Failure to Act alleges conduct on
      behalf of one of the Co-Conservators. Proof had been submitted to the
      Court several times.
      *See Transcript attached of Sept. 2004, for your complete review.
      7. And when the undersigned and other Counsel informed the Court of
      potential conduct by one of the fiduciaries and the harm that befell
      the Ward …. This Court did NOTHING and failed to ACT to protect the
      Wards estates.
      *See attached transcript from December 2004.
      8. That the reference in the December 2004 transcript, as to the
      nature of the family, violates the Canon of ethics as it relates to
      characterizations of personalities.
      *See attached December 2004 transcript, Page 15, line 09 – 16.
    • Frog Farmer
      ... If it s me at the picnic while I m eating a sandwich, leave him alone. ... The odds of being able to help in second or third party cases is almost nil.
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 29 2:36 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Randy Conn [mailto:yahoo@...] wrote:

        > How do we attack a man without an oath of
        > office who sits at a bench?

        If it's me at the picnic while I'm eating a sandwich, leave him alone.

        > Dear All:
        >
        > My cousin Tracey was having issues with a probate judge in Michigan
        > over her father Norman's guardianship.

        The odds of being able to help in second or third party cases is almost
        nil. It's like driving to the store in reverse gear in a car with which
        you are unfamiliar. So that's not to say there's no chance at all.

        > The quick story is the judge
        > appointed his son-in-law's firm as guardian, Norman was left drugged
        > up in a care home where he was allowed to wander and broke a hip.

        ...without anyone caring to be personally involved enough to check
        anyone's authority for doing anything. This is normal.

        > one point, there were 5 lawyers billing the estate of one ward. The
        > judge ignored valid power's of attorney, etc. I have included
        > Tracey's longer doc at the end.

        I read it and found the problem, or at least one. I'll comment when we
        get to it.

        > Tracey shared this with me and I flippantly remarked, "Did you look to
        > see if the judge has an oath of office?" It turns out Mr. Grant did
        > for some 10-15 years prior to 1995, but for the last 12 years, NONE.
        > Tracey got certification from the Sec of State about the missing oath.

        It was at that moment that Tracy SHOULD HAVE had a permanent
        mind-altering experience, but she failed to achieve enlightenment for
        some reason as we shall see...

        > Mr. Grant's daughter is a circuit court judge, but hers is filed.

        That was another chance for the Lightning Strike of Enlightenment to use
        her as a ground, but again it didn't seem to alter her body chemistry...

        > Tracey had lawyers that advised her to file a complaint with the
        > Judicial Tenure Commission, where Mr. Grant happens to be a member.

        Tracy tacitly admits she's incompetent just by having an attorney.
        Would we be politically incorrect for being the ones to cause her the
        first adrenaline surge over the issue?

        > I had concerns about filing a complaint against a non-judge.

        Congratulations for being someone who watches themselves for
        contradictory actions!! But if everyone is saying they're a judge, you
        might have to prove it the only way those around you are capable of
        understanding it. Refer to it as "the role of judge".

        > I told Tracy:
        > I focused on 2 issues:
        >
        > Barry M Grant has the status of a private citizen and not a judge.
        > You can't refer to him as a judge and argue he is not a judge.

        But she did anyway, despite trying, at least once.

        > Supposing that Barry M Grant was a real judge, his acts and negligence
        > would have then been in violation of the following judicial canons of
        > ethics [list as you have done]
        > If he is not a judge, the judicial canons of ethics do not apply to
        > him. Saying that he has violated them presumes he is a judge. Using
        > supposing or arguendo makes these arguments more clear.

        For some reason you are among the rare people to realize this fact!!

        > I also said to Tracey:
        > Do not refer to the man as Judge Grant or Chief Judge Grant. You have
        > counteracted your argument that he is not a judge by referring to him
        > as a judge.

        This is why it's largely a waste of time to try to help people - the
        learning curve in the time permitted is so steep...

        > Your statements need to explicitly and implicitly make it
        > clear that he is not a judge, rather than saying he is a judge with
        > missing paperwork. I suggest using Mr. Grant or Mr. Barry Grant, and
        > nothing more.

        Exactly!

        > I think Tracey is starting to get it, but this is where I ask for
        > input from list members. If anyone contacts me off-list, I can send
        > the formatted docs.
        >
        > randy,

        Consider hiring a good hypnotist fast. Get Tracy to where she
        automatically questions everyone's authority over her.

        > i have an attorney who is interested in meeting w/me regarding
        > potentially suing grant. here is the dilema:
        >
        > 1. since he is NOT a judge we will sue as a privte citizen.
        > 2. then as a private citizen what are we suing him for? all his
        > actions are null and void. he is not party to the suit so what is the
        > tort and can you find a case w/authority?

        See, it was up to Tracy or others at the beginning to qualify everyone.
        Otherwise it's an admission that qualifications weren't that important.

        > 3, i suggested to sue under frand ........ it may be a possibility but
        > if you can find any case law (i am looking for the same) then please
        > let me know immediately. our meeting is scheduled for friday.

        Isn't everyone involved, who ostensibly acted under a judge's authority
        or orders, equally responsible to make sure they were in a real chain of
        command? I would handle it that way. They're all responsible.

        > LONG SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE:
        >
        > MEMO COVER LETTER
        > TO: The Press

        The press is a bought and paid for organ of the conspirators.

        > Good afternoon. The following attachments are factual. The issues
        > that follow, starting on page 3 - 7 have to deal with a "private
        > citizen"; who happens to be an attorney (and is REQUIRED to take an
        > Oath for submission to the State Bar and other licensing
        > requirements); who happened to have run for Judgeship; and who
        > apparently has decided to NOT follow the LAW of the US Constitution,
        > The Constitution of the State of MI, the federal election laws and our
        > State election laws.

        And my friend Tracy let him!

        > Yet, this same person is rendering decisions every day that effect
        > people's lives, their liberties and their Civil Rights. How can a
        > Judge uphold the Law, and even be called a Judge, if he has failed to
        > follow the Law, as a matter of law, in at least four areas, and NOT
        > submitted in his Oath of Office?

        Trick question - he's NOT a judge, so why ask the question the way you
        did? Here's how:

        "How can a MERE NEIGHBOR uphold the Law, and even be called a Judge, if
        he has failed to follow the Law, as a matter of law, in at least four
        areas, and NOT submitted the required Oath of Office which converts him
        from neighbor to judge?"

        > Where's the accountability?

        Where was Tracy?

        > The Oath is your agreement to uphold the law; the Constitution and the
        > State of 's laws, your legal and Constitutional requirement. Whether
        > by appointment or election, the OATH and its submission are required,
        > BEFORE you occupy the office, as your acknowledgment and agreement
        > that you will do your job, you will uphold the law.

        Tracy needed to hear this from a third party too late, and the
        brainwashing is ingrained so even though she knows he's not a judge, she
        will refer to him by that title again most likely, as she did it even
        after knowing she should not.

        > So in essence, this private citizen, is occupying the Oakland County
        > Probate Court,

        There it is again - how can a private citizen "occupy a court"? BUT, if
        YOU say so....

        > Society includes
        > both the private citizen and big corporation.

        "Society" is an imaginary construct that means different things to
        different people.

        > It is important for
        > private citizens and corporate to realize, whether one chooses to
        > acknowledge this or not, these systems effect every single person in
        > this State and frankly the country.

        It's the educational system that parents should worry abut, the one that
        didn't teach them anything useful about how their government affects
        their lives, until it's when they're told how much and when to pay their
        fines and penalties, if they're still going to be allowed to live with
        their kids. Some people don't have problems in these areas because they
        found it worth it to spend real time studying the "law" that was being
        USED on them as a "tool".

        > As the baby boomers age, more people will have to take off work to
        > care for their aging relatives. If issues are not addressed and the
        > current system receive TRUE accountability, our social systems are at
        > risk because someone, if even government, will have to pay for the
        > care of the Ward, the elderly or the infirmed.

        This person believes that an imaginary construct ("government") can or
        will "pay" (versus "discharge") anyone anything. If you are among that
        group of anyone, I recommend that you not hold your breath waiting.

        > There are not enough
        > medical professional for that task and there is not enough money to
        > assist, which is evident as our own State has serious financial
        > problems.

        It's far cheaper to prevent AIDS than treat it, about one twentieth or
        less. Choosing the more expensive method, which is now mathematically
        impossible, is the choice of the people's representatives.

        > The Probate System in , is apparently one of the most corrupt systems
        > with little, if any accountability for the LAW as a matter of LAW.

        Boilerplate where people forget to insert their own state's name,
        besides embarrassing them and torpedoing the effectiveness of the
        argument, gives their opposition a method to identify others using the
        same boilerplate. Blanks or leftover modifications for a particular case
        that do not make sense in the present case are alarms indicating
        boilerplate. The opposition can bet that the person filing it cannot
        argue it verbally, not that anyone has to, but the possibility of a
        trick question and a dumb answer in front of witnesses is increased.

        > One of the biggest problems in the Probate System is the lack of
        > accountability for law and the apparent relationship between some of
        > the Judges and some of the attorneys.

        It can all be avoided with the use of trusts.

        > We the people, now rely on you the press, to assist in the matter of
        > JUDICUAL ACCOUNTABILITY to protect both the private citizen and
        > businesses in , regardless of their size.

        Wake up! The press is bought and paid for! You don't even learn of
        certain major stories and have to go outside the country to learn of
        them!

        > We the people need your assistance to turn around the Probate system
        > which effects every single person though taxes, social security,
        > Medicare and Medicaid to name a few.

        All the cows in the barn think they're the only cows in the whole world!

        > Oakland County, where my father died prematurely as a sitting private
        > citizen, held himself out as a Judge, yet did not adjudicate law and
        > worse apparently did NOT follow the law and therefore became a
        > trespasser on the US Constitution and the Rights of the people of this
        > great State

        ...didn't have one person ever who cared enough not to be convicted that
        they NEVER investigated his oath of office and disqualified him! Not
        ONE!! Is that trust in "the system", or what?!

        > All acts and rulings of Judge Barry M. Grant, in my parents
        > Guardianship and Conservatorship cases, as well as their deceased
        > estates are NULL and VOID.

        There she goes, making him a judge in her mind again, and he'll be glad
        to play the role...it's called arbitration and anyone can do it.

        > This form that is required by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission,
        > apparently, also believes that an Oath is very important

        A form cannot believe anything.

        > as I am
        > required to sign this request form under Oath and under SEAL This is
        > your requirement for me to submit this "Request for Investigation"
        > form.

        "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." - Old Saying

        > The State of , is NOT the only State that requires the Oath to be
        > signed and filed, BEFORE a JUDGE can take office and assume the duties
        > as a Judge, under color of title.
        > 1. The State of New York has a Constitutional provision regarding
        > Oaths of Office, Article XXIII Sec. 1 states as follows: "Oath of
        > office; no other test for public office."

        See, taking and filing the oath is THE TEST!!!!

        > 3. The State of Constitutional provisions, Article 20, MISCELLANEOUS
        > SUBJECTS {Required Oath of Office}, provides for a required Oath of
        > Office, "BEFORE entering upon the duty of the office of judge". See
        > Exhibit 5.

        The State of Constitutional provisions? I want to move there! People
        will copy defective boilerplate like this and cause trouble for others
        who can proof-read and amend it.

        > As you can see, the Oath of Office is important to every court across
        > the country,

        Makes you wonder why nobody seems to know about it, doesn't it? It's
        like all other laws, there on the books for those with eyes to read it.
        Oh, you need willpower too. In fact, you need that first.

        > The Oath is the pledge, your agreement that you will undertake
        > whatever position in public office it is you might have but especially
        > that of jurist. The Oath is your acceptance, your agreement with the
        > people, whether you are appointed or elected. For neither an
        > appointment nor an election mean that you have decided you want the
        > position, until you take and subscribe to your acceptance via The OATH
        > of Office.

        And if the requirement of the oath is in the state constitution, and you
        are supposed to have followed it, how can you read it and never think
        about the oath? This is what proves they are not qualified! How can
        they DARE to tell you they are enforcing any subsequent inferior laws?!
        Give me a break! Yet most people will let them!

        > So the question becomes, what good are our laws if there is no
        > accountable for our law as the framers to the Constitution intended
        > the same to be and that of our State, the State of .

        It's not such a big problem. All someone has to do is point out that a
        person is not qualified, and take the names of people willing to swear
        under penalties of perjury that he or she IS qualified. Those are your
        accomplices for civil RICO.

        > Complaint is made that Barry M. Grant has committed
        > MISCONDUCT as defined by the Michigan Constitution, Article VI, Sec
        > 30, MCR 9.205(B) persistent failure to perform judicial duties; (B)
        > (1) (b) persistent neglect in the timely performance of judicial
        > duties;

        How does somebody with no oath get judicial duties? Oh, it matters what
        observers THINK??!

        > SPECIFIC MISCONDUCT OF BARRY M. GRANT
        > 1. Failure of Judge Barry M. Grant

        Either he was a judge or he wasn't and whatever any people THINK is
        totally irrelevant today where the majority are incompetent and
        illiterate.

        > 5. Failure to Act -

        The real failure to act was on the part of the first person to accept
        Barry as a judge without inquiry into his qualifications.

        But you all knew that I consider disqualifying EVERYBODY is Step ONE.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Randy Conn
        Dear Frog Farmer: Thank you so much for taking the time to write. It was what I expected and more. I will pass it on. ... negligence ... of ... Using ... 2
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Frog Farmer:

          Thank you so much for taking the time to write. It was what I expected
          and more. I will pass it on.

          > > Supposing that Barry M Grant was a real judge, his acts and
          negligence
          > > would have then been in violation of the following judicial canons
          of
          > > ethics [list as you have done]
          > > If he is not a judge, the judicial canons of ethics do not apply to
          > > him. Saying that he has violated them presumes he is a judge.
          Using
          > > supposing or arguendo makes these arguments more clear.
          >
          > For some reason you are among the rare people to realize this fact!!

          2 mechanical engineering degrees and some years reading your posts have
          helped my thinking!

          Randy
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.