kingjurisdoctor@gmail.com -- In the Civil Rights Justice system there are two sets of people: Those who are haters and those who fight back. These are their stories. Blink-Blink.
Movies: KingCast.net and KingCast65 YouTube -- A NENPA member news and information journal.
My father, as a chemist in training, drove an orange Volvo, wore Jesus sandals to work and often sported a glass-blown peace sign on his neck instead of a tie when he went to work. I can't wear Jesus sandals because of the bike, and I could not find a Triumph Sprint RS in Lucifer Orange (and they have the older 108HP engine rather than the 118HP engine developed with Lotus) but I did find an appropriate peace sign to wear to work. The apple does not fall far from the tree :) Related: Cecil King, the Original KingCaster.
Remember last week how I showed you where M&T Bank and their lawyer basically hand-picked Judge Mickey Norman to slam a homeowner as Norman completely lied about the reason for Emergency Rule 14-207.1? If you don't well the video is embedded below. He's a real bully and intellectually disingenuous but he can't outsmart me with his lies. Well as a pesky reporter (and former State Attorney and title insurance producer) I am ever so proud to inform you that there's more (including a new video by Monday) coming: There's an upcoming trial in Montgomery county (MD) in July for the court to decide whether to disbar or the appropriate level of sanction for John Burson and Matthew McDowell over practices similar to that of T. Dore. Below is the complaint filed by the MD Grievance Commission. MD Griev. Comm's attorney, James Butlok (410-514-7051). Homeowners must demand they participate as witnesses/damaged parties to the practices of Shapiro and Burson and contact whistleblower Jose Portillo and email me at kingjurisdoctor@gmail.com to document the fact that you called. From Paralegal whistleblower Portillo: *************
The purpose for me reaching out to you is to share upcoming events similar to that of the Thomas Dore case, only this time it deals with attorneys from Shapiro and Burson, another foreclosure attorney in Maryland. As, you may be already aware (or not), in June 2011, I filed a complaint (attached) with the MD Grievance Commission (MDGC) against attorneys: William M. Savage, Matthew McDowell and John Burson. The attorney moving the case is James Botluk (James.Botluk@courts.state.md.us) from MDGC –410-514-7051.
Providence to Hartford to Utica to Cleveland..... 653 miles of bug shit on the Space Alien schnoz of the Triumph Sprint 955i LOL. Yesterday was my father's 75th birthday, and as one of my sisters noted on her FB page, you have to give it to him in person because he is no longer of the computer generation. He retired, runs a golf cart around, maintains a driving range and plays basically for free at a great country club. I loved it when he was still working and online though, we used to bust chops all day he's such a smart ass. And as noted, he taught me how to live forever young, regardless of what the bastids throw at ya!
This whole case just reeks of injustice. I'll never go violent but I will be the World's biggest pain in the ass until Bremby and the Court do the Right Thing. And it won't be the first time I defeated an entire AG's Office; I did it to my former boss Betty Montgomery and that's a fact:
On top, that's me after hand-delivering my Motion for Rule 60B relief to CT AG George Jepsen. I'm busy this weekend, on vacation and so too is Judge Alvin W. Thompson, who returns on Monday, 20 May 2013 where he will see the indisputable fact that my mother, Betty J. King, is now allowed to proceed as Intervenor in this case because of the valid Connecticut Power of Attorney I filed with the Court yesterday. Video coming Sunday.
I.INTERVENTION
AND CONNECTICUT GEN STAT §1-42.
It is indisputable that the sole rational for denial
of the right to Intervene in the Lower Court was based on the Power of Attorney
being from Ohio, and the allegation that a non-licensed attorney may not
litigate on behalf of another. The problem with the Court’s analysis was that
none of the cases cited dealt with incapacity of the principal. The Court
followed Defendants example in citing to Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Coleman, 88 Ohio
St. 3d 155 (200), a case in which a man had hung a shingle in a for-profit
venture and was offering legal advice to complete strangers who were of sound
mind and body, not incapacitated by Alzheimers.
The board found that respondent, who is not an
attorney at law, conducted a business under the name "Trouble R Us
Consumer Advocates" in Pomeroy, Ohio. During the course of his business,
respondent gave legal advice to a resident of Ohio and prepared and filed
complaints on her behalf in an Ohio court.
Naturally the Court found that such
activity constituted Unauthorized Practice of Law.[1]
Neither Defendants nor the Court provided any
Decisional law from Connecticut.
The Law in Connecticut is quite clear however, and
it provides:
Gen. Stat. § 1-42 et. seq.
Sec. 1-51. Claims and litigation. In a statutory short form
power of attorney, the language conferring general authority with respect to
claims and litigation shall be construed to mean that the principal authorizes
the agent:
(1) To assert and prosecute before
any court, administrative board, department, commissioner or other tribunal any
cause of action, claim, counterclaim, offset or defense, which the principal
has, or claims to have, against any individual, partnership, association,
corporation, limited liability company, government, or other person or
instrumentality, including, but not limited to, power to sue for the recovery
of land or of any other thing of value, for the recovery of damages sustained
by the principal in any manner, for the elimination or modification of tax
liability, for an injunction, for specific performance, or for any other
relief;
(2) to bring an action of
interpleader or other action to determine adverse claims; to intervene or
interplead in any action or proceeding, and to act in any litigation as amicus
curiae;
There is nothing equivocal about the Plain Language
of the Statute when a valid Connecticut Power of Attorney is involved. The
Court did not address this argument on prior occasion because it impliedly
determined that Ohio Law still governed this matter. Ms. King filed a Motion
for Reconsideration to the contrary, however with her new Power of Attorney
firmly set in Connecticut she is authorized to have her son stand in her shoes
before the Court.
Note further that in Connecticut Christopher King,
Esq. is authorized to stand in place of his mother whether or not he is
licensed in Connecticut or anywhere else, pursuant to established Connecticut
Law, Clark v. Visiting Nurse Serv., 2001
Conn. Super. LEXIS 434 (2001)(Appendix A).
The Connecticut Short Form Power
of Attorney Act, General Statutes § 1-42, et seq., confers upon the attorney in fact authorization to
engage in litigation on behalf of a principal in the statutory short form power of attorney. General Statutes § 1-43. This means that HN4"the principal
authorizes the agent: (1) To assert . . . before any court . . . any cause of
action, claim, counterclaim, offset or defense, which the principal has, or
claims to have, against any individual, partnership, association, corporation,
limited liability company, government, or other person or instrumentality,
including, but not limited to, power to sue . . . for
the recovery of damages sustained by the principal in any manner . . ." General Statutes § 1-51.
A beautiful rainy day at Razee Motorcycle Center for their 2013 Open House. They ordered a new Pirelli Angel GT for my Triumph Sprint RS and installed the rear yesterday. I'll pick up the front next week. Seems like a really nice tyre, and probably twice the mileage of my Dunlop Q2's.
Thank you for being the Best Momma! Even though my sister and I have become the parents. Even though I've lost my favorite intellectual sparring partner. Even though you barely remember who I am. And even though Judge Alvin W. Thompson does not care about you and completely gnored relevant law on the Title XIX/Medicaid lawsuit in Shafer v. Bremby, and even though Connecticut AG George Jepsen is a proved liar and Judge Thompson refuses to rule on our Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions. I've got something for their asses, and I am sure you would like it if only you knew. I will fix their wagons Real Good. See you tomorrow Honey. xo -Your Son.
The law couldn't be any clearer, the fact that the POA was initially filed in Ohio does not divest Connecticut Courts of Jurisdiction so I am overnighting the Motion for Reconsideration and for Clarification on the Rule 11 Sanctions that the Court has not ruled on, and an Interlocutory Appeal is coming next.
