Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct -- “Fraud” or “fraudulent” denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information."
We allege -- based upon the documentation uploaded on this website -- the existence of a Michigan-based association of individuals, attorneys, their companies, and government officials who used the U.S. Mails and electronic transmissions to engage in a conspiracy under 18 USC 241, 242 to violate the due process rights of beneficiaries under the color of law, a conspiracy under 18 USC 371 to defraud the U.S. Government, and a conspiracy under 18 USC 1962(d) through conduct that was not merely negligent misrepresentation but intentional deception to advance a coordinated estate and trust fraud scheme involving the WHJJLT and the RASLT to defraud beneficiaries residing in Texas, Kentucky and charitable organizations doing business in Michigan, calculated to deprive them of honest services in violation of 18 USC 1346.
The civil and criminal misconduct of these actors constitutes elder financial exploitation, obstruction of justice, and judicial tyranny calculated to shield and aid and abet the enterprise to prevent the detection of securities fraud, bank fraud, conversion, embezzlement, tax evasion, and money laundering to not only defraud beneficiaries, but the U.S. Government.
Specifically, the enterprise was aided and abetted by deception and misconduct of the following Michigan attorneys:
Jeffrey K. Helder -- Cunningham & Dalman in Holland, Michigan
Robert D. Brower -- Miller Johnson, Grand Rapids
Angela M. Caulley -- Miller Johnson, Grand Rapids
Thomas Kuiper -- Kuiper Kraemer, Grand Rapids
David Skidmore -- Warner, Norcross + Judd, Grand Rapids
Laura Morris -- Warner, Norcross + Judd, Grand Rapids
Each of the above-reference attorneys violated Michigan's Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information as part of a coordinated scheme to financially exploit the beneficiaries of the William H. Johnson Jr. Living Trust and the Ralph A. Siddell Living Trust to profit from unlawful activity from the attempted financial exploitation of William H. Johnson Jr. before his death on December 16, 2016, and the elder financial exploitation of Ralph A. Siddell before his death on August 29, 2012, by the manipulation of George Alan Stoutin, David R. Heilman, Jeffrey K. Helder, Barbara McNally, and Glen McNeil who aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty, failure to make a suspicious activity report under the Bank Secrecy Act, securities fraud, bank fraud, conversion, embezzlement, tax fraud and money laundering.
Additionally, based upon documents we allege the following Michigan government officials that includes the former Allegan County Probate Judge Michael L. Buck, the former Allegan County Probate Register Jonathan K. Blair, judges of the Michigan Court of Appeals Panel -- P.J. __________, Christopher Murry and Katheen Feeney -- and the panel of the Michigan Supreme Court ignored documented perjury, fraudulent concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty by David R. Heilman to advance the scheme to defraud through systemic judicial abuse of discretion and failure to enforce their duties under the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions, Michigan Statutes and Michigan Court Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Michigan Legislature enacted laws that the judiciary was required to enforce as written. However, to advance the scheme and violate the due process rights of the beneficiaries involving the administration of the William H. Johnson Jr. Living Trust and the Ralph a. Siddell Living Trust, the judiciary systemically ignored documented concealment, documented perjury, documented fraud, and in some instances violated constituting a case of judicial tyranny.
Michigan's purported "One Court of Justice" failed to enforce one legal or ethical duty. They did not seek the truth, but aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty to silence beneficiaries that included Kirk Siddell, Linda Smith, All Saints Episcopal Church, Wings of Hope Hospice, Hospice of Holland, Animal Placement Bureau, Harbor Humane Society, Christian Neighbors and Wounded Warrior Project.
We allege that Michigan's Judiciary, retained attorneys, and fiduciary David Heilman (who is statutorily disqualified from serving as trustee under MCL 700.7303(d) -- acting a "straw fiduciary") played a significant role in furthering a scheme to not only defraud the beneficiaries of the William H. Johnson Jr. Living Trust and the Ralph A. Siddell Living Trust, but their conduct was calculated to prevent forensic analysis to evade not only elder financial exploitation of Ralph Siddell, but to conceal securities fraud, bank fraud, account manipulation, transaction layering, conversion, embezzlement, tax evasion and money laundering to defraud the U.S. Government.
MICHIGAN RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
We alleged -- based upon documents -- that not one of the attorneys named below comprehends what a distinct duty "imposed by law" or "within the limits imposed by law" means. Not one. And we allege the documents (or lack thereof) demonstrate unethical and unlawful conduct to advance a scheme to defraud for personal financial gain.
MRPC Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: General Rule.
(a) A lawyer SHALL NOT represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
Violators:
Jeffrey Helder of Cunningham & Dalman
Robert D. Brower and Angela M. Caulley of Miller Johnson
Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal. A lawyer must recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities. Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (a)(2), an advocate has a duty to disclose directly controlling adverse authority that has not been disclosed by the opposing party. The underlying concept is that legal argument is a discussion seeking to determine the legal premises properly applicable to the case.
Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal.
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal controlling legal authority in the jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal
(b) If a lawyer knows that the lawyer’s client or other person intends to engage, is engaging, or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to an adjudicative proceeding involving the client, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts that are known to the lawyer and that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
(e) When false evidence is offered, a conflict may arise between the lawyer’s duty to keep the client’s revelations confidential and the duty of candor to the court. Upon ascertaining that material evidence is false, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered or, if it has been offered, that its false character should immediately be disclosed. If the persuasion is ineffective, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. The advocate should seek to withdraw if that will remedy the situation. If withdrawal from the representation is not permitted or will not remedy the effect of the false evidence, the lawyer must make such disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to remedy the situation, even if doing so requires the lawyer to reveal information that otherwise would be protected by Rule 1.6.
The following Michigan attorneys are under ethical duties to report ethical and legal violations
Each of these attorneys violated their ethical duty to report ethical violations and attorney dishonesty that advanced the scheme to defraud the beneficiaries and the Michigan Judiciary:
Thomas Kuiper -- Kuiper Kraemer
Laura Morris -- Warner, Norcross + Judd
David Skidmore -- Warner, Norcross + Judd
The following attorneys who purportedly represented Linda Smith and charged her thousands of dollars. We suggest you should be very afraid of retaining any of the following Michigan firms or attorneys:
Mika Meyers
Neil Jansen
Hubbard Snitchler & Parzianello
Mark Snitchler
Kevin Majewski (Kevin is no longer with Hubbard, Snitchler & Parzianello)
After each of these attorneys discovered the dishonesty and misconduct of Brower and Caulley's they were under a legal duty to report their dishonesty, but each neglected to do so.
Based upon documents we assert that Brower, Caulley, Kuiper and Morris were motivated to protect Stoutin and Heilman's personal interests by concealing material facts and controlling legal authority to mislead Michigan's One Court of Justice not to seek the truth, but to silence Kirk, Linda and All Saints Episcopal Church.
However, we cannot understand why Jansen, Snitchler and Majewski failed to assert the following statutes to protect Linda's interests:
MCL 700.7303(d):
MCL 700.1403(b)(ii)(D):
MCL 700.7814, et seq.:
MCL 700.1102:
MCL 700.7103(n):
MCL 700.1107(n):
MCL 700.1107(k):
MCL 700.1205(3):
Were these failures by Linda's lawyers a mistake or was it intentional?