THE DEMAND FOR FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION IS GROWING!It took a petition for a writ of mandamus to get at the "record" of what Nashville Judge Randy Kennedy described as a "hearing" on 10/23/07 in the unlawful conservatorship of NASGA member Danny Tate. You’ve seen a lot of detail about the case from different sources, but today we’re looking back at the unlawfulness which occurred early on in these proceedings and pointing out certain suspect matters.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to figure out from the court docket what was wrong, but here are a few clues:
The secret gathering in a courtroom on 10/23/07 was not a “hearing”; it was an ambush! There was no due process notice given to the victim, respondent Danny Tate. Isn't that what the law is all about - notice? You have to be present, be represented, and be given your rights? Not in Randy Kennedy’s court! We can find no authorization in the TN statutes for the
ex-parte granting of full and total control of Danny’s rights and property. In fact, we find quite the opposite: Judge Kennedy was prohibited by law from holding any kind of proceeding just four days after a petition filing without prior notice.
Here it is, loud and clear - TN Code 34-1-108:
"If the petition alleges the minor or disabled person is faced with a life threatening situation, the court may schedule the hearing in less than seven (7) days from the date of service on the respondent;
provided, that actual notice of the hearing is given to the closest relative and the respondent."Judge Kennedy had discretion to act quickly, but he acted
ultra vires - in excess of his lawful authority - and engaged in constitutional deprivation of rights at the get-go!
Actually, the record is barren of any written notice to anyone present in the courtroom on 10/23/07, so how do you suppose that little gathering came about? Telephonic notice? Tsk-tsk-tsk! That would constitute wire fraud! Why are we surprised? We see other evidence of that as the investigation proceeds. But right now we’re only looking at the official record to see what it shows - or omits.
Here's a chronology of events, with some telling detail -
First entry on the Davidson County Circuit Court docket, No. 07P1654:
10/19/07 Petition for conservatorship
There was no customary certificate of service on the petition filed 10/19/07. That evidences the intent to ambush Danny, because normally, a clerk should not accept a document for filing without proof of service on the other side. The petition contained nothing more than conclusory statements by Danny’s brother David. It asked the court to set a hearing date and provide for service on Danny and his relatives for a conservatorship - not a temporary conservatorship - which appears to be the name of the game as relates to the unauthorized and unlawful partial proceeding on 10/23/07. Interestingly, also, is the fact that in the petition Housch actually asked for and got his choice of examining physician, who turned out to not be qualified in the subject specialty. That's why we call these lawyers and doctors who repeatedly appear before Judge Kennedy - and other judges - "Tag Teams."
Another problem with the petition: Have you ever seen legal documents where the last page of the sworn fact statement ends in the middle? The half-page formatting is typical of shyster lawyers who can, at will, alter the entire document after its creation by substituting any page - the fact statement, the signature page, even the service certification page. The last page of the fact statement is half blank, and is followed by another half page with Housch's signature and address. Then follows David’s oath, also on a separate half page, totally separate from the fact statement.
The second entry on the court docket - 10/23/07 Clerk's N-PersService - does not mean that Danny Tate was served on that date; it means only that the clerk issued a form of notice of personal service regarding the petition with a future “hearing” date, and released it for service upon Danny by an appropriate person. The law required Danny to be served in person, and the relatives by mail. Docket items 3 through 6 merely indicate the issuance by the clerk of the notices by certified mail upon the four relatives – no one was served with any papers on 10/23/07 or prior thereto.
The following 10/23/07 entries, 7 through 13, do not describe any proceeding (as in “hearing”) having been held, but the docket entries show judicial activity - which would normally follow a proper hearing - occurring that day, as we now know,
ex parte :
*Order appointing Guardian ad Litem;
*Order setting hearing on petition for appointment of conservator;
*Order directing medical examination;
*Oath of David E. Tate;
*PetitionOrder Appt TATE,David E TemporaryConservator
*Letter Recorded TempCons
(That means “Letters” – usually recorded in a formal ledger evidencing creation of a conservatorship.)
Although the docket makes no reference to any hearing, you can watch Judge Kennedy on the YouTube videos of 10/23/07, doing his thing and calling what he was doing that day a "hearing":
10/23/07 Pt 1 and 2Hearings are held for the purpose of determining the facts, with all parties present and sworn, in order for the judge or jury (no one told Danny he had the right to a jury) to come to a determination so that an adjudication can issue. So how does a judge adjudicate from a piece of paper, without people on the stand, testifying under oath?
What occurred in Kennedy’s courtroom on 10/23/07 was completely unlawful because it violated Danny’s federal and state rights.
Danny was finally served on 11/2/07 with a notice of a hearing, returnable 11/14/07. The docket shows a return on service, but there is no such proof in the court file, at least not one in compliance with court rules, but no one seemed to care or advise Danny of that failure. Actually, a judge should not proceed without first ascertaining his jurisdiction.
Why was a second “hearing” needed after the unauthorized and unlawful grabfest on 10/23/07 when the orders were issued, “Letters” recorded, DANNY'S ASSETS WERE ALREADY SEIZED AND CONVERTED and brother David was already in place as the "temporary" conservator?
It was the wrapup – the various elements required for a proper conservatorship which were not included the first time around, such as medical evidence, if you can call a report from a child psychologist appropriate in a purported “life-or-death” substance abuse case. When you watch the videos, you may hear Judge Kennedy addressing the need to see to the permanency of the conservatorship. But that never happened, because it took a real lawyer to come into the picture and file an emergency appeal on Judge Kennedy's failure and refusal to issue a final appealable order permitting Danny to end the unlawful conservatorship.
On 11/14/07 Danny’s rights were violated again: Judge Kennedy refused to grant Danny an adjournment to obtain counsel of his choice. Failure to grant an extension in order to obtain counsel is a constitutional deprivation. That event also triggered a violation of civil rights: Danny was removed in handcuffs and hospitalized!
But there's more: Attorney Paul Housch, the petition drafter, was retained by David with $25,000 of Danny’s money. How did he get that money? Prior to the filing of the conservatorship petition, Brother David had used fraudulently obtained and subsequently altered (forged) powers of attorney to seize and take control of Danny’s assets.
Most significant, with all the great detail in the petition, is the failure to make known the existence and use of the pre-existing powers of attorney – a critical issue which should have been addressed. This failure is known in the law as fraud by omission.
In a conventional proceeding, the need for conservatorship would have been challenged, if such documents were legitimately in place - or the powers would have been challenged. In this unconventional proceeding, there were problems: Danny had no prior notice; he no longer had any money with which to retain counsel, and he had no proper legal representation back then, as he does now (the "Tag Team" - court-appointed lawyers - were not there to help him).
Examination of several other attorneys’ billings in the case evidence their knowledge of problems regarding the powers of attorney, and that is undoubtedly where the idea came up to move into conservatorship.
We later learned that that very questionable half-page formatting style was also employed in constructing David’s several – yes, several - powers of attorney used by him to gain control over Danny’s assets prior to his filing for conservatorship. You can see these fraudulent and forged powers of attorney all laid out with comparisons and explanatory comments by Investigative Consultant Ira B. Robins at
NashvilleCriminals.info. Mr. Robins submitted his affidavit with numerous supporting exhibits to the FBI for investigation. NASGA has joined in calling for action by the FBI.
There’s much more to the story. See:
See ImpeachRandyKennedy.wordpress.comSee also:
The Protection Racket - You Can Steal More With a Pen Than a Gun!The “temporary” conservatorship lasted almost three years until thousands of Facebook friends got Danny freed, but he was wiped out financially. Now he needs to get his money back.
Question: Why would David need a conservatorship if he had power of attorney?
Answer: To get at Danny’s Vanguard royalties account, which he couldn’t do with the facially defective powers of attorney.
THIS IS A CRY FOR MORE THAN IMPEACHMENT – KENNEDY AND HIS GUARDIAN GANG MUST BE INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED BY THE FEDS!
HALT has just released its latest Citizens Legal Guide Is Your Lawyer's Bill Too High? How to Avoid (and Resolve) Fee Disputes. This easy-to-understand guide, the newest addition to HALT's library of free self-help publications, explains how lawyers typically charge for their services and how billing practices can sometimes go awry.
