Pauper v. Probate: THE SURPRISE ENDING!

Pauper v. Probate: THE SURPRISE ENDING!

by Danny Tate

"Are you telling me $2 + $2 = $4? In my "meth"-matical-probate equation, $2 + $2 = $3, ain't it? Or is $1? Wait a minute, I remember now, it equals $0? Thanks for helping me with my 'rythmetic, taught by a goon with a probate stick."

Pauper v. Probate

(The Biggest Business in the World)

In the First Court of Public Opinion

Pauper Case No. : PD1 (Public Domain)

v.

Probate Court Filed: November 8, 2011

Judge "We, the People", presiding

TRADEMARKS OF ABUSE AND CORRUPTION


Thanks to Nancy Amons for keeping the eye of public scrutiny on Judge Randy Kennedy's court, Tuesday evening news, November 22, 2011, WSMV, Channel 4, Nashville, TN:

Conservatorship strips 81-year-old widow of all possessions

After you have watched and read Nancy Amons expose', and after you've fully digested this egregious action perpetrated on Ms. Tinnons' person and property, let me fill you in on the trademarks of abuse and corruption represented in this story, facilitated by Judge Randy Kennedy, in concert with a courtroom full of probate cooperatives. This will outrage you more than Ms. Tinnons' story, which is unconscionable in itself, but you'll be howling by the end!

Trademarks of the Probate Racket

(with surprise ending!)

1. Ms. Tinnon's legal, civil, human and property rights signed away in ex parte hearing [only the Petitioner represented, same as in The Conservatorship of Ginger Franklin and The Conservatorship of John Daniel Tate aka Danny Tate, no notice served to Respondent). It's "etched in stone" in a 10 minute hearing, yet costs her everything, including a year of her life, to get out. After watching the video of Ms. Tinnon's ex parte hearing, then watch how easily Kennedy Orders away someone's person and property another Ex Parte hearing Tate's conservatorship, without anything but hearsay evidence, (showing a pattern by Kennedy), then the scam is on]

2. An Attorney Ad Litem is appointed, Karl Warden, also a Campaign Contributor to Kennedy's uncontested re-election (what was all that money used for?), to a bench he was originally appointed by Governor Phil Bredesen. [Now, this is how Kennedy and the probate racket keeps it all wrapped up, nice and tidy and hidden; everybody's on the gravy train, and if you saw Karl Warden, you'd understand why it requires a big train and a lot of gravy]


Karl "I'm fatter in person" Warden

3. In Judge Randy Kennedy's court, The Judicial Code of Ethics is breached faster than you can take notes, and according to Ms. Tinnon's last attorney, Michael G. Hoskins (and my last attorney, who I fired), , Karl Warden is related to Judge Randy Kennedy w hich is a serious CONFLICT OF INTEREST. [Now, I have nothing to substantiate this except the recorded phone conversation with Mr. Hoskins that stated "a little birdie told me Karl Warden and Judge Kennedy are related, maybe brother-in-laws…". This should be a serious ethics violation, if Judge Kennedy is ever brought to accountability by our impotent Court of the Judiciary. Also, Michael Hoskins has a duty to his oath to report this Conflict of Interest, or he stands in breach of The Rules of Professional Conduct. But it gets worse than this.]

4. "The 81-year-old widow lost nearly everything after she came under a guardianship, also called a conservatorship".

Prior to his being "fired", Michael Hoskins boasted to me about how he got Ms. Tinnons out of her Conservatorship in one hearing. Of course he was able to accomplish this and it had nothing to do with legal acumen, but based purely on the fact that the probate vultures had already picked the bones clean from the estate corpse, so they had no use for Ms. Tinnons any longer.

[He should have had my conservatorship terminated in one hearing, but by his own admission, Mr. Hoskins proclaims himself a "mercenary", and learned the probate racket on my dime. Prior to his involvement in my conservatorship, Hoskins did not advertise as specializing in conservator/guardian law. Now, Hoskins is suing me for "my home", so his utter hypocrisy is now exposed. WSMV, Channel 4, Nashville, TN, referred to this pending "attorney's lien" over a year ago, but I'm sure Nancy A mons had no idea the suit would be coming from my own attorney, who tries to put on a show for the camera and sympathize with Ms. Timmons' losing her home, while he's suing me for mine, or its equivalent, for Hoskins knows it's the only asset of value I have left, and though its been put in a TRUST for my daughters, he is now "outed" as one of the probate vultures.


Michael "The Mercenary" Hoskins

Below is the link to the law suit Hoskins has brought against me, suing me for approximately what my house is worth, the house my children were born in, the house I paid for, a house left in post-flood condition, the house Hoskins' would take from you, in a heart-beat.

Hoskins v. Tate (annotated)

Now, I've file a DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL which,

according to the TN Constitution, Article 1,, Section 6.

"That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate...."

Hoskins v. Tate [commentary]

5. "Once the assets are completely depleted, suddenly the ward is determined "no longer disabled".

[Miraculous, huh? The same with Ginger Franklin, the same with Danny Tate.]

Money gone, disability gone.

6. All attorneys are "appointed" in Judge Kennedy's court for those already adjudicated incompetent do not have the ability to make this choice...

Yet, Nancy Amons reports,

7. Months later, with the help of a friend, Jewell Tinnon picked her own lawyer and her own doctors.

[Come on, Kennedy, can she or can't she? Get ready for the big surprise ending where I've already answered this question in Judge Kennedy's court, with Nancy Amons/WSMV/Channel 4, observing and the cameras rolling; for in one simple question asked in Kennedy's court, I proved my entire case with Kennedy's clueless answer, so make sure you read it all the way to the end, and I hope Nancy Amons still has the footage!!!]

7. "One woman ended up losing everything, and it could happen to anyone..."

[Nancy Amons tied all the pieces together in her ongoing coverage that "it could happen to anyone" in Judge Randy Kennedy's court. Based on "hearsay", supported by Kennedy's history and actions, nothing more needs to be added.

This same corruption and subversion of the law goes on

in probate courts all across the land.

[As I've represented before, the probate court is the wrong venue for adjudicating conservatorship/guardianship proceedings. That a law of preservation be adjudicated in a court of liquidation is an utter contradiction in jurisprudence]

8. "Her car was sold, too, and her clothes and all her furniture."

[Same as in The Conservatorship of Ginger Franklin, but add bankruptcy on to Ms. Franklin's "conservatorship", which is not atypical]

9. "She (Ms. Tinnons) wasn't given an opportunity to defend herself. All of this happened without her having any knowledge of it,"

["Emergency" Ex Parte Hearings, where only the Petitioner is present, and always represented by a probate cooperative and, most likely, represented by a Kennedy campaign contributor (to his uncontested "re-election"), same for Ginger Franklin, same for Danny Tate.

[("The hearing lasted all of 10 minutes")]

10. "At a public auction, it brought $83,000. That's a little more than half of what the tax assessor said it was worth."

[I reported this trademark in an earlier posting at Impeach Randy Kennedy. Typically, real-estate, along with copyrights, are listed at half their value, sold to a third-party cooperative, then sold again at face value, with the profits going to the pockets]

Same in the Ginger Franklin case. In my conservatorship, they had my home valued at half its price, and it's on the chopping block as I write re: Hoskins v. Tate]

Again

11. Months later, with the help of a friend, Jewell Tinnon picked her own lawyer and her own doctors.

This has to be inaccurate, for a "disabled" person is not allowed to "pick their own lawyer or doctor", the judge has to appoint, because the "ward" has already been adjudicated incompetent and does not have the capacity to make these kinds of decisions. Or do they? This is where the obvious hypocrisy and contradictions smack.

THE SURPRISE ENDING

In the hearing I referred to earlier, where I proved my competence in on simple question, with supporters all around and cameras rolling, I challenged Kennedy and he does not know to this day how he proved my point, but most of my readers will remember....

...the day Kennedy kicked me out of the courtroom.

As the hearing was coming to a close, I abruptly stood up and asked Judge Kennedy,

"Your honor, CAN I make a statement?"

Kennedy, thinking he had caught me in a grammatical error, arrogantly responded,

"No, Mr. Tate, you MAY not."

I proceeded with making my statement anyway, to further challenge the assertion of my dissed-Ability. Kennedy had me "kicked out" of the courtroom, but proved my able-ness in doing so. I was asking a legal question, "CAN I make a statement" and Kennedy determined I was NOT disabled when he responded by falling victim to his own hypocrisy in jurisprudence saying, "NO, you MAY not.", thus saying I had the ability to, but he would not let me exercise my ability.

Some of my supporters were in tears, while I'm still chuckling today, as to the fact Kennedy never did catch on, but it was on TV that night for the world to see, and Kennedy is not able to determine the fact he pretty much lives with his foot in his mouth, thus incompetent, and probably disabled from the glue-sniffing he did as a wanna-be rock and roll singer, the career he hates me for. Hoskins never even picked up on the how I terminated my own conservatorship in that one action, something he spent hundreds of thousands of my dollars trying, but un-able to achieve, and Hoskins got steam-rolled by Paul T. Housch (Housch v. Bag of Rocks); and by Adam Dread in an unrelated case, besides Ms. Tinnons, the only other case I'm aware of Hoskins' involvement. Now, Mr Hoskins, would you like to meet in the same challenge of:

Housch v. Bag of Rocks


Paul Housch or Bag of Rocks? I'm putting my money on the Bag of Rocks!

If you win, you can have my house which the Circuit Court will probably give to you anyway, even though it's in a Trust set up for my two young daughters...

Yep, what a racket Kennedy has going on and it's all co-opped, with attorneys who I can prove are all "dumber than a bag of rocks" including Judge Kennedy, which would be too easy. Kennedy would require some patience, like continuing to call the retarded boy for double dribbling in a game of one on one.

And that's why the game never ends….

Impeach Judge Randy Kennedy

fac fortia et patere


Danny Tate---Adjudicated "Pauper"

Danny Tate
November 23, 2011 at 7:35 pm
URL: http://wp.me/p14NJl-et