Motion to Dismiss Thwarts Fraudulent Default Judgment

This action was filed pro se on March 18th by Spencer C. Young, and successfully thwarted a fraudulent attempt to obtain a default judgment on a bogus Paternity Petition filed by an exceptionally crooked and unethical attorney, Jane Isern of Brown, Isern & Carpenter on behalf of Mr. Young's Fiancee, Leah R. Krier.   It is bogus because: (1) Kansas has no jurisdictional authority on the matter; (2) any paternity claims (if they in fact exist) have been pre-paid for the next five years, so that Mr. Young can focus on regaining all that was stolen from the multifaceted MorganStanleyGate scandal.

Sadly, this is yet another instance of the terrible aftermath of MorganStanleyGate, where what may be the worst instance of bank foreclosure fraud in U.S. history was carried out by Paragon Commercial Bank at the behest of Morgan Stanley on a mortgage that was NEVER late, NOT Delinquent and PAID-IN-FULL

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BARTON COUNTY, KANSAS

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

Case No. 2010 - DM - 399

JACKSON S. YOUNG by and through his next of friend

 and natural mother, LEAH R. KRIER

and

SPENCER C. YOUNG

Now comes the Respondent (Spencer C. Young), acting in a pro se capacity, who requests the District Court of Barton County, Kansas (hereinafter, the “Court”) to dismiss Petitioner’s (Leah R. Krier’s) Motion for Default Judgment for Custody and Support (Exhibit A), which was filed on her behalf by her attorney, Jane Isern of Brown, Isern & Carpenter.

In Support

Motion for dismissal is hereby made because of the following relevant facts:

(1)  Lack of Jurisdictional Authority – With all due respect intended, this Court has no jurisdiction over the parties, nor the issues of this case, as the Petitioner has a long established and currently maintained residency in the state of North Carolina (along with her son, Jackson,  who was born in Durham, NC), while the Respondent has never had any resident association with the State of Kansas;

(2)  Answer Was Timely Filed by Respondent – Notwithstanding the glaring issue of  jurisdictional authority, Respondent nevertheless timely filed an Answer (hereinafter the “Answer”) with this Court as a precautionary measure of prudence and in deference to this Court;

(3)  Respondent’s Preceding Acts of Good Faith – A copy of the Answer was provided to Petitioner in advance of this date (on March 2, 2011), together with good faith overtures seeking an amicable resolution (see Exhibit B); and

(4)  Ethics Violations by Petitioner’s Attorney – Upon information and belief, Petitioner’s counsel has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the Kansas Judicial Branch by engaging in unethical behavior in this matter toward both Petitioner and Respondent.

Lack of Jurisdictional Authority

The Petitioner has long been a resident of the state of North Carolina, and evidenced by Petitioner’s: (1) valid North Carolina driver’s license; (2) voter’s registration and history of voting in the state of North Carolina; and (3) her employment by Air Wisconsin, whose duties are carried out on behalf of, and as agent for, U.S. Airways, where she has long been based out of U.S Air’s Raleigh-Durham (NC) airport hub.  In addition, Petitioner may still own a 1999 red Mercury Mystique, which was registered by the State of North Carolina.   Importantly, these irrefutable facts can be readily corroborated by the North Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Joel Kuplack, Vice President of Human Resources at Air Wisconsin.

Furthermore, an unqualified representation of North Carolina residency was attested to by the Petitioner, which was observed and confirmed first hand in a late night visit to the Petitioner’s North Carolina residence by the Durham (NC) Police.  Officers Tyler and Silla were dispatched pursuant to the directions of Durham Police Captain Ray Taylor to conduct a criminal investigation of alleged grand larceny theft by Petitioner, as well as an investigation into the welfare of the subject child in the Paternity Petition.  These findings of fact are contained in the Durham Police Criminal Incident Report # 11-007695.

According to Officer Tyler, Petitioner further represented to the Durham Police that she has engaged a family law attorney, duly licensed in the state of North Carolina, who on behalf of Petitioner, has obtained an “Ex Parte Order” from a Durham County court; however this has not been served on Respondent as of this writing. 

Timely Filing

As Respondent was unlawfully rendered homeless by what may be the worst instance of bank foreclosure fraud in U.S. history, and attempts have been made on his life, he necessarily maintains a nomadic existence until his claims are filed in Federal court and criminal investigations are commenced against those culpable.  Accordingly, the Respondent has long informed Petitioner to communicate by email.

Notwithstanding such requests, Respondent received only a four page Paternity Petition (incorporated herein as Exhibit C), which was taped to the front door of his mother’s residence.  Although the document was not noticed until sometime afterwards, it was marked posted on February 2, 2011, and requested an answer  30 days hence (i.e., March 4, 2011).

The Answer was timely filed on Mar. 4, 2011, which was confirmed received on that date by Judy Burnett of Barton County District Records Dept.  Moreover, Ms. Burnett volunteered, in her vast experience in her current role, that it was general practice to grant additional time to Respondent’s located out of state. 

Respondent’s Acts of Good Faith

In good faith, Respondent emailed Petitioner his Answer in advance of the deadline (on March 2, 2011, Exhibit B), and separately copied numerous other 3^rd parties as witnesses (this was conveyed in the body of the letter), including many members of Petitioner’s family.  Among other things, this “candid” and “from the heart” communiqué included:

Ø important historical context to the underlying matter;

Ø requested answers to long outstanding questions;

Ø his request for Petitioner to withdraw the “meritless” Paternity Petition;

Ø his proposal for a reconciliation; and what he planned to file as his . . .

Ø . . . Answer, in the event the Paternity Petition was not withdrawn.

Petitioner was further asked to forward this pending Answer to her attorney because her attorney did not have a website, published no fax or email address, and did not answer nor return phone calls made by the Respondent. Petitioner and her attorney did not respond.

Ethics Violations By Petitioner’s Attorney

On March 9, 2011, Respondent sent Petitioner’s attorney (Ms. Isern) a letter (Exhibit D), candidly articulating what he observed and concluded to be unethical behavior toward her client (who has only a high school diploma), citing: (1) failure to serve her client’s best interests; (2) failure to know her client; (3) antiquated operation of a law practice; (4) ignorance (or wanton dismissal) of material facts; (5) reckless disregard for the truth; and (6) behavior suggesting a possible link to criminal activities. 

Moreover, Ms. Isern has deviously attempted to deny the Respondent his right to legal due process by:

1.     Filing the meritless motion for default judgment;

2.     Scheduling an unjustifiably aggressive hearing date for the bogus motion, especially for an out of state Respondent (i.e., one week from the date of the motion);

3.     Orchestrating insufficient time to respond (note: as of this writing, Ms. Isern’s Motion for Summary Judgment has still NOT been received, and although Respondent called Ms. Isern a few times earlier in this week (to assess her integrity), and give her an opportunity to advise Mr. Young of her recent motion, she REFUSED under ANY circumstances to speak to Mr. Young.   

So how did Mr. Young learn of Ms. Isern’s deceitful plan?  Sensing something was amiss from her behavior patently fraudulent motion, Mr. Young called the Barton County District Court earlier this week and made inquiry – Judy Burnett informed him of Ms. Isern’s surreptitious motion and emailed him a copy. 

In the context of the operative facts, this is inexcusable behavior by an attorney, who well knew Respondent was not represented by counsel. Accordingly, Respondent is considering filing an ethics complaint against Petitioner’s attorney with the Disciplinary Administrator of the Kansas Judicial Branch.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment For Custody and Support should be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

Spencer C. Young