Loken Builders' (and Friends') Neverending Abuse of the Legal System

If my mom can't be declared incompetent, then she should be portrayed as a criminal. That's what the justice system is for, right? To ruin people's lives through civil and criminal conspiracy. To keep completely baseless law suits alive through the collusion of unethical attorneys until all options to wrest their property, livelihood or reputations from their control have been extinguished. That's what the taxpayers want from their District courtrooms.

It seems to be a very Rovian technique, accusing your opponent of what you have done. And we seem to have stumbled upon another of those efforts in the midst of this construction lien law suit that has been a pretext to steal property, drain time and resources, discredit, and declare incompetence (Mr. Geiszler told my mother's first attorney, at one of their first meetings that he planned to subpoena her medical records -- in a construction lien case that she was defending herself against). After most of those efforts failed, we now believe that this latest attempt was to try to make it appear as though my mother was engaged in civil conspiracy instead of... the numerous individuals working together to make it appear that way.

If my mother was the criminal mastermind, rather than David Ryan, then he and John Boyle would be off the hook for attempting to take over her property without her permission? And then Loken and the scores of others who have taken part in this absurd and epic effort to devalue the property and harass us wouldn't be in the wrong? All the legal malpractice that was committed would be nullified? Because rather than hapless victims trying to improve property and live productive lives, we would be the perpetrators then. Oh, how simple for everyone.
This seems to be why our latest conspiring attorney instructed my mother to sign a damaging and unnecessary affidavit at the last minute before a filing (without his co-defendant client's informed consent -- one of the many latest instances of legal malpractice). And why he refused to mitigate its damage. And why he claimed the corrective affidavit she begged him to file had been destroyed when she attempted to retrieve it after firing him. And why the original mysteriously reappeared after it became clear that she was filing a copy as an exhibit.

This affidavit was an attempt to frame my mother as having been caught in a lie rather than following the very bad advice of her attorneys and no one apparently wanted her to produce evidence of that, or her efforts to immediately correct her attorney's malpractice.

Apparently, the goal was to use that affidavit as part of an effort to "roll back the clock" on the case so that many of Judge Deschamps inexplicable rulings, and the general shenanigans that have taken place within the case in the last year, could be stricken. This would have apparently opened up a number of opportunities for Mr. Loken. We think it might have even given them the opportunity to revisit their coveted incompetency strategy because Deschamps' ruling that it was moot would have been set aside. Given the bizarre introduction of an unnecessary affidavit that contradicted another affidavit my mother was instructed to sign, we think there was some sort of effort to portray my mother's actions as criminal. (Rather than, like all of us should expect, she simply trusted that her attorneys would never ask her to sign something that wasn't in her best interest.)

After my mother fired the rogue attorney, Quentin Rhoades, I was still stuck with him as a codefendant.  I couldn't fire him at first because we had a settlement conference coming up and had to be represented by counsel. Then, I thought we were required to file an answer brief. He made every effort to damage our case in addition to forcing the harmful affidavit upon my mother the codefendant. It became clear that I was not going to allow him to make arguments that were damaging and, indeed, had nothing to do with the law we were dealing with or any sort of necessary response to Mr. Loken's arguments.

That's when Judge Deschamps did the strangest thing (not strange for him, I guess, but strange for a judge who's generally into correctly upholding the law and interested in justice). We had September 9 as a deadline to file an Answer to one of Mr. Loken's briefs, and Deschamps rendered an Order on September 3rd, completely violating procedure and ignoring my mother's very cogent and legitimate pro se arguments. We're guessing that the overall strategy was for us to feel panicked because Deschamps had denied a motion that should have been granted (and indeed would have enormously improved our position) and for him to do so in such an outlandish manner that we would feel obligated to object, and even be open to being persuaded by Mr. Rhoades to pursue the bogus jurisdictional and other issues that he was shoving down my throat.

They didn't anticipate that this opportunity would be eliminated by my firing Mr. Rhaodes as soon as I researched the Montana Code and realized that we were not legally required to file a Reply (he had lied to me about this, of course).

See, once Mom is "incompetent" or a "criminal" (or some fabricated evidence turns me into whatever I was supposed to have been), all of the malfeasance we've encountered is supposed to be subsumed by the spectacle of whichever narrative sticks. We always ask ourselves why so much energy and effort would be invested in such a weak law suit, and it can really be the only explanation. It's an opportunity whose angles have yet to be exhausted. Until they are, apparently people will continue to do really blatantly illegal and unprofessional things on the gamble that we will soon be so discredited that none of them will matter.

What next? Judge Deschamps has once again stuck his neck out and provided a bizarre Order that helps us on appeal. An attorney has committed malpractice so blatant and egregious (and so consistent with the pattern of previous colluding attorneys) as to border on surreal. Now the goal has to be to prevent us from gaining legitimate representation before the settlement conference (one they're working on overtime, of course). We are sure they do not want to go to trial, as we are happy to do even as badly as our case has been hindered by attorney malpractice. Loken and his staff do not want to testify under oath -- we've long believed that his high tolerance for criminal mischief caps off at perjury.

For over a year, the Loken camp has given repeated blatant indicators that they are desperate for us to settle -- and indeed spoke directly with Judge Deschamps regarding what seemed like an attempt to extort us into doing so -- they just want it to happen on their terms. That's why it's still hard to understand why the case is continually used as a pretext for harassment. They have to know that any settlement will not include any sort of confidentiality provision, and that we can still pursue other claims related to civil conspiracy and other crimes. Do the people funding this want to fund an appeal? Why is it so important to discredit us and waste our time?

We initially fought the bogus lien because it was ridiculous, Loken had been way overpaid, and the job wasn't finished. He also caused a flood in the basement that he took responsibility for but refused to remedy. If the facts of the case had been sorted out by attorneys simply focusing on the law, this would have ended long ago and the impulse to fight it because we were right and didn't think a lien should be used as an extortion tool would have paid off. That attorney after attorney pretended to be working in our best interest while ruining the case is not our fault. Even for those unwilling to believe that so many attorneys and a judge are lacking professional ethics enough to collude, you have to ask yourself: why would Loken spend $40,000 in attorneys fees to pursue a $15,000 construction lien when his case is so flimsy?

We have fought his harassment because we knew the facts of the case were on our side. He has completely relied on attorney collusion to damage our case. I guess his plan is to keep doing so.


Six Hours A Week Is:

A coping strategy, advocacy outlet, and form of protection. My life has been nearly destroyed by the unconstitutional practices of politically/socially-motivated private intelligence contractors and the corruption and cronyism that allow them. Apparently because I speak out in ways that prioritize the little guy and human and environmental health above gargantuan profit margins, and believe that facts are as important as PR spin, I was someone who had to be completely discredited. In 2007, after a few months of a surreal and relentless invasion of privacy and dignity, I started to spend six hours each week researching, communicating about, and advocating legal and ethical responses to assaults on our shared democratic and republican ideals. For most of that time I was writing from the perspective of someone whose life was manipulated into a constant state of terror and emergency. In 2010, many of the array of entrapment attempts seem to have failed and it seems no longer possible to get away with such excessive, obvious harassment and overt interference. As we take more practical steps to address what has been allowed to happen to my family, we do expect to see some more harassment and intimidation. But I should be able to chronicle it from a more measured perspective, rather than that of someone in constant fear. Part of me would like to go back and delete earlier posts, because even I find them hard to relate to in some ways. But this blog has been one of our only forms of protection as everyone in any official capacity ignored the truth and tried to spin and frame us into the troublemakers and perpetrators of one form or another. So I leave it up as a form of protection, a record of what has occurred, and (with luck) the account of our way back to credibility and some form of legitimate justice. All content on this site is property of Kyeann Sayer. All rights reserved.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kyeann published on September 21, 2009 2:05 PM.

Wanted: A Lawyer Who Cares About the Law was the previous entry in this blog.

Did RAND Brand Me a "Terrorist"? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.01