Results tagged “Geiszler and Froines” from Six Hours A Week: Adventures in American Exile

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.

12.28.12: The unconstitutional censorship of an entire post regarding what I saw as unethical tactics in lawyer Timothy Geiszler's attempt to have my mother declared incompetent in July 2009 was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court and, as of December 26th, 2012, a stay of the injunction is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Per its user agreement, my web host had a right to discontinue my account if the offending content was not removed.  I had a deadline of December 31st, 2012 to remove it, and Justice Kennedy is not going to be able to issue a decision until Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at the earliest.  Although I would have appreciated their waiting until Justice Kennedy had the opportunity to consider a stay of the injunction, as for the moment the post was "libelous" (though without due process or any application of the legal standards for libel law), the host was within its rights to cancel my account if I did not remove the content.  Web hosts and bloggers are put into a difficult position when State Supreme Courts don't stay injunctions against speech that (as far as this author is concerned) are contrary to controlling federal decisions about censorship.


Because the Montana Supreme Court did not issue a stay pending my petition to the U.S Supreme Court,  I have been censored.  My constitutional rights have been violated and continue to be as long as I am prohibited from publishing speech that has been enjoined.  The content was going to be removed no matter what.  By capitulating to the demand of the web host I could mitigate the damage of the censorship because the company would have canceled my account, erasing all of my entries.  If I had waited for that to happen, I would have had to manually copy the entries onto another site in addition to being censored.  Further, to the degree that the site promotes accountability and transparency, I would have lost all the work I did promoting specific entries and the site in general.


I don't like that I was put into a position to have had to have create this site (certainly, it wasn't the "brand" I was after), and have learned much since and cringe when looking over some of the posts.  I wrote to survive and protect myself and as embarrassing as it was and is, terrible things were allowed to happen to my family.  I'm not going to let shame about who I was or what I thought five or even 2.5 years ago cover up what we went through.  So, if the stay is approved, I will repost the original.


If you are interested in the issue of lawyers using incompetency as a tactic, more information can be found at http://lawyersattemptingincompetency.blogspot.com/.


~~

Timothy Geiszler will have to answer to Jeff Doud for this. In a July 2 filing, Geiszler went on an all out assault on my mother's mental health in what seems like a last ditch attempt to bully her into settlement with Steve Loken. He used a claim that my mother made about Mr. Doud's conspiring with Loken's camp to ruin her case to back up his assertions. So, here I explain why the use of the word conspiracy could indeed apply to Mr. Doud's actions, and why any reasonable person would come to such a conclusion. (Again, the Geiszler has pulled a quote from Mom's effort to amend her counterclaim against Loken to include civil conspiracy. The quote centers around the discovery request issue elaborated on below.)

After what I've seen, I feel comfortable stating that Mr. Doud should not be allowed to practice law. He is a young attorney whose ethical/professional sensibility was clearly quickly shaped by the Montana culture of cronyism. It's hard to imagine his moral compass being righted enough to entrust him with any unassuming client. (Having Tim McKeon as a father-in-law can't help.)

Doud took over the Loken case in fall of 2007 because Mom's other attorney was doing little on the case. Initially that attorney was very enthusiastic, but was never the same after a meeting with Mr. Geisler, at which he told her Mom was paranoid. (We have called Geiszler on this bit of slander -- clearly the incompetency angle has been part of his and Loken's plans for quite a while.)

In January of 2008, without informing his client, Mr. Doud propounded a second set of discovery requests on Mr. Loken. A year earlier, Mom's first attorney had received answers to discovery requests. The original attorney had asked around 14 questions. Mr. Doud asked around 80. This was in no way helpful to Mom's case -- the questions gave Mr. Loken the opportunity to elaborate upon and revise his narrative of what happened. It also allowed him to produce a schematic that my mother had never seen before, and that Loken claimed she provided.

Though Doud found the time to do this, he ignored Mom's pleas to follow up on details essential to her case like a previously-ignored Request for Production to get copies of canceled checks showing Loken's supposed $14000 worth of payments to an employee for work that was never finished. (Mom later followed up when she was defending herself pro se and newly printed versions of these supposedly already produced checks were submitted to court. This was that point at which an unrecognized attorney from Geiszler's firm started filing. This was completely against procedure, but Judge Deschamps never required this other attorney to become an attorney of record. It seemed like Geiszler was trying to put distance between himself and fabricated financial records.)

Mom didn't find out about the second set of discovery requests until around the end of October 2008 when Mr. Doud was no longer her attorney and she received her file from him. Attorneys are required to operate with their clients' informed consent. First, the requests obviously should not have been propounded without her knowledge. Second, if a defendant has no knowledge of the plaintiff's revised narrative of what occurred based on answers to 80 discovery questions, how can she make informed decisions about what direction to take the case?

If an attorney takes action in secret that is so clearly favorable to the opposing side isn't it reasonable to assume that he is conspiring? Of course, that's not all. The depth and breadth of Jeffrey Doud's malpractice is astounding. Please see a partial list of his greatest hits after the jump.

What's frightening is that the malpractice is so objectively identifiable and true, and Mr. Geiszler is working so hard to brand Mom's identification of it as symptomatic of paranoia. Do attorneys ruin their client's cases without speaking to another about it? (It would take a great leap of faith to believe that Doud is innocently and overwhelmingly incompetent.) Speaking to one other person about it makes it conspiracy. Doud did a lot of speaking to Mr. Geiszler without Mom's consent. Maybe that's why he needs Mom to be "crazy." 

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.

Tags