* Dr. Dennis Steinmetz's testimony (complete annotated transcript)
Dr. Steinmetz testifies to the following facts:
Dr. Sonneborn testifies to the following facts:
Dr. Sonneborn never explained why my father needed a "spokesperson". Nor did he explain why he didn't consult Dr. Steinmetz concerning the obvious contradiction.
The Defendant's Motion in Limine was submitted just prior to trial, after all this evidence was "discovered". This motion admits that my father's intentions up to the day he died were contrary to the contested deed that he signed on the day he died. It does not address the deed's conflict with what my father told Dr. Steinmetz ...
Click here for a more comprehensive summary of the evidence that is linked here pertaining to what took place at my father's bedside.
* FEDERAL law is not silent about "FRAUD UPON THE COURT". See FEDERAL RCP 60(b) for the FEDERAL law
* Many precedents make it clear that KEEPING A PARTY AWAY FROM COURT constitutes "fraud upon the court". One such precedent is Luttrell v. United States, 664 F.2d 1274 (1980)
* I was a PARTY to the proceedings. The trial judge and others refer to me as a party in numerous court documents, including the court's pretrial orders, its calendar call sheet, and its decision. The Appellees acknowledge this on page 3 of their Answer Brief, and the unilateral pretrial stipulations that I submitted in response to the court's pretrial orders (and a falling out with another party) made it explicit that I considered myself a party and intended to participate in the trial.
* Nevertheless, the WITNESS SEQUESTRATION RULE was used to remove me from the courtroom at the start of the trial. (I was not removed for disorderly conduct or any other reason, and no one has ever suggested that I was.) Furthermore, I was never given an opportunity to testify or question witnesses at trial. Not only has this never been disputed, but also one of the attorneys who opposed me has admitted this in writing to the Florida bar in his response to my complaints against him.
Furthermore, other key witnesses were not called to testify at trial, including my father's sister and the two attorneys to whom my father had confirmed his wishes two days before he died ...
As a result of this fraud, I was denied the opportunity to present the evidence of the fraud that took place at my father's bedside ...
The Florida Courts and the Florida bar have refused to address this fraud. The District Court of Appeals refused to address it even after the appellate specialist that was hired to oppose my appeal acknowledged in the Appellee's Answer Brief that such fraud would merit remedy if in fact I could prove such fraud. When I asked the District Court of Appeals to certify as a federal question that this issue had been raised, it refused to.
* The bar's response to my complaints against the Defendant's daughter, attorney Ryna Mehr. In particular, the bar concluded that Ryna did not prepare the last document that my father signed, namely the contested deed. However, its conclusion is contradicted by both the deed itself and Ryna's testimony. The deed identifies Ryna as its preparer, and Ryna testifies how she went to her office to prepare the deed. When I asked the bar to reconcile its conclusion with these facts, it refused to. When I asked the bar to identify who it thought prepared the contested deed, it replied that Ryna’s law partner David Riggs prepared it. When the bar was asked if it was ethical for Riggs to prepare a deed and then identify Ryna on the deed as the preparer of the deed, the bar refused to respond.
* The bar's response to my complaints against attorney Peter Forman, who is mentioned above for (1) admitting that the witness sequestration rule was used to remove me from the courtroom and (2) failing to call to testify at trial the estate's principal witnesses. With regards to the latter, Peter insisted that he had talked with my father's sister Charlotte. In particular, he insisted that he had discussed her testimony with her and then decided not to have her testify. However, Charlotte wrote the bar denying that Peter had ever talked with her. As further proof that Peter had not talked with her, Charlotte and I pointed out that Peter's billing record included no reference to the call. Finally, to settle this question definitively, Charlotte and I asked the bar to have Peter produce from his long distance phone company its record of the alleged phone call. Once again, the bar didn't.
Many people have prepared estate planning documents including Wills and trusts. The evidence exhibited here demonstrates that these documents do not adequately protect estates against fraud.
This problem of estate fraud has been addressed by many doctors, lawyers and journalists including
As a result of my unpleasant experience and knowledge, I have submitted numerous proposals to the bar association and the legislature. These proposals seek to more adequately protect estates against such fraud. These proposals include
The state bar association's leadership opposes such legislation. The reasons for their opposition are stated in the following documents, which were prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC) in response to a request from a legislator who sponsored such legislation
For additional information, or to provide me your feedback, please call me (440/255-7693) or send me an email (tvfields@tvfields.com).
Thank you,
Tom Fields
* Dr. Robert Sonneborn's testimony (complete annotated transcript)
* The Defendant's testimony (complete annotated transcript)
* The Defendant's Motion in Limine
* The testimony of the Defendant's daughter (complete annotated transcript)
* he drafted a Will for my father to sign under the above circumstances on 4/17, the day my father died
* my father told him he did not have a Will
* he did not know that my father did in fact have a Will which he kept in a safe deposit box
* he did not know that my father had in fact confirmed his wishes with two Florida attorneys two days earlier, on 4/15
* he is now aware that after my father signed his document, another Florida lawyer prepared a different document for my father to sign which benefitted that lawyer's family and contradicted not only what my father told him but also what he had told the first two attorneys and what was stipulated in the Will in his Florida safe deposit box.
* he is a "friend" of the Defendant's daughter, a Florida lawyer who prepared the contested document
* he was asked by that Florida lawyer to legitimatize the contested document
* he did so as a "favor" for his "friend" and because he believed that lawyer to be my father's "spokesperson"
* he did not consult with Dr. Steinmetz before doing this "favor" for his "friend"
EVIDENCE & Authority of Fraud in the Florida Courts
5. Federal Civil Procedure => 2654
"Fraud upon the court confers equitable jurisdiction on a court to set aside a judgement where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud, or deception practiced on him by his opponent, AS BY KEEPING HIM AWAY FROM COURT ... or where the attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat ..."
* Furthermore, FLORIDA law explicitly states that a PARTY to the proceedings will not be removed from the courtroom using the WITNESS SEQUESTRATION RULE. See FLORIDA Statute 90.616(2)
EVIDENCE of Fraud by the Florida State Bar Association
EVIDENCE of Inaction by the Ohio State Bar Association & the Ohio Legislature
*
I. Perr, MD, JD in "Wills, Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence"
* Ohio State Medical Association in an "Ohio Physicians' Elder Abuse Prevention Project Trust Talk Report"
* M. Singer, PhD in "Undue Influence and Written Documents: Psychological Aspects"
* A. Budish, JD in "Where There's a Will, There May Be a Loophole"
* Jeffrey Good, Journalist in "Final Indignities" (Pulitzer Prize)
*
T. Takacs, JD in "Lawyer Who Re-Executed Client's Will Goes Free"
* the use of timely interviews that are conducted according to reasonable forensic standards
* the use of a checklist that identifies situations that professionals who are mandatory reporters must report
* the use of trusts that are conditionally irrevocable
* the recognition of other advance declarations
*
LSC's Cover Letter to Bill's Sponsor
* LSC's Memorandum
Mentor, Ohio