Probate Lawyer Scams

Probate lawyers are judge-assisted ripoff artists using common tactics to feed, like jackals, on the deceased. Their victims, usually grieving women, who are the glue holding civilization together, arrive at their office ready to sign anything in the expectation of fair play. If the Executor is wary, the lawyer applies a few vague promises about being the best in the phone book, having the inside track with the judge, and being the bargain in terms of cost versus service- The lawyer will also play up the extreme complexity of law (true) and the danger. He will pose the gov't and its taxing division as the buggerman, but in fact the largest danger to personal and small business estates is the lawyers themselves They will connive together to take up to half of the entire estate, which is the percentage that their lobby, the 'Trial Lawyer's Association' and related organizations, has, by law, bought for themselves from their kin in the legislature.

Soon as the lawyer thinks he has sold you, he shoves you a contract to sign that, if you read it, limits your ability to sue him effectively once you see what he has done, and provides him with your permission to do anything that he deems 'reasonable and prudent'. The judge will almost always agree with the lawyer, and not you, no matter how badly he has ripped you, long as it is slightly less than the 50% of everything that they think that they are entitled to.

You think you are dealing with a lawyer; often he is really a broker pretending to be a lawyer. In the case I use as an example, PB-2005-013, filed 6-12-09 in Tulsa County -Court, Margaret M.Perrault was hired to be the probate lawyer. She calls herself the “Personal Representative” of the deceased. This is a legal scheme, same as prosecuting lawyers call themselves 'the. people' instead of what they really are; 'the state'. These frauds help them conceal their true antics and make jurors, if any, and clients, more ready to accept their thefts and deceits an proper and warranted.

Soon as the contract is signed, she hired two more lawyers to do the actual work. This makes her a lawyer broker: a person who collects fees for being nothing more than a parasite between buyer and seller. One of these extra lawyers works for the same hourly wage as she, ($100: ex. B), the other twice that, (ex. C). When criminals who are NOT lawyers do this, it is called fee-splitting and price gouging. The lawyer calls other jackals to feed at the carcass because they will be invited to feed on carcasses that other lawyers find. Price gouging makes this arrangement more lucrative for all lawyers than it would otherwise be if the lawyers jealously defended each carcass from other jackals. There are also kickbacks, and it is easier to conceal corruption within a pack of pettifoggers and demagogues than it is for a single lawyer to try and cover the one set of tracks that lead only to him. For this reason, and others, it is always a good idea to try and make the lawyer agree, in writing to do all the work himself.

Lawyer's work only seems hard because they lard-up on incomprehensible jargon. Any law dictionary serves to decipher their code. (Ask for "Black's" Law dictionary.) With this illumination, we find that these three lawyers charged outrageous fees for work that a mere secretary could have done more efficiently, cheaply and honestly.

Persons who have large amounts of other people's money regularly flow through their hands routinely connive ways to make some of it stick to their fingers. Gov't bureaucracies that administer finds routinely manage to cost one dollar of every three dollars that pass to them. The lawyer/banker relationship is no different. It is only a simple matter of accounting to cheat clients out of interest income. A fairly obvious example of this is ex. A. The lawyer and bank officer collude to invest their victims' funds at the poorest rate possible that does not raise too much suspicion. Simple math shows that $35,000 was 'invested' at about 2.4$ interest, (($65/$35,000) x 12 months = 2.2$ interest.) The highest interest paid here was 3.1%. The banker notices that this account is underinvested. He suggests to the lawyer that he should make for his clients an extra two to five percent interest by simply authorizing the purchase of certificates of deposit.    (Before Washington Mutual went belly-up for $305 billion, it was buying 90 day deposits for almost 8% interest, all FDIC insured.) The lawyer winks, and declines, saying, "This money must be liquid; even 90 days is too long for it to be inaccessible." The banker may or may not return the wink, but what he certainly WILL do is take this underperforming money and sell it to the highest bidder at no risk to himself, the lawyer OR the client: Any liquidity needs are solved by simply paying it out of the vault or by issuing credit. The client's money rotted in the vault for 45 months at 3%, needing less than $2,000 in liquidity while the account GREW by almost $10,000. The loss to clients of 2 to 5 percent of the mean sum of accounts is substantial: $3,000 to $7,500, (($40,000 x 2 to 5 percent/12 months) x 45 months, respectively).

Few grieving individuals effectively comparison shop for lawyers because, from the bottom looking up, lawyers and the service that they provide are indistinguishable. Lawyers DO shop for agreeable bank officers, since they have the leverage of taking their other-people's money to another banker. This is called low-grading, and it is a very common practice within the financial community and anywhere else where too much money flows through poorly-watched hands.

Lawyers conceal these frauds as long as possible, with the judge's help, by delaying exposure of their work til the last possible moment. These lawyers kept everyone in the dark until three days AFTER their time limit for protest had expired. Their 'Final Account...' was actually the FIRST account where clients were afforded a glimpse of the lawyers' antics. It was also filed 6-12-09, but arrived in the mailboxes of the heirs up to 33 days later. This tactic takes advantage of the fact that most people throw away the postmarked envelope before discovering the fraud within, checking the dates and realizing that they should have save this proof of the date of receipt. In law, there is always a time limit applied to citizens' rights. The gov't and lawcrats apply no such restrictions to their own actions. Persons who work for a living have little time to waste trying to decipher lawyer shenanigans. We prefer to simply assume that they are honest or at least can not get TOO corrupt without getting caught and punished and thrown out. NONE of these assumptions are true. The fact is that judges assist the lawyers in their thefts. (See: 'Notice of Irregularities/Ineffectiveness' and the judge's reply.) Protest results in non sequiturs from the judge, whose function is to keep the proceedings lawful. THIS judge is a well-known felon. The machine that employs him allowed him to buy off the remaining witness against him, (see; "Faces of Corruption: Judge Jesse 'the flasher' Harris") The agency in charge of policing his actions is a fraud. ("Council on Judicial Complaints".) The only possibility of obtaining any damages is to prove fraud in a civil lawsuit. No lawyer, prosecutor, judge or self-policing agency will correct this. Obtaining the law is usually more expensive than the value that is stolen. Lawyers depend on this lopsided equation to stave off justice and fair play for the poorest classes and facilitate their harvest of what assets fall the lawcrats' ways. This is why your only REAL protection is to police them yourself before they begin ripping you off, and to constantly demand and obtain transparency and accountability as they perform their 'service'.

[ Editor’s note: exhibits mentioned here available upon request. Email inquiries to 4bauhaus@quikus.com ]