THE SAGA OF EVELYN SCHWARTZ IN LEGAL LAND
(click the linked words to see associated documents)
In order for the reader to have sufficient background to understand the nature of Evelyn's struggle with Adult Protective Services of Ohio it is necessary to get a feeling for facts leading up to the struggle.
Dean, Eve's caregiver, when he was in his late 20's made the terrible decision of hooking up for about a year, with Diane. Diane was separated from her husband during her time with Dean. The estranged husband calls the house; Diane wants Dean to answer it, Dean does and the typical conflict begins on the phone. Dean tells him, “Let’s take it outside and handle it like a man. The husband has Dean charged with terrorist threats. While placed in jail on this charge, Dean, in another monumental error of judgment escaped from jail and was on the run from the law. Dean made even more bad decisions by stealing autos to assist his escape and when cornered, setting fire to a barn, as a diversionary tactic, hoping to get away, which he did, while the cops dealt with that problem. Soon afterward Dean was caught and he ultimately served 10 years before being released on parole around mid 1996.
Dean doesn't hide these facts. when he got out of jail he started doing handyman work for people around the Cleveland, Ohio area. He was introduced to Eve by her friend. Eve and Dean got along right away and in the mid '90's Dean became her live-in caregiver. Eve's primary request of Dean was that she be allowed to live out her life in her home. Dean took that wish to be his marching order. In 2002 Eve's brother suggested to Eve that Eve repay Dean for his service to her by putting him in her will. Eve did just that. She willed her home to Dean. Dean had one more scrape with the law in 2008 when a woman, Shineka, whom Dean had picked up at a Wal-Mart (he had seen her several times before). After a disagreement she called the cops and claimed he had raped her although she never followed through when it came to trial. She didn't show up, She had given errant contact information of her phone and address to the police. Apparently she had no intent to follow thru from the outset. Dean claims that their interaction was consensual and that she got mad at him because he wouldn't take her across town afterward during a blizzard. In any event, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. That brings us to late 2008.
On Nov 6th 2008 Dean had a heart attack and was in Hillcrest hospital getting a 5-way bypass. He had left Evelyn's care in the hands of Linda Jones, his girl friend at the time. Next day after Dean was hospitalized Eve began to feel poorly and was having flu like symptoms; this was on the 7th of Nov. Linda had called Eve's doctor, Dr Byers, who suggested she go to the drug store and get Eve some medicine, which she did. In the interim Eve's dead brother’s wife, Elinor Uhlir, came to Eve's house. It appears that Uhlir had just recently discovered that Eve had willed her house to Dean. Uhlir was trying to convince Eve to go to an adult care facility and Eve was refusing to consider it. Apparently Uhlir was being insistent. In the mean time Dean calls home from the ICU were he was recovering from surgery and Eve told Dean to ask Uhlir to leave because of her insistence. Eve gave Uhlir the phone and Dean asked her to leave. Uhlir hung the phone up on Dean. Dean immediately called the Mayfield Heights Police and asked that they remove Uhlir from the home due to her making trouble for Eve who is now 93 years old. That brings us to the controversy.
The Police Officer Lord, (Lord video/body mic) arrives at the house and is greeted at the door by Uhlir, Linda is not back from the drug store yet. Lord starts asking questions and Uhlir immediately begins to assault Deans character; he is a handyman, is swindling this little old lady and on and on. Lord tries several times to get Eve to go to the hospital and Eve says no. In the mean time Dean recognizes Lord is not going to remove Uhlir from the home and so he calls a previous girl friend and business woman who had cared for Eve for over three and a half years while she dated Dean, Betty Brown, to go to the house and care for Eve. Betty agreed and went right away. In the mean time Lord had decided Eve wished no other assistance and said his goodbyes and walked out the door to leave, but not before Uhlir had filled his head with claims of exploitation regarding Dean.. Just as Lord was leaving Betty arrives in the driveway. Lord immediately says to Betty, "who are you"? Betty informs Lord that she is Deans girl friend and that she is there to care for Eve. Lord immediately began to interrogate Betty who told him she would be happy to answer his questions after she had seen to Eve. BTW all this is being recorded by Lord's body mic right from the moment he first knocked on Eve's door. (Timeline of events during the Nov 7 incident per lord body mic)
Now I have set the nature of the building controversy. Lord thinks Dean is manipulating and swindling Eve, and now Betty is there to protect Deans interest in that skullduggery.
Betty thinks she is there to help Linda (who is now a good friend of hers) care for Evelyn, while Linda is gone, having been informed that Uhlir is causing trouble for Eve.
Lord says things to Betty like, she, Eve, doesn't' need you in there, they have enough people in there already and generally engages in verbally restraining and interfering with Betty. When he asks to see her driver’s license; she responds; “As soon as I see my friend. Betty isn't particularly nice to Lord though she is polite while attempting to care for Eve's needs. Betty continues to talk with Eve. Within a couple of minutes and just seconds after Lord assures Eve that he will respect her wish to stay home, Lord radios to dispatch telling them to 'roll EMS' and send a supervisor. A few minutes went by and EMS arrives at the house. As soon as they enter the offers to take Eve to the hospital begin all over again. Eve, several times, tells them no thank you, she is fine. Lord and others keep asking and Betty, seeing the never ending assault, steps up and says "Eve if you don't want to go, tell them, thank you but no thank you" Lord becomes more aggressive and tells Betty to leave the room. At about that same time Eve, who now also sees what Betty was seeing, asks Betty to call her power of attorney, thinking the POA will convince the police and EMS to leave. Betty begins dialing her cell phone to reach the POA and Lord and others assault Betty, saying that 'Eve's consent is not needed, she is going to the hospital' and placed Betty under arrest. As soon as they have Betty out of the way they pack Eve up and take her to the hospital. And there is where the legal elements of this controversy begin.
The questions that must be considered here are; What about Eve's condition had worsened between Lord's leaving just before Betty arrived and the moment Betty was arrested? If Eve's condition had not worsened, what was Lord's motive for calling EMS and creating a situation that resulted in Betty's arrest for making a phone call at Eve's request? Was the problem Eve, or was it Dean (the swindler) ?
Lord files his incident report that has no fewer than 31 lies, misstatements and unsupported accusations none of which is corroborated by the certified audio of lords body mic and is rebutted in three affidavits of individuals present during the incident; 24evelyncorrectpreport.PDF ; 22ljonescorrectpreport.PDF ; 25bbcorrectedpreport.PDF ;
The following day Lord went to Deans ICU bedside and threatened Dean. This is all recounted in Deans police report and in his complaint to the hospital
Now the legal actions begin. Betty is arrested for obstructing official business. Eve is taken to Hillcrest hospital and later moved to Manor Care old age home until her Medicare payments ran out and she was discharged. Betty has the entire certified body mic recording of Lord and another officer at the scene, Kline that corroborate all that is said to this point and is available either from Betty or Mayfield Heights police. Betty's legal issues are addressed elsewhere.
Upon Eve being discharged from Manor Care APS was contacting her that day about their investigation into potential exploitation and adult abuse. Eve was concerned about this accusation so she went to her doctor for an evaluation around 3/19/2009. (last page of pdf) Eve said no to APS and this case resulted. 309 aps vs eve access order.pdf
Eve and Dean retained counsel who advised them to let APS in the house "one time, one time only" to satisfy their curiosity and so they made an appointment with APS to come and see that Eve was fine. The appointment was conditioned on there being no police in the house per Eve's instructions and that Dean not be there, per APS wish due to Mayfield Heights police accusations Dean was an intimidating person. All was agreed to and Pauline Rice came to the house for the appointment. Linda Jones was there at the house with Eve and Dean was elsewhere. Linda greeted Rice at the door to find that Rice had brought two Policemen. Linda told her the police would not be allowed in the house whereupon Rice pushed past Linda followed by the two police officers saying they are coming in. Rice then engaged Eve and ordered Linda out of the room and all recording devices turned off. The supposed 45 minute appointment lasted over 2 hours and was ended by Dean, who was listening over a cell phone, after the APS people started asking the same questions for the third time. Dean walked into the house asking; “ IF Evelyn wanted to answer more repeated questions’, when she said no, he said; “ This meeting is adjourned, be off with you, out now”. After they left Eve was incensed by the forceful manner APS used and told Dean, no more. No further issues developed on that day between the police and Dean. The appointment resulted in the report by Rice in the link above.
Betty helped Eve put together this response to the rice affidavit and gave it to Eve's attorney. Eve's attorney suggested she allow the appointment with APS. Shortly thereafter Eve's attorney died apsvevemarch15 bb response to rice affid.pdf
APS is allowed by eve to come in the house a couple more times. This was upsetting Eve and so she finally said to Ms Hood from APS, on or about early April, 2009, no more, I don't' want you here any more, do not come back. Months go by with APS coming to the door unannounced and being turned away by Dean on several occasions. On some of those occasions Ms Hood threatened Dean because he would not allow her in and the police she brought with her backed her up by saying to Dean they would bash the door down. Dean didn't take that well and words were had with the officers but came to no consequence. This brings us up to August 2009.
On 8-4-2009 Baron applies to be Eve's, the alleged incompetent, guardian. on the end of this pdf file, the Probate court, sometime between August 4 and August 20 Ordered that Evelyn was declared by the court to be a ward. 6+allegedincompetent.PDF
On 8/19/2009 Baron filed a form he had gotten Eve's doctor to fill out. 7+docexpertevaluation.PDF
Eve got a notice in the Mail that a hearing would be held in Probate Court. On mid August, 2009 APS worker Ms Hood initiates a new action against Eve and submits her affidavit with it. The affidavit is replete with lies, innuendos and misstatements. 10+socialworker.PDF
The Probate Court orders the court investigator to see Eve and assess the situation. Eve voluntarily allows him in her home. That results in the following report;8+investagator.PDF
On 8/20/2009 The Probate Court appoints an attorney, Nelli Johnson, to represent Eve. in a case entitled IN RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF EVELYN SCHWARTZ. click nest link to see the order 9+judgemtnattynj.PDF
The Court appearance set for 8-25-2009 came and went with Nelli speaking to Eve only a couple of times and then never asking what Eve wanted to do. Eve asserted that she did not consent to the court actions.
On 9-12 Nelli writes Eve a letter saying the 8/25 hearing did not go well but that she could fix it if Eve would appoint her conservator for Eve. evecourtatty.PDF
At this point, Eve asks Betty to help her. Betty went to the court clerk and got a cert copy of the case file. Eve gets a correction from Dr Byers to the form he had filled out for Baron which was in the Dr's opinion ambiguous and misleading. 14docpyers923notetocorrect.PDF
9-23-2009, With Betty's help, Eve filed her first notice to the Probate Court and notice to APS that Eve rescinds all previous authorities granted by word or deed APS and every other department of Gov. Eve appoints Betty durable power of attorney, with health directive. Eve fires Nelli. It is worth everyone reading and understanding Eve's notice to probate court and aps 7completenotices.pdf
9-29-2009, With Betty's help, Eve filed her addendum to her first notice to the Probate Court. addedtonoticecourt2.pdf
9-30-2009 The hearing was had, Polito was presiding, Eve was there, betty was there and APS was there. APS requested another Psych eval by a doctor of its choosing, Polito granted the request and Eve refused to consent. Case docket
Between Nov 7 2008 and now, Eve has been taken from her home against her consent, invaded by insistent APS workers against her will, poked and prodded, her finances searched without her consent, her home inspected for livability and made her a ward of the court against her will and on and on. There was no sign it would end.
THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE TIME EVE HARMED NO ONE.
On October 2nd 2009 Eve files a counterclaim against APS and all agents therewith associated for Trespass, Trespass w/violence, and Trespass on the case. (Read the jurisdictional statement as it is very important) see also points relied on.
Evelyn also filed and action against all those that took her from her home on Nov. 7 2008.
NOTE: It is important you read the two actions by Eve. Knowing the courts are broken and will decide any matter eve brings them according to public policy (the greater good for the greater number) rather than according to her property right it is necessary to strip the court of subject matter jurisdiction which relegates it to a ministerial authority only. In place of the judge of the court being able to decide upon facts and law, the tribunal created by eve's case does that. Only Eve can decide upon the use and disposal of her Life, Liberty and Property. The sitting judge would have a conflict of interest between the public policy and Eve's right to decide and therefore has no authority to decide anything respecting eve's person and estate. Eve makes that clear in the jurisdiction statement.
11/19/2009 exparte protection against betty and dean
11/20/2009 Gallagher of the Probate court orders Eve to be taken into custody by force if necessary.
11/20/2009 Betty and Dean delivers Eve to the Hillcrest hospital in order to spare her yet another assault by police.
11/24/2009 APS response to betty filing legal docs for Eve
11/24/2009 (on or about) Betty hired attorney Frank Gasper who agreed to preserve Eve's jurisdictional challenge and convert 12/03/2009 hearing into a pretrial where no evidence or decisions would be made. He was paid $1500.00 of Eve's money. The pretrial came and Frank allowed APS to add evidence by Perk of a second doctor evaluation done after Eve had been incarcerated on 11/20/2009 that resulted in the appointment of guardian Baron with the final hearing to be held on 01/07/10.
12-02-2009 aps renewal protection motion (takes a while to load)
12/03/2009 Probate court docket: 12/03/2009 Letters of Guardianship of Incompetent Issued. 2.00 2.00
12/03/2009 Letters of Guardianship Issued.( 2 at no charge - One Time Only) 0.00 0.00
12/03/2009 JE Appointing GDN of Incomp., Person & Estate Filed. 70.00 70.00
12/03/2009 Fiduciary's bond in the amount of $40,000.00 filed, given with: Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland 5.00 5.00
12/03/2009 Appl. for Appt. of GDN of Inc. Granted upon Giving Bond in amount of $40,000.00. LJG/mcc OSJ 0.00 0.00
12/03/2009 Hearing Set: Event: Appointment of Guardian Hearing Date: 01/07/2010 Time: 1:00 pm Judge: Gallagher, Laura J Location: Courtroom 2 Result: Heard & Granted 0.00 0.00
12/03/2009 Heard & Granted until January 7, 2010. OSJ. LJG/mcc. The following event:
12/05/2009 Eve wrote letter discharging Frank Gasper as attorney and requested return of unused retainer. Gasper claims none unused having done a couple casual visits with eve and a two hour hearing and little if any reseasrch. Gasper claimed Probate did have jurisdiction so did not preserve Eve's challenger thereto providing Eve with cause to fire him.
12/07/2009 an email to susan axelrod of aps by a concerned viewer of eve's plight
>>> Chris F 12/7/2009 9:05 AM >>>
What you people are doing to Evelyn is mind blowing.
Her videos are on youtube, I've seen her being interviewed and she is
obviously Competent.
This means that you have NO RIGHT to force her to do ANYTHING.
We the people demand her immediate release.
The elderly are the most important part of our society and your imprisonment
of this woman in the last days of her life is unacceptable.
It doesn't matter what "you think" is happening. It only matters that she is
mentally competent and able to speak for herself.
Being as this is the case, you are violating her Constitutional rights.
If she says she wants to go home then LET HER GO HOME NOW!
PS
You can expect to be contacted a lot more as her story is being spread as we
speak.
It won't be long before enough people get involved that the media is brought
in.
When I say t won't be long, I mean it could happen at any time.
The reputation of APS is at stake.
Your Job is at stake.
APS info is being posted all over the web right now.
12/08/2009 betty hires attorney ROBERT N. FARINACCI, ESQ. from out of the area,,,,,, who after negotiation agreed to preserve Eve's jurisdictional challenge and to gain Eve's complete freedom from APS and the probate court and do a restraining order against both respecting any future action. Betty paid him $1200.00 of Eve's money to review and confirm agreement and goal.
12/10/2009 Robert confirms capacity to reach goals agreed to and betty pays him an additional $3000.00 of Eve's money.
12/09/2009 Betty informs Robert the lawyer by email of the following
This is the docket
http://probate.cuyahogacounty.us/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?17598099
in part...
12/08/2009 Order Authorizing Release Funds Heard & Granted. OSJ.RLG/ylw 0.00 0.00
12/08/2009 Application to Release Funds filed. (1 Cert) 6.00 6.00
12/03/2009 Letters of Guardianship of Incompetent Issued. 2.00 2.00
12/03/2009 Letters of Guardianship Issued.( 2 at no charge - One Time Only) 0.00 0.00
12/03/2009 JE Appointing GDN of Incomp., Person & Estate Filed. 70.00 70.00
12/03/2009 Fiduciary's bond in the amount of $40,000.00 filed, given with: Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland 5.00 5.00
12/03/2009 Appl. for Appt. of GDN of Inc. Granted upon Giving Bond in amount of $40,000.00. LJG/mcc OSJ 0.00 0.00
12/03/2009 Hearing Set: Event: Appoint
12/03/2009 Hearing Set: Event: Appointment of Guardian Hearing Date: 01/07/2010 Time: 1:00 pm Judge: Gallagher, Laura J Location: Courtroom 2 0.00 0.00
12/03/2009 Heard & Granted until January 7, 2010. OSJ. LJG/mcc. The following event: Appointment of Guardian Hearing scheduled for 12/03/2009 at 2:00 pm has been resulted as follows: Result: Heard & Granted Judge: Gallagher, Laura J Location: Courtroom 2
Plse let me know we can stop this assualt on her funds as well.
regards, Betty
ps. Linda said the case mangement hearing at altercare is Thurs w/Barron, please let me know you can attend?
I also faxed you the hand written letter of dismissal, from eve to gasper, if you don't see it, please call, also, it is ready to mail org. what return address should be put on it?
and did you make that call to dismiss him then?
12/15/2009 betty emails Robert again. (file attached "lets put the facts together" )
12/15 Good morning Rob, looking to hear from you asap.
Here is the page of the saga of evelyn in legal land, most, but the latest, all doc easy to open and for your use.
http://www.countygrandjury.org/schwartz
As well, please view the video at http://vimeo.com/8156372 showing Bill Duff go thru the facts
And an attachment I outlined - please read and see if it point out other issues you need to address.
Regards, and thank you, Betty
440-942-8769 440-942-8769
12/15/2009 betty forwards an email that originally came from assistant to
Forwarded Email
Got this today as well from a Cleveland City Council woman.To: rnfatlaw@aol.com
savcash: Angela Shuckahosee
Executive Assistant to Cleveland City Council President Martin J. Sweeney
216-664-4579 216-664-4579
ashuckahosee@clevelandcitycouncil.org>
(paste)
Hello,
I just spoke with the Cuyahoga County Dept. of Aging and they are aware of this case. Apparently Evelyn is currently in a nursing home. She is in rehab, being treated for bedsores and other ailments as a result of neglect at the hands of her caregivers. The caregivers are the ones posting these videos....apparently, the prosecutor's office is also handling the case. Evelyn is free to leave the nursing home whenever she desires. Should you have any questions, you can call the Dept. of Aging at 216-420-6750 216-420-6750
Angela
Angela Shuckahosee
Executive Assistant to Cleveland City Council President Martin J. Sweeney
12/26/2009 an email from a concerned person to APS susan axelrod
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: SUSAN AXELROD <AXELRS@odjfs.state.oh.us>
Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Evelyn
To: Chris F
Thank you for your concern about Evelyn Schwartz. Please be aware that
neither myself nor Adult Protective Services can discuss the specific
details of this matter as there are multiple pending probate, civil and
criminal cases related to this matter.
I can tell you that Adult Protective Services has a mandatory duty under
Ohio law to investigate reports of abuse, neglect and financial exploitation
of adults over the age of sixty. There have been such reports concerning
Mrs. Schwartz. One of the people posting the YouTube videos that you have
seen is alleged to have been abusing, neglecting, exploiting and/or
isolating Mrs. Schwartz from her family. This person is a non-relative who
has a lengthy criminal and stalking history and who is currently facing
felony charges here in Cuyahoga County. I suggest that you search the
Cuyahoga County, Lake County, Willoughby Municipal and Lyndhurst Municipal
court records for the names Dean Marinpietri and Betty Brown.
12/30/2009 betty and linda have a face meeting with robert the lawyer to get his plan of action. here is what betty got out of the meeting (click here) which pretty well describes the events at that meeting.
12/31/2009 Betty sends robert another email to ask questions and inform and file, titled 'talking points"
Hi Rob.
I really don't see how you can ask for more money before getting to the trial.
We had an agreement, paid you $1,200.00 to look at things, so you knew what
you were getting into, and then you said $3,000.00 to get to the trial.
If you had written a contract, that is what it would have said. \
Regards, Betty
see facts attachmt
and talking points
12/31/2009 Betty corrects previous email
12/31
savcash: I just read it, and it is not what is says exactly, but that does not
change the fact, we had an agreement, an understanding, $3,000.00
was the price to go to and thru the trial.
We all know people's time is valuable, however, u did charge the
$1,200.00 to research things, and the three thousand was to go to
and thru the trial.
She doesn't have all that much, and when you said you could do
it for three thousand, that's why we hired you.
That fee agreed to, and the fact you were going to go in knowing we wanted
to preserve her juridiction challange, and you were going to
go in guns blaring.
We don't have a concrete plan of action from you yet either.......
Regards, Betty
01/03/2010 conversation between robert the lawyer and betty brown
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: No, that is not approved, time is of value, for all of us, bill more
From: a-team@stratos.net
Date: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:56 am
To: RNFatLaw@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob,
No, all of our time is valuable.. and myself nor Bill
would take yours if it were
not vital to cover those things -
as your time is appreciated. Yet I feel in the
dark here.....where hours have gone or what you have accomplised to
date.
The comments about the funds were to cover
"possibly double. was what was....and the fact I have no idea of
your plans...game plan. This idea of limited funds has to come in play,
however the money isn't the issue....getting the job done with a
plan and letting me
see it is. The doc evaluation - not done since
the 12/9th first email to you,
that gave you the correct case number
- is as well. If Evelyn is sick or medicated
on the last minute day
doc does her eval is concerning me...
I have $1,0008.00
dollars left of Evelyn's money. This can be paid to you
as
well as you requesting more from the court, so please, let's
clear the air..
the emails I have sent and Mr. Duff has sent, NEED to
be read, go over them, and respond to same, as they are VIP to Eve's
defense.. If you wish to return replies to me, I can forward them to
Mr. Duff, as he copies me anyway. This is number one right now.
I am not sure how many of the docs you have printed off the
website, or seen/read that
might play an important part as
well.
You mentioned you would like to see Evelyn's
house, if you feel a need for that, I can
meet you there and let
you in, bringing with me all of the documents that are on the site,
and you can see which are VIP and copy those instead.
Or I
will come to your office and bring them. Yet, you need to know, no
one is taking
your time without considerations. You need this
information. Evelyn would want
to have this done, period.
Pls call me to arrange, Betty
440-942-8769
> Betty:
>
> I am in receipt of
multiple emails from you and Mr. Duff. Some are
> quite lengthy
and contain attachments. Though I have scanned the actual
>
emails, I have not reviewed any of the accompanying material. You have
> objected to the number of hours which I have already spent on this
case
> and have
> expressed your disapproval that Evelyn
should spend any additional monies
> on
> her defense. I
have always been very sensitive to my time spent on this
> case.
In fact, there have been many things that either I have not
>
recorded
> or I have recorded without charge. Clearly, this has
gone unappreciated.
>
> I have no way of knowing if the
information which you have sent is of
> vital importance or how
necessary my responses to your questions are, but
> given your
objections to my hours, I have narrowed my focus to only that
>
which is absolutely necessary to provide a proper defense for Evelyn at
> the
> upcoming trial on this matter. Surely you
understand this, and I would
> imagine, approve as well.
>
> I will have my office mail you a receipt for the
payments so far this
> week.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Robert N. Farinacci, Esq.
>
>
>
>
>
> ROBERT N. FARINACCI, ESQ.
>
> ATTORNEY AT LAW
> 7757 AUBURN ROAD
>
SUITE 09
> CONCORD, OH 44077
> 440-551-0141 Office
> 440-551-0143 Fax
> 413-521-9604 Private Fax
>
01/04/2010 Roberts partial email response to Bettys concerns
I am not playing "pitty pat" with the Prosecutor, I am performing my job and doing so in a professional manner which is beneficial to Evelyn's case. If any agreement is worked out, and I do not anticipate one at this time, it will be because it is best for Evelyn and she agrees that it is best. When you're the one who's liberty and future is at stake, you can make the decision of whether and when to roll the dice. In that it is not you at risk or who will suffer the consequences, it will not be you that makes decisions in this regard.Do I have a trial strategy? Yes. It is likely to change? Perhaps. There are two variable that will significantly impact that strategy. The first is the Expert Evaluation. Until I have it, I can not be certain of my strategy. The second is you. I don't know what I'm going to do about you yet. You've shown yourself unwilling to assist, in ways I need, not ways you wish; you have hidden motives or agendas which I have not fully identified yet; and you're constantly working behind the scenes to undermine Evelyn's position. I can't rehabilitate you, because you are unwilling to be rehabilitated and I cannot attack you because, in doing so, Evelyn will sustain some collateral damage. I can't trust you because total strangers now know part of our trial strategy. Again, I'm just not sure how to handle you yet.Hopefully, this both brings you up to date and further conveys my position and challenges at this time.Respectfully,RobRobert N. Farinacci, Esq.
01/04/2010 bettys partial response to the last email from robert the lawyer
(in part to Rob’s last email of an. 4th, my response is in bold)
If you understand she has much more choices than to settle for
Elinor, we can fight this on key. I will send you the firm I spoke
with 2 days ago, and they offer home health care as needed, and
she can do a reverse mortgage on her home to get the funds to do so.
He would also come to the trial if needed - and the co. has home health care closely.
Did you call and speak to Dottie (POA in Tenn?) she has said she knows
Evelyn and that "will not work for long, if at all."
>
> I am not playing "pitty pat" with the Prosecutor, I am performing my
> job and doing so in a professional manner which is beneficial to Evelyn's
> case. If any agreement is worked out, and I do not anticipate one at
> this
> time, it will be because it is best for Evelyn and she agrees that it is
> best. When you're the one who's liberty and future is at stake, you can
> make
> the decision of whether and when to roll the dice. In that it is not you
> at
> risk or who will suffer the consequences, it will not be you that makes
> decisions in this regard.
No one needed to hire an atty and pay out all the funds if an agreement
to have her over at Elinors was the end result, that could have been done
without all the 'work"
>
> Do I have a trial strategy? Yes. It is likely to change? Perhaps.
> There are two variable that will significantly impact that strategy. The
> first is the Expert Evaluation. Until I have it, I can not be certain of
> my strategy. The second is you. I don't know what I'm going to do about
> you yet. You've shown yourself unwilling to assist, in ways I need, not
> ways
> you wish; you have hidden motives or agendas which I have not fully
> identified yet; and you're constantly working behind the scenes to
> undermine
> Evelyn's position. I can't rehabilitate you, because you are unwilling to
> be
> rehabilitated and I cannot attack you because, in doing so, Evelyn will
> sustain some collateral damage. I can't trust you because total strangers
> now
> know part of our trial strategy. Again, I'm just not sure how to handle
> you yet.
When are you planning on getting the "expert evaluation'? Put yourself
in my shoes, would you be happy about this lack of expedinancy on this
most important item??
And don't flatter yourself Rob, no one needs to 'handle' me, I am true blue and
the best friend anyone would ever want. You haven't shown me you are what
we need for Evelyn's case as you called a meeting to detail things, and the
only thing we walk away with is an increase in price, a yelling match that
is accusing me of unfounded things.AND ELINOR>>> I dont need rehabilitated, I need to
have you speak with me, not yell. I need to know you are working for the
freedom of Evelyn, not to have her choices belimited to home w/dean or
go to Elinor. Elinor could have guardianship if indeed Evelyn made
that choice without the influance of being locked up and isolated for over
30 days, w/no one talking to her but Elinor and Mark.
AND, before you forget, again, Bill has been on board since the beginning
and that is how - WHY you took/got the job.
Now, if we can cover any outstanding issues, maybe we might be
able to put aside your personality conflicts and get the trial to go
the only way it needs to go for Evelyn, proving that APS is wrong.
Regards, Betty
PS> Who is the other atty that you spoke of, and for sure, are you
using him too? Seems he would have to already be in place by now, no?
01/05/2010 betty to robert the lawyer
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: evelyn's best interest
From: a-team@stratos.net
Date: Tue, January 5, 2010 9:24 am
To: rnfatlaw@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert
It really doesn’t matter, for my position,
how much it costs to free Evelyn. Evelyn has said she
wishes to be freed from the influence of APS and the probate gang at any
cost. So lets put the money conversation aside and
concentrate on freeing her.
You were employed to do two things.
First, to preserve her jurisdictional challenge already
asserted prior to your involvement.
Second,
and most importantly, to free her from the influence of the Probate
gang. You were paid $1200 to review and determine if
you could accomplish those goals and you were paid an additional $3000
upon accepting that task. In fact, after your review,
you suggested a www.freeevelynschwartz.com website after
seeing the youtube presentation and www.countygrandjury.org/schwartz presentations. Both
had already been published prior to your involvement and both were
available to you during your review period.
I don’t know what has changed about all that
but I do know the goal has not changed. That goal is
both in Evelyn’s best interest and satisfies our
agreement.
Having said that, I have not received a cohesive
plan of action beyond
1. that you
intended to refute the competence issue promoted by APS by using a third
doctor on purely medical/psychological grounds.
2. Getting a restraining order
against APS to prevent future assaulty. And
3. Adding another attorney to the case as the primary
litigater. I am confident that where the focus of the
hearing can be held to Evelyn’s competence that you can win on that
plan however, I have heard no cohesive plan on how you intend to maintain
that focus beyond making deals with Perk. We talked
about this in our original conversation and expressed the need to object
to any evidence Perk attempts to enter that strays from the medical
related competence issue. I need to hear more on that
subject.
Also, it appears to me, that having this matter
decided by a judge of the probate court who has already demonstrated a
tendency in favor of APS rather than by a jury of Evelyn’s peers is
risky business at best. I am sure that premise alone
will force Evelyn to bargain away some of her rightful choices in the
process. Choices that are not in her
interest. You have said as much yourself.
Allowing this to occur seems not to be in
pursuit of the goal. For instance, when I raised the
issue of Evelyn while incarcerated not being likely to make a free and
unobstructed choice for her action you retorted I couldn’t have it
both ways; i.e. implying that a claim Evelyn could not be counted on to
make a competent decision in her own interest while claiming Evelyn is
competent. This was troubling to me that you think that
Evelyn could not be competent at the same time she was being forced to
choose something she would not ordinarily choose were she not held against
her will in order to free herself and while thinking her support people
were incapable of helping. Your retort suggests that
Evelyn could not be competent and manipulated at the same
time…. That is completely untrue.
It is reasonable that Evelyn might choose Uhlir (who she would
never choose because she has demonstrated that fact for over ten years) or
anyone who could get her free of her current circumstance when denied any
other alternative. I suppose you do see how she is
denied other alternatives.
In any event, perk is engaged in a character
assassination of everyone around Evelyn in order to obscure her failed
competence issue. To date that tactic has worked in
front of Gallagher and will continue to work if you do not stop
it. Obviously, the character assault has nothing
substantive to do with Evelyn’s capacity to decide for
herself.
So, what I am asking is how will you stop perks
tactic and focus on the competence issue in a court that is predisposed to
give perk broad latitude? I was thinking Evelyn is
better off moving this matter to the county court where she can have a competent
record of the proceedings and a jury to neutralize the probate gang but I
haven’t’ heard you say anything like that.
Due process has not
been suspended in this case you know. The action is an
attempt to take Evelyn’s “person and Estate” and due
process is absolutely clear about that. They can not
lawfully take anything from her without that due
process. That suggests to us that what they have
already done has been voided by their failure to provide that due process
but I am not hearing you speak of that either.
So
how do you, with what you have to work with now, extricate Evelyn from her
current circumstance in such a way as that act attains the original goal
set in the beginning?
Let me know what it is that you need me
to do to accomplish the above.
I will see do
everthing that I can to make that happen.
Aways the Best, Betty
end
DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU ALL THAT OF THREE STRAIGHT LAWYERS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID TO REPRESENT EVELYN'S INTEREST AND PRESERVE HER JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE ALL THREE HAVE TURNED ON EVELYN AND ATTEMPTED TO GIVE JURISDICTION TO THE PROBATE GANG AND DO WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS IN EVE'S INTEREST WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH HER WILL. REMEMBER THE PROBATE GANG ARE CLAIMING JURISDICTION THAT CAN ONLY EXIST AS A "SOCIAL POLICY" AND THAT A SOCIAL POLICY HAS NO LAWFUL CAPACITY TO INTERFERE WITH EVELYN'S OWN DOMINION OVER HER PERSON AND ESTATE. NOT EVEN IF SHE WERE CONSIDERED BY SOME TO BE INCOMPETENT. WHICH SHE IS NOT. SEE FOR YOURSELF
NOW, THEY HAVE HAD EVELYN INCARCERATED FOR NEARLY TWO MONTHS AND SHE IS PHYSICALLY ILL AND I AM SURE DEPRESSED AT NOT HAVING ANY POWER TO RESIST THEIR TYRANNY.
DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THIS VERY SAME TYRANNY IS GOING ON ALL AROUND YOU? WILL YOU NOT DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS?