Other Cases


In this country for some time given legal professionals have been and continue to engage in a pattern of questionable legal activity (such as denial of due process, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, intimidation, theft, mail fraud, and wire fraud against the elderly and disabled persons placed into guardianship) carried out as part of an enterprise (similar to a crime consortium) that is owned or controlled by those engaged in the illegal activity – i.e., racketeering. In the Eklund case, it appears that the racketeering emanated from the lawyer guardian and her firm encompassing supporting players.

In Ms. Luck’s case, it appears that control for this endeavor radiates from the probate judge who repeatedly finds Ms. Luck incapacitated, contrary to the findings of medical professionals and the Social Security Administration, to further the agenda of a select group of elder law attorneys and probate judges in Tarrant County.

The attached information demonstrates that Ms. Luck has been continually denied her rights and deprived of her property without due process. Apparently this started with a baseless trust and estate litigation matter, denial of a jury trial, and a maneuver to place Ms. Luck into a guardianship to gain control of her estate.

It appears that the creation of a guardianship happened without a letter of need and without a medical evaluation; and a Texas probate judge stripped Ms. Luck of her Constitutional rights and denied her the right to hire an attorney and execute legal documents. See www.fwweekly.com, “Grabbing the Purse.”

FILES (Civil Rights Violation Complaint, Chronology of Events in the Dorothy Luck Case)

1. Click here to view this document.

2. Click here to view this document.



A Boston attorney, Gerald L. Nissenbaum and a Dennis lawyer, E. James Veara billed $500,000 during an 83-day temporary guardianship.

Justice Steinberg found that said attorneys violated their respective fiduciary duty to Kenneth E. Simon. Their conduct was ‘outrageous’ and ‘egregious.’ Among their less than professional activities, Mr. Nissenbaum charged $600 per hour to read Mr. Simon’s mail, prepare invoices, and write checks to himself; and charged “thousands of dollars to prepare lengthy e-mails that amounted to stream of consciousness.” Then Mr. Veara charged the estate to read said e-mails. One  such e-mail cost the estate $1,380 for 2.3 hours.

It appears that the Massachusetts judicial and legal system is rife with a breach of ethical issues that exceed the bounds of lawful activity.

See the following attachment.

1. Kenneth E. Simon



Apparently upon a Massachusetts law firm and eighteen of its lawyers charging a $1.2 million dollar estate $800,000, Justice Botsford indicated that,

“[A] total of eighteen attorneys and paralegals were representing [the client],

  [which was] a remarkable number especially when one takes into account the

motion judge’s view that the theories advanced by the contestants were not

                          ‘overly complex.'” 

Is this breach of fiduciary duty/ alleged “corruption” business as usual within the judicial and legal systems in the US?

See the following attachment.

1. Business as Usual



The abuses that occurred within the Massachusetts judicial system “under the guise of protective services and the adjudication of disputes” mirror many of the abuses sustained in the Eklund case – such as questionable “medical” care/”care plan” resulting in an untimely death.

The extent of file tampering was not completely known during the Eklund victimization. That lack of knowledge not withstanding, the “guardian” was encountered on a number of occasions removing submitted documents from the file; apparently documents were not only removed but altered. See Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts – An Urgent Call of Legislative Action, by Joseph Zernik, PhD, January 2010.

As in the Nickerson case, the “guardian” failed to do an inventory of the estate and allowed items to go missing from the Eklund home.

“Favoritism by certain court personnel [resulted] in unequal application of the law, [allowed] others to use the court system to perpetuate schemes … tantamount to human rights violations, [facilitated] the theft of private property, and [siphoned off] taxpayer[s’] dollars under the guise of a judicial process….” For further information, see www.courtreformmasscorruption.org.