I had asked for a motion to enforce the divorce judgement and have Mr. Skousen repair our home, as ordered in the divorce agreement, and to set aside Mr. Skousen's request for a receiver. The receiver, Mr. Skousen stated, was his hammer to make me agree to changes and removal he wanted on pension rights and alimony agreements, done during the divorce agreement ten years ago. Janice, Mr. Skousen's new wife, wants our home for her brother-- but he could not afford the home; she wanted our home at a price which would leave my son and I homeless. Jan has callously stated to my son, there should be no obligation for us to have a home.
[ a recording of Mr. Skousen stating Janice Eudis Nielsen Skousen, brother wanted the home
Will be placed here.]
Janice's words stung my son, Sam Skousen and Janice Eudis Nielsen Skousen, live in the home left to Janice Skousen, when her husband Mr. Nielsen signed off on a paid home -giving the home to Janice, along with all the furnishing when they divorced. Yet, Janice wanted us homeless.
I never received notice of the hearing, which was scheduled, nor did Steven Jentzen show for the hearing in court. Mr. Jentzen, did not even mention the hearing to me during our phone conversation on Oct. 9, 2008.
The date put on the stamped court record for the hearing request was on Sept. 16, 2008.
Note on Mr. Jentzens bill what he was doing on Oct.9, 2008 when we should have been in court: --- Oct-09-08-- Work on documents, telephone to client………………..0.60 hrs. ---$135.00 ---SMJ--.
Ms. Hamilton called several weeks later, during her call I leaned a hearing was held and no one had shown up, only Ms. Hamiltion. Note the entry on Mr. Jentzen's bill of Oct. 10, 2008
Oct-10-08 Telephone call from Sue Hamilton re: receivership
Steven Jentzen, said in his conversations with the receiver, she seeming willing to 'work' with me on the home. ----- The receiver recommended my son and I leave the home immediately, the home not to be repaired and sold strangely at the price Janice Eudis Skousen wanted her brother to pay.
On December 19 2008, Steven Jentzen was to met me before the hearing, he never came to where we were to meet for our conference, he went somewhere else. Mr. Jentzen never answered the e-mails, per his request, to set a time with Mr. Skousen to meet to see if we could make an agreement- a request Mr. Jentzen made over the phone on December 19, 2008. -- Mr. Jentzen never answered the e-mails sent to him per his request, but did, according to his bill read them.
[Janice Skousen's acknowledgment regarding us being in the home, not of our own will
Recording will be placed here]
One wonders why we are still in the marital home? Seems some do not want the truth to come out on that ---
It is a dirty county here-- and moreover,
Is this the Christian thing to do ?---
“This is a tremendous victory for the most basic of our constitutional rights,” Jentzen said in a statement LifeNews.com obtained. “Pro-life speech should not be treated as second...
is this the constitutional thing to do?
They have a strange view of religion, and the pro family values mock human decency.
Mr. Skousen, with the assistance of legal help, has attempted to discredit. A former LDS church member came to my home and relayed a conservation he had with Mr. Skousen, were Mr. Skousen made the following statements, and a note was written by the former church member documenting the conversation he had with Mr. Samuel J. Skousen:
The note dated 7/28/99 reads:
"I had worked on Sam Skousen's car, he told me he really wanted to get the children. Sam told me he and his attorney David Morris,( a Mormon church member) was going to try and make people believe Debbie was insane. Then they would have her committed, and he would get his custody ",--- the former member signed his name on a document, to the events of his conversation with Mr. Skousen.
The county court personal have played into Mr. Skousen's scheme, many playing willingly along --
(c)2009 all rights reserved