Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Hearing Before Carol Hackett Garagiola

Deborah Hon. Judge Carol Hackett Garagiola

Samuel J. Skousen
30979 Bramley Circle
New Hudson, Michigan 48163

The divorce order which was drawn up in 1998 is effectively a contract, a contract violated by Mr. Samuel J. Skousen with the aid of Richard Trost, to the detriment of Deborah and without Deborah consent, or knowledge. The reasoning behind Mr. Samuel J. Skousen’s and Richard Trost actions was to cover up a criminal act by an associate and friend of people in the Livingston County Michigan legal system. This was and is an impropriety on Richard Trost,Edwin Literski’s and Mr. Samuel J. Skousen’s part, some ten years ago, and part of an on going issue.

To revisit the Divorce Court Order in a detrimental manner to Deborah would be a violation of long standing principles of law. The divorce order cannot be revised in part, but may need to be reexamined in the whole to prevent further damages to Deborah, due to Mr. Samuel J. Skousen’s violations of the divorce agreement. Especially, since the party wanting changes, Samuel J. Skousen, is the individual which broke the agreement, when he failed to make repairs to the home, and made agreements not to sell the home in order to keep someone from criminal legal action.

Mr. Samuel J. Skousen’s, action before the court flies in the face of long standing legal principals established century’s ago, and flagrantly violated by Samuel J. Skousen and Richard Trost, emotionally and financially damaging Deborah for the past ten to eleven years.

The sale of the marital home was a key provision meant to insure Deborah could become established and what is going on, is Mr. Samuel J. Skousen continuing to batter, control and damage Deborah with the aid of the Livingston County Court system and the Friend of the Court by his current court action.

Not selling the home for ten years, has also been a financial benefit to Mr. Samuel J. Skousen, by having the home as tax write off, when Samuel J. Skousen’s salary substantially increased after the divorce, not having to pay alimony, as well as vastly decreasing the value of the home from the passing of ten years, which further damages Deborah. Mr. Samuel J. Skousen has waited for his current court action to a time he feels he can claim only his pension, and Mr. Samuel J. Skousen failing to mention his other ten plus business he has in his name, which Mr. Samuel J. Skousen has refused to account for. There are still large amounts of funds Mr. Samuel J. Skousen took to his business partners that are still unaccounted for, the court and attorneys aided Mr. Samuel J. Skousen in making sure the funds were not accounted for.

There is a attempt to shift the burden from those who violated the agreement namely, Richard Trost, Samuel J. Skousen, and Edwin Literski, and place the burden on to Deborah , to her financial and emotional determent.

The actions of the receiver, Susan Hamilton during the Friend of the Court meeting, where Susan Hamilton attempted to force Deborah into an agreement to Deborah, detriment through threats and intimidation, amounted to a grievous act of misconduct and a clear indications she cannot now, and should not have ever held the position of receiver; as well as Susan Hamilton’s previous recommendation made on November 14, 2008 to Mr. Samuel J. Skousen and Deborah , Ms. Hamilton recommended Deborah be removed from the home, and the home sold un-repaired, leaving Deborah homeless. The home being sold un-repaired was the desire of Janice Eduis Nielson Skousen, Mr. Samuel J. Skousen’s second wife, as documented in a 2006 e-mail, regarding Janice Eduis Nielson Skousen wanting the home at 4175 Summer Hill, Brighton Michigan for her brother.

In Mr. Samuel Skousen own statements he has stated, that Ms. Sue Hamilton was his hammer against Deborah to make alimony concessions, Mr. Skousen statements, furthers the predetermined role of Ms. Hamilton as a detrimental and damaging force in Mr. Samuel J. Skousen’s current court actions. Deborah is demanding Sue Hamilton’s immediate removal, she cannot continue in her role as receiver, as it is increasingly raising questions of improperly on the FOC and court part.

Concern is also raised, regarding Livingston County courts, due to the influence of Livingston County Judge Susan Geddis and William McCririe a Prosecutor in the Livingston County Court system, due to their involvement in the malicious prosecution of Deborah , as well as the Geddis/ McCririe continued role in the divorce case, as attempts were made by Attorney David L. Morris, Samuel J. Skousen, Edwin Literski and Richard Trost, to conceal the family relationship of the Gaddis/ McCririe and sell the home undervalued, thorough the brother in law of Judge Susan Geddes, Garry McCririe, a real estate broker, prior to the closed door agreement between Mr. Samuel J. Skousen and Attorney Richard Trost. Gary McCririe is now Genoa Twp. Supervisor. Genoa Twp. is the township where Deborah currently resides and where the marital home is located.
Documentation will be brought to hearing.

June 24, 2009

For other reasons why the county has abused her and her kids, cut and paste:

Bizzy blog from a conservative blogger: The Case against Mitt Romney his risky associations and entanglements


1 comment:

  1. Keeping her there ten years and letting her husband damage it, and let the home run down. Shame!

    That is horrible the judge and reciever would not give the woman money to repair the inside of the home, no wonder she put in an objection.