Hearing Before Carol Hackett Garagiola

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LIVINGSTON COUNTY
44th CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY DIVISION
Deborah Hon. Judge Carol Hackett Garagiola

Vs.
Samuel J. Skousen
30979 Bramley Circle
New Hudson, Michigan 48163
248-437-8655
EVIDENTIARY HEARING BRIEF



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.


__________________________
Deborah
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

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/07/22/the-case-against-mitt-romney-his-risky-associations-and-entanglements/

and the blog "STRANGE BEDFELLOWS"

http://janskousenandromney.blogspot.com/

I Hired an Attorney associated with the Alliance Defense Fund pt. 2

Mr. Jentzen has withdrawn from the case.

"Is This the Christan Thing to Do?" suddenly has disappeared from a google search, it appeared under Mr. Jentzen's name, Sam Skousen's name and Janice Skousen's name, as well as the first page of a search under its title. - gone -

Nothing on this Blog is untruthful; everything is documented. It puzzles me, people wish to hide their activity. An unborn child is important - my son asked why his life has not been important to those individuals who promote a right to life? Why his life has been damaged, as cover-ups, abuse, misinformation, and at times lies were spread? And why people who claim values and honesty, at times, show little of this attribute.

(c) 2009 all rigths reserved

Missed hearing no enforcement of divorce order -- attorney no show

What is not stated on this bill is, on this date: on Oct. 9, 2008 Mr. Jentzen records a telephone call, and looking over documents, except on Oct. 9, 2008 Steven Jentzen had scheduled a hearing for a motion before Judge Carol Hackett - Garagiola at 3:00 p.m.

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