Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Advocates Exposing Judge Patricia Gardner Cannot Get Justice

Michigan Corruption
An advocate went to a Speedway gas station in Allendale Michigan. It was late at night and you had to go across a parking lot easement to get to the gas pumps. The advocate did not see the potholes measuring almost the with of the vehicle. Once they got gas, they noticed the steering wheels was not correct. The advocate contacted Speedway below and a case was started. The advocate then took the vehicle to be looked at

SPEEDWAY SUPER AMERICA LLC
500 Speedway Dr.
Evon OH 25323
Phone (937) 864-3000

The advocate had to find out who had the easement as speedway was not communicating with the advocate and dragging their feet. Speedway employees were saying the parking lot was not their property. So, the advocate had to get in contact with the owners of the property to find out they have an easement. Speedway denies they need to fix the advocates vehicle.

The advocate took the car to Nissan Gezon Motors 3985 Plainfield Ave NE, Grand Rapids, Mi 49525 phone (616) 361-7361. When the advocate called, they were told that Nissan does a 27-point inspection. On February 20, 2019 a frontend alignment was done on the car. The steering wheels was still not correct, so the advocate called Nissan and took the vehicle back on March 4, 2019. The steering wheel was still not correct and when the advocate called, they were told it was windy that day so the alignment might not be exact.

Several months later the advocate moved out of Michigan. The back tire started wearing tread fast. Thinking the cause was because the vehicle was pulling a cargo trailer. Once to the destination, a new tire was purchased and then a new tire for the other side. When the advocate checked the air in the tire a few months later, it was noted that the new back tire was wearing fast. After taking the vehicle to a mechanic it was noticed that the back needed an alignment. Both the front and back end were aligned, and the steering wheel is now perfect.

When the advocate called Nissan on January 13, 2020 and talked to the mechanic and explained the situation, he stated that because it had been almost a year it could not be proven it was from their mistake and they would not fix it. He stated that when the advocate called they wanted a front end alignment. The advocate never stated that was what was wrong since they are not a mechanic. The advocate remembers the customer service women stating that was all that was needed, but she also stated a 27-point inspection was provided by their mechanics. On the day of the first service, the shop was extremely busy, and the advocate waited a few hours for the vehicle to be fixed.

When the advocate check on LARA, the government website for business owners the advocate discovered who the owner was.

  Entity type:   DOMESTIC PROFIT CORPORATION
Identification Number: 800042583
Old ID Number: 044566
Date of Incorporation in Michigan:   01/22/1964

The name and address of the Resident Agent:
Resident Agent Name:
MARY HUIZENGA

Mary’s last name sounded familiar to the advocate. After researching the advocate discovered Mary is the relatives of a congressman, Bill Huizenga. He is Michigan’s 2 district representative in Holland. The site states, “One of the most important things that I do as a US Representative is to help people with federal problems.”

Washington, D.C. Office
2232 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4401


Grandville Office
4555 Wilson Ave. SW Suite 3,
Grandville, MI 49418
Phone: (616) 570-0917


Grand Haven Office
1 South Harbor Ave. Suite 6B,
Grand Haven, MI 49417
Phone: (616) 414-5516


The advocate can’t take the dealership to court because it will be in Kent County, Michigan where the corruption in the divorce/custody case took place and the same judges are part of the civil court. Even if the advocate was able to get honest people in their case, the dealership owner would just make a call to her congressman representative family member and pull strings and the case would be fixed. This is the reality of Michigan and how things are run in the state. You can never get justice in Michigan once you go after a corrupt judge.


The whistleblower act is a joke! Ask Judge Patricia Gardner, she will agree.

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Kent County Michigan Lying Lawyer



When you write an affidavit it means that everything you say must be true. If it is not true you can go to jail. Donna Mobilia states, "When I asked each of them if they had a hearing with me, they said "no," but they were here, "to watch me."  This was not true and they both could prove it because they had recordings on them. Deanna knew how to get recorders into the courthouse.

When Donna seen/saw the couple she freaked out. They were standing outside of the courtroom talking to a mom and leaning up against the window. She asked them why they were there and they stated they were there to give support to a mother. She went into a private room and called security. She then was escorted out of the building. After the mom's hearing, they left and Donna was coming back into the courthouse with some female friends. (I guess when you do shady shit you are always paranoid.) Pretty sure after this incident dishonest judges and attorneys are not walking to and from their offices to the court.

Richard called Deanna later that day and let her know he had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) served on him and there was a PPO for her as well. Deanna states, she called Judge Danial Zemiatis secretary Brian who stated he had a PPO for her. Deanna says she told him when she was in the court in a few days she would get it. When Deanna went to get the PPO it had disappeared.

Richard Owens former spouse had hired Donna Mobila to handle her divorce case. She had done a lot of dishonest stuff in the case as you can imagine. Richard did not go into a lot of what she had done. A few days later Richard called Deanna and stated he had a lot of dirt on Donna that he was going to expose after his surgery. He stated that he used the false affidavit against Donna to bargain for something he wanted in his case but did not state exactly what that was. That was the last time Deanna had heard from Richard.

Deanna Kloostra had Donna Mobilia placed into her case by Judge Patricia Gardner. Donna did not protect Deanna's kids. Judge Gardner signed a Personal Protection Order (PPO) in 1999 for Deanna. When her former spouse violated the order and called Deanna's boss and tried to get her fired from her job, he violated the order. Judge Gardner fined him $50 for violating the order. A few years later she, with the recommendation of Donna Mobilia, that Deanna's former spouse receive custody.

With lots of times on her hands, Deanna researched Donna Mobilia and others in her case and found out that Donna's spouse was the Vice President of the bank where Deanna's former spouse Divorce attorney's law firm was located. So Donna and her spouse met in the back of the bank with Deanna's former spouse and his attorney and sold custody.

Just after Deanna sent out a press release of custody being sold and named names, Richard Owens was killed. Richard came home to a fire in his home. He called 911 and stated there was a fire and said, "Ouch!" and the phone went dead. He was found in his kitchen and died from smoke inhalation.  Did Richard say ouch because he was injected in the back of his neck with some kind of drug that rendered him unable to move and then inhaled smoke? Did Donna place a hit out on Richard? What really happened to Richard because a lot of people do not believe he died from breathing in smoke!

Deanna exposed the sale of custody in 2013 and then she started being followed. In 2014 she left the state of Michigan. She returned in 2017 and left again in 2019 because she was planning on exposing this corruption.

Deanna has been trying to get a hold of anyone from Richards family but so far has not been able to locate them. If you have any information or know a family member have them email VictimsofJudgeGardner@gmail.com or call Deanna at 505-933-5029.




Don't Just Expose Bad Judge Of Kent County But The Lawyers As Well





Not only expose the judges in your case but these attorneys as well. Deanna Kloostra just wrote this letter to her former judge's place of employment. He is dealing with other people's funds. You will want to see who sits on the board as well. Information is at the end. 






Mailed to: 400 Broadway St, Cincinnati, OH 45202

January 22, 2020

Dear xxxxxxxxx,
I wanted to bring to your attention issues that I have had in the past with your agency manager Kevin Dudka. When Kevin was an attorney, I hired him to represent me in family court. My bill cost me $20,000 for his manipulation and game playing.

When I signed the papers for Kevin to represent me, he stated it would cost me $200 per hour. I remember this because I told myself that for every 15 minutes, I talked with him on the phone it would cost me $50. When I finally was able to get a copy from him for the contract, it was because I brought him in front of a judge. The contract stated $260 per hour and I noticed that the signature page was at the very end of the contract on a separate page of the contract. This means the entire contract could have been changed and my signature on the last page would mean I agreed to the contract. Trust me I now look for this when signing a contract and have even had my signature added to the end of every page of a contract since. Beware that people signing their contract with just 20 can be changed in the future to a different date.

I also signed a Lien on my home for Kevin to represent me. I was pregnant and bedridden and unable to work. I had to sell my home because my former spouse had not paid a house payment. When I brought this to Kevin’s attention my former spouse showed us in the hallway that his checkbook ledger stated house payment. (A year later I discovered my former spouse purchased the house he now lives in and we were still married. It was his house payment that he had paid, not our house payment ordered by the judge.) I guess statements from the bank are not truthful compared to my former spouse’s word.  Our divorce was final on August first, so my ex stated that since we were divorced, he no longer had to pay the house payment, so I was two house payments behind. When child support was switched over once divorced, the courts messed up and I did not get a child support payment for six weeks. 

This put me three months behind on my house payments and about to go into the foreclosure process. A single mother of two kids and a new baby I had to sell the home. When I spoke to Kevin about having to sell my home, he stated that I should be able to get a certain amount of money and make a small profit off the sale. This told me that my bill was so high so Kevin could retain most of the money from the sale of the house. I believe Kevin did not make sure the house payment was paid so I would have to sell the house quick and fast to save my credit and the law firm would get paid. The law firm received all the proceeds and I still owed money on my bill because I had to sell the house quickly. This bad service cost me a lot of money and the loss of my home.

I went into the Friend of the Court and while talking about child support etc….. I mentioned how Kevin was going to go back in front of the judge and get the back-child support and bills my former spouse owned me. I was told that once I agreed to the divorce, you cannot go back and get those funds back as Kevin stated I could.

When I first went to hire Kevin, he told me I could get alimony from my former spouse. After signing the contract and meeting in his office to talk about the case I mentioned the alimony Kevin stated all I could get was $1 after looking into it. I find that funny, my former spouse remarried and after four years got divorced. She got his 401 K and more and she didn’t have three kids with him.

There is more information to share, but I believe you have enough information to understand his character. Someone who was in the legal industry should have an upstanding character. I am sure there are more victims that have just let things go and moved on, but I refuse to. To have someone so dishonest to be in management and have access to other's money concerns me. I will be retaining this letter so in the future if your clients have been taken advantage of by Kevin, I will have proof that you and your company were notified by me of his dishonesty and true character.


Warm Wishes,

Deanna Kloostra



Ohio.Gov Insurance #70483




Follow us on the Victims Of Judge Gardner Facebook page!







Saturday, May 14, 2016

Judge Patricia Gardner Facebook Page


Have you seen our Facebook Page about this judge? Parents who have been a victim of this judge can learn even more about this dishonest judge. She is giving abusive parents custody and keeping good parents from the children's lives. She scares anyone who works in the court house building, a ten floor building. There is one person she is afraid of and that is Deanna Kloostra. Deanna researched this judge and the players in her case and found some interesting corruption. Learn more at  https://www.facebook.com/Victims-of-Judge-Gardner-149550385144002/?fref=nf

Danger of Commingling and Conversion of Client and Third Party Funds

By Thomas P. Sukowicz




All lawyers know that it is wrong to steal from clients. These days, however, the ethics rules require that lawyers to do more than avoid stealing. In most states, they contain requirements about the kinds of accounts in which client and third party funds may be held, notices to be sent, kinds of records that must be kept, and accounting for the funds. For example, all states require that lawyers maintain separate trust accounts for client and third party funds to avoid commingling those funds with the lawyer’s own money.

Commingling
ABA Model Rule 1.15, the rule upon which many states’ rules are based, requires that lawyers avoid commingling by keeping the funds of clients and third persons separate from those of the lawyer. Commingling occurs when a lawyer holds his or her own funds in the same account that is holding client or third party funds. Commingling is, itself, a violation of the ethics rules and may subject a lawyer to discipline.

Avoiding commingling may not always be easy because of confusion as to whether certain funds belong to lawyers or to their clients. For example, some fees belong to the lawyer as soon as they are paid. It would be a commingling violation in most jurisdictions to deposit these fees in a client trust account. Other fees are merely advances that the lawyer will earn as he or she bills for time spent on the client’s behalf. These funds currently belong to the client and should be deposited into the trust account under the rules as interpreted by most states.

Some states’ rules specifically allow funds reasonably sufficient to pay account charges imposed by the bank or funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to the lawyer. The portion belonging to the lawyer should be withdrawn when due unless the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive it is disputed by the client, in which event the disputed portion shall not be withdrawn until the dispute is finally resolved.
Most rules also require that lawyers or law firms maintain specific kinds of records related to the handling of such funds and that such records are kept for a certain number of years. Every lawyer should check the ethics rules of the jurisdiction(s) in which he or she is licensed to determine what kinds of records are required to be maintained.

Conversion
Even if a lawyer maintains a separate, identifiable trust account and the kinds of records required in his or her jurisdiction, there is still a risk that the lawyer will be accused of conversion of client or third party funds notwithstanding that the lawyer did not intend to convert such funds and without realizing that the funds were converted.

Interestingly, the ABA Model Rules (like the rules of many jurisdictions) does not contain a rule that explicitly prohibits lawyers from stealing (converting) client funds. The absence of an explicit rule does not mean that lawyers may misappropriate client and third party funds without being subject to discipline. In states that have rules based on the Model Rules, such as Illinois, lawyers who steal client or third party funds are charged in disciplinary proceedings with common law conversion and, usually, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) and conduct that tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute. In states such as Illinois, a lawyer can be disciplined for conduct that is as obviously wrong, even absent an explicit rule prohibiting it.

New York is an example of a state whose ethics rules specifically prohibit conversion of client funds. Its DR 9-102(A) provides that a lawyer in possession of any funds or other property belonging to another person, where such possession is incident to his or her practice of law, is a fiduciary, and must not misappropriate such funds or property or commingle such funds or property with his or her own.

Whether in a jurisdiction with an explicit rule or not, Lawyers who handle client and third party funds can run into problems in many ways. For example, a lawyer might properly deposit client funds in an appropriate trust account, but fail to maintain records showing them exactly how much money is being held in the account for each client at any given time. Without such records, such as a separate ledger for each client whose funds are being held, the lawyer relies on his or her recollection of how much went in the account for a certain client, and how much has already been disbursed. If the lawyer is wrong, as frequently happens, he or she might disburse more funds to himself or herself than are available, thus converting at least a portion of client funds to their own use.

When client trust accounts are audited by the local disciplinary authorities, one of the techniques used to determine whether the lawyer has converted client funds is to add up the aggregate amounts that a lawyer should have in the trust account on any given date for all clients. If the balance in the trust account is less than the aggregate of funds that should be in the account for all clients, then the lawyer is deemed to have “converted” some of the funds belonging to the clients. It is not necessary to identify which client’s funds were converted. It is enough that the funds in the account are less than the total amount the lawyer should have been holding for all clients.

Sometimes the timing of the disbursement of client funds can lead to a charge of conversion. For example, the Illinois Supreme Court found that a lawyer who deposited client settlement funds in a trust account and disbursed the funds before the settlement check had cleared was guilty of conversion. In re Elias, 114 Ill.2d 321, 499 N.E.2d 1327 (1986).

The reason a lawyer may not immediately issue a check to the client is that when a settlement check is deposited into a client trust account, the funds represented by the check are not always immediately available. The funds are not available until they have been collected by the bank at which the trust account is maintained. If a lawyer issues a check to a client before the funds represented by the settlement check have been collected, the lawyer is disbursing funds belonging to someone other than the client. This becomes a serious problem if the settlement check does not clear and the funds are never collected by the lawyer's bank.

An example of this occurs when a settlement check that has been deposited into a client trust account is returned for lack of sufficient funds in the account on which the check was drawn. If the lawyer has already issued a check to the client and the client has negotiated the check, the client has received funds belonging to someone else. The "someone else" should not be the lawyer, because lawyers are not permitted to keep their own funds "commingled" with client funds in a client trust account. Therefore, the funds that the client received are likely to be funds that belong to another client.

Another common way lawyers convert funds is by taking the money of one client and paying it to another client or third person. This can occur rather innocently if the lawyer looses track of exactly how much he or she is holding for each client, and overpays one at the expense of another. While the inadvertence of the conversion and the lack of intent on the part of the lawyer are considered mitigating factors in disciplinary proceedings, they do not excuse the misappropriation that has occurred. Similarly, the fact that all clients ultimately receive all of the funds they are entitled to receive, merely mitigates the misconduct involved in using the funds of the client, even temporarily, without the client’s consent.

The ethics rules of some states provide for an exception to the prohibition against disbursing funds before the deposited check clears. For example, Illinois Rule 1.15(g), which applies to funds received in connection with the closing of real estate transactions, provides that a lawyer's disbursement of funds deposited but not collected does not violate his or her duty if, prior to the closing, the lawyer has deposited such funds in a segregated Real Estate Funds Account maintained solely for the receipt and disbursement of such funds, and is either acting as a closing agent pursuant to an insured closing letter for a title insurance company licensed in the State of Illinois and uses the REFA solely for the title insurance business, or if the lawyer has met the "good funds" requirements.

The "good funds" requirements are met if the bank in which the REFA is maintained has agreed in a writing directed to the lawyer to honor all disbursement orders drawn on the REFA for all transactions up to a specified dollar amount not less than the total amount being deposited in “good funds” such as a certified check; a government check, a cashier's check, teller's check, bank money order and other checks.

Another common way in which lawyers get into trouble over client funds is when they “borrow” funds being held in their client trust accounts, intending to repay the money once some anticipated fee is received. In one such case, a lawyer who shared office space with other lawyers was short on his share of the office expenses. He took the $1000 he needed from his client trust account, believing he could repay it from the proceeds of a case he expected to settle soon. Shortly thereafter, the State Bar audited the trust account in connection with another matter and discovered the unauthorized $1000 withdrawal. The lawyer was suspended for converting client funds. Iowa S.Ct Bd. of Prof. Ethics v. Gottschalk, 553 NW.2d 322 (1996)

In another case, when a lawyer’s personal checking account was garnished by the IRS for unpaid taxes, he began using his trust account for personal deposits and expenditures. When his check to the State Bar Disciplinary Office bounced, his trust account was audited. The audit revealed that $450 that had been withheld from a personal injury settlement to pay a medical provider was not paid, and the balance in the trust account had gone below zero. The lawyer was suspended for commingling and for conversion of the $450. Comm. on Prof. Ethics & Conduct v. O'Callaghan, 436 N.W.2d 51 (1989).

To avoid mistakes that can lead to serious consequences, such as discipline and civil action, become familiar with your jurisdiction’s rules regarding trust accounts, keep adequate records of the funds you are holding for each client and be very careful not to disburse funds to anyone other than the person entitled to those funds,

http://victimsofjudgegardner.blogspot.com/p/about.html

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Grand Rapids City Attorney Not Sure Of The Law


November 6, 2014
By Victims of Judge Gardner

(Grand Rapids, Michigan November 6, 2014) In April, Deanna Kloostra was ticketed for disobeying a stop sign. The ticket was written by a Grand Rapids Police officer. Deanna believes that she stopped for the stop sign, but stopped further back than the norm. Deanna says that the car she drives tends to slide on water. With ice on the roads, Deanna makes sure she stops several feet before the stop sign so she does not slide out in the middle of an intersection. “The first sign of sprinkles and the car will slide. Just imagine how the car drives on icy slick roads.  When the officer suddenly flips on his flasher and does a U-Turn in the road, coming straight at the middle of my car, I thought there was an emergency. I pulled to the side of the road as fast as possible and stopped. Imagine my surprise that the emergency was to give me a ticket at 6:30 in the morning."

When the police officer pulled up he turned on several lights that made Deanna put her hands up over her eyes to top the lights from glaring off her windows and mirrors. “The car was lit up like a drug raids was being performed,” says Deanna. The officer only asked for her license and took a long time returning back to the car to issue the ticket. Deanna says, "The first thing I did was lock my doors and when he went back to his car, I texted a friend that I had been pulled over by GRPD. I was beginning to wonder if the officer was going to give me a breathalyzer test early in the morning to see if I had been drinking, it took him so long to return back to issue the ticket" Deanna is very leery of any government agency or their employees because she has dirt on a lot of them.

Three citizens given tickets by the officer showed up at the 61st District Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, to fight the violations. They were allowed to leave by the judge because the police officer did not show in a timely manner. Now most people believe that ticket is dismissed, but not in this case. The officer says he was coping CD’s of the traffic stops to bring to court, so the citizens were requested back in court. Two citizens appear in front of a different judge, and the police officer appeared with his city of Grand Rapids attorney. The Judge asked if the parties had a chance to discuss the ticket and come to any sort of agreement. The city attorney stated there would not be any agreement. (The attorney never met with Deanna to discuss the ticket at any point in time. The other citizen who appeared went into a private room with another city attorney and settled.) When Deanna spoke she talked about the fact that the last time she was in court, there was the judge, court employees, and the three citizens given a tickets. Deanna mentions that there was not a city attorney present for the officer. At that point, Deanna says, the Judge asked the city attorney if she was to get an informal hearing. The city attorney had no idea. Deanna says, "It was amazing! An attorney paid for by Grand Rapids has no clue what the law is, and a judge asking an attorney what the law is, right in my presence. I was just amazed. My thoughts were the 17Th Circuit Court and now the 61st District Court."

So off she went to prepare for her hearing and do some research. Deanna and another citizen pulled over by the officer state that the officer leans behind the door, where it is hard to see the officer, with his hand is on his gun. Just weeks prior, Deanna was stopped by a police officer on Plainfield Avenue. She was in the left lane and her car would not go over 40mph. While checking her gauges on the car, she was pulled over by a police officer. When she pulled over she noticed her shifter had been knocked out of gear. She says that traffic stop seamed normal, and the traffic stop in this article was really different. Deanna believes something seems a little off with this police officer. Deanna was wondering if the police officer had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). While doing research, Deanna discovered that police in general have a high rate of PTSD, and that the issues are not being addressed in law enforcement agencies. Deanna wanted to bring up this fact in court and to make sure Grand Rapids has a mentally safe police officer patrolling our streets. She also learned of another incident where a police officer in Grand Rapids did a U-Turn and caused an accident off Kalamazoo Avenue, just weeks after Deanna was pulled over.

Deanna’s ticket cost $135. Lets’ take a look at where that money went to. The fine of $35 went to the municipality or the city of Grand Rapids. Citing officers will write up a civil infraction under the local ordinance, rather than the state statue because both the civil fine and the cost go to support the municipality, rather than the libraries. Yes, civil fines are to fund the libraries. The cost of $60 are payable to the plaintiff’s general fund. The state cost of $40 is deposited into the state treasury’s justice system fund. Does anyone remember the video Deanna did in 2011 about the indigent citizens in criminal court not receiving proper services? The Justice Fund was part of the money that was taken to help create a board to make changes to indigent citizens receiving proper services. We got some information that the services have not changed any in Kent County and public defenders are still showing up five minutes before court to talk with their clients. We will save that for another story in the future.

Deanna filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request information about the police officer. All of her request were denied, accept her viewing the video of the traffic stop. Apparently they could not find any information of the police officer causing an accident when doing a U-Turn on Kalamazoo Avenue either. At this point she realized that the officer had the entire city of Grand Rapids employees on his side. She realized that in order to get the information she needed to "beat the ticket" she was going to have to subpoena the police officer's boss, police records, the HR staff, etc. The police officer could have a video made by a coworker very easily. She realized that the money that would be spent by Grand Rapids would be in the thousands, just for her to fight the ticket. All the city employees involved would be paid and in the end she would end up paying the ticket anyway and wasted a lot of time.

"Think about it, Deanna says. The police officer will be getting paid. The attorney, who I already know has no clue about the law, will be getting paid. Then, the city employees I subpoena into court will be getting paid. This adds up to a lot of time and money for a $135. The city has the money at their disposal and the ability to draw this hearing out for months. I decided I had better things to do then deal with a bunch more of our government officials who have no clue what they are doing. Let’s just hope the officer does not have PTSD or causes accidents while doing U-Turns. The citizens of Grand Rapids will be the ones who pay millions for it later, and some citizens will pay with their life."

The story doesn’t end here. Deanna then receives a letter from the Michigan Department of State saying that she can participate in a Basic Drivers Improvement Course (BDIC). If she took this course for under $100, the letter states, “any points stemming from the violations are not placed on their record. In addition the violations and points (if any) will not be disclosed to their insurance company.” To learn more go to www.Michigan.gov/BDIC. We did looking for where the funding goes and the cost of the services. The cost ranges around $35 and we called one service to obtain information. They would not give us any information on funding etc…. so we called Stedman Insurance Agency Inc. to get information. We were given directly to Mr. Stedman, who was more than happy to answer any questions says, keep that certificate. Without that certificate, you will be charged. Mr. Stedman says the points do come up on the computer and they are aware of them. Also, there is only so many times you can take the course, so make sure you are using your chances wisely. We had a hard time finding out more on where the funding goes and the wait times for the Secretary of State were way to long. We encourage our readers to look more into the subject. If you write a press release, we will help distribute it.

While this traffic ticket situation was going on, Deanna was in the 17th Circuit court once again. This time she was fighting a bill from 2004 she didn’t know she had and for nine years never received a bill. Judge Daniel Zemaitis admits the court is partially at fault. Deanna is making her $20 monthly payments and get this. The payments are coming back because the court clerk does not know what to do with the money. We are shaking our heads too. You can read the press release at http://victimsofjudgegardner.blogspot.com/

We asked Deanna what she is up to next. All she would say is it has to do with the Federal courts.

###