From DK; this Guardian is so abusive she took away an abused ward’s library card and bicycle!

Please feel free to write or call this woman and tell her to stop her abuse of poor Douglas Keegan who is now fighting for his rights to be free of an abusive guardianship in Orange County Florida…. more to come.

JUSTICE 4 EVERY1, NFP
5330 W. Devon Ave. #6 JoAnne Denison, Executive Director*
Chicago, IL 60646 Cell Phone 773-255-7608
ph 312-553-1300 http://www.justice4every1.com
fax 312-553-1307 JoAnne@Justice4Every1.com

November 7, 2018

Via Email heather.ramos@gray-robinson.Com

Heather Ramos
301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
Post Office Box 3068 ( 328 0 2-3068 )
Orlando, Florida 32801
Tel 407-843-8880
Fax 407 -244 -5690

RE: In re Guardianship of Douglas Keegan 20 I 4-CP-002772-0.

Dear Ms. Ramos;

I am in receipt of a letter dated 4/24/18 which you sent to the putative “guardian” of Mr. Doug Keegan in which you 1) asserted cooperation in wrongfully terminating his library card; and 2) offered cooperation in a highly abusive guardianship case.

As you are aware, under the Rules of Professional Conduct for Florida you should be taking no such action against a person who 1) is clearly competent, knows the time, date, place who the President is, etc.; 2) had complained reasonably about his guardianship being a ruse and the guardianship has been extremely physically and emotionally abusive to Mr. Keegan. All these documents are of public record.

From the Rules of Prof. Conduct, preamble:

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.

This is to advise you that Mr. Keegan is under an abusive guardianship. Your taking action against an alleged Ward of the State of Florida who only wants to use a computer to contest his court case and read books is amazingly unethical, immoral and utterly reprehensible.

I am demanding at this time that you fully restore the rights of Mr. Keegan to full library access and treat him as the highly respected individual that he truly is.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/joannemdenison/

JoAnne Denison
Executive Director
Justice 4 Every1, NFP
cc: http://www.marygsykes.com

Advertisements

Request for aide to Ward in abusive guardianship–Man in Fla. in immediate need of bicycle

Please contact me if you can get a man in an abusive gship a bicycle. He is in Orlando.  The Guardian keeps on stealing his bicycle and selling it, so if you have a good lock, that would be great.

This man is completely competent, was working as an engineer, is extremely intelligent, and got caught up in an abusive guardianship when some attorney relative got mad at him and sucked him into the Florida gship system, which we all know is very, very corrupt.

They have sold his homes for lawyer fees, his cars and anything they could get their hands on. He is always on the run.

Joanne

from JK on Facebook: Star Chambers mean no representation and self representation was banned

From James Kelly

A quote from In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 – 23 (1975). The Supreme Court:

“ In the long history of the British jurisprudence there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber, that curious institution which flourished in the late 16th and 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common law traditions. For those reasons and because it specialized in trying “political” defenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard for basic, individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required defendants to have counsel. The defendants answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed (See, J.Stephen, “A history of the criminal law in England”, 341-42 (1883) As Stephen commented on this procedure, “There is something especially repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to debar a prisoner from defending himself, especially when the object of the rules so used is to provide for his defense” (end quote)

and now rewritten:

“ In the long history of the American jurisprudence there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling person in a quasi-criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Family Courts, that curious institution which flourished in the 20th and 21st centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common law traditions. For those reasons and because it specialized in trying “psychological” defenses, the Family Courts have for decades symbolized disregard for basic, individual rights of children. The Family Courts not merely allowed, but required children to have counsel. The children’s answer to a motion was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the child was considered to have supported it (See, the millions of families that have gone through the process of a custody proceeding. As they regularly comment on this procedure, “There is something especially repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to debar a child from their Constitutionally protected rights, especially when the object of the rules so used is to provide for the child’s best interests” (end quote).