Today’s Call Discusses The Slow & Steady Escalating Court Claims

1. Small claims
2. Declaratory Judgement
3. Estoppel
4. Breach & Tort
5. Criminal

Number Of Days Marjorie, Janette, And Charmelle Have ‘Not’ Communicated With Joseph

Below are the records of the last communications from each defending party.

1. Marjorie: 330 days (Dec 24, 2022) – Xmas at Denise’s house. Marjorie hugs Joseph. Joseph says sorry. We say I love you to each other.
   — See: Family Reconciliation & Final Attempt To Communicate With Other Affected Silent Parties
2. Janette: 388 days (Oct 27, 2022) – Janette text to Joseph; “No, grandma [Marjorie] is not honoring the contract signed by you [Joseph] and your mom [Trustee].”
   — See: Powers v. Puka: An Extensive Timeline Update (Nov 2023) – Gaps & Unanswered Questions Persist – PSDI Part 5
3. Charmelle: 267 days (Feb 25, 2022) – Charmelle email to Joseph.
   — See: Line-By-Line Reply To Charmelle Puka’s Feb 25 Denise Accusations
4. Kelley Golay: 1086 days (Nov, 2020?) – Joseph at Kelley & Janette’s house for Thanksgiving Dinner.
   — See: Kelley Golay Enters Lawsuit!
5. Racheal Dixon: 13 days (Nov 6, 2023) – Racheal calls Joseph. We both apologize for Dec 24, 2022. We both accept each others apology.

Powers v. Puka – Predictions Part 1

General Civil Lawsuit Process In Idaho (PDF)

Joseph Predicts Defendant Response

1. Complaint (Plaintiff): Breach of contract & tortious interference
2. Flurry of motions (Defendant): Dismiss, strike, etc
3. Answer (Defendant): Deny, deny, deny, …
4. Defense (Defendant): Accord & Satisfaction. I.R.C.P. 8(c)(A).
5. Reply (Plaintiff): Coercion, duress, unconscionable, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, theft by extortion, etc.
6. Discovery: Admissions, Interrogatories, Production, Subpoena, & Deposition.
7. Pre-Trial Conference: Settle, mediate, or arbitrate.
8. Trial: Object and preserve record for reversable error.
9. Appeal: Claim trial judge made a reversable error in applying facts to the law for something party objected to.
10. Idaho Supreme Court: Rule on precedent.

Detailed Prediction

1. Complaint Specifics: In the “Complaint” stage, ensure that the specifics of the breach of contract and tortious interference claims are detailed. This includes the relevant contract terms and how they were allegedly breached, as well as the specifics of how the defendant is claimed to have interfered tortiously.
2. Defendant’s Motions: A “flurry of motions” might include motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, or other procedural grounds. It’s also common to see motions for a more definite statement or to strike certain parts of the complaint as irrelevant or scandalous.
3. Defendant’s Answer: Besides denying the allegations, the defendant might also raise affirmative defenses. These defenses do more than just deny the plaintiff’s claims; they introduce new facts or legal theories that, if true, defeat or mitigate the plaintiff’s claim.
4. Defense – Accord and Satisfaction: This is an affirmative defense indicating that a new agreement was reached (the accord) and executed (the satisfaction), resolving the dispute. Make sure this defense is fleshed out with specifics on how and when the accord and satisfaction occurred.
5. Plaintiff’s Reply: They should be detailed with specific facts and evidence supporting each claim.
6. Discovery Phase: Ensure that the use of these tools are strategically planned to uncover necessary evidence supporting your claims or defenses.
7. Pre-Trial Conference: Here, the focus might also be on narrowing the issues for trial, discussing the possibility of settlement, and scheduling motions, among other logistical matters.
8. Trial: Mentioning the preservation of the record for appeal is important. Also, consider the presentation of evidence, witness testimony, and the importance of jury instructions if it’s a jury trial.
9. Appeal: The basis for appeal should be clearly articulated, focusing on legal errors, not just factual disagreements unless the factual determinations were clearly erroneous.
10. Supreme Court Review: At this stage, the focus is not just on precedent but also on whether there are substantial legal questions that warrant review. The Supreme Court often looks for issues of broad legal importance.

Transcript (Unedited)

What are the odds they’re going to join, though?

Yeah.

Slim to none.

Zero. Zero.

I like that question. You. That email you sent.

Oh, I know. I got my proof too. I got I got a proof.

Just one you just sent.

Well, there is a breach of fiduciary Brooks. Fiduciary duty.

Unfortunately, David Taylor did have the right to make that amendment so good or bad. Just depends on how you look at it. I did research that more.

Anyways, that one email you sent, this one or this, you might have found the loophole. Yeah. Is that the one you’re talking about?

Yeah. Well, I did a couple. I was wondering if David Taylor actually had the rights and any rights to amend the trust to give me the house as part of my one third inheritance, which this morning, after plugging everything in. Yes, he did have that right. But the big one is about Brooke breaching her fiduciary duty. What do you got? He got to blow it up a little bit. Really? See it?

Yeah. This one’s really interesting finding that section 1.03.

Yeah. It is.

So, so first, before we get started. Brooks actual paper, this one that got submitted to the courts. You know what it says on it. Come now, come now. Petitioner Marge, a Pooka. Through her attorney, Brooke Redmond of Wright’s law office, there is no mention of Janette and Charmelle. And then on another section in here it says.

On on what you sent in 3.2 says the parties acknowledge that Marge has been represented by Wright’s brother’s law office in preparation of this agreement. Marge only. How can Marge hire a lawyer to dissolve her own irrevocable trust? Brooks should have stepped down on that one.

I don’t even think they that Brook read the trust.

I don’t think she did either, because.

If anybody would have read the trust and understood the law, everybody would have known they were. It was a dead end, but they still used their weird lawyer pressure tactics and still did it anyways.

Well, well, well, the other reason why I don’t think Brook read it is because she didn’t even have me down as a beneficiary of the irrevocable trust. It’s in the tetra that Cara presented, but Brook didn’t put it in her. In hers.

So that that goes to show you Brooke didn’t do her research. Go up a little bit. Yeah. Right there. See the trust? It only had. And then. And then if you go to like. Another page. It only says.

Now I keep going. Up up up up up up.

Yeah. Right in here. Yeah. Right here. It talks about the current beneficiaries and the vested beneficiaries. Yep. Right there I’m not listed I.

Think you already been taken out.

No. Because according to Joe on his last blog it has to on how a beneficiary gets removed from an irrevocable trust. It sounds like it’s got to be petitioned through the court.

Pull it right up here. It says you are.

That’s for the private annuity trust. That’s that’s a that’s the other trust.

Vest.

I’m talking about the. Because. Yes.

Interesting I see.

So the other one is for the puka puka. The puka irrevocable trust. I am not listed as a beneficiary. So on the back where we all signed it, I’m not on there to sign, to dissolve the trust. See? Right there. So. So that tells me Brooke did not read. Did not. You did not read anything.

It just says the trust. Why isn’t my name on there? My name is only on the annuity trust.

So I tell you, we start moving the ball forward in court.

See.

We got a lot of different ways we could go about this.

There’s a lot of openings to attack what they did.

Well, one thing I was also thinking is, you know, you wanted to start off little and, you know, start off with minor things. I don’t know, maybe petition the court first saying this is not a legal contract. It needs to be voided before we attack anybody else. You know, I don’t know, it just seems like there’s so many different avenues of lawsuits.

Oh hold on. Declaratory.

Yet either. Seems like we need to do some kind of a staple or declaratory judgment.

Because these hearings, like if we do a declaratory judgment or an estoppel, we’re not suing anybody. Nobody’s nothing’s being challenged. All it’s doing is saying, hey, this is everybody’s rights in this, in what you think you’re claiming. So before any more further damages are going to happen or before you guys move forward, here’s here are the declared rights. That’s kind of how I understand declaratory judgment. So let’s let’s see here a legal a declaratory judgment is a legal determination by the court that resolves legal uncertainty for the parties involved.

Unlike other forms of judgment.

Which might involve a court order forming actions or awarding damages. A declaratory judgment simply declares the rights, duties and obligations of each party in the dispute. So yeah, we show up to the.

Yeah. To the to the declaratory judgment and say, hey, hey, mister judge this thing right here. The grantor cannot revoke or terminate the trust. And she did.

She did. Yes.

So it’s I like just having simple questions because it just seems like lawyers and judges don’t like to do any work. They don’t like to think they like the parties to do all the work. And then you show up and then convince them why. You’re right.

Yeah, exactly. That’s that’s what I got out of everything to reading.

And it seems like the more I, you know, I found some of these online forums where you can ask lawyers questions and they pretty much one of these forums is called Legal Advice. But one of the rules says you can’t ask legal questions. So I’m like, that’s just kind of stupid. And then they’re kind of their FAQ section. They explain why they can’t give like legal advice, because something about the ethics of forming, like an attorney client relationship online, you know, something about like the ethics. And, I don’t know, there was just a lot to it. Not really. Yeah. Every everything in law has a lot to it, but nobody likes to do a lot of things.

It’s like law is so complicated, but everybody wants to keep it as simple as possible. They will not answer complex questions. They will only answer a simple question that can be answered with a rubber stamp.

Yeah.

So when we present our case, we need to present it to where they can just boom, rubber stamp it. They don’t want to go, you know, do their thing, put on their thinking cap and then do some actual thinking. All they want to do is okay. Yeah, this this person’s argument weighs more than this person’s argument judgment.

Yeah.

So that’s why I was kind of wondering, you know, maybe should we start out petitioning the courts that that.

A thing that we all signed by Brooke should be voided. Start there. Start something more simpler before we hammer everything else. What do you think?

Uh huh.

Because I know, you know, you’re talking about kind of like working your way up the ladder, you know, start with small claims and then this and.

Yeah.

Before we go after damages, I want to just make sure absolute certain that. Yeah, it just goes part with, you know, the disgusting amount of due process. You know, it’s like, you know, just little bites, little bite, little bite, little bite. If you want to keep your fingers, you know, your claws dug in and your, you know, your heels dug into the floor, we can slowly push until we ask for damages and go to the criminal route. Yeah, it’s like I don’t want to jump straight to theft, extortion. But like we were talking about yesterday, it’s, you know, this reasonable doubt. You know, criminal law has a higher standard. So. But the more I think about what they did, I have, I cannot I’m having a hard time finding any reasonable doubt that they didn’t commit theft, extortion.

So that’s like yeah, that’s definitely like the the furthest one away. So it’s like I want to give him a bazillion chances for due process before criminal law takes over. I mean, we’re talking about this yesterday. You know, it’s like once criminal law takes over, there’s nothing we can do to stop that process like that. Oh, because the prosecutor will take over and he will do whatever he wants to, and it’s out of our hands.

Oh.

That’s interesting.

So before we prove all these facts that prove the criminal nature of it, let’s, let’s I want you guys to really make sure that you didn’t steal and extort us. If you guys want to spend the rest of your lives with our million dollars, you know, I’m going to give you a lot of time. To to prove to me that that you guys didn’t do something criminal.

Yeah.

If the criminal lawyer takes over, it doesn’t cost you anything. Nope.

Oh, really? Oh.

That’s cool. Peripheral.

Yep, the state takes over. It’s the state versus Janette. Margie and Sharmell. It’s not. There’s no Denise. Joe. Lucinda. There is nothing we can do or say to stop the prosecutor.

Oh, that’s pretty cool.

And it’s free. Paid for by the taxpayers.

So.

But you don’t get a stop at.

So that’s that’s the it’s the, uh, you know, do we really want to, you know, how much due process do we want to give other family members before we.

But before we click that gear, before we shift into that gear.

I know you.

Know, they better be open up to start communicating. You know, before, you know, before we even attempt to go that route, you know.

But well, if they could have gotten you criminally involved for something, they’d do it in a heartbeat.

Yeah.

They already threatened you with.

They would.

Yeah. Yeah.

They have.

Embezzlement claim.

Yeah, yeah.

That where I took all the money out of the annuity trust.

Yeah.

Which which. It’s interesting because I did tell my mom about it. I have I have the email. Mom, here’s what I did. I’m just protecting it, you know, which is the funny thing is, because I know that’s the only reason. That’s the only way my mom knew that I was that. That I took the money out is because I told her. And I told her why I’m not embezzling it. If I was embezzling it, I went to told you I would have spent it.

Give me this. Give me.

This graphic. Where are you at? Oh, here we go.

Anyways, this one graphic. Can you see that? Here we go.

So yeah.

Pretty much for it to be a crime. You got to have a guilty act and then a guilty mind. You can’t just have a guilty act without having the guilty mind. So, you know, you’re embezzlement claim. You know that one’s easy. Too easy to slap down. There’s so much reasonable doubt. You know why? Why, Denise, did you embezzle this money? Well, they said Jeanette was a predator, and I was protecting the trust from a predator. And then we had a we had a sick granter with a, you know, an old incapacitated granter that’s potentially mentally ill and, you know, can be easily influenced.

Yeah.

Jeanette.

Well.

And say I actually have. I actually found an Idaho code that gets me off the hook as well. So what’s.

That code?

Um, I think I have it saved on my computer. Let me look.

I saved one.

Say this guilty.

Mind thing is interesting. The act was intentional, knowing it could also be negligent, reckless, or willfully blind.

I can’t do that allows me out.

Oh, you.

Mean.

Oh, I.

Don’t I don’t know how to share a screen. I was just I have it say I have it saved, I think, but. Yeah.