Competition for good jobs, housing, and school is stronger than ever. It is time to invest in yourself and seal or expunge criminal records that might appear on a background check for an employer or landlord.
Expungement or record sealing is the process of requesting that the courts and/or law enforcement agencies modify, seal, or destroy criminal records. The definition, benefits and requirements of expungement or record sealing varies by state. In many instances when a record is expunged or sealed, it cannot be viewed by the public and the applicant does not have to disclose any past criminal activity when an employer or landlord asks for it. Most states offer this relief because it is good public policy to allow deserving people to fully contribute in society.
backgroundchecks.com initiated the independent MyClearStart program as an easy-to-use tool and guide for consumers through the legal process of criminal record expungement and sealing, starting with a FREE eligibility test.
Take the eligibility test now!
As part of the MyClearStart program that we developed for our the background screening industry, backgroundchecks.com and other background screening firms arrange for a FREE and confidential online case evaluation that was designed in partnership with a team of experienced attorneys to quickly and confidentially determine if you are eligible to have your criminal record cleared.
In what states can I have my record expunged?
What costs are involved in criminal record expungement?
What offenses can be cleared with MyClearStart's expungement service?
My case is deferred, dismissed or discharged. Why is it still available to the public?
Why does my record still show up on a background check report even after the judge ordered it expunged or sealed?
Getting your record expunged is actually only half the battle!
Since many courts and agencies do not proactively inform the public of expungements, a person may obtain a court order expunging or sealing a record but that order may never be received by the criminal record database companies, who are a source of criminal record information to many of the background screening companies in the US..
After working for a year behind the scenes with various industry leading criminal record database companies, backgroundchecks.com initiated the Expungement Clearinghouse program. The Expungement Clearinghouse is designed as the central mechanism for sharing validated expungement orders by collecting the information from individuals, their attorneys, courts and other sources. Once expungements are validated, backgroundchecks.com and the other members of the Expungement Clearinghouse will receive expedited notification to remove these expunged records from their private criminal records databases. This service provides a faster and more coordinated approach to removing the records that are no longer publicly available.
To offer consumers a single point of contact to submit their requests, the Expungement Clearing House has formed an exclusive partnership with The Foundation for Continuing Justice. The Foundation offers a free service to those who have had their criminal record sealed, expunged or otherwise made non-public by the court to have this information removed from private companies who provide the information for private background checks. Visit the Continuing Justice website to download their application form to start the removal process.


Our mission at CrossFit Garden City is to build a Healthy, Happy, Strong Community through Fitness. Come experience our world-class facility, top-notch programs, professional coaching and awesome, supportive community!
Joining CrossFit Garden City has been the smartest thing I have done since moving to the area last year. Not only do the coaches provide first class training in a first class facility, every individual is treated as family from day one. It is this personalized attention combined with a varied and challenging program that makes CrossFit Garden City unique. I live a healthier and fitter lifestyle now than I have ever done before and I am fortunate to be able to count the coaches and many of the members as my friends. I can't recommend CFGC highly enough - and I look forward to meeting you at a future class!
I started CrossFit about five years ago. I was anxious about moving to CFGC from another box for various reasons. Will I embarrass myself? Who can I ask my million questions to? How will I know the right weight to use? I was terrified! My husband, who was already a member at CFGC said, "Oh stop, everyone is really friendly and the coaches are great." A year later I can honestly say he was right! I felt comfortable from the moment I walked in to the 6pm class and Coach Mario introduced himself. To my surprise he put me right in front of the class to watch my form and technique. He discreetly gave me pointers the whole way through. Smiling faces welcomed me and fist bumps for a good job were passed around to all. I have made so many new friends and workout partners. EVERY coach is knowledgable and motivating. A year later and of course a year older I am in the best shape of my life thanks to the coaches and members at CFGC. In the past I worked out to be skinnier, but now I workout to be stronger. I joke to all of my friends that I have peaked at age 38 thanks to CrossFit, but mainly thanks to the CrossFit Garden City community.
I have been a member at CrossFit Garden City for five years now. Coming from a more traditional gym setting I wasn't sure what to expect. I told myself I would try CrossFit for a few months and then decide if it was worth the money. Three weeks into the Foundations program at CrossFit Garden City and my mind was already made up; I had found a place that made training new and exciting again. The coaching staff is phenomenal from top to bottom and WILL help you reach your goals. The diverse community is very tight knit and is always looking to welcome new members. You will undoubtedly find yourself making many many new friends. There is truly something for everyone at CrossFit Garden City regardless of your current fitness level. Lastly, the facility is incredible! Tons of space and amenities for members to enjoy at their convenience. I highly suggest checking this place out. You won't be disappointed!
It goes without saying all the amazing things CFGC has done for me. I lost 42 lbs in my first year of doing CrossFit, and have never worked harder or had more fun in the gym before. Follow the program! You'll reach your goals and then some.
Six years ago I stepped in the door at CFGC and have been hooked ever since. Being a woman, body image is something I've always kinda struggled with, coupled with being overweight. This gym has given me such a gift; I've discovered this inner athleticism that I never knew was inside of me, and as a result, I now love and appreciate my body for how strong it is, and what it can do. My first workout was basic, but it rocked my world. Back then I never thought I would be doing pull-ups and Olympic weightlifting, but here I am today, doing what I once considered impossible. I have become faster and stronger. I am in the best physical and mental shape I have ever been in. I went from obese to athlete, and for the first time in my 25 years, I have finally stuck with a workout regimen. I now live a lifestyle which prioritizes my health. Training at CFGC has encouraged me to be disciplined about the quality of my food I eat, my sleep, and even having healthy relationships. I promise you that the strength you acquire in the gym will spill over into every aspect of your outside life. I'm bolder, mentally tougher, I focus on things I can control, and strive to let go of the things I can't. My entire quality of life and my happiness has improved so much since becoming a part of this amazing community.
CFGC: What's A Workout Like?


text:
South African rugby news, fixtures, results, video, interviews, and more. Covering the Springboks, Bulls, Stormers/Western Province, Sharks, Cheetahs, Kings and Lions, as well as schools and club rugby.
Fixtures and Logs
Nick Mallett
Dylan Jack
Simnikiwe Xabanisa
Mariette Adams
Omar Mouneimne
James Dalton
Stefan Terblanche
Jean de Villiers
Rugby Challenge
U20 Championship
World Rugby Sevens Series
You are here: Home ∼ Varsity Cup: No play, no winners
Varsity Cup: No play, no winners
Maties captain BJ Dixon steals a lineout
Should there be no sports allowed for the remainder of the 2020 calendar year, the Varsity Cup board has agreed the season will be declared incomplete.
Following a meeting of the board on Wednesday, tournament organisers reiterated their commitment to work with national government and within the guidelines of the relevant health authorities to ensure the safety of players, staff and spectators.
In a statement, the board said it took note of the possibility that sport may not be able to take place within the university space in the remaining calendar and academic year of 2020.
Should that be the case, the following decisions were taken:
The 2020 Varsity Cup, Varsity Shield and Varsity Young Guns tournaments will be declared incomplete. There will be no overall winner awarded in any of the competitions and the trophies will remain with the 2019 winners.
As Madibaz had already achieved an unassailable log points tally on the combined Varsity Shield log of 2019 and 2020, they will be promoted to the Varsity Cup, in line with the current Varsity Cup by-laws which states that 'The team that ends top of the Varsity Shield Log in 2020, based on the combined log of 2019/2020, will be automatically promoted to the Varsity Cup for the 2021 season' (by-law 6.1.1).
There will be no team relegated from the Varsity Cup competition and no promotion/relegation match between the Varsity Cup and Varsity Shield competitions. There will also be no promotion/relegation match between the bottom Varsity Shield team and the USSA contender. Therefore, there will be 10 teams in the Varsity Cup for 2021.
The university, other than the member universities currently participating in the Varsity Cup and Varsity Shield, who is ranked highest at USSA, at the sole discretion of the USSA executive committee, will be automatically promoted to the Varsity Shield for the 2021 season. This will bring the total number of teams in the Varsity Shield to seven teams.
The new member university must meet all Varsity Cup MOI stipulations.
Following the 2021 season, the bottom two teams in the Varsity Cup will be automatically relegated to the Varsity Shield and the bottom team in the Varsity Shield will be automatically relegated. This will bring both competitions to eight teams each for the 2022 season and onwards.
The Varsity Cup board will hold a special general meeting ahead of the next board meeting to vote in the necessary by-law amendments to allow for the changes that have been agreed to by the board.
Posted in Top headlines, Tournaments, Varsity Cup
Post by SA Rugby magazine
Watch: White on Bulls' heavy defeat
Mallett on SuperSport
Cardinelli column
Lewis column
Xabanisa column
Borchardt column
').insertAfter('.entry-content'); jQuery('
').insertAfter('.entry-content p:nth-child(4)');	jQuery(".btmbar").css( "visibility", "visible" );	jQuery('#slidein').html('
'); } var slideIn2 = jQuery('#slidein2'); setTimeout(function(){ jQuery.each(slideIn.find('div2'), function(index, div){ var theDiv = jQuery(div); if(div.id.indexOf('google_ads_iframe') != -1){ console.log(theDiv); var height = theDiv.css('height'); theDiv.css('height','auto'); if(theDiv.height() != 0){ theDiv.css('height', height); slideIn.css('visibility','visible'); } } }); }, 1000); }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Файф-Лейк () — селище () в США, в окрузі Гранд-Траверс штату Мічиган. Населення — 443 особи (2010).

Географія
Файф-Лейк розташований за координатами  (44.575271, -85.348810).  За даними Бюро перепису населення США в 2010 році селище мало площу 3,12 км², з яких 1,94 км² — суходіл та 1,17 км² — водойми.

Клімат

Демографія

Згідно з переписом 2010 року, у селищі мешкали 443 особи в 189 домогосподарствах у складі 110 родин. Густота населення становила 142 особи/км².  Було 265 помешкань (85/км²).

Расовий склад населення:

До двох чи більше рас належало 2,0 %. Частка іспаномовних становила 1,8 % від усіх жителів.

За віковим діапазоном населення розподілялося таким чином: 22,8 % — особи молодші 18 років, 61,6 % — особи у віці 18—64 років, 15,6 % — особи у віці 65 років та старші. Медіана віку мешканця становила 41,1 року. На 100 осіб жіночої статі у селищі припадало 96,0 чоловіків;  на 100 жінок у віці від 18 років та старших — 97,7 чоловіків також старших 18 років.

Середній дохід на одне домашнє господарство  становив  доларів США (медіана — ), а середній дохід на одну сім'ю —  доларів (медіана — ). Медіана доходів становила  доларів для чоловіків та  доларів для жінок. За межею бідності перебувало 15,3 % осіб, у тому числі 7,1 % дітей у віці до 18 років та 5,1 % осіб у віці 65 років та старших.

Цивільне працевлаштоване населення становило 124 особи. Основні галузі зайнятості: освіта, охорона здоров'я та соціальна допомога — 24,2 %, науковці, спеціалісти, менеджери — 16,1 %, виробництво — 9,7 %, будівництво — 9,7 %.

Примітки

Джерела

Селища Мічигану
Населені пункти округу Гранд-Траверс (округ)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The architect Hasse Hägerström graduated from the Helsinki University of Technology in 1970. Today, he is a partner in the architectural firm A-konsult in Helsinki.
During his time as a student, Hägerström was asked to draw the Finlandia-poster for the Finland Steamship Company. Hägerström remembers that the company predicted that the high-speed ferry, Finlandia, was to mark a new era within ferry traffic. Thus the ferry was portrayed as a booster rocket.


Member papers of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) this weekare providing links on their websites that direct their readers to the manyplaces on the internet where the home address of Maricopa County Sheriff JoeArpaio is listed.
AAN papers are doing so to show solidarity with the Phoenix New Times, whichwas threatened with felony prosecution for publishing Sheriff Arpaio'saddress on its website in 2004. After an adjoining jurisdiction declined topress charges, Arpaio's political ally, Maricopa County Attorney AndrewThomas, convened a grand jury to "investigate" charges the paper broke thelaw when it published Sheriff Arpaio's address.
Last week, Phoenix New Times' founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin werearrested and jailed after the paper published a story about the grand juryand subpoenas they had received that demanded detailed internet records ofany person who had visited the newspaper's website since 2004, as well asall notes and records from any reporter who had written about the sheriff inthe preceding three years.
After Larkin and Lacey were arrested an outpouring of shock and angeraccompanied widespread media coverage of the case. The response created agroundswell of support for New Times. The charges were dropped less than 24hours later after Thomas admitted that his office had made "seriousmissteps" in the case.
"The actions of Mr. Thomas and Sheriff Arpaio in this case are beyondoutrageous," said AAN executive director Richard Karpel. "They abused theiroffices by engaging in Gestapo-like tactics designed to silence a newspaperthat has been highly critical of them in the past."
Added AAN First Amendment Chair Tim Redmond, executive editor of the SanFrancisco Bay Guardian: "Our association and its members won't tolerate thissort of attack on the right of a member paper to publish information that isand ought to be public record."
"This was a victory for the First Amendment, the constitution and for ourreaders right to read our newspaper without the government spying uponthem," said Larkin and Lacey in a joint statement. "As the federal pressshield legislation moves from the House to the Senate, we hope people willremember what happened to reporters, editors and readers in Phoenix."
Phoenix New Times has published dozens of stories critical of both Thomasand Arpaio. In fact, the paper maintains an archive on its website of itscoverage of Arpaio since he was elected sheriff in 1992.
New Times published Arpaio's home address in a story arguing that he abuseda state law that allows law enforcement officials to keep their addressesfrom being made public. New Times said Arpaio used the law to hide nearly $1million in cash real-estate transactions.
Arpaio continues to resist New Times' request for information relating tohis real estate holdings.


In Interest of S.A.K., 2003 UT App 87; 67 P.3d 1037.
P22 This court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order entered after a disposition hearing, including issues arising from the adjudication hearing. Due to the interrelation of the adjudication and disposition hearings, we determine the appeal may be properly and timely filed after the disposition hearing. Therefore, Mother's appeal is timely.
P23 Additionally, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting S.A.K.'s video testimony or in finding it reliable and admissible under Utah Rule of Juvenile Procedure 37A. Therefore, we affirm.
In the Interest of B.M.S., 2003 UT App 51, 65 P.3d 639,467 Utah Adv. Rep. 15.
P21 We conclude that the juvenile court did not commit reversible error in denying B.J.B.'s motions. Section 78-3a-404 does not apply to voluntary petitions to terminate parental rights. In any event, the juvenile court did not commit clear error in determining that termination was not in the best interests of the child. Accordingly, we affirm.
In the Interest of C.K. & J.K., 2000 UT App 11, 996 P.2d 1059, 387 Utah Adv. Rep. 51.
In sum, we conclude adequate findings supported the trial court's decision to maintain Mother's parental rights. The State did not satisfy its burden to present clear and convincing evidence as to why terminating those rights was in the best interests of C.K. and J.K. Practical considerations also supported the trial court's ruling. The trial court did not misapply the parental presumption, but correctly noted that the absence of optimal conditions does not, alone, overcome a parent's constitutional right to continued involvement with his or her children. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the State's petition to terminate Mother's parental rights.
In the Interest of C.Y., 765 P.2d 251; 96 Utah Adv. Rep. 9, 97 Utah Adv. Rep. 27.
The juvenile court's finding that Yates is an unfit parent is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the order of the juvenile court permanently terminating his parental rights is affirmed.
In the Interest of E.R., 2001 UT App 66, 21 P.3d 680.
P18 In sum, the juvenile court properly concluded at the permanency hearing that the two oldest children should be placed in permanent foster care and the two youngest children be placed for adoption. In addition, the court acted within its discretion when it conducted the permanency hearing and the termination proceeding simultaneously. We vacate the permanency order and remand that matter to the trial court for additional findings articulating the court's reasons for simultaneously denying the petition to terminate and setting adoption as the permanency goal, and for reentry of a permanency order in accordance with those findings. Lastly, Parents did not preserve their right to appeal the court's order granting the State permission to administer psychiatric medications to the children; that order was not a part of the permanency order, and thus we lack jurisdiction over the issue. Affirmed in part and remanded in part.
In the Interest of L.P., 1999 UT App 157, 981 P.2d 848, 369 Utah Adv. Rep. 26.
P11 Insofar as the juvenile court deviated from the definition in section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) in determining whether L.P. is an abused child, it committed an error of law. Accordingly, we remand for entry of such additional findings as the juvenile court deems appropriate and for application of the definition in section 78-3a-103(a)(i) to those findings.
In the Interest of T.M., 2003 UT App 191; 73 P.3d 959, 475 Utah Adv. Rep. 12.
Parents entitled to due process in state-initiated TPR case; fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in care, custody and management of children protected by 14th amendment which does not "evaporate simply because they have not been model parents..."
"the best interests of the child standard, standing alone, is an insufficient standard for determining when the State may intervene in the decision making of competent parents.
The Court also noted a "presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children."
Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977).
In re Yohan K., 2013 IL App (1st) 123472 (2013).
June 2013 Parents "thrust into nightmare by well intentioned, but misguided doctors and child welfare specialists" says Illinois appeals court.
Where mother had resolved the reasons that led to the child's removal by completing her incarceration term and ceasing drug use and production, termination was inappropriate. Mother could parent safely in the near future with the assistance of a family member. Statute did not require a parent to assume all responsibilities of parenting alone.
Are you aware of cases that we should include in our case law section? Let us know!


text:
spotlight on abuse: the past on trial
By murunbuch
PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange)
Britain 'intolerant' on child sex (04.09.77)
The Observer, 4th September 1977
Richmond Avenue Toilets: Concerns for Children (11.06.82)
Police Arrest Righton (
Islington's pro-paedophile activists' network: Roger Moody and Sandy Marks
I'm no threat to kids any more (18.2.2000)
Headmaster jailed for beating pupils (27.11.86)
Azimuth Trust
Child Sex Tourism
Cotsbrook Hall
CRIES / UNICEF (Belgium)
Crookham Court
Cyril Smith
Daniel Handley
Derek Slade (St George's School)
Devon & Cornwall
Dr Liz Davies
Dunblane (Scotland)
Elm Guest House
Eric Cross & Herman Spielman
Franklin Scandal (USA)
Geoffrey Dickens
Gisburne House
Graham Ovenden
Greville Janner
Greystone Heath
Haut de la Garenne (Jersey)
Hill End (St Albans)
Illegal Adoption
International Paedophile Networks
Isle of Lewis (Scotland)
Islington: Evening Standard Special Investigation (1992)
Kincora / Northern Ireland
Kneesworth House
Langton House (Dorset)
Leicestershire (Frank Beck)
Lothian (Scotland)
Marc Dutroux (Belgium)
Millbrook Grange (Warwickshire)
Missing Children / Murders
National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People
National Independent Inquiry Into Organised Child Abuse
New Barns School
NHS / Department of Health
Northampton Park
Operation Arundel
Operation Care (Merseyside & Cheshire)
Operation Cathedral
Operation Circus
Operation Fernbridge
Operation Hedgerow
Operation Orchid / Stranger, and related
Operation Ore
Paedophile Action for Liberation
Peter McKelvie
Peter Righton
Playland (Piccadilly Circus)
Public Schools & Prep Schools
Quarriers (Scotland)
Ralph Underwager
Robert Black
Roger Gleaves ('Bishop of Medway')
Sir Peter Hayman
TV Documentaries, Films
Voice of the Child in Care
Troyhand said: March 11, 20145:41 am
On September 28, 1976 fugitive paedophile Francis D. Sheldon appointed Dutch MP an PIE paedophile promoter Edward Brongersma as trustee for his estate. Francis D. Sheldon (AKA Frank Torey) owned the infamous North Fox Island near Ann Arbor, Michigan where countless children were confirmed to have been sexually abused.
http://openjurist.org/730/f2d/421/national-bank-of-detroit-v-d-shelden-trust-company-of-virgin-islands-ltd-j
NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, Plaintiff,
Francis D. SHELDEN, et al., Defendants.
The TRUST COMPANY OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS, LTD., (No. 82-1905)
and Peter J. Cipollini, (No. 82-1737), Defendants-Appellants,
L. Bennett YOUNG and Detroit Bank and Trust Company, Second
Successor Co- Trustees, Intervening Defendants-Appellees.
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 1, 1983.
Decided March 8, 1984.
Peter J. Cipollini, Charles E. Wilson, Jr. (argued), Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Michael Golob (argued), Ivan E. Barris, Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
Before JONES and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
This litigation began with the filing of a complaint in the nature of an interpleader by the National Bank of Detroit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1335.
Francis D. Shelden, a native of Michigan, established a revocable inter vivos trust on September 18, 1976, naming as trustee the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. (sometimes referred to herein as the Virgin Islands Trust Company.) The trustee was identified as having been organized in the British Virgin Islands. The principal question presented in this litigation is who are the present trustees of this trust.
The complaint stated that as of May 1, 1978, the National Bank of Detroit held the sum of $218,900.07 on deposit in the corporate account of Windigo Ranch, Inc. and $4,955.25 on deposit in the corporate account of FDS Land Company; these funds were claimed by defendant the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. as trustee of the Shelden trust; and that the funds also were claimed by defendant Alger Shelden, Jr. (brother of Francis D. Shelden) and L. Bennett Young as officers of the two corporations.
The trust instrument1 was filed as an exhibit to the complaint, together with a list of shares of marketable securities in twenty-four corporations constituting the corpus of the trust. The securities were valued by Shelden at approximately two million dollars. In his de bene esse deposition, Shelden testified that he delivered these securities to Adam Starchild, founder and original owner of the Virgin Islands Trust Company.2 Included in the corpus of the trust were all the issued and outstanding stock of defendants FDS Land Company, a Michigan Corporation, and Windigo Ranch, Inc., a Colorado Corporation. All the corporate stock of both these corporations were owned by Shelden at the time of the establishment of the trust.
The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands averred that as Trustee it had removed Alger Shelden, Jr. and Young as officers of both corporations and had elected defendant Samuel Glasser of Michigan as president and treasurer and defendant Ronald J. Zadora as secretary of the two corporations. Glasser claimed to be the sole designated beneficiary of both bank accounts.
Alger Shelden, Jr. and L. Bennett Young averred that The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. had been replaced as trustee of the Shelden trust before its purported action attempting to remove them as corporate officers.
Francis D. Shelden was named as party defendant to the interpleader action. He filed no pleading, but was not dismissed as a party defendant. His de bene esse deposition is a part of the discovery evidence. The complaint also averred on information and belief that Francis D. Shelden currently was being sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under a fugitive warrant and that his whereabouts were unknown to the plaintiff bank.
Also named as a defendant to the interpleader action was Edward Brongersma of the Netherlands, who was found by the district court to have been appointed first successor trustee of the trust, replacing The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. as trustee. His affidavit was filed in the discovery proceedings and is a part of the record.
L. Bennett Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company were permitted by the district court to intervene as defendants in the interpleader action in their capacities as second successor co-trustees of the Shelden trust.
In its interpleader complaint, National Bank of Detroit tendered all funds in the two bank accounts for deposit with the clerk of the district court and prayed that the defendants be required to answer and settle their respective claims to the bank accounts on deposit by the two corporations. The district court authorized the clerk to receive these funds.
An answer to the complaint was filed by L. Bennett Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company, asserting that they are the second successor trustees of the trust; and that as successor trustees they are entitled to both bank accounts. The answer of The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. claimed that it is the trustee of the trust and is entitled to the funds in both bank accounts. Appellant Peter J. Cipollini filed an answer asserting that he is the duly elected president and treasurer of both Windigo Ranch, Inc. and FDS Land Company and the duly authorized signatory of both corporations and prayed that all the funds of the two corporations be transferred to him.
After discovery proceedings, including the deposition of Francis D. Shelden de bene esse, a motion for summary judgment was filed on May 17, 1982 by L. Bennett Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company in their asserted capacities as second successor trustees of the trust. The motion for summary judgment was opposed vigorously by the Virgin Islands Trust Company.
District Judge Charles W. Joiner on August 20, 1982 granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that L. Bennett Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company are lawful and proper second successor trustees of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust; that the second successor trustees are the rightful owners of all the outstanding shares of stock of FDS Land Company and Windigo Ranch, Inc.; and that the two second successor trustees are entitled to the funds on deposit with the Clerk of the Court on behalf of Windigo Ranch, Inc. and FDS Land Company. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Joiner are made Appendix No. 2 to this opinion. On August 23, 1982, Judge Joiner entered a judgment that the Clerk of the Court pay to L. Bennett Young and Detroit Bank and Trust Company on behalf of FDS Land Company and Windigo Ranch, Inc., the funds on deposit, together with all accrued interest.
On August 24, 1982, Judge Joiner received a mailgram from Adam Starchild, Box 1608 Tarpon Springs, Florida, attacking L. Bennett Young and charging that "he will resort to any method to illegally obtain the funds to which he knows he has no entitlement, and no money should be handed over to him." Judge Joiner ordered the parties to respond to this mailgram. After considering the responses and the deposition of L. Bennett Young, taken on August 19, 1982, in other litigation3 between the parties in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico, Judge Joiner on October 4, 1982 denied the motion for rehearing filed by the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands.
The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. and Peter J. Cipollini appeal. We affirm.
A party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. In Glenway Industries, Inc. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., 686 F.2d 415, 417 (1982), this court wrote:
The court of appeals is mandated to apply the same test in passing upon an award of summary judgment as that utilized by the trial court to grant the motion. Howard v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc., 649 F.2d 620 (8th Cir.1981). Accordingly the conclusions of the trial court are not protected by the "clearly erroneous" rule, Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 618 F.2d 1373 (10th Cir.1980), but rather the appellate tribunal, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing judgment, must determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists. Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 986, 100 S.Ct. 495, 62 L.Ed.2d 415 (1979). See also Security National Bank v. Belleville Livestock Commission Co., 619 F.2d 840 (6th Cir.1980).
Accord: New Jersey Life Insurance Co. v. Getz, 622 F.2d 198, 200 (6th Cir.1980).
In applying this standard, we look to the record to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact.
We reemphasize that the controlling issue presented by the interpleader complaint is who are the trustees of the trust established by Francis D. Shelden. The district court found: (1) that the original trustee named by the settlor was the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd.; (2) that the original trustee was removed legally and in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument and on April 13, 1978 Edward Brongersma of the Netherlands was named as first successor trustee; (3) that thereafter, the first successor trustee was removed legally and in accordance with the trust instrument; (4) that L. Bennett Young of Michigan and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company were named second successor co-trustees; (5) that the settlor, in his de bene esse deposition, reaffirmed the fact of each of the foregoing steps; and (6) that L. Bennett Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company are the lawful and proper second successor co-trustees.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellants, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the identity of the present trustees of the trust. The trust instrument (See Appendix No. 1 hereto) gave both the settlor and the protector of the trust express authority to remove trustees and appoint successor trustees. Each of the changes in trustees was made in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument; they were verified by documentary evidence, and ratified by Francis D. Shelden in his de bene esse deposition.
In the course of the discovery proceeding, Appellees filed a motion for leave to take the deposition of Francis D. Shelden de bene esse pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32. Over the objection of Appellants, on November 24, 1981 Judge Joiner ordered that the deposition be taken de bene esse in the Netherlands at a date and time to be arranged between counsel for the parties. Full opportunity to be present for the deposition was accorded by the district court to counsel for Appellants, but they did not participate.4
The de bene esse deposition was taken on March 31, 1982, at the time and place scheduled, but counsel for Appellants did not make an appearance. Counsel for Appellees waited one hour for opposing counsel to appear, then proceeded with the deposition at 10 a.m. Counsel for Appellants in a letter to counsel for Appellees offered the explanation that Starchild had been out of jail only two weeks and his Parole Board refused to permit him to travel. The record contains no explanation as to why counsel for Appellants could not have interviewed Starchild in jail or immediately after his release from incarceration.
On June 18, 1982 counsel for Appellants filed a motion to suppress the Shelden deposition because he had not signed it. Judge Joiner ordered that the deposition be submitted to Francis D. Shelden for reading and signing in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. In all other respects Appellants' motion to suppress the deposition, or for an evidentiary hearing, was denied by the district court.
On July 9, 1982 Francis D. Shelden signed and swore to the deposition, with the following attestation:IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal at Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, this 15th day of April, 1982 A.D.
/s/ ALTON D. COBB, JR.
RPR, CSR-2520
Notary Public, Wayne County,
My Commission Expires:
I, Francis D. Shelden, who, being first duly sworn, does depose and say that on this 9 day of July, 1982, he has read the foregoing deposition transcript in its entirety and that the transcript is a full, complete and accurate record of his testimony during said deposition.
/s/ FRANCIS D. SHELDEN
The undersigned,
Meester Leo Johannes Willem Marie Schroeder, notaris with office in Amsterdam,
declares that the signature on this page is the signature of Meester Francis D. Shelden, the Deponent herein, who has solemnly affirmed before me, a notaris, that his statement is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Amsterdam, 9–7–, 1982.
/s/ LEO JOHANNES WILLEM MARIE SCHROEDER
[SEAL]
Francis D. Shelden testified that he was born in Detroit, Michigan on September 5, 1928, a son of Alger Shelden; that he had only one sibling, a brother, Alger Shelden, Jr.; that he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale University; that he served in the United States Air Force during the Korean War; that he owns and flies his own plane; that he received a Master of Science degree in geology from Wayne State University; that he completed his course work for a Ph.D. degree at the University of Michigan, but had not completed his doctoral thesis; that he had been active in exploration for oil in Michigan and in real estate projects with his father and brother, earning a substantial income; and that he inherited considerable wealth from his father and grandfathers, Henry D. Shelden and Russell A. Alger.
Shelden testified that in 1976 he owned approximately two million dollars in marketable securities which he had inherited; and that he also owned other assets, including a condominium in Colorado and undeveloped land in and around Charlevoix, Michigan. He also owned all the stock in FDS Land Company and Windigo Ranch, Inc., which were being managed by L. Bennett Young.
The events leading to the involvement of Shelden with Adam Starchild and the creation of the revocable inter vivos trust were described by Shelden as follows:
In July 1976 Shelden received a telephone call from Deyer Grossman who said that a mutual acquaintance by the name of Gerald Richards was having severe "difficulties" and that Richards might involve Shelden in these "difficulties"; and that Shelden might become the subject of blackmail by Richards. Shelden testified that Grossman "suggested that it might be wise for me to leave the country for awhile … to await events." Shelden said that his immediate concern was protecting his assets, especially his negotiable stocks. He asked Grossman for advice. Grossman suggested that Shelden contact Adam Starchild, an investment counseler specializing in offshore investments. Shelden had never met Starchild but telephoned him in New Jersey and asked for his advice. Starchild recommended that Shelden bring his stock certificates to New Jersey and discuss the matter with him further.
Shelden removed the securities from his bank safety deposit box and took them with him to New Jersey. Starchild convinced him of his alleged expertise in establishing tax shelters. He recommended that Shelden form an offshore trust with his assets. The stock certificates thereupon were lodged in a vault in the Mid-Atlantic Bank of New Jersey. A loan was obtained, secured by some of the shares of stock, and two bank accounts of between $30,000 and $40,000 were opened, one in the name of Shelden and the other in the name of Starchild. Shelden explained the purpose of Starchild's account was "so he would have some money for administering my affairs." Starchild indicated that he was going to form a company specifically for the purpose of administering the trust to be created by Shelden. Shelden then left his securities with Starchild and flew to Europe via Canada and the Bahamas. While in Canada he notified his family by telephone that there may have been a little "problem" and he would be away for a while.
A meeting took place at a house owned by Shelden in Antigua, British West Indies, attended by Shelden, his brother, Alger, Jr., L. Bennett Young and Adam Starchild. There was a general discussion as to how Shelden's assets should be managed. Starchild stated that a trust was essential and recommended an irrevocable trust. Young expressed doubt that a trust was necessary but took the position that in all events an irrevocable trust would be unwise. At the insistence of Young, a revocable trust was decided upon. The trust instrument was signed September 28, 1976 by Francis D. Shelden, Settlor, and The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. by Adam Starchild. The trust instrument was witnessed by Alger Shelden, Jr. and L. Bennett Young. Francis D. Shelden retained the express right to modify or terminate the trust altogether, including the power to remove the trustee and appoint a successor trustee or trustees. On October 9, 1976 Shelden, as Settlor, appointed L. Bennett Young as protector with the concurrent power to remove trustees and appoint successor trustees. Starchild, as director of The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd., acknowledged the appointment of Young as protector of the trust. Following the execution of the trust instrument, Shelden returned to Europe.
In December 1976 Starchild reported to Shelden by telephone that the State of Michigan had issued criminal warrants for the arrest of Shelden. Starchild indicated to Shelden that he was coming under scrutiny by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
In 1977 Shelden requested an accounting from Starchild as to the status of his assets for income tax purposes. Although Starchild had promised Shelden quarterly financial statements, no certified accountings were received throughout 1977. Finally, in 1978, after repeated requests, Starchild sent to Shelden a list of his stock dividends for 1977. Shelden testified that the list was erroneous–that he checked Starchild's figures with his own calculations based on his known securities and a copy of Standard & Poors and found Starchild's figures to be grossly in error. He demanded an accounting. He testified that "I became increasingly concerned. After the beginning of the year I wanted the books closed and I needed a final accounting for tax purposes." He testified that he "kept pestering" Starchild for an accounting of dividends received in 1977; that Starchild kept telling him " 'Oh, the accountants are working on it' " and "that sort of thing. 'They will have the final figures next Thursday.' " Shelden testified that Starchild "went on for several months and I became increasingly concerned as April 15 drew nearer" …. "I never received anything in written form … [that] [h]e talked vaguely about having other accounts." Finally, after consulting with a Dutch tax lawyer, Antoon Kasdorp, Shelden decided that the time had come for him to remove The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands as Trustee and appoint a successor trustee. He advised Starchild of this decision by telephone. On April 13, 1978, Shelden executed a document removing The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands as trustee and naming Edward Brongersma as successor trustee. This document was notarized in Amsterdam and complies in all respects with the provisions of the Trust Instrument.5 5] Brongersma accepted the appointment the same day.6
Shelden testified that Brongersma for many years had been "a Senator, a Dutch equivalent. He was a member of the Upper House of the Dutch Government; was chairman of the Judicial committee; was a lawyer, doctor of law."In his deposition, Antoon Kasdorp stated that he served the papers removing The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands upon Starchild in person April 20, 1978.7
Shelden testified that the removal of The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. as trustee was his own decision and his "free and voluntary act."
Shelden further testified that "continuing discussions went on about the administration of the trust and it seemed as though the trustee should be … in the United States." Accordingly, on October 16, 1979, L. Bennett Young exercised his power as protector of the trust, removed Brongersma as first successor trustee and appointed himself and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company as second successor co-trustees.8
Shelden testified that the appointment of Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company as second successor trustees was done with his approval and consent. He ratified the appointment in writing.9
Brongersma acknowledged his removal as first successor trustee.10 The signature and seal of the L.J.W.M. Schroeder, notary, were duly verified by Robert E. Sorenson, United States Vice Consul.
Brongersma also executed the affidavit quoted in the note.11 The signature and seal of the Notary were duly verified.
As stated in the opening paragraph of this opinion, the issue of fact in this interpleader action is who are the present trustees of the Shelden trust. The evidence summarized above, including both authenticated documents and the testimony of Francis D. Shelden in his deposition de bene esse, demonstrates that the two successor trustees are the duly qualified trustees of the trust. We hold that Judge Joiner did not err in finding that no genuine issues of material fact existed on this question and in granting the motion for summary judgment.
Appellants contend that too many disputed factual questions remain in the case to permit summary judgment. The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. places strong reliance on an unauthenticated document entitled "ADDENDUM TO FRANCIS D. SHELDEN INTER VIVOS TRUST" bearing the date of April 24, 1978. This allegedly was written eleven days after Shelden had removed The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. as trustee and Edward Brongersma had accepted appointment as first successor trustee in full compliance with the trust instrument as detailed above. The "Addendum" is dated four days after Antoon Kasdorp, according to his affidavit, personally served Starchild with the removal papers on April 20, 1978. The "Addendum" purported to "nominate, constitute and appoint the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands" as trustee of the "Trusts, hereinabove created" (emphasis supplied), without bond or "if a bond is required by law it be nominal in amount." The "Addendum" provided that the British Virgin Islands would be the "situs of the trust" and that "This Trust shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the British Virgin Islands." It bears purported signatures (which are virtually illegible) over the typed name of "Francis D. Shelden, Settlor" and Adam Starchild for the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands. It is not witnessed, notarized or otherwise authenticated. The date, April 24, 1978, is typed and not authenticated. It could have been inserted at any time. Judge Joiner correctly concluded that the discovery evidence relied upon by Appellants was not sufficient to create any genuine issue of material fact as to the removal of the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands as trustee on April 13, 1978, as testified by Shelden and established by verified documents in the record.
Appellants further contend that the evidence raises serious questions of fact as to whether the Settlor established the trust for an illegal purpose. This is irrelevant to the resolution of the issues raised by the interpleader complaint. The question of the purpose of the trust is not before the Court in this case. We reemphasize that the only genuine issue of material fact presented by the complaint is who are the present trustees of the trust. Even if it be concluded that the trust was established for an illegal purpose, that would not make the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands the present trustee.
Appellants further contend that, because of the illegality of the trust, the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands is entitled to retain all the assets originally transferred to the trustee. This contention likewise is unsupported by the record and is irrelevant to the resolution of the issues raised by the interpleader complaint.
We note that there is nothing in the language of the trust instrument that raises the slightest suspicion of illegality. Furthermore, with respect to Appellants' contention that the trust was created for an illegal purpose, we note that the idea of creating the trust did not originate with Shelden. It was created upon the recommendation and urging of Starchild, who organized the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands for the purpose of administering it.
In another effort to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, Appellants assert that L. Bennett Young, who in his capacity as protector of the trust, removed Brongersma as first successor trustee and appointed himself and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company as second successor trustees, executed a resignation as protector of the trust in 1977 or 1978. This assertion is based upon a deposition given by Young in the case of Shelden v. Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd., in which the opinion of the district court of Puerto Rico is published in 535 F.Supp. 667 (D. Puerto Rico 1982).12
Appellants' contention that Young resigned as protector of the trust is contradicted by Young's deposition. Young testified that Shelden suggested that he, Young, write letters to newspaper editors, hold a press conference or appear on television to correct untrue news stories then being published about Shelden. Young said that his own judgment was to do nothing about the newspaper articles because to respond to them might cause more articles and more publicity. Therefore, Young declined to engage in a publicity campaign on behalf of his client and tendered his resignation as Shelden's attorney if Shelden desired to accept it. Young testified that Shelden refused to accept his resignation and destroyed Young's letter. That no resignation of Young ever occurred, whether as attorney for Shelden, protector of the trust or second successor trustee of the trust, is made clear by Shelden's deposition as well as the deposition of Young when read in its entirety.
Furthermore, the District Court of Puerto Rico, in the case in which Young's deposition was taken, did not hold that Young had resigned as protector of the trust. In Shelden v. Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd., supra, 535 F.Supp. 667,13 District Judge Cerezo authorized Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company to be added as plaintiffs in that action in their role as successor trustees of the trust.
District Judge Cerezo made the following finding as to the role of L. Bennett Young under the provisions of the Shelden Trust:
When the trust was created, Shelden vested Young with all powers belonging to him, including the power of removal of the trustee and designation of successor trustees, prohibiting him only from revoking or modifying the trust. The Trust Company, acting trustee, acknowledged in writing both receipt of his appointment and of his authority as set forth in the trust and in the appointment of protector. According to the powers and the functions assigned to the protector in the trust instrument, it can reasonably be said that he acts as a representative of the settlor-sole beneficiary and as guardian of his interests in the trust. He acts in a fiduciary capacity for the settlor as sole beneficiary of the trust. The protector is not a party who has been brought to this litigation in a collusive manner to create diversity jurisdiction which otherwise would not exist. His existence and authority was acknowledged by defendants since 1976. He is a person with strong ties to the trust since its creation who was assigned powers and functions and who accepted the duties imposed upon him. His authority emanates from the trust instrument itself. Having acknowledged his authority to act as protector of the trust, defendants cannot now complain when he discharges the duties delegated to him as such. He is a party with real interest in the trust and in the accounting sought.
535 F.Supp. at 671.
Appellants make the further argument that the trust instrument should be construed according to the law of the British Virgin Islands, and not by the law of Michigan. No law of the British Virgin Islands is cited that would change the decision of Judge Joiner as to the identity of the present trustees of the trust.
We conclude that the provisions of the trust instrument for removing trustees and appointing new trustees are too clear and unambiguous to require application of rules of construction, whether under the law of Michigan or the law of the British Virgin Islands.
We hold that Appellants have failed to establish any genuine issue of material fact as to the identity of the trustees now entitled to administer the trust. A factual dispute about immaterial matters does not bar summary judgment.
Appellants have failed to establish any issue of material fact as to the identities of the trustees. "[A]ll that is required [of non-movant] is that sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1592, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968) reh'g. denied 393 U.S. 901, 89 S.Ct. 63, 21 L.Ed.2d 188 (1968); Bouldis v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 711 F.2d 1319 (6th Cir.1983). This Appellants have failed to do. The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate a trial where it would be unnecessary and result in mere delay and expense, Suzuki Motors, supra, 711 F.2d at 1324. If the record evidence is not disputed as to any material fact, the case should be decided as a matter of law rather than submitted to a jury. Id. (emphasis supplied). Here, the purported issues of fact asserted by the Appellants were not material to the disposition of the ultimate issue, namely who were the proper trustees to the Shelden trust, and thus entitled to the monies paid over by the National Bank of Detroit to the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Therefore, we hold that Judge Joiner did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the second successor co-trustees, L. Bennett Young and the Detroit Bank and Trust Company.
ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWING DEATH OF SETTLOR
Upon Settlor's death:
(Section 2.1 makes specific gifts of tangible personal property.)
2.2 Specific Gifts. My Trustee shall pay over forthwith free of the Trust the following sums to the following named institutions and associations:
(A) The sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to YALE UNIVERSITY New Haven, Connecticut.
(B) The sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to CRANBROOK INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
(C) The sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) to THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
(D) The sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) to WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, Detroit, Michigan.
(E) The sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS of Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Publication Fund.
(Sections 2.3 and 2.4 establish education trusts for Joseph William Moore and Barry Del Wood of Charlevoix, Michigan.)
(Section 2.5 provides for the distribution of the residue to the children or grandchildren of Alger Shelden, Jr., brother of Francis D. Shelden, who survive the settlor.)
(ARTICLE III sets forth the powers of the Trustee.)
POWERS RETAINED BY SETTLOR
5.1 Settlor or any other person may at any time add any property to this trust, transferring by Will or otherwise. Settlor reserves the right to amend, modify or revoke this Trust Agreement, in whole or in part and at any time or times, by notice in writing to Trustee, and such amendment, modification or revocation shall be effective immediately upon delivery of such notice to Trustee, except that changes with respect to Trustee's duties, liabilities or compensation shall not be effective without its consent. Upon Settlor's death, this trust shall become irrevocable.
(ARTICLE VI contains standard Spendthrift and Rule Against Perpetuities provisions.)IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written.
/s/ FRANCIS D. SHELDEN, Settlor
THE TRUST COMPANY OF THE
VIRGIN ISLANDS, LTD.
By: /s/ ADAM STARCHILD
/s/ ALGER SHELDEN, JR.
/s/ L. BENNETT YOUNG
Trust Company of the Virgin Islands Ltd. has received from Francis D. Shelden the following securities, as part of the Francis D. Shelden Inter Vivos Trust dated 28th September, 1976.
5929 shares Detroitbank Corporation
1769 shares First National Bankshares of
Florida Inc.
1620 shares J. P. Morgan & Co., Inc.
15800 shares Hiram Walker Goderham &
Worts Ltd.
2230 shares Standard Oil Co. of California
200 shares Minnesota Mining &
2510 shares The Murray Ohio
236 shares Walter Kidde Co., Inc.
2080 shares Federal Mogul Corp.
100 shares Burlington Northern Inc.
800 shares Booth Newspapers Inc.
1000 shares Mobil Oil Corp.
10014 shares The Dow Chemical Corp.
3520 shares Ex-Cell-O Corp.
2654 shares Marathon Oil Corp.
1830 shares National Distillers and
Chemical Corp.
1118 shares Texaco Inc.
200 shares Sears, Roebuck & Co.
1636 shares Exxon Inc.
450 shares Borden Inc.
40000 shares North Fox Island Company
1000 shares Windigo Ranch, Inc.
1000 shares FDS Land Company
Dated this 28th day of September, 1976.
TRUST COMPANY OF THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS LTD.
APPOINTMENT OF PROTECTOR
I, FRANCIS D. SHELDEN, Settlor of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust dated September 28, 1976, in accordance with the provisions of Article IV, Paragraph 4.2 thereof, do hereby designate and appoint L. Bennett Young of 877 S. Adams, Birmingham, Michigan, U.S.A. as Protector of my said Trust, hereby vesting in him the specific authority to do and perform every act and to exercise every power vested in or reserved to me as Settlor of said Trust as fully as I might do, including the removal of the Trustee and the designation of a Successor Trustee, except that such Protector shall not revoke, amend or otherwise modify the provisions of the Trust.
Dated: October 9, 1976
/s/ ADAM STARCHILD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. That the lawful and proper trustees of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust are L. Bennett Young and Detroit Bank and Trust Company as Second Successor Co-Trustees.
2. That L. Bennett Young and Detroit Bank and Trust Company, as the lawful and proper trustees, are the rightful owners of all of the outstanding shares of stock of FDS Land Company and Windigo Ranch, Inc.
3. That L. Bennett Young and Detroit Bank and Trust Company, as the lawful and proper trustees, are entitled to the funds in question on deposit with the Clerk of Court on behalf of Windigo Ranch, Inc. and FDS Land Company.
/s/ CHARLES W. JOINER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Because the majority and the district court have fundamentally erred in identifying the fact at issue herein, I must respectfully dissent. Contrary to the majority opinion that "the issue of fact in this interpleader action is who are the present trustees of the Shelden trust," supra at 433, the actual dispute in this case concerns the identity of the corporate officers of FDS Land Co. and Windigo Ranch Inc. who may properly withdraw the funds held in the corporate accounts of these organizations maintained at the National Bank of Detroit (NBD). Simply put, a determination of the individual or individuals authorized to act as the personal representative of a corporate shareholder does not resolve the issue of the identity of the duly designated corporate officer or agent authorized to control corporate assets.
Viewed properly, only the following facts are relevant. Young and Alger Shelden, Jr. were indisputably the corporate officers of FDS Land Co. and Windigo Ranch Inc. listed on the signature cards (withdrawal authorization) at NBD at the time the Trust was formed. Presumably, those corporate officers could have been removed, or additional officers with authority over corporate accounts could have been designated only by fulfilling both of two conditions: (a) possessing the authority to vote the corporate shares, and (b) actually taking formal corporate action in conformity with the laws of the incorporating state and the corporate by-laws. The Trust created by Shelden empowered the Trustee to "vote stocks held in trust." Sec. 3.2.
Accordingly, the first relevant inquiry is the validity of the Trust, which, incidently, has not been addressed. If a valid Trust existed at the time here in issue, then any lawful Trustee would have the authority to elect corporate officers of FDS Land and Windigo Ranch, although two separate factual inquiries would still remain, namely (a) was the authority ever exercised, and (b) was the exercise of the authority in conformity with the law and corporate by-laws governing the operation of the two companies. If the Trust is not valid, perhaps because it was created for the improper purpose of underwriting a flight from prosecution, then the party in direct control of the stock was and is Shelden himself, and the secondary inquiries must resolve the presence of any evidence that he properly exercised the authority to elect the corporate officers of FDS Land or Windigo Ranch and if that exercise of authority was lawful.
The district court merely determined the identity of the proper Trustee under the Trust. Even if Shelden's de bene esse testimony is unassailable support for that finding, the conclusion below is simply the right answer to the wrong question. The court did not address the facts in dispute concerning the validity of the Trust so as to determine if the authority to vote the shares now inheres in any Trustee or remains with Shelden. Nor did the trial court find any facts establishing the manner in which the party in control of the stock may have utilized that authority to elect corporate officers authorized to withdraw corporate assets from corporate accounts.
Thus, in sum, the district court does not appear to have scrupulously hewn to the issue of determining the legitimate corporate officers or agents of either corporation. Nonetheless, the facts permit a narrowing of the possible results in this matter. First, the claimants to the money represented by TCVI argue that the Trust may be wholly invalid. If this is true, then Shelden has, as noted hereinabove, always had the exclusive authority to vote his stock to name officers of the companies. Absent any evidence (and there is none) that he voted the shares, the proper corporate officers with access to the accounts remain Young and Alger Shelden, Jr., who are named on the original NBD bank records. (The officers would not be Young and Detroit Bank & Trust as found by the district judge; this confusion is again due to mistaking the identity of the Trustee for the correct issue of identifying the corporate officers with access to the bank accounts.) If, however, the Trust is valid, then Young and Alger Shelden, Jr. may still be officers of FDS Land and Windigo Ranch, or the proper Trustees may have used their authority to name new officers, although the exercise of that authority to elect new officers, if in fact it occurred, is not apparent in the record. However, as previously noted, merely possessing the authority, through control of the corporate shares, to name new officers does not resolve the inquiry as to the identity of the corporate officers, since that authority would have to be exercised in conformity with the corporate bylaws and the law of the incorporating state.
Thus, the majority is correct that TCVI, and its elected corporate officers, can state no claim to the funds, inasmuch as a finding of Trust invalidity would leave the authority to name officers with Shelden, and a conclusion that the Trust is valid results in the clear finding, as stated by the majority, that Young and Detroit Bank & Trust are the rightful Trustees and may select corporate officers. However, as discussed, a resolution of Trust validity may still be relevant to the real issue at bar, since resolution of the proper issue of the officers' identity requires identifying the individual or individuals with the authority to name officers and then determining if that authority has ever been properly exercised. Absent an identification of the current lawful corporate officers, it is hornbook law that a release of corporate funds to one who is merely the personal representative of a stock owner, even if the identity of that representative is totally certain, would be an improper conversion of corporate assets in corporate accounts.
Because, on the present record, the identity of the lawful officers of FDS Land Co. and Windigo Ranch Inc. empowered to control the corporate assets forming the basis of the present suit remains both factually and legally unresolved, I would reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for a hearing on the proper issue.
Pertinent parts of the trust instrument are made Appendix No. 1 to this opinion
The record indicates that The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. was established by Starchild for the purpose of administering the Shelden trust. In his de bene esse deposition Shelden testified that "The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands was Adam Starchild's alter ego."
This deposition of Young was taken in the case of Shelden v. The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd., in which the opinion of the District Court of Puerto Rico is published in 535 F.Supp. 667 (D. Puerto Rico 1982). That decision is discussed in Part VI of this opinion
When the attorneys did not agree upon a date, Judge Joiner issued an order directing that the deposition be taken in the City of Amsterdam in the Netherlands during the week of January 25, 1982. The attorneys for Appellees gave written notice on December 17, 1981 to counsel for Appellants that the deposition would be taken at the offices of L.J.W.M. Schroeder, at J.W. Brouwerg's Plein 10, Amsterdam, Netherlands on Wednesday, January 27, 1982 at 9 a.m
Counsel for Appellants gave notice of a hearing before Judge Joiner on January 12, 1982 on their motion to adjourn the de bene esse deposition. The reason given for adjournment was the averment of the attorneys for Appellants that they needed the assistance of Adam Starchild, founder of the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd., in preparing for the deposition of Francis D. Shelden; and Starchild was incarcerated in the Passaic County Jail in New Jersey; that Starchild's Parole Board had fixed a date for his release from jail within the next three months, and counsel believed that Starchild would be released before March 1, 1982. An adjournment of the Shelden deposition was requested until after March 25, 1982.
Judge Joiner entered an order directing that Shelden's de bene esse deposition be adjourned from January 27, 1982, and that it be taken and completed before April 1, 1982. On March 5, 1982, Counsel for Appellees gave written notice to counsel for Appellants that the Shelden deposition would be taken on Wednesday, March 31, 1982 at 9 a.m. at the office of L.J.W.M. Schroeder in Amsterdam at the address indicated in their previous notice.
The document removing The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. and appointing Brongersma as first successor trustee is as follows:
REMOVAL OF A TRUSTEE AND APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
I, FRANCIS D. SHELDEN, Settlor and Sole Beneficiary of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust dated September 28, 1976 in accordance with the provisions of Article IV, Paragraph 4.5 thereof, do hereby remove The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. of Roadtown, Tortola, British Virgin Islands as Trustee, and do hereby nominate and appoint EDWARD BRONGERSMA, of Tetterodewag 1, Overveen, the Netherlands to act as Successor Trustee of my said Trust.
I hereby invest EDWARD BRONGERSMA, the Successor Trustee, with full powers and authority, to request full account of the original Trustee on all matters related with my said Trust, to discharge upon such rendering of account the original Trustee from all responsibility in relation with my said Trust and to make all necessary arrangements to compensate the original Trustee for his services and reimburse him for all reasonable expenses incurred in the management and conservation of my said Trust Estate.
Dated April 13, 1978 /s/ FRANCIS D. SHELDEN
Seen by me, Mr. Leo Johannes Willem Marie Schroeder,
notaris, having his office in Amsterdam, for
for legalisation of the signature hereabove of
Mr. Francis D. Shelden.
Amsterdam, April 13th, 1978.
(Seal) Signed by L. J. W. M. Schroeder
BRITISH CONSULATE GENERAL AMSTERDAM
Date 13 April, 1978
for the legailisation of the signature and
seal (overleaf) of Mr. L. J. W. M. Schroeder, a
Notary Public of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
(Signature not legible)
British Vice-Counsul
Kingdom of the )
Province of North )
City of Amsterdam ) SS
Consulate General of )
United States of )
I, Melvin M. Tano Consul of the United States of America at Amsterdam, The Netherlands, duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby certify that L.J.W.M. SCHROEDER whose true signature and official seal are respectively subscribed and affixed to the annexed document was at the time he signed the annexed document a NOTARY at AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands, to whose official acts faith and credit are due.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and the seal of the Consulate General of the United States at Amsterdam, The Netherlands, this 13 day of Apr 1978.
/s/ MELVIN M. TANO
Consul of the United States
duly commissioned and qualified
ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT
OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
I, EDWARD BRONGERSMA, of Tetterodeweg 1, Overveen, the Netherlands, hereby accept my appointment as Successor Trustee of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust, and hereby accept to possess and exercise all powers and authority conferred on the original Trustee by the said Trust instrument dated September 28, 1976 and conferred on me by the instrument dated 13 April 1978 to appoint me as Successor Trustee.
/s/ EDWARD BRONGERSMA
Date 13 April 1978
For the legailsation of the signature and
seal (overleaf) of L. J. W. M. Schroeder,
a Notary Public of Amsterdam, the
Kingdom of the Netherlands )
Province of North Holland )
Consulate General of the )
United States of America )
I, Melvin M. Tano Consul of the United States of America at Amsterdam, The Netherlands, duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby certify that L.J.W.M. Schroeder whose true signature and official seal are, respectively, subscribed and affixed to the annexed document, was at the time he signed the annexed documents a NOTARY, at AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands, to whose official acts faith and credit are due.
The deposition of Antoon Kasdorp is as follows:
Antoon Kasdorp deposes and states as follows:
That I am an attorney licensed to practice law at the bar of Amsterdam in The Netherlands and represent Francis D. Shelden
That if called upon to do so, I could testify to the matters stated in this affidavit since they are made from my personal knowledge
That in April 1978 I personally drafted the documents hereinafter described removing the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. as Trustee of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust, dated 28 September 1976, and appointing Edward Brongersma as Successor Trustee
That Francis D. Shelden personally authorized and commissioned these actions and further instructed me to travel to the United States and personally serve Adam Starchild with the removal documents
That I went to the United States and personally served Adam Starchild with the Removal of Trustee and Appointment of Successor Trustee dated 13 April 1978 and Acceptance of Appointment of Successor Trustee dated 13 April 1978 on 20 April 1978 in the city of New York, N.Y
Antoon Kasdorp
declares that the signature on the reverse side is the signature of Meester Antoon Kasdorp, a lawyer in Amsterdam, who has solemnly affirmed before me, notaris, that his statement is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Amsterdam, April 1, 1982
(signature)
REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE AND APPOINTMENT
OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES
I, L. BENNETT YOUNG, Protector of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust dated September 28, 1976, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the Appointment of the Settlor, Francis D. Shelden, dated October 9, 1976, a copy of which is attached hereto, and in accordance with the authority vested in me by virtue of the provisions of Article IV, Section 4.2 of said Trust, do hereby remove Edward Brongersma of Tetterodeweg 1, Overveen, The Netherlands, as Successor Trustee and do hereby designate and appoint L. BENNETT YOUNG of 877 South Adams Road, Birmingham, Michigan 48011, and The Detroit Bank & Trust Company of Detroit, Michigan, as Successor Trustees, hereby vesting said Successor Trustees with full authority to do and perform every act and to exercise every power as Trustees permitted or granted by the Trust Instrument.
I hereby specifically recognize the removal by the Settlor of the original Trustee, The Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. and the appointment of Edward Brongersma as Successor Trustee by instrument dated April 13, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto.
/s/ DAVID C. WIND
/s/ WILLIAM G. BUTLER
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) SS
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of October, 1979.
Anastasia D. Lacen
Notary Public, Wayne County, Mich.
My Commission expires June 20, 1983
SETTLOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE AND
APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES
I hereby acknowledge and affirm the removal of EDWARD BRONGERSMA as Successor Trustee of my Revocable Inter-Vivos Trust dated September 28, 1976, by the action of L. BENNETT YOUNG, Protector of my said Trust, by written instrument dated October 16, 1979, and I further accept and affirm the appointment by the said Protector of my said Trust of L. BENNETT YOUNG and THE DETROIT BANK & TRUST COMPANY, as Successor Trustees with all powers and authority granted to them by the said written instrument dated October 16, 1979, and under the provisions of my said Trust.
Dated: 13 November, 1979.
/s/ (signature not legible)
Seen by me, Meester Leo Johannes Willem Marie Schroeder, notaris with office in Amsterdam for legalisation of the signatures hereabove of Mr. Francis Duffield Shelden, Mr. Hendricus Marinus van der Schroeff and Miss. Petronella Hendrica Cornelia Maria Perguin, all of them are known to me.
Amsterdam, 16th November 1979.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
REMOVAL OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
I, EDWARD BRONGERSMA, of Tetterodeweg 1, Overveen, The Netherlands, hereby acknowledge and accept my removal as Successor Trustee of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter-Vivos Trust dated September 28, 1976, by the action of L. BENNETT YOUNG, Protector of said Trust, by written instrument dated October 16, 1979.
Dated: 13 Nov. 1979
Seen by me, Meester Leo Johannes Willem Marie Schroeder, notaris with office in Amsterdam for legalisation of the signatures hereabove of Mr. Edward Brongersma, Mr. Hendricus Marinus van der Schroeff and Miss. Petronella Hendrica Cornelia Maria Perguin, all of them are known to me.
Edward Brongersma deposes and states as follows:
That I reside at Tetterodeweg 1, Overveen, The Netherlands
That on 13 April 1978 I was appointed and accepted the appointment of Successor Trustee of the Francis D. Shelden Revocable Inter Vivos Trust dated 28 September 1976
That on 13 April 1978 I executed a document entitled Acceptance of Appointment of Successor Trustee
That on 16 November 1979 I executed a document entitled Acknowledgment of Removal of Successor Trustee and accepted my removal as Successor Trustee by action of L. Bennett Young as Protector of said Trust
That at no time have I received any assets or property of any nature whatsoever belonging to said Trust from the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. Adam Starchild or any other person connected with said Trust
That at no time have I ever received an accounting from the Trust Company of the Virgin Islands, Ltd. of its activities as my predecessor Trustee nor have I ever received such an accounting from Adam Starchild or any other person connected with said Trust
The media would well-serve the public, since it's now focused on PIE's connections, to report on the activities of Dutch MP Edward Brongersma and his connections to PIE and North Fox Island.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1982&dat=19771214&id=huZfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rW0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=976,2579806
The Evening News – Dec 14, 1977
Authorities Intensify Search for Two Wanted in Child Porn Ring
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) – Federal authorities are intensifying their efforts to locate two fugitives sought by state police in connection with a child pornography ring involving 7- to 16-year-old boys.
A year has passed since Ann Arbor millionaire Francis D. Sheldon and Dyer Grossman, a wealthy New Yorker, disappeared rather than answer criminal sexual conduct charges.
In addition, charges of obstructing justice and lying to a federal officer could be brought against a third man if authorities discover he has been shielding the fugitives or aiding in the flight from justice, the Traverse City Record-Eagle reported Tuesday.
The newspaper, in a copyrighted series appearing in editions this week, said the search for the two men has so far touched 21 states and the West Indies – with negative results.
FBI agents now say they're going to retrace their steps because they have discovered "discrepancies" in contacts with people who knew Shelden and Grossman.
The newspaper, quoting sources close to the investigation, said some of those discrepancies allegedly involve a New Jersey man who goes by the name Adam Starchild.
Starchild was identified by the Record-Eagle last April as one of the original incorporators of Brother Paul's Children Mission, the Church of the New Revelation, Ocean Living Institute and Educational Foundation for Youth.
Convicted sex offender Gerald S. Richards, one of the principles in Brother Paul's and an admitted child pornographer, has told police that all four of those organizations were set up as "tax dodges" and "fronts" for homosexual child pornography activities, the paper said.
The information was obtained by police after the existence of the organizations was revealed during a Record-Eagle Investigation into Brother Paul's Nature Camp, an alleged sex ring operating on North Fox Island in Grand Traverse Bay near Traverse City.
Despite the disclosures, the paper reported Tuesday the organization maintains its tax-exempt status granted by the Internal Revenue Service.
One IRS official is quoted by the paper that exemptions are more difficult to take away than to give.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=248974
Francis D Shelden (Frank Torey) & his associates
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2706&dat=19770225&id=QBFKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yB4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2250,1877000
The Michigan Daily – Feb 25, 1977
The U. S. Attorney's Office in Detroit issued federal fugitive warrants yesterday against Ann Arbor millionaire Francis Sheldon and a New York man on charges of criminal sexual misconduct involving young boys. According to the State Police, Sheldon had been using North Fox Island in northern Lake Michigan to film pronographic movies featuring young boys and older men. He and the New Yorker, Dyer Grossman, were originally accused with separate assaults on young boys; both men, however, disappeared last November. They were in charge of Brother Paul's Children's Mission, a gay nature camp for boys on North Fox Island.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19770406&id=CnUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XQIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6882,115605
Toledo Blade – Apr 6, 1977
Smut firms Classed Tax-Exempt
Traverse City, Mic. – The Internal Revenue Service unwittingly gave tax-exempt status to organizations involved in a nationwide child pornography ring, a Michigan newspaper said Tuesday.
The Traverse City Record-Eagle in a copyrighted story, said the pornographic ring concentrated on still and motion pictures of young boys engaged in sex acts, and that 15 persons have been arrested or indicted in a continuing multistate investigation.
Walter Dunnigan, Detroit information director for IRS, confirmed that some of the ring's alleged centers, including Brother Paul's Mission on North Fox Island in Lake Michigan off Traverse City, were listed in the IRS guide of tax-exempt organizations.
The ring claimed to operate churches and charitable organizations.
Michigan attention was drawn to the ring last July when a former Port Huron teacher, Gerald Richards, 29, was sentenced to 2 to 10 years in Southern Michigan Prison after pleading guilty to criminal sexual conduct involving boys 8 to 10 years of age.
The 680-acre island is owned by Ann Arbor millionaire Francis Shelden, who vanished last fall. His twin-engine plane later was found in Arizona and his father says he believes Shelden is "out of the country."
Authorities are seeking Shelden and Dyer Grossman, a New York school teacher, on charges of criminal sexual conduct with boys 10 to 14. Shelden, Grossman, and Richards all were listed in promotional material as officers of Brother Paul's Mission.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s29IAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LloDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2627%2C3933301
St. Petersburg Times [Florida] – May 13, 1980
Starchild is mystery figure in Kelly case
* U.S. Rep. Richard Kelly was one of nine congressmen implicated in an undercover FBI investigation code-named Abscam. FBI agents say Kelly was videotaped stuffing $25,000 in cash into his pockets. Kelly says he was conducting his own investigation. This article is the second of a series on Abscam.*
By LUCY MORGAN
St. Petersburg Times Staff Writer
"Pursuing the arcane, researching the little known, solving the unusual and, perhaps, even the hazardous. Worldwide."
Slogan of Minerva Consulting Group Inc.
TARPON SPRINGS – A heavy-set man wearing horn-rimmed glasses sits typing away in front of a computer screen. Overhead birds in flight dance on the strings of a mobile. A nearby business card identifies him as a member of the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce.
The man in front of the computer calls himself Adam Aristotle Starchild. He says he is an international financial consultant who directs his Minerva Consulting Group Inc., based in New York, from a house in the middle of a pasture in norhtern Pinellas County.
He is also Malcolm Willis McConahy, a 33-year-old Minnesota native who has served time in American and British prisons for mail fraud and forgery. He has a record of arrests for sexual perversion.
This man has never gotten a line of newspaper publicity in the highly publicized FBI case against U.S. Rep. Richard Kelly of New Port Richey, but he is very much a figure behind the spotlight that has fallen on Kelly.
Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records of Adam Starchild's involvement with the congressman and questioned Starchild about his connections with former Kelly aide J. P. Maher.
Kelly and Starchild say they have never met each other. It was Maher, Kelly says, who arranged for Starchild's company to handle a campaign mailing list for Kelly's re-election campaign this year.
Starchild said he has legally changed his name but refuses to discuss it or any of the background surrounding his life as Malcolm McConahy.
See STARCHILD, 6-B
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19800513&id=s29IAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LloDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5652,3974626
Starchild from 1-B
Officials in Bennington, Vt. say McConahy filed a petition changing his name to Starchild in August 1976. A few months earlier, a weekly newspaper in Kearney, N.J. received and published a mailed obituary reporting McConahy's death in a Minnesota traffic accident. Minnesota officials recorded no such traffic fatality.
Oddly enough, Starchild called prosecutors' attention to his own existence. Beginning last November, he wrote a series of letters filled with accusations of criminal conduct and influence-peddling on the part of three Maher associates who figure prominently in Abscam. He sent the letters to federal prosecutors, U.S. Sen. Richard Stone of Florida and the U.S. Parole Commission.
Starchild's letters apparently helped land the three men back in prison for alleged parole violations, including their association with each other.
Federal parole officials and Stone have refused to make copies of the letters available, but Starchild allowed a St. Petersburg Times reporter to see them and make notes.
Starchild says his conversations with a St. Petersburg Times reporter angered federal prosecutors, who claim the conversations jeopardize their state case against Kelly.
A survey of federal and state court records in Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Washington and New Jersey indicates that Starchild has been a prolific letter writer and litigant.
As Malcolm McConahy, he once sued President Richard Nixon demanding the appointment of a new judge so he could get an early hearing in a case. He also filed a $90,000 lawsuit against his own mother over a business arrangement. The suit against Nixon was dismissed as "frivolous," but the suit against his mother was settled with her estate after she died.
As McConahy, he was released on probation in 1967 after being convicted of possessing obscene literature and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
In 1968 he was arrested in Milwaukee on charges of sexual perversion and mail fraud. The sex charge stemmed from his alleged involvement with a 16-year-old boy. He was convicted and sentenced to a year and a day in prison on the mail-fraud charge but was released during an appeal. In the middle of the sex trial he disappeared.
He later wrote his lawyer a letter denouncing American justice.
In the summer of 1970, he turned up in England, where he was arrested and sentenced to four years in prison on a forgery charge. In 1974, he was released from a British prison and deported to the United States. He was arrested by U.S. marshals as he stepped off the plane from England.
He was ultimately taken to Sandstone, Minn. to serve his prison term for mail fraud. He was given an additional jail sentence for jumping bail, but that conviction was overturned on appeal because prosecutors failed to make any effort to extradite him from England before he finished serving that sentence.
The sex charge against him was dropped after he served his time for mail fraud.
At the time of his arrest on the sex charge in 1968, he was operating a travel agency that specialized in trips for youth groups. His travel agency was featured in an August 1966 news account in the Milwaukee Sentinel.
Starchild currently is the defendant in lawsuits in Puerto Rico and Detroit involving the assets of a Michigan man who fled the United States to avoid prosecution on sex-perversion charges.
The man, Ann Arbor millionaire Francis D. Shelden, lives in Europe. He retained a Detroit law firm to sue Starchild to force him to account for more than $1-million in cash. Shelden claims he placed the money in the hands of The Trust Co. of the Virgin Islands, a firm headed by Starchild.
Although he talked earlier about his background as an "international financial consultant," Starchild refused to discuss his criminal record, his name change or any pending litigation when contacted last week.
The targets of Starchild's latest letter-writing are three convicted felons who, like Starchild, came into contact with Kelly through J. P. Maher, Kelly's former aide.
Two of the three men – Joseph F. Valverde of Holiday and Samuel Glasser, a disbarred New York lawyer – were arrested a month ago for alleged parole violations. Both men were classmates of Maher at Cornell University and were convicted in a 1975 cocaine-smuggling conspiracy in New York.
The third man, Robert Michaelson, a New York businessman, was convicted in 1976 of filing false documents with a fedral agency as part of a plot to sell submachine guns in the United States. Michaelson and Glasser met in prison and later became business associates in Volume Trading Corp., a Long Island business that has been linked to Kelly.
All three men had been free on parole. The charges against them involve a series of alleged associations with each other. Associates of Glasser and Valverde say Starchild orchestrated some of the meetings as a prelude to filing a civil suit over a corporate dispute with Glasser and Michaelson.
Starchild denies that his letters had any connection with his civil suit against Glasser and Michaelson, which is pending in Nassau County, N.Y.
Glasser and Michaelson were arrested in New York and are being held in federal prison in that state. Valverde is being held in Miami.
Starchild says he met Maher through Glasser in the spring of 1978 and frequently had dinner with him after he moved to Tarpon Springs in August 1979.
Maher steered Starchild to a Holiday lawyer who obtained a charter for Keystone Farms Inc., the corporation Starchild used to buy a $139,000 farm on County Road 77 near Tarpon Springs.
Maher also interceded on Starchild's behalf with a Clearwater auto dealer who had helped Kelly in the past. Maher arranged for Starchild to sell two vehicles to the dealer and then lease both of them back.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19680912&id=HwMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CygEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2256,926775
The Milwaukee Journal – Sep 12, 1968
Check Fraud Charge Leads to Indictment
A young Milwaukee man was indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday in connection with an alleged $57,000 check kiting in which 10 banks, five of them in the Milwaukee area, were victims.
Indicted on charges of mail fraud was Malcolm McConahy, 21, formerly of 1029 N. Jackson St. McConahy was arrested Aug. 14 in Minneapolis and is now being held by federal authorities in the Waukesha county jail.
According to the indictment, McConahy obtained the money between October, 1967, and April, 1968, while operating a firm called Creative Travel, Inc., 17000 W. North Ave., Brookfield.
Thomas R. Jones, an assistant United States attorney, said McConahy would repeatedly deposit a worthless check in one bank and then write a check for part of the deposit and cash it at another bank, using the normal mail delay to cover the fraud.
In addition to the five Milwaukee area banks, the defendant, Jones said, also used banks in London, Montreal, Honolulu, San Francisco and Ely, Minn.
Milwaukee area banks included Bank of Milwaukee & Trust Co., American City, Midland National, Elm-Brook State and Brookfield National.
Others indicted Thursday:
James M. Foran, 25, of 4521 N. Sheffield Ave., Shorewood, refusal tro submit for induction into the armed forces. Foran has said he is a conscientious objector.
Two postal workers, Brian Giguere, 19, of 1808 N. Pulaski St., theft of a letter from the mails, and McClinton Jagers, 48, of 3451 N. 5th St., theft of a treasury check from the mails.
Art Films International, Inc., Los Angeles, and its operators, John Lamb and Ronald Graham, both of Los Angeles charged with mailing obscene motion pictures and advertisements to Wisconsin cities.
Ian Pace said: June 1, 20149:10 pm
Reblogged this on Desiring Progress.
Pingback: PIE – Mary Manning in Community Care and Auberon Waugh in The Spectator, 1977 | Desiring Progress
Pingback: The Paedophile Information Exchange: Timeline of press cuttings 1975-2014 | spotlight


text:
Q: Load account information after login Parse When a user logs in, I need to load their information & data. In Parse, I use the signUpInBackgroundWithBlock method to setup an account. I am not sure how I retrieve that information when they log in. I have tried the following code with no success:
class Klikur: UIViewController {

override func viewDidLoad() {
   super.viewDidLoad()

    var loadUser = PFQuery(className:"GameScore")
    loadUser.getObjectInBackgroundWithId("xWMyZEGZ") {(gameScore: PFObject?, error: NSError?) -> Void in
    if error == nil && gameScore != nil {
        println(gameScore)
    } else {
        println(error)
    }
 }

What am I doing wrong? I thought that it would pull the row with that ID and give me the information but I guess it is not doing that.

A: Parse has made this excruciatingly simple. First lets go over some main key points you've subtly discussed:

When a user logs in I need to load their information & data. In Parse, I use the signUpInBackgroundWithBlock method to setup an account. I am not sure how I retrieve that information when they log in.

This is a good start. You are on the right track. There is not much else you need to do once they have successfully signed up. Because you are using that method, you have the object, the object (which contains all their information : username, email, password etc etc). Because you are using a block, you have a callback, and this is how you retrieve their information. It's all done within the same method, no need to create another instance to provide what's already given. It will look something like this:
user.signUpInBackgroundWithBlock {
   (succeeded: Bool, error: NSError?) -> Void in
   if error == nil {
   // do something if there is an error signing up
   } else {
   // You have a successful log in. Which means you now have a cached user on device
   }
}

So how do you get any of the users fields once they sign up? By calling the cached user or currentUser. Anything cached means essentially that it's stored on the users device, and it persists, even through app terminations. In this case, its cached as soon as the session is successfully initiated. It will not persist through app deletions and re-installs, but it's cached on your device so you can call it for any circumstance. So in your signUpInBackgroundBlock callback or really anywhere in a different view controller after they sign up, in order to see the signed in users information you simple need to call currentUser so you can retrieve all of it's parameters. Something like this:
if error = nil {

} else {
   var currentUser = PFUser.currentUser() //This gets the current user where you can get information like
   var userObjectId = currentUser.objectId //returns the current users objectId
   var userUsername = currentUser.username //returns username
}

If you want to get a custom field from your User class then you will have to perform a query and you might as well not even bother with the cached version since you're already exhausting an API request to retrieve the custom field values. Say you create a column type String in your User class for storing a users phone number. Then you will have to create a query to retrieve that information. Otherwise, you can always use the simplified cached information to display it in any view controller.
Simple user query will look something like this:
var query = PFUser.query() //NOTICE there is no classname, this is the proper way to query the User class, no matter what you see elsewhere.
query.whereKey("username", equalTo:PFUser.currentUser().username)
query.getFirstObjectInBackgroundWithBlock {
   (user : PFUser?, error: NSError?) -> Void in
   if user == nil {
     println("No user with that username")
   } else {
     //retrive your special column data
     let userPhoneNumber = user["PhoneNumberColumnName"] as String
   }
}

A: As Milo526 said, if the user is created and logged in,
let user = PFUser.currentUser()

will return that user's data.
However, if your query is for the class User but you set the className to "gameScore" your query will fail the lookup and return an error.
Try:
var loadUser = PFQuery(className:"User")
loadUser.getObjectInBackgroundWithId("xWMyZEGZ") {
}

While ensuring xWMyZEGZ is an objectId valid in the User table on Parse.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Home Tags New York Giants
Tag: New York Giants
Jaguars vs. Giants: What To Watch
Jaquan Cathey - September 8, 2018 0
Jacksonville Is On Center Stage As They Travel To MetLife Stadium To Face The Giants East Rutherford, NJ -- Week one of the NFL is...
The New York Giants make Odell Beckham Jr. the highest paid...
Ruth Caguias - August 28, 2018 0
As the 2018 NFL season kicks off, with already approaching the end of Pre-season football. Organizations have been making large payouts to lock in players. To set the path for their teams to be successful in this upcoming season, it comes at a hefty price.
Sports Champions White House Visit And Politics
Evan Weiner - June 7, 2018 0
Celebrating sports championships at the White House is generally a jovial time with some jokes and pats on the back in the how great you are vein. It is an old tradition which started with President Andrew Johnson in 1865 who welcomed baseball's Brooklyn Atlantics and the Washington Nationals to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Rock Riley Show: Lee Diekemper of Joe Bucs Fan on...
Sports Talk Florida - March 22, 2018 0
Thursday's trade changes entire Bucs offseason Lee Diekemper of Joe Bucs Fan joins the Rock Riley Show to discuss the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' big trade...
Bull Rush: Pierre-Paul Trade Brings Flexibility, Clarity to Bucs
Tim Williams - March 22, 2018 0
Adding a top defensive end gives Tampa Bay options Thursday morning, the news came suddenly: The Tampa Bay Bucs traded a third and fourth round...
Seventeen Years Ago Today, The First XFL Began Playing Games
Evan Weiner - February 2, 2018 0
Vince McMahon is hoping the XFL relaunch will be as successful as the WWE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXuXAKFqq7M&t=2s On February 3, 2001, Vince McMahon and NBC's XFL presented the...
The Sports Authority Name Is Being Erased In Denver
Evan Weiner - January 11, 2018 0
Another corporate naming ratings partner's logo and brand has fallen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxvrQT-UJ_A A monument to bankruptcy is coming down. The Sports Authority name is coming off the...
Did Vince McMahon Learn Any Lessons From The XFL's Demise in...
Evan Weiner - December 27, 2017 0
Will and Grace was rebooted why not the XFL? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8rgl57g3vY It appears Vince McMahon is looking to bring back the XFL after selling off some of...
JFK's Sports Legacy: Boosting the NFL
Evan Weiner - November 21, 2017 0
JFK's big contribution to $ports https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYp8essm7-o&t=57s Fifty four years today, President John F. Kennedy was killed by an assassin on a Dallas street. Historians are still...
Fun In The End – Bucs Over Giants
Tim Williams - October 2, 2017 0
Kicking Loomed Large For The Buccaneers On Sunday "Practice is hard. This is the easy stuff. Go ahead and do it." Chris Baker was caught on...