Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. Justice Luis Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)
The type of law which justifies an aristocracy or royalty is known as a law of status which protects the privileged from the underclass, poor or illiterate. Under such law common people have no way to hold the privileged to account for the harms they commit.
Stoic Roman jurists were the first for formulate legal propositions which became the modern law of contracts, by recognizing that informed consent to negotiated agreements is foundational to a sustainable civilization. Informed consent is the product of examination of one’s conscience in the awareness that the act has consequences, good or not.
Government by consent of the governed is one pillar of our law. And the doctrine that no one is above the law is the other. Compromise either and the Arch of modern civilization collapses.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>To smuggle a privileged status class into our law is to welcome aristocracy and impugn our law in a fatal contradiction. A glaring example is ‘judicial immunity’, an exception now metastasized to other public institutions that begs the question of accountability and undermines the Equal Protection guaranty. And because institutional interests and their legal machinery have a protective support system, the balance of power can only be addressed if we the people create an effective countervailing response with a force that voting does not have.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Inasmuch as these issues are so often seen where power and money are involved, let’s follow the money.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>The wealthy have always run the operations of the country, and that’s acceptable until they systematically fail to protect the rights and lawful interests of the People, while also denying them remedy for their grievances. Protecting your own interests, of course, begins with you and the prospect of success is unlikely without information sufficient to the task.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>This web site is published in the public interest as a contribution toward remedy that can better assure that the People’s pursuit of happiness remains as the primary rule of governance, not the wealth and power of the privileged among us. Remedy for grievances, however, need not require destruction of wealth.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>A sustainable society is possible only if power is balanced by law protecting liberty. A fully informed and actively engaged public is essential for such purposes.
The author of a book on the reasons for failed family generational asset transfers attributed only 3% of the failed wealth transitions to poor technical advice saying
“There are plenty of moving parts in tax and estate law, and ambiguities abound as to their interpretation and implementation. And so the legal, insurance, accounting and investing professions spend a great deal of time and money on accreditation and continuing education in order to keep up with those changes and stay current on best practices. Although change is certain to remain a constant when it comes to the right trust structures and transition plans, the “how” of wealth transfer is a relatively settled science and one that advisors rarely get wrong.”
Ninety-seven percent of the failures were attributed to the family itself: due to a lack of a family mission (12%), the inadequate preparation of heirs (25%) or a breakdown of family communication and trust (60%). According to the report: It is easy to attribute the failure of wealth transfers to today’s ever-changing legal landscape and the complexities that it poses to families with substantial wealth, whether in the form of financial assets, real estate or a family business. Unfortunately, the “Report” appears heavily tainted by a predisposition to financial planner self-promotion, placing too much emphasis on poor family communication as causal when a lack of communication is generally symptomatic or worse, systemic.
However, given that the Reports’ definition of “failure” is “involuntary loss of control of assets” and that the “how” of wealth transfer is a relatively settled science, it would follow that the legal and financial complexities of wealth transfers are not key elements in the “failure” and that other factors influence whether or not a family can preserve its wealth across multiple generations. What those other factors are and to whom 70% of generational assets go when control is “involuntarily lost” by the family is not addressed in the report but would seem to hold the answers to causation questions. One point the Report placed emphasis on as causal was conflict within the family.
If, 97% of the failures were attributable to the family itself, and if, as the report claims, wealth transfer is a relatively settled science, then the question of how animosity within the family plays into the 70% asset loss to non-family interests is properly raised. When I spoke with Roy Williams, the author of the “report”, he didn’t have any data on how 70% of asset transfers were “involuntarily lost” nor to whom the generational asset transfers were “involuntarily lost”.
The answer to these questions involves limited liability creatures known as “attorneys”. The scenario I am about to layout for you begins with a front end bait and switch to generate the controversy that is followed on the back end by exploitation of the controversy manufactured on the front end.
If, 97% of the failures were attributable to the family itself, and if, as the report claims, wealth transfer is a relatively settled science, then the question of how animosity within the family plays into the 70% asset loss to non-family interests is properly raised. When I spoke with Roy Williams he didn’t have any data on how 70% of asset transfers were “involuntarily lost” nor to whom the generational asset transfers were “involuntarily lost”.
The first logistical problem for any 3rd party intending to intercept generational asset transfers would involve locating family wealth subject to transfer and a means for identification of which asset transfers may be vulnerable to interception. These salient points however, do not answer the question of how one would position oneself to reap the lion’s share of any particular generational asset transfer.
What is “involuntary loss of control of assets” if it does not mean theft? The answer is simple: “involuntary loss of control of assets” doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean theft. The featured case study presented in this site will lead to the same conclusion.
Our Courts allegedly exist to enforce obligations, protect rights and punish wrongs but the public record shows a completely different reality in far too many cases when wealth transfers are at issue. Then there are the BAR Associations who claim they exist and license their members to assure quality legal representation to the public. While this is great self-promoting sound bite, the reality is that by claiming a monopoly on agency and endowing their members with immunity they have created a white-collar criminal cabal with everything to gain and nothing to lose.
As for the breakdown in family communication, insert an attorney and you have a break in the lines of communication between the stake holders as a matter of course. Now these limited liability strangers insert their own interests and what can be expected as a result is 3rd party manipulation and the deterioration of family trust. Where does 70% of the failed assets go? The 70% is divided by the attorneys as a reward for their staged litigation larceny.
We are all too often persuaded to look at earlier times in history characterized as primitive, less sophisticated and unenlightened. Almost all previous cultures are portrayed as superstitious and illiterate peoples dominated by an elite minority, supported and protected by powers of wealth and force. When plague, pestilence, or famine struck, it had to be the gods wreaking havoc and vengeance on earthly miscreants for failure to abide by spiritual mandates.
Fast-forward in the United States of America, we now have over 100,000 municipal corporations, fictions of law, entities that exists nowhere in the real world but only in the minds of believers, on pieces of paper or in the ones and zeros of computer programs. These imaginary creatures thrive and sustain themselves only because their self-interested minions conduct and enforce a systematic extraction of financial resources from the productive labors of their citizens, while mere mortals are convinced that these fictions are essential for their own safety and security, which justifies the tribute monies each must forfeit for their own protection. These funds are parsed to funnel substantial amounts into investment portfolios that are held aloof from any part of a so-called budget. This is a central requirement for what is affectionately known as “continuity of government”. But consider Augustine’s cogent observation in the fourth century:
“a gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renunciation of aggression, but by the attainment of impunity.”
In our day groups of men under the command of leaders form corporate organizations, accumulate vast sums of financial resources, invest enough to gain influential or controlling interests in public arenas to become dominant players in the body politic, thus aligning themselves has co-equals with the interests of government to the extent that state and corporate goals become inseparable and indistinguishable.
At the dawn of the 21st century some 23 empires had come and gone, every one of which expired under military overreach, fiscal recklessness, and internal corruption. Yet even now we are told to believe in the legitimacy and integrity of dominant corporate fictions, when they promise peace and prosperity, if only they would be left untethered to pursue their grand designs.
The future may very well look back at our time with contempt and derision for the people who held dear, superstitions that fomented and encouraged the creation of an otherworldly abstraction, destined to become a monstrosity that compelled whole societies to engage in a mass cannibalism of self-destruction with each preying upon the other.
All that were needed to devolve to such extinction was central control of monies and the ubiquitous corruption of law and justice, by the metastasizing infection of predatory attorneys and judges, a color of law aristocracy wearing the appearance of conducting the public’s business.
Every year, tens of millions of dollars are stolen in staged litigation schemes devised with the sole purpose of generating fraudulent bills for alleged attorney’s fees. In the process of such schemes unsuspecting and law-obeying citizens are being pulled into a vortex of unnecessary court room drama disguised as legitimate litigation proceedings. The result is financial and emotional devastation for the victims and undeserved riches for the perpetrators.
With violence and corruption widely accepted as an essential part of the American lifestyle and culture, this new, refined, version of common robbery goes largely unpunished, as did lynching for decades. The instances of formal prosecution of predatory attorneys who use staged litigation schemes to make their living are few, as the color of law larcenists hide their thieving behind such doctrines as attorney, judicial and derivative immunities, thus declaring themselves elitists in an above the law aristocracy. Honest attorneys who argue the law and the facts and insist on the proper decorum are sanctioned and their license suspended for being “overzealous”, which is a polite way to describe cock blocking the filthy lucre soup train.
Following this introduction is a chronology of just one such case history, documented in the public record. Before going forward any further I would like to cite to Supreme Court Justice John Brandeis Dissenting Opinion in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
(“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”)
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) which has received nothing but negative treatment. In other words, we are told that government is our servant but that our servants are immune from accountability and that government officials shall not be subjected to the same rules of honorable conduct that are commands to their masters, the common citizenry. This is the very definition of plutocracy, where the ignorant masses kiss the hand that slaps them, lick the boot that kicks them, call it the land of the free and the home of the brave and send their children to die in order to impose that same “freedom” on other peoples of the world.
All, those who are named and pictured in this dissertation are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (where they are immune from any accountability to their victims). The views and opinions expressed here, are those of the individual witness identified herein  and do not necessarily reflect the views of other members of the public. The exhibits are the actual pleadings and Probatemafia.com is a web site inspired by the creatures and events described herein. You can look at the public record as I point to it and you can form your own opinion.
Frank Scalise and wife with Salvatore Lucania
The first question that naturally arises is definition. What is the probate mafia? In his treatise, "Fighting the Probate Mafia  : A Dissection of the Probate Exception to Federal Court Jurisdiction", 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1479 (2001)", cited in Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006) , Professor Peter Nicolas does not specifically define the term "probate mafia". In fact, the expression only appears in the title itself.
Searching through state and federal court appellate records the term “probate mafia” only appears in about twelve cases. Ten of those cases cite to Professor Nicolas treatise. The 11th case, Curtis v. Kunz-Freed, No. 17-20360 (5th Cir. June 6, 2018),  uses the term in a substantive context in an action brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization statutes. 
The 12th case, Stone v Trump  No. 3:20-cv-537 (VAB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, also uses the term “probate mafia” in a substantive context referring to the abduction, robbery and murder of our elders  under the glorifying banner of “Guardianship Protection”.
“Lord, save me from the protectors”.
Guardianship is an action in rem. In other words, people are converted into freight on the high seas of commerce (Admiralty on land) and every one of the participating mobsters claim a right to your stuff in reward for the disservices rendered.
The attorneys are not experts in government, but in debauching and corrupting and crippling the Government in the interest of those who pay them their fees. So then they sit, in the legislatures, in the executive offices and on the bench, running the Government in the interest of those who are plundering the people.
Business interests support and finance their attorney handy-men because these attorneys are able to do what the business world wants done. The attorneys have been developed into a class of professional manipulators and wreckers of Government machinery because they are trained from the outset to regard the interests of their clients as of greater moment than the public interest.
A man, to become a good attorney, must have spent his life studying "precedent." What is precedent but the preservation of the status quo, and what is the status quo but the wisdom of yesterday?
The good attorney is therefore the attorney who is able to preserve the shadow of yesterday and use it to darken the sunlight of today.
The good attorney, to educate himself, pores over the Common Law of England. When his head is filled with seventeen hundred decisions handed down by judges who lived in the seventeenth century, before the American Colonies found the British rule intolerable, he fills up the chinks of his mind with Blackstone and with Kent's Commentaries. He then studies what the judges (attorneys) of the United States said during the past hundred years, and after that he is considered as prepared to defend the interests of the exploiters of America.
This precedent-fed human being is valuable to the great interests for three reasons: First, because his study of precedent has rendered him incapable of thinking into the future and has thus made him a natural protector of things as they are; Second, because the tradition of property rights inherited from the past can best be preserved through such a class of "dead-hand" experts; Third, because the attorney, under the ethics of his profession, is the only man who can take a bribe and call it a fee.
The real work of the world is done by those who envisage the future and prepare for it. Such ability is the first essential in a statesman, or in any other person who assumes to play a role in the direction of human affairs. The attorney finds it virtually impossible to look ahead for he has been trained to move forward with his eyes over his shoulder and, having endowed impunity upon themselves, no longer regard legal or moral obligations as anything but inconvenience.
We hold these truths to be self-evident
Grift of the Brunstings the Front End Bait and Switch
 Rik Wayne Munson 218 Landana American Canyon California 94503 cestui que of the RIK WAYNE MUNSON Trust
 The Marshall family is still trapped in Harris County Probate and they will remain trapped there until J. Howard Marshalls’ fortune has been completely consumed by third party predators.