Family Love; Family Gratitude?

I have a new website where I am posting “Political Discussion Christian Values” commentary. It is at


http://christiangunslinger3.blogspot.com/

This site will remain active for past posts.

8/21/11

Lil, Mel, and Linda

I write to you as Trustees of Mom’s Trust. I apologize for not sending a separate e-mail to Linda but I don’t have her e-mail address. I decided that writing was better than speaking to insure that all that needs to be said is said and is understood by all.

It has always been my intention to move from Illinois once I was no longer needed. It seems that that time may have arrived. If Mom remains in a nursing home, there is no reason for me to continue to live here.

I need to know what is going to transpire as far as Mom’s living and care arrangements. If she is to remain in a nursing home, I hope to move from the State in or around the first part of October.

As I see it, there are three possible circumstances as far as my situation is concerned although the third is extremely unlikely and certainly not my desire.

But first, Mom has five CDs in the Trust, that have matured as of August 17th, which in total are presently valued at $21,185.68. Since there is a 7 day grace period, they must be dealt with shortly or they will rollover and a penalty will occur if withdrawn after that 7 day grace period. Granted the interest rates are abominable but that is the condition of the economy.

The first circumstance is that the decision is made to leave Mom in the nursing home as is now the case. As I said, if that is the decision, I intend to move from the State. I do however need to know the decision quickly to make the necessary preparations.

The second circumstance is that the decision is made to move Mom back home and care for her here. I have, under that situation, committed myself to stay in Illinois with certain stipulations which I will address shortly.

I have received my most recent credit card bill. When it is paid off, I will be basically without funds. This is not the first occurrence since moving back here to care for Mom. As you know, I borrowed $12,000 from Mom since moving back to allow me to stay longer. That $12,000 was intended to be my moving fund as I needed to spend my saved money in order to live here. Since then, I have paid back the $12,000 in full.

In February of 2009, I once again ran out of money. At that time, Mom gave me $5000 and promised me $5000 for each year that I had been in Morton and $5000 for each additional year that I remained in Morton. She offered to give me, at that time, the full $30,000 from June of 2004 to June of 2009. I took only the $5,000 that I needed immediately and had planned, had she died in the mean time, not to receive the remaining money as promised if I received a similar (or larger) amount through distribution of the estate.

However, If I move in October I will need all the money promised to cover the expense of moving, finding and paying for a place to live, and at least a year of living expenses as I establish and develop my business after the move. Therefore, I need to know, not only what the plans for Mom are, but also if the promise made by Mom is going to honored. And no, I did not have her sign anything since I thought knowledge of the promise might lead to friction among us and I didn’t want that to develop if it could be avoided. It seems now, however, that I must request that her promise be fulfilled.

Which leads to the second situation of Mom returning home for care and me staying in Illinois for that care. If I stay, I must have a document signed by all the Trustees agreeing that I will be paid the money promised and paying immediately $5,000 for June 2011-June 2012 and $5,000 per year that I remain to care for Mom thereafter beginning in June of 2012. Furthermore, provision must be made in writing for what happens should Mom die during that time period. Specifically, If Mom dies between October 1st and April 30th of the period, I do not have to leave the house until July 1st of that year. If she dies between May 1st and September 30th, I will have at least 2 months before having to leave. Of course, I may leave earlier if I choose, and regardless of the time period, I do not have to leave until I have received all money owed either through promise and/or inheritance.

The finally situation is that I be given power of attorney over the estate and move with Mom to care for her with power of attorney until her death. I don’t want to do this nor do I expect agreement to it, but it is a possibility so I mention it.

Again, there are only 40 days till October 1st and I need time to plan and execute the plan whatever may be decided. Therefore, I submit that there is some urgency that a final decision be reached. Please inform me of the reached decision as soon as reasonable.

Thank you.

Don

8/22/11

Don,

Just opened the e-mail. Lil and Linda have not seen it yet. I’ll show it to them as soon as they get back.

Lil and Linda have been asking me to update Martha’s financial information for some time. I know that we went over this stuff several months ago. However, I can’t locate the folder I put it in. Would please e-mail the following information to me:

The amount and due date for all of the CDs information, saving account amounts, and trust funds that Martha has.

Please list the amount of income that Martha receives from each of the following - Social Security, her pension, and her Caterpillar pension.

Also would you give me a yearly or monthly estimate on the cost of utilities for the house. Please include telephone, home owners insurance, property taxes as well.

Thanks,

Mel

8/25/11

Don,

I would like to stop by tomorrow to pick up all of the information on Martha’s finances such as the names of the institutions that hold her CD’s, the information on the annuities, and any other materials that would be needed to renew, transfer, or withdraw funds from any of her financial accounts.

Linda, Larry, and Bill have been informed of you request. However, Lil and I simply will not be able to meet to give your request the due consideration that it requires while we are dealing with Rachael’s upcoming thyroid ablation treatment over the next few days.

Although no determination will be made on your request for a few days, I believe that it is important that you know that it is very likely Martha will always remain in an assisted care facility.

Please let me know the time tomorrow that would be best for you to have me stop by and pick up the financial information.

Mel

8/26/11

Any time after 2PM should be fine. Then, I will plan on moving on or around Oct 1

Don

8/26/11

Don,

I'll stop at 2:00PM

Thanks,

Mel

8/29/11

Lil, Mel, and Linda

Because of the delay in reaching a decision, which is understandable given Rachael’s situation but not helpful in relation to me reaching final decisions, I have decided to push back my departure date from on or around October 1st to on or around November 1st.

However, that departure date is contingent upon Mom’s promise being honored. I have decided that after giving up 7+ years of my life to care for Mom and making decisions over the last 2½ years based upon that promise, I’m NOT willing to go into debt in order to move from Illinois.

Therefore, I have decided that, if the decision is to not honor Mom’s promise, I will stay in Illinois, stay in this house, get a job which I will not quit on, and save the necessary money to move from Illinois without going into debt. I expect that during the remainder of the time that I am in Illinois, the same arrangement that is currently in place will continue to be honored and followed by all involved until I move from Illinois. It is NOT my desire to remain in Illinois any longer than necessary.

However, to repeat: After giving up 7+ years of my life to care for Mom and making decisions over the last 2½ years based upon that promise, I’m NOT willing to go into debt in order to move from Illinois.

Thanks

Don

9/12/11

Don,

Enclosed is an attachment with a detailed response to your 8-21- 2011 e-mail We will drop off a hard copy of the attachment to you tomorrow if at all possible. If not, we’ll drop off the hard copy on Wednesday at the latest.

Lil & Mel

See “Don’s Settlement Offer”

The Settlement Offer:

The offer was dated September 7, 2011. I did not receive it until the 9/12/11 e-mail.

“We have spoken with our family concerning mom’s house and your recent letters concerning the house and mom’s finances. The family has reached a consensus agreement. Part of the agreement was that we would send this letter to you. The proposal that the family has instructed us to give to you is as follows:

1. You would receive an unencumbered cash payment of $12,000.00 from mom’s trust for services rendered to mom. You would not be obligated to pay this money back and there would be no offset against this money when you receive your inheritance from mom’s trust and will.

2. An additional $5,000.00 will be paid to you from mom’s trust. You would be required to sign a written note that would draw 0% interest and would be payable to mom upon her death. In effect, this $5,000.00 is an advance on your inheritance. If for some reason mom died penniless, you would not be obligated to pay this money back.

3. You move out of the house, unless the Co-Trustees and you agree, by on or before November 1, 2011. Both payments would be made to you on November 1, 2011.

4. You sign a release releasing mom, her estate and trust from any further obligations to pay you anything.

5. If you and the Co-Trustees both decide that you could stay in the house you will pay rent in the amount of $465.00 per month and sign a written lease. The house will be listed for sale. The written lease will provide you have to move out on or before the date of closing or whenever you want to move out whichever happens first.

Please get back to us concerning whether this proposal is acceptable. The family has decided that this is not negotiable and is a take it or leave it offer. You should respond in writing by on or before September 19, 2011.

Sincerely,”

(My note: This was not a family decision unless the rest of the family excommunicated me from the family without my knowledge. I did not participate in any of the discussions nor was I invited to participate in any of the discussions. We are a blended family. The three oldest children have a different mother than do Lillian and I. The Mother in these e-mails is Lillian’s and my mother. We all have the same father. Of course, I am a beneficiary of the Trust as are the other children.)

9/13/11

The purposed agreement is an obvious compromise. Therefore, I can only surmise that some, if not all, of the family members including the Trustees are unwilling to honor Mom’s promise. A promise that I based decisions upon for the last two and one half plus years. So be it.

Before I became a Christian, I would have taken others steps. As a Christian, I am willing to sign the agree with the addition of the following addendum which does nothing to change the agreement as given but does provide me with additional protection.

The addendum:

“Donald L. Vance, as a beneficiary to the estate of Martha E. Vance, will be provided with a monthly statement, delivered between the 25th and the end of the particular month by the Trustees by e-mail or other written conveyance, listing accurately and completely all received income for the specific time period with the specific source of all income between each provided statement. That is, if a statement is e-mailed on November 25th with the specific information required, the next monthly statement will provide all required information from November 25th, not covered by the November 25th statement, through the specific date of the next e-mail or other written conveyance of the next statement. Further, an accurate and complete list of all expenditures for that specific period of time will be provided with an account of the amount spent, to whom, and for what purpose. If Donald L. Vance has a question about any income or expense item, he may inquire either by e-mail or any other written conveyance and the Trustees will provide a full, complete, and accurate response that truthfully answers the question(s) asked.

If any provision of this agreement is violated by either party, the complete agreement is null and void unless the violation is accepted in writing by both Donald L. Vance and all the Trustees.”

This addendum is non-negotiable. If not included, I will not sign the agreement. If the agreement is not signed, I will proceed under the verbal agreement reached between myself and Trustee Lillian X. XXXXXXXX and Trustee Linda X. XXXXX in which I would stay in Morton until Mom dies and I will proceed accordingly as I have since I moved backed to Morton. As a reminder, at the conclusion of our agreement, Linda specifically said to me “Please, don’t die!”

Under no circumstance will I pay rent to live in the home that has been my home since birth. Nor will I pay any expenses in relation to the home. If any breach of the verbal agreement occurs, I will take the necessary legal steps to protect the agreement. If a lawsuit becomes necessary, I will not sue to enforce Mom’s promise. I will sue for seven plus years of back wages including, but not limited to, work as a financial advisor, an accountant, a tax consultant, a maintenance man for the house and yard, a chauffeur, a grocery shopper, a care giver for Mom, a protector of the home, a protector for Mom, a cook, a house keeper, a 24 hours a day companion, and the care giver for Mom’s cat. I did these work tasks twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for over seven and one half years with no breaks except for two weeks when I went back to Tucson to deal with the estate of the client for whom I was a Trustee.

If the agreement is to be signed (I added the “ed” after it had been sent—my addition), provision should be made for all four of us to sign the agreement and for a notary public. If the agreement is over one page, provision should be made to have each of us initial those specific pages outside of the final page as the signature page.

Don

9/15/11

Lil and Mel

I know this seems silly; at least it does to me. However, given the present situation I feel it is necessary to ask to protect myself. As you know, Mom’s cat is due her shots this month. Do you want me to do it, do you want to do it yourself, or do you want to blow it off?

Please answer by e-mail soon.

Don

9/15/11

Don,

We'll take it later.

Mel/lil

9/20/11

Don,

We will be over tomorrow, Wednesday, October 21, 2011, at 4:00pm to give to you the response to your proposal.

Thanks,

Mel & Lil

9/21/11

Don,

We tried to reach you by phone to let you know that we need to have the meeting delayed until 4:30 pm today because Linda work scheduled was extended to 4:00pm. We'll call you again at 4:00pm.

Mel & Lil

The following was received at the meeting on 9/21/11 and was dated September 20, 2011.

“Re: Administration of Trust/Property Power of Attorney

Dear Don:

We have spoke with our family concerning your September 13, 2011 email. The family has unanimously agreed on the response that we are sending to you.

The family has unanimously agreed that letter we emailed to you remains the same except the date of September 19, 2011 is changed to September 23, 2011.

Please get back to us concerning whether this proposal is acceptable. This is a non-negotiable take it or leave it offer. You should respond in writing on or before September 23, 2011.

Sincerely,”

9/22/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

This e-mail is in response to the paper hand delivered to me on September 21, 2011 on or about 4:30 PM but dated for September 20, 2011. I will give a formal response to the paper by e-mail on September 23, 2011 as provided for in the paper.

Don

9/22/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

I need to know if during this process the Trustees are going to continue to refund me for purchases that Mom has refunded from the beginning and that Lillian has continued to do up until the present. Specifically, in this instance, the cat is running out of food. I am not going to try to pick and choose (I corrected from “choice” after it had been sent—my addition) what will be covered and what will not be. As Lillian knows, I told her that I was also feeding an outside cat and asked if that was okay. Since she concurred, I have continued to do so. As Mel said yesterday, I have little money. If you are not going to cover these always covered expenses, when the food runs out, I will stop feeding the cats. Unfortunately, I can not afford to feed both myself and the cats. Please let me know your decision.

Don

9/22/11

Don,

Go ahead and feed the cats. We can either reimburse you for the cat food, just buy the cat food ourselves and drop it off at the house, or we can pick up Shadow and keep her here with our cats for a little while until a home is found for her. Which do you prefer?

Mel and Lil

9/22/11

Don,

Enclosed are attachments of the original offer made to you and the response to your counter offer. Both of which were discussed at our 4:30pm meeting with you held on Wednesday, September 21, 2011.

Please feel free to e-mail or call us at 309-XXX-XXXX if you have any further questions and/or clarifications about the terms of the offer that was presented to you.

Also, the bank told us that it could take approximately 14 days from the time a CD is cashed in until the money from the CD is deposited in the bank.

Sincerely,

Mel, Lil, Linda

9/23/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

I was not lying! I wrote on 9/13/11 in my response to your offer that: “This addendum is non-negotiable. If not included, I will not sign the agreement.” Obviously, the addendum was added because I no longer trust the Trustees. You have reneged on Mom’s promise to me. A promise upon which I made fundamental decisions impacting my past, present, and future life.

I was not lying! I wrote on 9/13/11 in my response to your offer that: “I will proceed under the verbal agreement reached between myself and Trustee Lillian X. XXXXXXXX and Trustee Linda X. XXXXX in which I would stay in Morton until Mom dies and I will proceed accordingly as I have since I moved backed to Morton.” I have not violated that verbal agreement. It is my belief that the Trustees either are trying to violate or have violated that verbal agreement. A verbal agreement upon which I made fundamental decisions impacting my past, present, and future life.

I will not sign the agreement without the addendum. Period! In fact, since the deadline is now passed without agreement, “I will proceed under the verbal agreement reached between myself and Trustee Lillian X. XXXXXXXX and Trustee Linda X. XXXXX in which I would stay in Morton until Mom dies and I will proceed accordingly as I have since I moved backed to Morton.” The only future agreement that I will sign is one in which all thirty thousand dollars as promised by Mom is provided without any strings attached and with the addendum that I included with the proposed original agreement. This is non-negotiable and I am not lying! I have tried to be accommodating and understanding and it has been pushed back into my face. No more!

Mel, at the “at or about 4:30PM on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 meeting” between me, you, and Linda; you said that the Trustees have all the money, which, of course, is Mom’s money, and I have none. Which to me, seemed like an attempt to intimidate, bully, and/or coerce me into signing the agreement. Is a contract signed under such circumstances valid? You further stated that if I did not sign the agreement as written, the Trustees would begin proceedings to evict me. Which again seemed to me as another attempt to intimidate, bully, and/or coerce me into signing the agreement. Is a contract signed under such circumstances valid? And of course, no threat is of any benefit unless the individuals who issued the threat intend to follow through with the threat.

I believe the Trustees intend to follow through with that threat. However, it does not matter. I was not lying! I said I would not sign under the Trustees’ conditions with no protections provided to me and I will not regardless of any attempt to intimidate, bully and/or coerce.

This is a true David vs. Goliath situation. And I’m not Goliath! However, there are two types of law within the United States. Humanistic, man-made law which the Trustees seem to be relying upon and GOD’S moral law which I must follow as a Christian. You implied that the Trustees will not/can not lose in man-made courts. That may be true. However, I have learned that a baseball game is not over until the final out and a court decision is not final until the last court decision. In any case, it does not matter. I have already won in GOD’S moral realm. When I became a Christian, I became willing to die, if necessary, for CHRIST. And that is what I am willing to do.

JESUS said in John 15: 20 (NIV) “‘Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teachings, they will obey your also.’” As a Christian, I expect to be persecuted by some within society—not so much from my own family but it does happen. The classic example is Joseph being sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. If that is the end result, so be it.

I believe my position is an attempt to prevent the Trustees from continuing to sin either through jealousy, spite, greed, or whatever evil motivates their action. I certainly have no desire to take revenge. For as is written in Romans 12: 19 (NIV), “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” In fact, it has been my experience as a Christian that when an individual, individuals, or any institution have done me harm, GOD has avenged the situation! GOD has repaid! And he has done it far better than I could. GOD sometimes has a delicious sense of humor in doing so. Can anyone think of an example over the last seven years?

It is written earlier in Romans 8: 28 (NIV), “And we know that in all things GOD works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Therefore, I am certain that whatever happens to me will work for good somehow. I will continue to pray for Rachael in her situation. I will continue to pray for each of the Trustees. I will continue to pray for my other brothers and for Susan. I will pray for the cleansing, purifying act of repentance.

However, I will also shed the light of day on these proceedings as necessary. If I receive an eviction notice, I will post it on my blog the next day. I will then post all of the correspondence that has occurred or will occur over this situation. I may even stand (or sit since my knees aren’t what they use to) on the corner of Monroe and 2nd Avenue with a homemade sign saying something such as “Being evicted by family after being Mom’s caregiver for seven years. Family gratitude in action!” Wouldn’t this make a fascinating human interest story in the local press or on a local TV station? We might even make national headlines?

Since, as Mel has correctly pointed out, I have little money, if evicted I’ll be homeless. Since I have no car, I’ll be stranded. Stranded on the corner of Monroe and 2nd Avenue. Eventually, I’ll probably be arrested for vagrancy. When finally released, I’ll return to the one place I know—Monroe and 2nd Avenue. Since, I have little money, I’ll go hungry. I may just decide to curl up and die on the corner of Monroe and Second Avenue. This whole ordeal may just drive me insane or maybe I am already—having decided to go up against the “Goliath” estate that has all the money. Perhaps, a delayed post traumatic stress syndrome occurrence. Who knows what the future holds.

Lillian, as my baby sister, I am most disappointed in your involvement in this matter. For you know as well as I do, that if I had not moved back to Morton, you and Mel would be doing most, if not all, of what I have done for the last seven years or it would not have been done. Further, on differing occasions you have said:

1) That I should be paid for what I have been doing and am doing for Mom.

2) That the money is Mom’s money and she may do with it as she wants. (I guess unless she wants to give it to me.)

3) When you and Linda incorrectly accused me of enticing Mom into canceling the “Meals on Wheels” program, I said that your attack on me demonstrated how vulnerable I was. I said that the Trustees could order me to move out contrary to our verbal agreement at any time and I would have obvious problems. You said that you would never allow it to happen. It would never happen! And yet, here it is happening and according to the September 20, 2011 letter, you concurred with the decision.

4) When Mom was going through one of her rough situations, you and I were helping her to go from her bedroom to the kitchen. You were complaining that I was not helping you when Mom went to the bathroom. I reminded you that in our verbal agreement I had specifically stated that I would not help out in those situations. You correctly said that neither did you. I then stated that you should then talk to the person who did agree to do so. As you remained silent, in anger, I must admit, I declared: “However, if you want me to leave just say the word and I’ll move back to Tucson immediately.” (At that time I still had $15,000 in savings—including $12,000 that I had earlier borrowed from Mom and have since paid back knowing that I had the promise of Mom’s money. I also would have asked for and received from Mom the money she had promised.) Mom immediately screamed out “No, don’t do that!” You had a chance to allow me to break the agreement and you did not take it. I have to believe that it was because you knew that I was doing much more than anyone else for Mom and you did not want that to stop. And also that Mom did not want me to leave. And yet now, you seem to have no problem violating our verbal agreement!

If this goes to court and it seems that it will, will you tell the truth, take the convenient cop-out that you don’t remember, or commit perjury? Regardless of what is decided in court, I know the truth! You know the truth! And most importantly, GOD knows the truth! In court though it will be your decision. A decision for which you alone will be responsible and accountable.

As you know, I was a Trustee in Tucson for a client who had a much larger estate than Mom’s. As you know, even though I was not a Trustee, I handled Mom’s finances for seven years and saved her thousands of dollars. I know how much there is in her estate—I provided those figures to you! There is no valid financial reason at this time to sell the house except to invalidate the verbal agreement between me and Lillian and Linda. The selling of the house nonsense is no more than a porous ploy to intimidate, bully and/or coerce me into signing the agreement. If the law in Illinois is the same as the law in Arizona, the Trustees individually and collectively are personally responsible and accountable for each and every decision made in relation to the Trust regardless of any advice they receive from attorneys, family, or anyone else.

If I remained in Morton based upon fraudulent information and continued to provide services to Mom, is that theft of services? If that were the case, would I need money to prevail? Just wondering. Regardless, to protect myself and to protect my interests, I will pursue any and all legal remedies.

In conclusion, I will not sign your offensive ultimatum. I will react to future events as needed. I intend to keep our verbal agreement. I pray for each of you.

By the way Mel, you said you have received legal advice. I believe you did with the second letter delivered on the 21st. However, I don’t think you did with the first letter. For if you did, you should fire him/her for incompetence. The letter has a glaring flaw which even I, as a non-lawyer, recognized immediately.

A second by the way. Recently I was playing around with this hypothetical:

$7/hour times 8 hours/day times 365 days times 7 years =

Don

9/24/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

Concerning the cat situation and the three options provided:

You said: “Go ahead and feed the cats. We can either reimburse you for the cat food, just buy the cat food ourselves and drop it off at the house, or we can pick up Shadow and keep her here with our cats for a little while until a home is found for her. Which do you prefer?”

1) I will not buy the cat food myself until and unless “during this process the Trustees are going to continue to refund me for purchases that Mom has refunded from the beginning and that Lillian has continued to do up until the present.” I will not operate on a pick and choose basis. I need to know by e-mail or in writing before proceeding.

2) “[B]uy the cat food ourselves and drop it off at the house” causes a problem also. It seems that Linda believes that I have added no or little value over the seven years I have been here. If I feed the cat with food purchased by you or anyone else, am I adding value? If I give the cat water daily, am I adding value? If I clean the cat litter daily, am I adding value? If I am not adding value, then it makes no difference if I do these things or not. Therefore, I will not continue to do any of the above once the cat food I now have runs out until I know that “during this process the Trustees are going to continue to refund me for purchases that Mom has refunded from the beginning and that Lillian has continued to do up until the present.”

3) “[K]eep her here with our cats for a little while until a home is found for her” also has a problem. As you know, the house has had a problem with mice for several years. As you also know the cat was the solution to that problem as she caught and killed the mice. The last mouse caught and killed was about two weeks ago. Now, I have only seen alive one mouse since being back here. That was the mouse Mom stepped on and killed. However, I would think that, if the cat is removed, the mouse problem will only intensify. Absence the cat, I would think that an extermination company would have to be hired to insure mice are absent from the house. If not, would not an unsanitary living environment exist?

So the question is, which do you prefer as the Trustees of the estate.

In other matters, I have stopped mowing the lawn since I received your first proposal. Since it seems that Linda believes that I have added no or little value over the seven years I have been here, my continuing to mow the lawn would add no additional value and would not decrease the value I provide. Therefore, until I am told in e-mail or writing that the Trust “will continue to refund me for purchases that Mom has refunded from the beginning and that Lillian has continued to do up until the present” I will not mow the lawn.

If by the grace of GOD, I am still here when the winter snows begin I will not be involved in that work either since it seems I add no value, unless I am told that the Trustees “will continue to refund me for purchases that Mom has refunded from the beginning and that Lillian has continued to do up until the present.”

Furthermore, I have told Lillian at least twice that the porch hand rail is loose and has been since put in place last year. Since I have no health insurance, if I am injured because of the loose hand rail, it seems likely that I will have no recourse but to take legal action.

There are weeds/flowers that have overgrown onto the sidewalk in front of the garage door. Some are almost on the sidewalk itself. If I should injure myself, for example, while carrying groceries from the garage to the house, it seems likely that I will have no recourse but to take legal action.

As I have said before, one of the ceiling tiles for the false ceiling in the shower area is badly warped. During the hottest days of summer, warm air could be felt coming down from the attic. With autumn here and winter approaching, the warped tile will no doubt allow very cold air to come into the area. Should this not be remedied? Since Mom is not available and I add no or little value according to Linda is this not the responsibility of the Trustees?

In conclusion, at this time, I need to know the preference of the Trustees in relation to the cat.

Don

10/1/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

I just came back to the computer from being downstairs for the first time today. THE CAT HAS NO FOOD! We have discussed this by e-mail so I won’t rehash the material. My last e-mail was on 9/24/11 when I responded to your three options, explained my position on each, and rightly declared that it is your RESPONSIBILITY and DECISION, not mine. I have not heard from you since my 9/24/11 e-mail. It is your fiduciary responsibility. Will animal control have to be contacted? What would Mom do? What you are going to do?

Don

10/1/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

I’m sorry.

I’ve done some research of the Morton Village Ordinances. Included in that research is the following information:

“OWNER: For the purpose of definition, any person who shelters, harbors, feeds, encourages, or permits a dog or cat to remain at, near, or about his premises or living quarters shall be deemed the owner or keeper of such dog or cat and responsible therefor. (Ord. 359, 6-21-65; amd. Ord. 628, 11-4-74)”

Since I am NOT the owner of Shadow, the cat, and since the Trustees have refused up to this point to respond to my correspondence of 9/24/2011 in relation to the cat, and since according to my understanding of the village ordinance, I may be held responsible for the cat by sheltering the cat, I immediately demand that Shady, Mom’s cat and presently the responsibility of the Trustees of Mom’s estate, immediately be removed from my living quarters (Mom’s home) which Mom has promised that I may stay in until her death and a reasonable time thereafter until her estate is concluded.

Please contact me by e-mail to establish an agreeable time when one or more of the Trustees will pick up and remove the cat from the premises.

Thank you.

Don

10/03/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

Since I have yet to receive any response from the Trustees, I must proceed with the following concerning Shadow, Mom’s cat:

Either: “[D]uring this process the Trustees agree to continue to refund me for purchases that Mom has refunded from the beginning and that Lillian has continued to do up until the present. I will not operate on a pick and choose basis.” Therefore, I need to know by e-mail or in writing before proceeding any farther, as far as my continuing to care for the cat, that I will be refunded as I have in the past as referenced above.

Or: The Trustees immediately remove Shadow, Mom’s cat, from my living quarters (Mom’s home) which Mom has promised that I may stay in until her death and a reasonable time thereafter until her estate is concluded.

If neither of the first two options occur before Wednesday, October 5, 2011; I will begin charging the Trustees/Trust a service fee of $15.00 per day or part of the day thereof for cat sitting services. This fee will be payable weekly—from Wednesday of the current week through Tuesday of the next week—for a sum, for services rendered, of $105.00 per week. The fee does not include any and all expenses I incur in relation to the cat sitting. Any and all additional expenses related to the service of cat sitting will be added to the weekly statement and the Trustees/Trust will be notified of those expenses on Tuesday by e-mail at the end of the billing week which is Tuesday. Credit is not acceptable and a $10 nonpayment fee or the maximum amount allowed by law, if less than the designated $10 nonpayment fee, will be added for nonpayment on the Wednesday payment due date if the services provided are not paid for by Wednesday. This charge is only for cat sitting and not for any other services provided by me whether they be in the past, in the present, and/or in the future.

Because of the present situation with the Trustees/Trust seemingly having failed to honor Mom’s promise/promises to me and/or our verbal agreement and/or intending to violate either or both presently and/or in the future, nothing in this e-mail precludes me from seeking payment for any and all services provided in the past, present, and/or in the future, and/or any and all promises given in the past, present, and/or in the future, and/or any and all verbal agreements reached in the past, present, and/or in the future. Nor does anything in this e-mail preclude me from taking any and all legal actions necessary to remedy this situation or any other situation I may be involved in with the Trustees/Trust.

This fee was determined in part by a search of the internet for appropriate fees for cat sitting. Examples being:

From: http://allaboutpawspetsit.com/3.html

“Cats- Each visit starts at $15. Rates are dependent on length of visits, number of daily visits, days of the week and length of contract.”

From: http://www.theanimalnanny.com/rates.php

“Overnight Pet Sitting:

$65.00 per night”

“Pet Sitting:

Cat household: $23.00 Per visit”

Please determine how the Trustees/Trust intend to proceed and immediately notify me by e-mail or in writing accordingly.

Thank you.

Don

10/04/11

Mel Stanford
To Don Vance

we will pick up the cat tomorrow to take her to new home.

10/05/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

“we will pick up the cat tomorrow to take her to new home.” At approximately what time? I run at about 7AM, get back, get ready, and am going grocery shopping at approximately 9AM.

Do you want the cat carrier?

Don

10/05/11

We'll be over between 1:00 and 2:00 this afternoon. We'll take the carrier and the food that was dropped off.

10/05/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

That should be OK. What food? I bought food for Shadow, Mom’s cat. Do you mean that food?

10/05/11

Sorry meant litter box- may not need it.

10/05/11

Don,

Do you know where Martha has the house insurance. We need to check and see what kind of coverage she has and if it is sufficient. Also,wanted to let you know that house phone is either off the hook or not working. We tried to call you about the cat on it but the line was busy. Just tried it again and still got a busy signal.

10/06/11

Mel

If it is not in the metal box that you removed from the house recently or the safe deposit box, I have no idea where she has it. Her insurer is State Farm and the office she uses is the one on Main Street across from Morton Community Bank—Main and Monroe.

The phone was off the hook. No wonder I wasn’t receiving “I want your money” phone calls. It was nice.

Don

10/06/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

BILL for cat sitting for Shadow, Mom’s cat:

1) $15.00—cat sitting for Shadow on Wednesday October 5, 2011 (service fee of $15.00 per day or part of the day thereof for cat sitting services.)

2) NO charge—“chasing down” Shadow, “catching” her, and putting her in the cat carrier

Related charges in relation to cat sitting for Shadow:

3) $07.47—cat food purchased with appropriate tax

4) $11.18—expense for mailing of notice letter to Trustees including $.88 postage stamps, $10.30 for certified letter with return receipt for two addresses.

TOTAL: $33.65—due on or before October 12, 2011. Full payment required. No partial payment accepted. Credit is not acceptable and a $10 nonpayment fee or the maximum amount allowed by law, if less than the designated $10 nonpayment fee, will be added for nonpayment on the Wednesday payment due date if the services provided are not paid for by Wednesday, October 12, 2011.

TOTAL DUE: $33.65

Thank you,

Don

10/07/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

Please write me and give me a check for $77.75 for expenses covered by Mom since I moved back and continued to be paid for by Lillian since she started writing checks for the Trust—the last check she wrote to cover expenses was on 9/6/2011.

Thank you.

Don

10/07/11

Don,

Please itemize the expenses.

10/07/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

First, some background. Although I have paid for most of my food from the beginning, there have been some food items for which Mom has paid from the beginning. Why she chose these items and not others, I don’t know. The items include milk, cheese, bread, canned fruit which we shared after being opened and I don’t buy on my own, and condiments—catsup for me. I bought catsup last cycle but not this cycle. I did not include date of purchase but have that information if you want it. I keep good records—I’m a businessman and a tax consultant. The appropriate tax is included in each figure.

$02.88 1 milk
$07.62 3 milk, 2 cheese
$04.04 3 milk
$04.88 1 milk, 2 cheese
$04.88 4 milk
$03.37 2 cheese
$03.34 Drainpro Gel
$05.05 3 milk, 1 bread
$08.08 6 milk
$00.80 1 bread
$02.53 2 milk
$03.82 2 cheese
$26.46 gasoline
______________
$77.75 TOTAL

Please pay by two separate checks since the cat sitting is business income and this check is for reimbursements.

(The first three were August purchases that were inadvertently not included on the last statement paid by Lillian.)

Thank you.

10/08/11

Don:

As we have written earlier, you will be reimbursed for the cost of the cat food that you incurred. However, the other costs that you have listed are your personal expenses and will not be reimbursed.

Also, the trustees and the family have determined that the cable television and phone are no longer needed for Mom. The cable television and phone will be turned off on October 21, 2011. If you wish to have these services continued until you move out on November 1, 2011 it would be up to you to arrange for these services.

Your recent emails suggested an obligation of Mom’s trust to pay for yard mowing, the cat and other expenses. The family does not believe it is obligated to pay for any of these expenses and will not pay for them. The cat has been removed from the house so you do not have to deal with the cat anymore. Yard mowing and any other maintenance will be handled by the trust. Between now and when you move out if there are any maintenance issue that arise please contact one of us and we will address those issues.

The Trustees

10/10/11

Don,

You should receive a check reimbursing you for the cat food you purchased no latter than Thursday. The check was placed in the mail to you today.

10/11/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

I just read your e-mails of 10/08/11 and 10/10/11 this morning. Except for writing the blog and jogging Saturday and Monday, I took the long weekend off to give more time to GOD, HIS SON, and the HOLLY SPIRIT.

It grieves me that it seems that the hearts of my family are so very HARDENED and BLACKENED with SIN. I will continue to PRAY for your REPENTANCE not for my sake but for your sake.

I will respond to both e-mails when I have opportunity. I will not accept any payment that is not in full for services rendered and costs incurred.

May GOD have mercy on you.

Don

10/11/11

Just a note to let you know that we will be doing the fall yard/garden clean-up over the next week or two.

10/13/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

The following is for this morning—October 13, 2011. I will have more to say when appropriate.

First, when Mel and Linda came to the residence on Wednesday, October 5, 2011 to pick up Shadow, Mom’s cat, Mel admitted that he unsuccessfully attempted to enter the residence without my permission. As I have stated before, I no longer trust any of the Trustees. I have valuable papers in my possession and I have a fiduciary responsibility in relation to those papers. Therefore, before coming to the residence please inform me by e-mail when any Trustee(s) is/are coming and the approximate time any Trustee(s) is/are coming. Please do not attempt to enter the residence without my permission.

Second, I received a check yesterday for a partial payment for cat sitting Shadow, Mom’s cat. I specifically stated that no partial payment will be accepted. Therefore, the amount of $33.65 is still due. Furthermore, since the full payment was not paid by October 12, 2011, the $10 nonpayment fee or the maximum amount allowed by law, if less than the designated $10 nonpayment fee, has now been added to the bill. Therefore, the bill is now $43.65 or the maximum amount allowed by law, if less than the designated $10 nonpayment fee. Please pay your overdue bill.

Third, of course the Trustees do not believe that the Trustees owe me for my expertise and services rendered. In my opinion, the Trustees stole my expertise and all of my services over the years through duplicity and lies. Obviously, there is a disagreement on this issue. Just as obviously, it will not be decided between the Trustees and me. Fortunately, there are other avenues available.

Fourth, as far as the Trustees refusal to pay the expenses submitted, that decision is a puzzlement. Lillian has reimbursed me for similar expenses throughout this year including on September 6, 2011, after I had sent the original e-mail in August asking for the money Mom had promised me. Never during this time did she ask me for a breakdown of the expenses. The Trustees have now decided not to pay those same expenses. Isn’t that a 180° change of position? I’m not a lawyer but I was a Trustee with a fiduciary responsibility to the owner of the Trust and to the Trust while living in Tucson and during my first year here. One has to wonder if Lillian violated her fiduciary responsibility when she paid the reimbursements through September 6, 2011 or if she and the other Trustees are violating their fiduciary responsibility presently by refusing to pay for the same type of expenses. Why wouldn’t I be confused? I still consider those expenses to be due and payable. Please pay me $77.75 for my expenses and please pay this week.

Finally, for this e-mail, if you turn off the phone on October 21, 2011 and, for example, a fire occurs at the residence, for example, because of a lightening strike at 2AM, how am I suppose to call for help and assistance, particularly if I am trapped upstairs in my bedroom where there is currently a working phone? Furthermore, if you turn off my internet access, how are we to communicate? Do you really want to communicate by letter only? Could the Trustees possibly be violating their fiduciary responsibilities? Just how often have the Trustees violated their fiduciary responsibilities?

Thank you.

Don

10/13/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

Someone put three baby kittens on the kitchen porch—two golden and a black one. They were there when I came home from running. I can’t do anything for them. If you want something to be done with them, you need to come and get them.

Don

10/13/11

As we have written earlier, you will be reimbursed for the cost of the cat food that you incurred. However, the other costs that you have listed are your personal expenses and will not be reimbursed.

Also, the trustees and the family have determined that the cable television and phone are no longer needed for Mom. The cable television and phone will be turned off on October 21, 2011. If you wish to have these services continued until you move out on November 1, 2011 it would be up to you to arrange for these services.

Your recent emails suggested an obligation of Mom’s trust to pay for yard mowing, the cat and other expenses. The family does not believe it is obligated to pay for any of these expenses and will not pay for them. The cat has been removed from the house so you do not have to deal with the cat anymore. Yard mowing and any other maintenance will be handled by the trust. Between now and when you move out if there are any maintenance issue that arise please contact one of us and we will address those issues.

The Trustees

10/13/11

Don,

Just a note to let you know that the Trustees were given keys and have authorized access to the house. However, as in the past, we will continue to notify you whenever someone need access to the house so that you may be present.

The Trustees

10/17/11

Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust

From a letter written to me while I was living in Tucson from Mom dated Dec. 15, 2003; the last two sentences of the letter are:

“It’s lonely around here but I’m doing okay. Lillian stops 2 or 3 times a week and Linda ….” (I can’t make out the rest as Mom came to the last line of the paper. I think it is “1” but I’m not sure.]

“Mom is doing pretty good, but I’m sure it’s hard and she is lonely. I try to stop by a couple of times a week and Linda stops by usually at least every other week.” This quote is from a Christmas card sent to me by Lillian in December of 2003. Of course, Dad had died in May of 2003.

According to I Timothy 5: 3-4 and I Timothy 5: 8, the Bible says “Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.”

“If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Knowing what the Bible says about a Christian’s responsibility to his widowed mother and his immediate family, and having received the above two quotes, and knowing the situations of other family members; after much prayer I decided in faith that it was GOD’S will for me to move from Tucson back to Morton to care for Mom.

According to Acts 25: 6-12, the Bible says “After spending eight or ten days with them, he went down to Caesarea, and the next day he convened the court and ordered that Paul be brought before him. When Paul appeared, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges against him, which they could not prove.

Then Paul made his defense: ‘I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.’

Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, ‘Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?’

Paul answered: ‘I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!’

After Festus had conferred with his counsel, he declared: ‘You have appealed to
Caesar. To Caesar you will go!’”

I would never dare to compare myself to the Apostle Paul. He suffered and endured much more than I could possibly endure. He impacted other people beyond anything I could hope to achieve. However, he did establish a pattern for other Christians from that time forward.

01) If I am guilty of doing wrong by closing down my business to move back to Illinois, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

02) If I am guilty of doing wrong by giving away my automobile to move back to Illinois, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

03) If I am guilty of doing wrong by moving back to Illinois to care for Mom, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

04) If I am guilty of doing wrong by insisting that Mom lock the doors in the house during the daytime (For we have all heard her story that she believes that someone entered the house through an unlocked door and stole money that she keep at home. For I know that it is not wise for an eighty plus old widow, who was living by herself, to keep her doors unlocked even in the seemingly safe village of Morton.), I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

05) If I am guilty of doing wrong by insisting that the cat-urine drenched carpet be replaced, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

06) If I am guilty of doing wrong by seemingly saving Mom’s life when the stove was leaking natural gas because the burner knob did not shut down the gas flow completely and then insisting that the stove top be replaced on the threat of moving if it was not, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

07) If I am guilty of doing wrong by being the de facto Trustee during my seven plus years of caring for Mom since moving back from Tucson, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

08) If I am guilty of doing wrong by saving Mom and her Trust thousands of dollars during my seven plus year of caring for Mom, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

09) If I am guilty of doing wrong by chauffeuring Mom after her car accident which led to her not driving any longer, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

10) If I am guilty of doing wrong by being an almost constant companion and help to Mom during those seven plus years, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

11) If I am guilty of doing wrong by being in the home every night except for the two weeks I went back to Tucson in 2005 after the death of the owner of the Trust for which I was a Trustee, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

12) If I am guilty of doing wrong by asking for the money that Mom had promised to me in gratitude for what I was doing and for continuing to do the same, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

13) If I am guilty of doing wrong by not having her sign a contract to insure I received the promised money because I feared it might cause animosity among some family members towards her and me while she was still active and involved, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

14) If I am guilty of doing wrong by reaching a verbal agreement with Trustees Lillian and Linda that I would remain in Morton until after Mom’s death so that Mom’s long-term care insurance contract could be cancelled to save Mom thousands of dollars a year, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

15) If I am guilty of doing wrong by falsely believing that Trustees Lillian and Linda would actually honor that verbal agreement, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

16) If I am guilty of doing wrong by believing that the Trustees have integrity and honor, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

17) If I am guilty of doing wrong by trying to maintain Mom’s integrity and honor, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

The Bible says in Proverbs 10: 9 (NIV): “The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out.”

The Bible says in Mark 10: 18-19 (NIV): “‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’’”

If I am guilty of doing any other wrong, I am willing to pay the price for that wrong.

Concerning the recent action of the Trustees to cut off Mom’s phone service and internet access to the house, neither action surprises me. I consider it nothing more than another attempt to intimidate, bully, and/or coerce me into doing what the Trustees want rather than what is in my best interests and what Mom would want to happen. For we all know, that the actions of the Trustees are contrary to want Mom would want if she was still functionally able to control the Trust.

I am concerned that should something happen to me during the time the phones are disconnected and before the time I vacate the house, that the Trustees might be held criminally responsible for my death should I have a heart attack, stroke, or similar medical emergency and I was unable to receive the necessary emergency help because of the disconnect. Would that be criminal involuntary manslaughter or something similar since you knew before hand that I could not afford to continue the phone service.

Concerning the internet disconnect, you know that I write a daily—Monday through Saturday—political, conservative blog at http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/.

If my internet access is cut off, that conservative blog will be silenced. Mel, you are a Republican member of the Tazewell County Board representing Mackinaw. Do you really want to silence a conservative blog? Could it be that you are really a RINO—Republican In Name Only? Could it be that for all these years you have been deceiving the voters of your district and other members of the Republican Party?

However, more than anything, I am fearfully concerned about the wellbeing of the Trustees if they continue to pursue the course they have taken. For I firmly believe that GOD will do what HE has promised to do in HIS Word.

Romans 12: 19 (NIV): “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”

His wrath is illustrated through out the Old and New Testament from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sins of the inhabitants (Genesis 19: 1-29 [NIV], to the death of two Christians for lying to the HOLY SPIRIT (Acts 5: 1-11 [NIV]), to the death of King Herod (Acts 12: 19-24 [NIV]), to the blinding of Elymas (Acts 13: 6-12 [NIV]).

Proverbs 14: 2 (NIV): “He whose walk is upright fears the Lord, but he whose ways are devious despises him.”

Proverbs 28: 14 (NIV): “Blessed is the man who always fears the Lord, but he who hardens his heart falls into trouble.”

Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14 (NIV): “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”

Matthew 10: 28 (NIV): “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Luke 1: 50 (NIV): “His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.”

Luke 12: 5 (NIV): “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”

Do any of the Trustees have any fear of GOD? Does it seem that way with your continuing actions?

Lillian, a few years ago, I asked you to sign a petition to stop the MURDER of unborn babies. You refused to sign. You ended our discussion with this statement: “GOD knows my heart.” And you were absolutely correct. The question is, what does he know?

Matthew 15: 18-20a (NIV): “But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ’unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ’unclean’ ….”

Are your actions at this time what GOD wants? Are you doing what Mom would do if she was still in control of the trust? Are you going to tell the truth?

I will continue to pray for all of you. No matter what happens, I will help you to know GOD’S will if you want me to provide that help.


However, whether or not any of you fear GOD, if you persist, every time something bad happens that impacts you personally, you won’t be able to help but think: “Is this happening because of what I did as a Trustee.” And then, comes judgment as we all bow before the CREATOR of all things!

In reality, we only have two choices in life: to serve GOD and obey HIS commands as a Christian or NOT. I reject the NOT!!! DO you?


Lillian, Mel, and Linda as Trustees for Mom’s Trust


An update: I am in preliminary negotiations with a Congressional candidate in _____________ to teach the Constitution to his constituents using my Constitutional workbook as the textbook. Of course, I don’t know, at this point in time, if the negotiations will be successful or how long the negotiations will take. I do have a concern that receiving an eviction notice may hinder or end the negotiations prematurely. I would much rather spend this winter in ______________ than in Illinois.

Further, in the interest of trying to begin the healing process to improve the breach that has obviously occurred within this family, I wish to propose the following temporary compromise.

But first, it seems obvious to me that if I had not asked for the money Mom had promised to me, there would be no problem today. we would be continuing with the verbal agreement reached by Lillian, Linda and myself and I would be living in this residence without the threat of eviction and would still be working for the good of Mom and the family as I have been consistently and constantly since I moved back to Morton.

Furthermore, as Mel knows since he has a real estate license and as I know since I have had two real estate licenses—one in Illinois and one in Arizona—the following are true in relation to selling a home.

1) The real estate market is not doing well at the moment although some areas are doing better than others

2) Statistically, the worst time of the year to place a piece of property on the market is during the wintertime particularly in a cold weather State such as Illinois.

3) Statistically, the longer a piece of property is on the market, the lower the selling price will be as the price will be reduced to induce potential buyers to consider the property.

4) This house, in particular, needs much cosmetic work to make it more saleable

5) Statistically, an occupied home tends to sale at a better price than an unoccupied home, particularly if the buyer believes the seller is anxious to sell the home

6) As a beneficiary to the Trust and as a son concerned for the wellbeing of his mother, receiving the best price possible in selling the home is to everyone’s benefit.

Therefore, I propose the following:

We return to the verbal agreement reached by Lillian, Linda, and myself. I remain in the home through the winter and spring without paying rent or any other expense in relation to the house including internet service and phone and without being treated as an enemy of the family, which I am not, and I help get the home ready to be placed on the market. That the home be placed on the market, if ready, no sooner than March 1, 2012 and that I agree to vacate the home by May 1st unless by mutual agreement I stay longer than May 1st. Of course, I may move before May 1, 2012 at my discretion. I continue to have the use of Mom’s car as I have had since moving back, that I be listed as the principle driver as I have been since Mom stopped driving, that the car continues to be covered by insurance, and that all car expenses be paid for by the Trust as has been since I moved back except for a period of time when I paid ½ of the gasoline so that I could worship at my church. (Mom finally agreed that I would not pay anything for gasoline.) All other disagreements, disputes, and/or concerns will be placed in abeyance until May 1, 2012.

If this proposal is acceptable, it shall be put into contract form and signed by a majority of Trustees, as required by law, and me on or before November 1, 2011.

If each and everyone of you is satisfied with your relationship with GOD the FATHER and HIS SON, there is nothing I can do about that. If you are not satisfied, I am willing to help anyone of you to all of you to come to a fuller understanding. After intently studying the Bible I came to the conclusion years ago that we were not being told the Biblical truth in several areas. Fundamentally, the question needs to be asked and answered as was asked by sinners and answered by the apostles at the beginning of church history, “What must I do to be saved?”

Acts 2: 37 (NIV) “When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’”

That question is fundamental to becoming a Christian. Do you know the correct answer? The Biblical answer is not what I was taught when I was young and it is not what is being taught now by many religious organizations. Also, of major concern is the concept of “once saved always saved.” Is that a Biblically true concept? There are other “teachings” that are believed by some that simply are not Biblically true. During my seven plus years here, I was surprised at how much Mom did not Biblically know. I tried to help her understanding but, I am afraid, in the end she was unwilling to have a change of heart being content with her association with her religious organization.

I am willing to help your study if you are interested. The choice is yours. I am certain that we will all one day bow before GOD at HIS judgment of each of us. I can say with confidence that I offered to help in your understanding of Scripture. You will not be able to say that you did not understand because no one offered to help you know the truth.

In one sense, I am glad all of this happened since until now I was reluctant to broach the subject least I offend someone. This situation gives me the opportunity to offer my help. I have fulfilled my Christian responsibility in this area. The choice is now each of yours. As I said in my last e-mail, “In reality, we only have two choices in life: to serve GOD and obey HIS commands as a Christian or NOT. I reject the NOT!!! DO you?”

Finally, I would appreciate receiving updates on how Mom is doing. Nothing that has occurred has lessened my love and concern for Mom.

10/28/11

To all

Although the question “What must I do to be saved?” is essential to becoming a Christian and needs to be studied, I did not repent because of such a study. Before that, I intently studied every passage in the New Testament dealing with baptism. I concluded that the religious organization in which I was involved was not telling me the Biblical truth. After that study, I repented and was baptized into CHRIST becoming a Christian. I am including as an attachment three lessons on baptism which are good but not as good as doing an independent study of baptism on your own. Study and draw your own conclusions. I have also included a lesson on “The Resurrection.”

Search TV can be seen on the FOX channel Sunday morning at 7:30AM. A short time after returning to Illinois, Mom and I watched it each Sunday before going our separate ways to worship.

I leave for Bible study and worship in East Peoria at about 9:05AM each Sunday morning. Any and all of you are welcome to join me this Sunday and any Sunday thereafter that I am living in Morton.

Ultimately, we only have two choices in life. To become a Christian and serve and obey GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON, and GOD the HOLY SPIRIT or not. I rejected the “OR NOT!” What is your choice? We have no guarantee how long we will live or how often we will be given the opportunity to repent and turn to GOD. One thing is certain, this body that we occupy now will not live forever. The choice is for each of us individually since GOD granted us free will to embrace HIM as LORD or to reject HIM. What a marvelous gift! What a terrifying alternative!

Don

Vernon Robinson—Fund Raising Results for North Carolina Congressional District 8


From: Robinson for Congress

http://www.robinsonforcongress.com/

“October 17, 2011

Fellow Conservative

Thank you so much!

With the help of great American patriots like yourself, we raised 176,000 dollars this quarter! This means that Vernon Robinson leads the field of contenders in the 8th District US Congress race. In fact, in the 3rd Quarter, Vernon:

1) raised more money than the incumbent Larry Kissell,

2) raised more money than all of his GOP primary opponents combined, and

3) has many times more contributors than all of his opponents.

To date, Vernon has over 2,600 individual contributors, with 336 residing in North Carolina. Vernon has won the monetary support of 49 Doctors and Dentists who are concerned about Obamacare, as well as the support of 24 Colonels, Navy Captains, and General Officers representing our fine military forces.

We could not celebrate this success without the support, prayers, and hard work of our supporters and volunteers. We also are thankful for key endorsements from Michael Reagan and Charles Helms,

http://robinsonforcongress.com/node/114

sons of two of the 20th century’s most influential conservatives.

But our fight is not over—it is only beginning. In the coming days and months leading to the May primary, the Obama/Kissell machine will deluge North Carolina with liberal PAC and special interest money. In fact, Incumbent Larry Kissell’s 3rd Quarter report showed that he has already accepted over 100 thousand dollars of PAC money from labor unions, trial lawyers and other special interests.

We also know that we have primary opponents who will not hesitate to pour in funds from their personal fortunes, in order to compensate for their lack of success in individual fundraising.

I need to tell you honestly that Vernon does not have that type of personal fortune money to pour into his campaign. Neither will we ever have the liberal PAC money that George Soros can write a check for. Instead, we rely on the donations of hard-working, conservative Americans like yourself in order get our message out. We must insure that the next Congressman from the 8th District is a true Constitutional conservative.

Please donate online by clicking on the link below, sign up on our website Volunteer Form, send us a check at the address below (at the end of this post—my addition), and help us continue to build our fundraising momentum.

To contribute: https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/borders/1022/donate.aspx?slc=506

To contribute: https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/borders/1022/donate.aspx?slc=506

To contribute: https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/borders/1022/donate.aspx?slc=506

Thank you again for your support. Below, please see the press release we sent out this morning.

Sincerely,

Steve Arnold, Campaign Director

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Robinson Leads Fundraising Race: Raises 176,000 Dollars in 3rd Quarter

CONCORD, NC—Today, the campaign announced that Vernon Robinson raised more money than all of his primary opponents combined. Perhaps more significantly, Vernon Robinson out-fundraised the incumbent, Democrat Larry Kissell, in third quarter receipts. Demonstrating once again his ability to connect with voters and contributors, Vernon Robinson has shown he has the strength and support to defeat Larry Kissell for Congress in 2012.

Vernon Robinson is the tried, tested and true conservative running for Congress in the 8th district. Recently, he received the endorsements of Michael Reagan and Charles Helms, the sons of the two most significant American conservatives of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms respectively. He is committed to stopping the radical agenda of Barack Obama.

Robinson raised 176,000 dollars from over 2,600 people in the third quarter. His campaign is showing an impressive 96,000 dollars cash on hand.

Incumbent Larry Kissell raised 167,000 dollars in contributions in the third quarter, 104,000 of which came from special interest PACs and lobbyists. He is showing 251,000 dollars cash on hand.

Vernon Robinson’s primary opponent, John Whitley of Fairmont, has not filed a report regarding the 8th district race. The only information available from the FEC was regarding his campaign for Congress in Tennessee last year. Dan Barry, another contender, of Weddington, has raised 70,500 dollars for the primary election from fifty-two contributors. He has 78,000 dollars cash on hand.

Scott Keadle, of Mooresville, has raised 45,000 dollars this quarter from thirty-five contributors. He is showing 82,000 dollars cash on hand, which includes a 70,000 dollar loan that he made to himself on the same day the report was filed. Richard Hudson, of Washington D.C., has not yet filed a financial report.

At this point in the race, Vernon Robinson has roughly THIRTY TIMES the number of contributors that all of his primary opponents have combined.

‘I believe the liberal Democrats in Washington, led by Obama and Kissell, are going to fight hard for the 8th district in North Carolina. This is shown by, among other things, Kissell’s strong support from labor unions and trial lawyers.

We must return to a limited Constitutional republic so that the American people can enjoy unlimited personal and economic freedom. I want to thank my many friends and supporters for their confidence in this campaign. We have much to do in the coming months, but with their help and prayers, I’m sure we will get it done.’

Contribute by mail:

Robinson For Congress
1620 Eastchester Drive, Suite 105
High Point, NC 27265”

“Like” us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RobinsonforCongress
Twitter: @vrobinson

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

It’s the Morality!!!


Vernon Robinson—Republican Candidate North Carolina Congressional District 8

From: http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2011/08/08/its_the_morality,_stupid!/page/full/

“Michael Brown

It’s the Morality, Stupid!
8/8/11

It was political strategist James Carville who coined the now-famous phrase that helped catapult Bill Clinton to the presidency, incessantly reminding him that, ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Any candidate seeking to unseat President Obama in the 2012 elections will surely follow this same strategy.

After all, the economy is in shambles and Americans are fed up with the latest congressional efforts to reduce the deficit. Unemployment is nearing epidemic proportions, gasoline prices are outrageous, spending is out of control, and for the first time, our national credit rating has been downgraded. Worse still, if foreign money was pulled out of our economy, we would have a massive, coast to coast collapse.

Political pundits commonly warn candidates, especially Republican candidates, that voters today are not as concerned with social and moral issues as much as they are concerned with the economy. In that respect, Carville’s sage advice to Clinton is nothing new. After all, Hebert Hoover’s 1928 campaign slogan was, ‘A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.’ Has anything really changed since 1928 in terms of what Americans care about the most?

Surely, it still is ‘the economy, stupid.’ Or is it? Could it be that there’s more to the story? Could it be that we make a serious and fundamental mistake when we separate economic issues from moral issues? Could it be that we are often treating the symptoms rather than the cause? (This is what I have been saying for years! It’s good to have someone else state it!!! All else flows from our moral values. When our moral values ARE NOT based upon the Bible, we are in deep, deep, deep trouble!!!—my addition) There was bipartisan disgust as the nation watched the president and both political parties wrangling over a solution to the current financial crisis, and in the end, all we got was a very small, largely ineffective band aid. As one political cartoonist depicted it, the congressional ‘solution’ was like slowing down the speed with which the Titanic was sinking. (Good analogy! And not slowing it down very much!—my addition)

Across party lines, there was a feeling that we were not really getting to the root of the problem, but few, if any were suggesting that it is impossible to separate economics from morality. Eventually, our moral choices will have a definite and direct impact on the money (or lack thereof) in our pockets. (Very true!!!—my addition)

A successful businessman recently suggested to me that some of the roots of our economic problems include:

1) Instant gratification.

It was Jim Morrison of the Doors who once proclaimed, ‘We want the world and we want it now!’ That was 1967. Today, we really want it now (as in ‘instant’; think ‘messaging’ and ‘downloading’ and more). If I want it, I will find a way to get it, and I will get it now. Yes, it’s true that I’m out of work, but I will get that iPad, I will be at the movie theatre this weekend, and I will find a way to buy the latest, trendy threads. Thank God for credit cards!

2) We have become consumers rather than producers.

One website claims that, ‘Americans constitute 5% of the world’s population but consume 24% of the world’s energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, 370 Ethiopians.’ And, ‘Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily, enough to feed 3 third world countries.’ Of course, some of this has to do with the fact that we have a lot more at our disposal than, say, the average Ethiopian. But a lot of this also has to do with our selfishness, greed, and lack of discipline. Do our political leaders dare address those issues?

3) The breakdown of the family.

Two generations into the sexual revolution (which has brought us to the point of sexual anarchy), and two generations into no-fault divorce, the ‘traditional family unit’ is an increasingly threatened species, and at a high economic cost to our society. Author Frank Turek points out that kids raised by their mom and dad are:

‘a. Seven times less likely to live in poverty;

b. Six times less likely to commit suicide;

c. Less than half as likely to commit crime;

d. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock;

e. Develop better academically and socially;

f. [Are] healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood.’

You had better believe the breakdown of the family has massive economic implications. (And the goal of homosexual advocates is just that—to destroy the GOD created nuclear family!—my addition)

4) Abortion.

With all the concerns about Social Security defaulting, very few leaders are talking about the 800 pound gorilla missing from the room, namely, multiplied millions of working Americans who are not here to pay into the system and contribute to the economy because their lives were cut short in the womb. Yes, there is an economic consequence to abortion as well.

Perhaps, then, it would be wise for political candidates who really care about what’s best for America to change their slogan to, ‘It’s the morality, stupid.’ Or is this slogan too true to be good?

Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

MURDER of Unborn Babies Vote—H. R. 358


From: Exposing Leftist.com

http://www.exposingleftists.com/

WATCH this Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSzgvaJCn0&feature=player_embedded

From: Life Dynamics Incorporated

http://www.lifedynamics.com/

From the website: “List of Abortion Clinics

There used to be over 2000 abortion clinics in America. Today, there are 682. This page lists every abortion clinic in America.”

From: Life Dynamics Incorporated (With some modification by me.)

CHRISTIANS:

The blood of CHRIST paid for your sins!

The blood of PATRIOTS paid for your freedom.

The blood of the UNBORN is paying for your silence!

Stop the MURDER of the unborn NOW!

From: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.aspx

From: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll789.xml

NOTE: A yea vote is a vote to prevent the federal government from paying to MURDER unborn children.

H R 358 RECORDED VOTE 13-Oct-2011 7:20 PM

QUESTION: On Passage

BILL TITLE: To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare—my addition) to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act

Republican

Ayes: 236

Nays: 002

Present: 000

Not Voting: 003

Democratic

Ayes: 015

Nays: 170

Present: 000

Not Voting: 007

Totals:

Ayes: 251

Nays: 172

Present: 000

Not Voting: 010

Ayes:

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
01) Altmire (Democratic)
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
02) Bishop (GA) (Democratic)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
03) Boren (Democratic)
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
04) Costello (Democratic)
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
05) Critz (Democratic)
06) Cuellar (Democratic)
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
07) Donnelly (IN) (Democratic)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
08) Holden (Democratic)
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
09) Lipinski (Democratic)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
10) Matheson (Democratic)
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
11) McIntyre (Democratic)
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
12) Peterson (Democratic)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
13) Rahall (Democratic)
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
14) Ross (AR) (Democratic)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
15) Shuler (Democratic)
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

Nays:

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman

1) Biggert (Republican) [From Illinois and redistricted into a district that has 2 Republican incumbents! Obviously going after the MURDERERS of unborn babies vote!]

Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
2) Hanna (Republican) [1st term from New York District 24]
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth

Not Voting:

Bachmann (Republican)
Brown (FL) (Democratic)
Camp (Republican)
Giffords (Democratic)
Gonzalez (Democratic)
Paul (Republican)
Polis (Democratic)
Reyes (Democratic)
Slaughter (Democratic)
Wilson (FL) (Democratic)

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

President Obama’s Spend and Tax “Jobs” Bill


UPDATE:

From: The 9.12 Project Network

“Help us Restore America!

A message to all members of The 9.12 Project Network

Fellow Principled Patriots

Over at CNN.com, there is a ‘quick poll,’ asking whether CNN'’s public supports the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Marxist movement, or the Tea Party movement.”

Of course, this is first of all NOT a scientific poll and second the poll is stacked against the Tea Party movement from the beginning. What conservative in his right mind wastes his valuable time watching the left, propagandizing CNN network?

Nevertheless, I went to

http://www.cnn.com/

and voted. At about 7PM, the poll was about half way down at the far right hand corner. I did not check this morning before posting this blog. The results of the poll at that time were:

“Quick Poll

(At about 6:55PM 10/14/11—my addition)

Which protest movement do you favor more, Occupy Wall Street or the tea party?

This is not a scientific poll

Occupy
69%
143876

Tea party
31%
64500

Total votes: 208376

This is not a scientific poll”

Watch this Video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation?feature=mhee#p/u/0/pyHkXaLrz0I

From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110924/a73f5105-3125-4fef-b63c-17b9725591b7

Obama plan would make small dent in jobless rate
TOM RAUM
From Associated Press
September 24, 2011 4:38 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP)—Even if Congress heeds President Barack Obama’s demands to ‘pass this bill right away’ and enacts his jobs and tax plan in its entirety, the unemployment rate probably still would hover in nosebleed territory for at least three more years.

Why? Because the 1.9 million new jobs the White House says the bill would produce in 2012 falls short of what it’s needed to put the economy back on track to return to pre-recession jobless levels of under 6 percent, from today’s rate of 9.1 percent.

That’s how deep the jobs hole is. The persistent weakness of the U.S. economy has left 14 million people unemployed and more than 25 million unable to find full-time work.

Economists of all stripes pretty much agree that it will be a long, hard road no matter what Congress does. Right now, the Republicans who run the House and the Democrats who lead the Senate aren’t finding much common ground.

Obama estimates his American Jobs Act would lower unemployment by just a single percentage point by next year, to just over 8 percent, heading into the 2012 presidential election.

Burned before by making overly optimistic job-creation predictions, the White House turned to prominent outside economists to crunch the numbers.

The projection of 1.9 million new jobs, a 1 percentage point drop in the unemployment rate and a 2 percentage point increase in the gross domestic product under Obama’s plan came from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.

But Zandi said in an interview his forecast also is based on an assumption that ‘the president’s entire package is passed by the end of the year,’ a slim prospect given the current divided leadership in Congress, and that there are no other budgetary policy changes.

‘I assumed that it would be paid for,’ Zandi said. ‘I didn’t know when I did that simulation how the president proposed to pay for it.’ (Wouldn’t that be a KEY component of any future analysis of economic activity?—my addition)

Since then, Obama has said he would pay for his $447 billion package with permanent income tax increases of about $150 billion a year, mostly on wealthy individuals and corporations, in addition to spending cuts. That’s drawn criticism from Republicans, who say any tax increases could further stall the fragile recovery.

Zandi, who has advised both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said he’s still sticking with his forecast, mainly because the stimulus in the plan, including a temporary reduction in Social Security taxes for both employees and employers and infrastructure spending, would come in 2012 and be paid for later. (Paid for later? Really! How well does that work out? Check Illinois’s history of paying back bills owed later!—my addition)

But there is one feature Obama doesn’t emphasize.

Zandi said his job-creation figure only applies to 2012.

‘Beginning in 2013, and certainly into 2014, the plan is a drag on the economy because the stimulus starts fading away," he said. "So by 2015, the economy is in the same place as now, as if there were no jobs package.’ (Another short term “solution” to stimulate President Obama’s reelection campaign rather than really aiding the economy! DUH!!!—my addition)

Also, Zandi said, his forecast does not leave any room for a new recession. If that happens, all bets are off.

‘So it's very important to get as many people working as fast as possible,’ he said. ‘If we go back into recession, it is going to be very difficult to get out. And it’s going to cost taxpayers tremendously.’

Job creation has ground to a virtual standstill. The economy produced a scant 20,000 net new jobs in June, 85,000 in July and none in August. Economic output, as measured by the GDP, has been growing this year at an anemic annual rate below 1 percent.

The global economy is showing no signs of strengthening. A divided Federal Reserve is nearly out of ammunition for additional stimulus. And the U.S. is once again facing the possibility of a government shutdown at the end of next week.

The Obama-Zandi target of 1.9 million new jobs next year, or 158,000 a month, is somewhat higher than private analyses that suggest the plan would create 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month.

Heidi Shierholz, economist for the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute, calculates it would take job growth of 400,000 every month for three years in a row to get back to the 5 percent jobless rate last seen in December 2007, at the recession’s outset.

‘To get down to 5 percent in five years, we need around 280,000 jobs every month,’ she added. ‘Right now, we’re more than two years into the official recovery, and we’re still bumping along at extremely low levels.’”

“As long as the GDP grows at an annual rate beneath 2.5 percent, it cannot create enough jobs for new entrants into the workforce, let alone to re-employ those laid off during the downturn, said Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business lobby.

The chamber estimates it will take 20 million jobs over the next decade to get the economy back to pre-recession levels. It has its own jobs plan, which includes increased trade, greater oil drilling, quicker road and bridge construction and temporary corporate tax breaks.

‘If you want to go from 9.1 percent down to 5.5 or 6 percent unemployment, you’re going to have to grow roughly at 4.5 percent (GDP) for three years,’ Regalia said. ‘I don’t see that in the forecast.’

In the first six months of this year, the GDP grew at a scant 0.7 percent rate. Private forecasters see it growing about 2 percent in the final six months of 2011, about 2.5 percent throughout 2012, and increasing to about 3.2 percent in 2013.” (Really! If the government cooks the numbers?—my addition)

From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111007/cb00c254-3261-457f-a89c-2974fafaf714

“FACT CHECK: Obama claims miss some evidence
JIM KUHNHENN
From Associated Press
October 07, 2011 4:20 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP)—Are President Barack Obama’s ideas for job creation really bipartisan as he claims? Not when the means for paying for them are put in the equation.

The president dodged various facts and left some evidence in the dust in his latest challenge to Republicans to get behind his jobs program or offer a real alternative. A look at some of the claims in his fast-paced news conference and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: ‘If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they’re opposed, and what would they do.’

THE FACTS: While Republicans might not be campaigning on their opposition to Obama’s plan, they’ve hardly kept their objections a secret.

In a memorandum to House Republicans Sept. 16, House Speaker John Boehner and members of the GOP leadership said they could find common ground with Obama on the extension of certain business tax breaks, waiving a payment withholding provision for federal contractors, incentives for hiring veterans, and job training measures in connection with unemployment insurance.

They objected to new spending on public works programs, suggesting instead that Congress and the president work out those priorities in a highway spending bill. And they raised concerns about Obama’s payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, arguing that the benefits of a one-year tax cut would be short-lived. The memo also pointed out that reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government’s general fund. And it opposed additional spending to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and other public workers.

OBAMA: ‘Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.’

THE FACTS: Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats. Senate Democrats were so allergic to Obama’s approach, which relied largely on limiting deductions that can be taken by individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000, that they’re eliminating it and replacing it with a new tax on millionaires.

In claiming bipartisan support for the components of his proposal, the president appears to be referring just to what the plan would do, not how it’s paid for, but that’s a crucial distinction he doesn’t make. (This bill WILL NOT do what he claims it will do!!! It is basically, taking money from citizens, giving it to government bureaucrats, and letting the government decide where the money should be spent instead of letting the earners of the money deciding where they want to spend their own money—my addition)

Some of tax-cutting proposals offered by Obama have received significant Republican support in the past. But some of the new spending he proposes has received only nominal Republican backing. Evidence of bipartisanship provided by the White House includes legislation last year that provided $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. It won the support of only two Republican senators—Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine and among the most moderate Republicans in Congress. Another example cited by the White House was his proposal last year to offer tax breaks to businesses that hire new workers—it passed the House 217-201 with six Republican votes.

OBAMA: ‘The answer we’re getting right now is: Well, we’re going to roll back all these Obama regulations ... Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?’

THE FACTS: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses.

It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: ‘Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion.’

OBAMA: ‘We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.’

THE FACTS: True, ‘in some cases’ wealthy people can exploit loopholes to make their tax rate lower than for people of middle or low income. In recent rhetoric, Obama had suggested it was commonplace for rich people to pay lower rates than others, a claim not supported by IRS statistics. But on Thursday, Obama accurately stated that it only happens sometimes.

In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the IRS. Yet that was less than 1 percent of returns with incomes above $1 million. On average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent. The White House argues that when payroll taxes—paid only on the first $106,800 of wages—are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires. (Is any of this the “fault” of millionaires? Congress makes the tax laws not millionaires. High income tax payers pay the vast majority of income tax collected in this nation! 47% of tax returns filed did not have to pay income tax in the last reported period! 40% received money back without paying ANY federal income tax at all!!!—my addition)

OBAMA: ‘China has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the United States. .... And currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. And that makes their exports cheaper and that makes our exports to them more expensive.’

THE FACTS: While Obama complained about China’s efforts to keeps its currency undervalued to gain trade advantages, his administration has repeatedly refused to brand China as a currency manipulator in a report that the Treasury Department is required to send to Congress twice a year.

Such a designation would trigger negotiations between the two countries and could ultimately lead to U.S. trade sanctions against China.

The administration has been reluctant to brand China a currency manipulator, as have past administrations, because the United States depends on China to buy U.S. Treasury securities to help finance America’s budget deficits (EXACTLY!—my addition). China owns $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities (Out of an almost $15 trillion debt!—my addition), making it the largest foreign holder of Treasury debt.

Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Martin Crutsinger and Calvin Woodward contributed to this report.”

From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20111010/9dda50fc-9597-49cf-8203-6b633c1e45a4

“SPIN METER: Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality
ERICA WERNER
From Associated Press
October 10, 2011 4:14 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP)—In President Barack Obama’s sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven’t explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail. (And have passed their own jobs bill which is actually based upon valid economic principles and not the tax and spend bill that Barack Hussein Obama is promoting!—my addition)

When he calls on Congress to ‘pass this bill now,’ he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities.

Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.

The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans. (Won’t work! We aren’t ignorant and we have witnessed his failures over the last two and one half years!—my addition)

He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don’t always fit in if they don’t help make the case. (There is NO case to be made!—my addition)

For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.

Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama’s proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president’s proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.

The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president’s powers of persuading the public (Does it exist? Is he still a Pied Piper?—my addition) heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans’ ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.

‘He knows it’s not going to pass. He’s betting that voters won’t pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the ‘do-nothing Congress,’’ said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development. (The problem is the House of Representatives has been doing things. It is the Democratic Senate which is NOT!!! Where is the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget from the Senate? The House passed a budget last spring!!!—my addition)

John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama’s approach on the jobs bill is ‘more about campaigning than governing.’

‘He’s mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed,’ Sides said. ‘That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans.’”

From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20111012/b505897f-1172-4d0a-94fe-8e271258149d

Lawmakers, White House regroup on jobs
ANDREW TAYLOR
From Associated Press
October 12, 2011 5:18 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP)—Congress and the White House face the choice of continued fighting or a shift toward bipartisan bargaining after the Senate voted to kill President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan.

They’re likely to do both as they seek to produce results sought by a discontented public while also drawing bright political lines for voters as the 2012 campaign heats up.

Obama’s plan died at the hands of Senate Republicans on Tuesday, even though the president had been campaigning for it across the country for weeks. The $447 billion plan died on a 50-49 tally in the 100-member Senate, falling well short of the 60 votes needed to crack a filibuster by Republicans opposed to its stimulus-style spending and tax surcharge for the very wealthy.

The tally had been 51-48 but Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, switched his vote to ‘nay’ to reserve the right to force a re-vote. Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is recovering from surgery and did not vote.”

“‘Democrats’ sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn’t worked— along with a massive tax hike that we know won’t create jobs,’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Tuesday, adding that there are 1.5 million fewer jobs than when Obama's 2009 economic package became law. ‘Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won’t work?’ McConnell said.”

The Senate vote on the Democratic proposed “jobs” bill:

S.1660

From: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01660:@@@L&summ2=m&#

“S.1660

Latest Title: American Jobs Act of 2011

Sponsor: Senator Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 10/5/2011) Cosponsors (None)

Related Bills: H.R.12, H.R.2421, H.R.2482, H.R.2948, S.652, S.1333, S.1549, S.1597

Latest Major Action: 10/11/2011 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion by Senator Reid to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to the bill made in Senate.

From: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00160

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1660 )

Vote Number: 160

Vote Date: October 11, 2011, 06:34PM
Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number: S. 1660 (American Jobs Act of 2011

Measure Title: A bill to provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs. (What a misnomer of a title for a tax and spend bill!!!—my addition)

Vote Counts:

Yeas: 50

Nays: 49

Not Voting: 1

Grouped By Vote Position

Yeas:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Nays: 49

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (Democrat—Nebraska)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Reid (Democrat—Nevada)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (Democrat—Montana)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting: 1

Coburn (R-OK)

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It is time, it’s past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!