Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

September 6, 2006 Session

DENNIS WILSON v. BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL.

Appeal by permission from the Court of Appeals, Eastern Section

Chancery Court for Blount County

No. 03-081 Telford E. Forgety, Jr., Chancellor

No. E2004-02593-SC-R11-CV - Filed on November 7, 2006

We granted this appeal to determine the requirements for notice in a tax lien suit. The property

owner filed suit in the Chancery Court for Blount County to set aside a default judgment in a suit for

the enforcement of a tax lien. The property owner argued that Blount County failed to comply with

Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-5-2415 and 21-1-203 and the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment in providing notice of the tax lien suit. The trial court dismissed the

property owner’s suit, finding that the Blount County Sheriff’s Department exercised due diligence

in attempting to serve process. The Court of Appeals reversed. We now affirm the judgment of the

Court of Appeals.

Tenn. R. App. P. 11; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed and Case Remanded to

the Chancery Court for Blount County.

WILLIAM M. BARKER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JANICE M. HOLDER,

CORNELIA A. CLARK, and GARY R. WADE, JJ., and E. RILEY ANDERSON, SP. J., joined.

LaJuana G. Atkins, Norman H. Newton, and Robert Newton Goddard, Maryville, Tennessee, for the

appellant, Blount County, Tennessee.

Charles Buford Dungan, Maryville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Dennis Wilson.

OPINION

Facts and Procedural History

Dennis Wilson (“Wilson”) owned two parcels of property in Blount County, Tennessee; each

parcel consisted of one acre of land. One parcel was located at 1068 North Union Grove Road, and

the other was located at 1074 North Union Grove Road and contained a double-wide mobile home

where Wilson lived. The tax record for each parcel indicated the parcel’s physical address, the tax

-2-

map parcel number, Wilson as the property owner, and P.O. Box 550, Louisville, TN 37777, as the

mailing address.

On April 2, 2001, Blount County filed suit to enforce a tax lien on Wilson’s properties for

unpaid taxes for the year 1999. On May 10, 2001, the Blount County Sheriff’s Department received

two summonses issued to Wilson at P.O. Box 550, Louisville, TN 37777, which was the address

provided by Wilson to the Blount County Property Assessor for tax notice. Each Summons and

Notice identified the property subject to the tax lien and the year that taxes were owed and

emphasized, “The property will be sold if necessary to collect these taxes.” Each Summons and

Notice identified the property only by the tax map parcel number and did not reference the property’s

physical address.

After receiving the summonses, Captain Randall Mercks of the Blount County Sheriff’s

Department sent a letter by regular mail—but not a copy of either Summons and Notice—to the

address shown on the summonses. The letter states that “legal process in reference to delinquent

property taxes has been issued” that requires “a summons or other legal writ be served by giving a

copy to you personally.” The letter also states that the defendant has the option of receiving a copy

of the legal process at the sheriff’s office “to prevent the embarrassment of a deputy sheriff calling

on you at your place of employment or at your home at an inconvenient time.” The letter gives the

defendant ten days from the date of the letter “to come to the office before an officer will be assigned

to pursue other means of service.”

The letter was never returned to the Sheriff’s Department marked undelivered or otherwise.

Captain Mercks did not assign an officer to serve process on Wilson; instead, Captain Mercks

handled the process himself. Captain Mercks testified that, when a defendant does not answer a

letter, the Sheriff’s Department’s normal procedure is to search the telephone directory. Captain

Mercks had no independent recollection of making a search in this case but testified that he was sure

he followed his normal procedure. Wilson is not listed in the phone book.

No further action was taken to attempt service of process. On June 4, 2001, Captain Mercks

returned the summonses to the clerk’s office noting, “DILIGENT SEARCH MADE AND NOT TO

BE FOUND IN MY COUNTY.” Subsequently, the Chancery Court issued an Order of Publication,

entered a Default Judgment against Wilson for failing to appear, and ordered and confirmed the sale

of the properties. Wilson testified that he first received notice of the tax lien suit and resulting tax

sale when he found a note attached to his door in May 2003.

On May 14, 2003, Wilson filed a Complaint in the Chancery Court for Blount County,

Tennessee, to void the default judgment, to set aside the tax sale of his two tracts of property, and

to recover damages for deprivation of his civil rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 8, 2004, a

bench trial was held before Chancellor Telford E. Forgety, Jr. Chancellor Forgety dismissed the

Complaint because he found that the Sheriff’s Department satisfied due process and statutory

requirements by exercising due diligence to notify Wilson of the suit to enforce the tax lien. On

-3-

November 14, 2005, the Eastern Section of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.

We granted permission to appeal.

Analysis

Our review of this case is de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness of the

findings of fact by the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Absent error of law, the trial court’s

decision will be affirmed, unless the evidence preponderates against the factual findings. Id. No

presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s conclusions of law. See Carvell v. Bottoms,

900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995).

1. Statutory Requirements

Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that Captain Mercks

of the Blount County Sheriff’s Department did not exercise due diligence in attempting to serve

Wilson with process; therefore, Blount County did not satisfy the statutory requirements for notice

under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-5-2415 and 21-1-203. Section 67-5-2415 governs

notice to taxpayers of suits to enforce tax liens. It states in relevant part:

(a) The defendant, when served in any manner according to the Rules of Civil

Procedure, either by mail or in person, does not have to be served with a copy of the

complaint and exhibit and instead, the clerk may issue a notice to accompany the

summons.

(b) The notice shall identify the suit mentioned in the summons sufficiently to enable

the taxpayer to know what delinquent taxes the taxpayer is being sued for and what

property is subject to the lien.

. . . .

(d) Constructive service of process shall be made as now provided by law.

(e) In all counties, personal service of process on the defendant may be dispensed

with and the summons and notice may be sent by certified or registered mail, return

receipt requested.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2415 (2003). Section 67-5-2415 contemplates three methods for service

of process in tax lien suits: personal service, service by mail, or constructive service. It is

undisputed that Wilson never received personal service.

Wilson also never received service by mail. The letter sent by the Blount County Sheriff’s

Department does not comply with the statutory requirements for service by mail under Tennessee

Code Annotated section 67-5-2415(e). First, while the letter was forwarded to the address of the

property owner on record, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2502(a)(3) (2003), the letter was sent by

regular mail instead of certified or registered mail, and it did not include a copy of the summons, see

§ 67-5-2415(e). Second, the letter—unlike each Summons and Notice sent to the Blount County

Sheriff’s Department—does not describe what “taxes the taxpayer is being sued for and what

-4-

property is subject to the lien.” § 67-5-2415(b). Third, the letter was not intended to provide service

by mail; it was intended to accomplish personal service. The letter states that service of process

requires a copy of the summons be given to the defendant personally, and it gives the defendant 10

days from the date of the letter “to come to the office before an officer will be assigned to pursue

other means of service.”

Because Blount County failed to serve Wilson personally or by mail, the sufficiency of the

notice depends on whether Blount County complied with the statute governing constructive service

by publication. Tennessee Code Annotated section 21-1-203 provides the following:

(a) Personal service of process on the defendant in a court of chancery is dispensed

with in the following cases:

(1) When the defendant is a nonresident of this state;

(2) When, upon inquiry at the defendant’s usual place of abode, the defendant cannot

be found, so as to be served with process, and there is just ground to believe that the

defendant is gone beyond the limits of the state;

(3) When the sheriff shall make return upon any leading process that the defendant

is not to be found;

. . . .

(5) When the residence of the defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained upon

diligent inquiry;

Tenn. Code Ann. § 21-1-203(a) (1994). We construe section 21-1-203 strictly because it is in

derogation of the common law rule that courts of chancery act only in personam. See Naylor v.

Billington, 378 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn. 1964).

Blount County argues that constructive service was proper under subsection 21-1-203(a)(3)

because Captain Mercks returned the summonses noting that Wilson was not to be found. We

disagree. Subsection 21-1-203(a)(3) is satisfied only when the sheriff has used “due diligence” in

making a return that the defendant is not to be found. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-201(1) (2002)

(other parts amended in 2004 & 2005); see also Freeman v. City of Kingsport, 926 S.W.2d 247, 250

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that section 21-1-203 “requires diligent inquiry to locate and notify

the owners of the property of the suit to enforce the tax lien”); Hailey v. Cunningham, 654 S.W.2d

392, 394 (Tenn. 1983) (stating that “not to be found” means that the defendant could not be located

after diligent search and inquiry); Willshire v. Frees, 201 S.W.2d 675, 677 (Tenn. 1947) (holding

that attachment was not proper when the sheriff failed to make a diligent inquiry). Section 8-8-201

requires that the sheriff shall execute the process of the courts with due diligence, go to the place of

abode of every defendant before returning that the defendant is not to be found, and use a degree of

diligence in the execution of process exceeding that which a prudent person employs in such

person’s own affairs. § 8-8-201(1), (8), (10); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-208 (2002) (“No

sheriff shall return upon any writ that the person . . . is not to be found . . . unless such sheriff has

actually been at the place of abode of such person.”).

We note that if a sheriff makes a false return to a writ which has been placed in his hands for execution, he 1

becomes liable to the person injured by such return, usually by an action for making a false return. See First Nat’l Bank

v. Tate, 15 Tenn. App. 462, 464, 1932 WL 1341, at *2 (1932).

-5-

The Blount County Sheriff’s Department failed to exercise due diligence before making a

return that Wilson was not to be found. After r 1 eceiving the summonses, Captain Mercks sent a

courtesy letter to Wilson requesting that Wilson come by the Blount County Sheriff’s Office to

receive process. Wilson did not respond to the letter or come by the office to receive process.

Captain Mercks may have searched the telephone directory for a physical address, but Wilson’s

telephone number was unlisted. After failing to find a listing for Wilson in the telephone directory,

Captain Mercks returned the summonses, “not to be found.”

In this case, due diligence required that the Blount County Sheriff’s Department do more than

a cursory search through the telephone directory. Just because a person is not to be found in the

telephone directory does not mean that the person is not to be found. Captain Mercks could have

checked the tax records for a physical address, or he could have provided service by mail at Wilson’s

post office address. We hold that when the sheriff has a mailing address for a defendant, which the

sheriff does not know to be incorrect, due diligence requires that—at the least—the sheriff attempt

to provide service by registered or certified mail that conforms with Tennessee Code Annotated

section 67-5-2415.

When the sheriff makes a false return stating that a person is not to be found, the return will

not support constructive service by publication. See Willshire, 201 S.W.2d at 677; Carlisle v.

Corran, 2 S.W. 26, 28 (Tenn. 1886) (holding that jurisdiction cannot be obtained by a false return

which is properly challenged). Captain Mercks noted on the summonses, “DILIGENT SEARCH

MADE AND NOT TO BE FOUND IN MY COUNTY.” Captain Mercks’ search for Wilson was

not diligent; therefore, the constructive service by publication was ineffective to bring Wilson before

the court. And as we noted in Rast v. Terry, 532 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tenn. 1976), “[w]here the

taxpayer is not properly before the court the resulting decree and sale is a nullity as to him and may

be assailed at any time.”

Blount County argues that section 21-1-203 does not incorporate a duty on the sheriff to

exercise due diligence, relying on Marlowe v. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 541 S.W.2d

121 (Tenn. 1976). In Marlowe, we held that if the sheriff returned process stating that the defendant

was not to be found, even if the sheriff made no effort to serve process, the return was sufficient to

support publication as a matter of law. 541 S.W.2d at 124-25. We decline to follow Marlowe in this

context. See also Sunburst Bank v. Patterson, 971 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (declining

to follow Marlowe). First, we repeat that section 21-1-203(a)(3) is not satisfied unless the sheriff

has used “due diligence” and that a false return will not support service by publication. Second,

Marlowe has been overruled insofar as it held that publication notice alone is constitutionally

adequate notice in a proceeding to enforce a tax lien. See Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462

U.S. 791, 792 (1983).

-6-

Wilson did not waive service by providing a post office address to the Blount County

Property Assessor instead of the address of his residence. Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-5-

2502(b) only requires that a property owner register his name and address with the assessor. It does

not require that the owner register the address of his place of residence. While Wilson could have

provided his place of residence to the assessor, his failure to do so does not excuse Blount County

from proceeding with service. The United States Supreme Court has noted that “a party’s ability to

take steps to safeguard its interests does not relieve the State of its constitutional obligation” to

provide notice. Mennonite, 462 U.S. at 799; see also Jones v. Flowers, -- U.S. --, 126 S. Ct. 1708,

1714 (2006) (rejecting the Arkansas Commissioner’s argument that the property owner waived

service of process by failing to update his address with the state).

For these reasons, Blount County failed to comply with the statutory requirements for notice

in a tax lien suit under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-5-2415 and 21-1-203.

2. Due Process Requirements

Because Wilson brings an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover damages, it is necessary

to determine whether Wilson’s procedural due process rights were violated. See Owens v. State, 908

S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution requires that “deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be

preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339

U.S. 306, 313 (1950); see also Martin v. Sizemore, 78 S.W.3d 249, 262 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (“The

Due Process Clause . . . and Tenn. Const. art. I, § 8 provide similar procedural protections and

guarantees.”). The notice required by the Due Process Clause is that which is “reasonably calculated,

under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford

them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. To effectuate the

required notice, “[t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the

absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Id. at 315. Significantly, “[w]here the names

and post-office addresses of those affected by a proceeding are at hand, the reasons disappear for

resort to means less likely than the mails to apprise them of its pendency.” Id. at 318.

In Mennonite, the United States Supreme Court applied Mullane in analyzing the manner of

notice given to a mortgagee in a tax sale proceeding. 462 U.S. at 795. In Mennonite, the county

posted notice in the county courthouse and published notice in a local newspaper. Id. Relying on

Mullane, the Court held:

When the mortgagee is identified in a mortgage that is publicly recorded,

constructive notice by publication must be supplemented by notice mailed to the

mortgagee’s last known available address, or by personal service. But unless the

mortgagee is not reasonably identifiable, constructive notice alone does not satisfy

the mandate of Mullane.

Under Tennessee law, a rebuttable presumption that mail was received may arise upon proof that the letter 2

was properly addressed, properly stamped, and duly deposited with the post office. Warmath v. Payne, 3 S.W.3d 487,

492 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Here, the trial court found that the letter was received and discarded by Wilson’s estranged

ex-wife.

-7-

Neither notice by publication and posting, nor mailed notice to the property

owner, are means “such as one desirous of actually informing the [mortgagee] might

reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” . . . The County’s use of [publication and posting]

is not reasonable where . . . “an inexpensive and efficient mechanism such as mail

service is available.”

. . . Notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice is a

minimum constitutional precondition to a proceeding which will adversely affect the

liberty or property interests of any party, whether unlettered or well versed in

commercial practice, if its name and address are reasonably ascertainable.

Mennonite, 462 U.S. at 798-800 (citations and footnotes omitted). Mennonite makes clear that

Blount County’s attempts to notify Wilson of its tax lien suit were constitutionally inadequate.

Even if we assume that Wilson received the courtesy letter sent by Blount County,2 it was

defective in providing notice because it was not reasonably calculated to apprise Wilson of the tax

lien suit and to give him an opportunity to present his objections. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315.

The letter stated process had been issued in reference to delinquent property taxes but did not require

Wilson to object or warn Wilson that his property could be sold. The letter also stated that a copy

of the summons had to be personally served and that an officer would be assigned to pursue service

if Wilson did not come to the Sheriff’s office within ten days. Wilson did not come to the office,

and no officer was ever assigned to pursue personal service. For the reasons stated, we find that the

letter did not serve as notice required by the Due Process Clause.

Blount County’s subsequent attempt to serve process through constructive notice was also

inadequate to provide due process. Although Blount County had Wilson’s post office address, it

never attempted to send either Summons and Notice through the mail. While Wilson never

responded to the courtesy letter, Blount County was not entitled to presume from Wilson’s inaction

that he could not be served by mail. Indeed, had Blount County been notified that the courtesy letter

had gone undelivered, it would have been required to take additional steps to serve process beyond

constructive notice. See Jones, -- U.S. --, 126 S. Ct. at 1712 (holding that, when notice of tax

delinquency sent by certified mail was returned unclaimed, “the State should have taken additional

reasonable steps to notify [the taxpayer], if practicable to do so.”)

In this situation, publication notice by itself did not satisfy minimum due process

requirements because it was not “notice by mail or other means to ensure actual notice.”

Mennonite, 462 U.S. at 800; see also Mullane, 339 U.S. at 318 (“Where the names and post office

addresses of those affected by a proceeding are at hand, the reasons disappear for resort to means less

-8-

likely than the mails to apprise them of its pendency.”); Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 455-56

(1982) (holding that posting notice of forcible detainer and entry action on tenant’s door and

publication of notice in newspaper was inadequate); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208,

211 (1962) (holding the same in condemnation proceedings); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352

U.S. 112, 202 (1956) (same).

To be clear, due process does not require that a party receive actual notice; it requires only

that the government choose a method of notification that is reasonably calculated to provide notice.

See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. Thus, in Dusenberry v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the

Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that due process requires actual receipt of notice

by an inmate and upheld the Board of Prison’s policy that allowed prison officers to sign for mail

addressed to inmates. 534 U.S. at 172-73.

The terminology attendant upon this issue has, unfortunately, led to some confusion. “Actual

notice” has been used both (1) to distinguish notice by personal service or service by mail from

“constructive service” and (2) to refer to actual receipt of notice by a party. See id. at 169 n.5. This

confusion has led our intermediate appellate court to misstate the rule announced in Mennonite,

which requires “the State to make efforts to provide actual notice.” Mennonite, 462 U.S. at 796 n.3.

For instance, in Freeman v. City of Kingsport, 926 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), the court

misconstrued Mennonite to hold that “actual notice is required if the interested party’s name and

address are reasonably ascertainable.” 926 S.W.2d at 250; see also Bullington v. Greene County,

88 S.W.3d 571, 577 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Warmath v. Payne, 3 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tenn. Ct. App.

1999); Sunburst Bank v. Patterson, 971 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Morrow v. Bobbitt, 943

S.W.2d 384, 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

We reiterate that the proper inquiry is whether the government took such actions to notify

the party as are “reasonably calculated to apprise him” of the proceeding. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314.

In tax lien suits, the government must provide “notice by mail or other means to ensure actual notice

. . . if [the party’s] name and address are reasonably ascertainable.” Mennonite, 462 U.S. at 800.

When the party’s name and address are “reasonably ascertainable,” constructive notice alone is not

constitutionally adequate. Mennonite, 462 U.S. at 798. In this case, Blount County had Wilson’s

name and his post office address. To comply with due process requirements, Blount County should

have mailed the summonses or other adequate notice to Wilson.

Conclusion

When notice is due, “process which is a mere gesture is not due process.” Mullane, 339 U.S.

at 315. Except to send a courtesy letter to encourage Wilson to receive process in person, Blount

County did nothing to attempt to give Wilson actual notice of the tax lien suit before it sold his land

in a tax sale. Tennessee statutes and due process require that Blount County do something more.

The notice given did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 21-1-203 because the

Blount County Sheriff’s Department did not exercise due diligence before returning the summonses

“not to be found,” and the notice did not comply with due process requirements under Mullane

-9-

because it was not reasonably calculated to apprise Wilson of the tax lien suit. For these reasons,

we hold that the notice in this case was inadequate. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

affirmed.

We remand the case to the Trial Court to determine whether Wilson is owed damages under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of his due process rights. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the

appellant, Blount County, for which execution may issue if necessary.

___________________________________

WILLIAM M. BARKER, CHIEF JUSTICE

Quote 0 0
Many of you may remember Captain Merckes from previous information supplied and video taped with Representative of a certain "nameless" German bank.
 
I also heard that Captain Merckes and his sheriff maybe planning an unexpected visit to the east coast to appear before a Federal Judge for violating the Chapter 11 orders.
 
Big Bob is on his was back home, Im thinking pretty soon, and passing him going the other way maybe Capt. Merckes and the Sheriff to either state or federal facilities!
 

Quote 0 0
srsd

Bob,  Your situation still haunts me.  I hope you get justice and more.  we will be praying for you and your family.  Take care of your health...I know the stress of all of this is to much to cope with at times.

Quote 0 0
srsd

Hey Bob....I just thought of something....If you can get a copy of the tape that was made...post it on Youtube and add a link on this site.

Quote 0 0
arkygirl
"DILIGENT SEARCH MADE AND NOT TO BE FOUND IN MY COUNTY.”

This guy must have learned his definition of "diligence" from one of those imploded street front home lenders. Or some Ameriquest underwriter somewhere??

I am beginning to wonder a lot whose pocket this guy is in....he seems to thrive on getting some kind of foreclosure, any kind of foreclosure, done. Has anyone checked his bank records? Any inexplicable "large deposits" made? Is the guy an investor in some hedge fund or other? Or is he just a lazy do-nothing who cannot even mail a certified letter properly? Laziness accounts for a lot of sloppiness these days.

Inquiring minds really want to know!
Quote 0 0

This is the same captain that "Refused" to investigate "Big Bob's" fraud complaint. The Captain later, while talking with myself, whom I believe was unaware he was being recorded for the documentary "FOLLOW THE MONEY", stated they (Blount County) does not conduct such investigations. 

So Bob was right, again his civil rights were knowingly violated by Blount County Sheriff's department by "Refusing" to investigate "Criminal Complaints".
 
It was interesting to also note that the same Captain stated he checked ownership papers of Big Bobs home "personally with the Office of the Deeds". 
 
We learned later that he NEVER CONTACTED THE OFFICE OF DEEDS for Blount County! 
 
Again another False writ being returned to the court, and Bob's family forcible evicted from the home they own, by this Dumb red neck captain.
 
I think the Sheriff is in for paying a lot of damages soon, and schooling by this "nobody" Captain would be highly encouraged.  Well, maybe after he and the Sheriff visit a federal facility on the East coast.
 
Being a former Police officer, I even knew a Federal order supersedes a local municipal court order.  But the Captain and Sheriff of Blount county I guess never learned that. 
 
The Federal Courts act slow, most of the time too slow, but when they do, and find that their orders were knowing violated, they come down pretty strong. 
 
The video tape taken by "Follow the Money" film crew is very clear of the the good captain being served and warned of two standing federal orders barring him.  I just wonder if he will say the same thing to the Federal Court out East when the matter comes up.  I will be there. 
 
And just what was that green paper he took from Mr. Webb of Webb properties, and put into his wallet?   mmmm  I wonder.  LMAO!!!  I just don't like crooked or bad cops!   He is one!
 
It's even more interesting to follow the relationships with Webb properties and the good Captain,   More to come on this matter.  "Following the Money"!  and Litton Lawyers in Knoxville!

Quote 0 0
4 justice now
Gary,
 
How is the documentary (Follow the Money) progressing? Is there any chance that we could be viewing it, via one of the major cable "news" distributors, sometime in the near future?
 
I'm sure Bob is very thankful that he has had you there to assist him and his family through this truly outrageous ordeal.  
 
vr,
 
4J
Quote 0 0
Big Bob

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The bad guys don't even have a clue with what is about to happen. 

 

More surprises on the near horizon!

 

I told Gary yesterday that "they" should have never screwed with us.

 

We'll see.  In my neck of the woods, "the proof is in the pudding" and the documents.

 

My family was blessed when I met Gary on the internet, even if he is "Repugnant"!

 

(Inside Joke)

 

The joke will come out later also.

 

My family appreciates everyones thoughts.

 

Our best to all of you.

 

Don't stop fighting!  Don't give in!  Be smart!  Listen to the wise people on this site!  This site makes a difference!

 

Bob

 

The documentary is in final production.  It will amaze even the most sceptical.  I'm ashamed that my two boys had to see our "to protect and preserve" best in action.  Gary and the AP guy, along with my two sons, did an amazing job.  As soon as it is available, it will be shown.

Quote 0 0
You and your family are in my prayers. I know we have a 100% chance of defeating these fraudsters and they are making a few desparate hail Mary attempts to escape exposure and prosecution.
Quote 0 0
4 justice now
Bob,

I'm extremely happy to hear that things are finally turning around for you and your family. It's a shame your young sons were forced to experience such a terribly harsh lesson about greed and corruption at such an early age. Although, that said we should be thankful that nobody was killed, especially after considering the type scumbags that you were forced to deal with. I'm sure if you didn't have Gary and the others there it could have easily been much worse.

Hopefully, there will be a happy ending to this very sad and shocking story, one that will in some way, make up for all the harm done by these disgusting bottom feeders.

BTW: Thanks for the update on the documentary. I'm sure it will do much to enlighten any of the doubters among us.

I wish you and your family the best of luck!

4J
Quote 0 0
It is a sad day when kids have to watch their parents get shoved around under the color of authority.

I am sure that there are some good things that come from it.  They will never trust, like blind trust, people again which would be a valuable lesson for them.

Not to mention that you are fighting back.  A win will make a big difference
in how they view this incident.

I think these videos are like gold.  The more the merrier.  A picture is worth a thousand words applies to a situation like yours.

Good Luck

Dee


Quote 0 0

 Good Luck Big Bob, Fighting Back 2007

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...