THE ILLEGAL WHOLESALE SEIZURE OF IRREVOCABLE TRUST, FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (F.L.P.), AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (L.L.C.) ASSETS, BY A COURT, THAT DID NOT EVEN HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ANY OF THOSE SOVEREIGN LEGAL ENTITIES
Note: Although the illegal wholesale seizure and constitutional deprivations apply to ALL assets, property, and monies taken (personal, business, and retirement), this particular section will attempt to address and detail the specifics pertaining to the Trust, Partnership, and Company that are listed below. A listing of separate, but related topics, directly associated with the same extensive illegal wholesale seizure of assets and monies will be itemized at the end of this section.
The status of Trust, Partnership, and Company assets:
The Trust
"Magnum Opus Investments Deed of Settlement Dated November 2, 2000" is an irrevocable trust that was created on November 2, 2000, by an attorney specializing in that area of expertise. It is also very specifically a "discretionary trust" (page 11), and NOT a "spendthrift trust". (The Trust Settlement Documents contain provisions under ARTICLE XII (pages 98-99) to prevent the trust from ever being used as, or considered a spendthrift trust.) All assets within the Trust have been properly and legally transferred to the Trust by the Grantor, David Larsen.
"Magnum Opus Investments Deed of Settlement Dated November 2, 2000" is a sovereign, legal entity based in Charlestown, Nevis. It is NOT a Wisconsin Trust!
ARTICLE IX of the Trust Settlement Documents (pages 79-80) very clearly specifies that Nevis Law Applies. More specifically: "This Settlement is established under the laws of Nevis and shall be construed and take effect according to the law of Nevis, which shall be the forum for the administration hereof and whose law shall be of Proper Law of this Settlement, and the rights of all Persons beneficially entitled hereunder and the construction of each and every provision hereof shall, except as otherwise provided herein, be governed exclusively by such law."
The Partnership
"Velocity Investments Family Limited Partnership" is a sovereign, legal entity formed in and under the laws of South Dakota. It is NOT a Wisconsin Partnership! (The Partnership was formed around the same time as the Trust described above, and by the same attorney.)
ARTICLE XVII of the Partnership Documents (page 53) very clearly specifies that the laws of South Dakota shall govern.
"Velocity Investments Family Limited Partnership" was even registered with the State of Wisconsin as a "Foreign Limited Partnership" per §179.82 Wis. Stats.
The Company
"Worldwide Dome Construction, L.L.C." is a sovereign, legal entity formed in and under the laws of Arizona. It is NOT a Wisconsin Company! The Arizona Limited Liability Company was formed on May 8, 2002, and by the same attorney who had, years earlier, formed both the Trust and Partnership listed above.
ARTICLE XVIII, Section 18.01 of the Worldwide Dome Construction, L.L.C. Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement (page 58) very clearly specifies that the laws of Arizona shall govern. More specifically: "This Agreement, and any question, dispute, or other matter related to or arising from this Agreement, will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona."
Worldwide Dome Construction, L.L.C. primarily operated out of Wheeling, IL and accordingly was registered with the State of Illinois as a "Foreign L.L.C."
The vast majority of Limited Liability Company Membership Units in Worldwide Dome Construction, L.L.C. were subsequently transferred to the Trust (Magnum Opus Investments Deed of Settlement Dated November 2, 2000), shortly after the inception of the L.L.C.
On June 30, 2004, the Racine County Circuit Court (Judge Faye M. Flancher) made an ILLEGAL WHOLESALE SEIZURE of an Irrevocable Trust, a Family Limited Partnership, a Limited Liability Company, all of David Larsen's various Retirement and Pension Account assets, and all other personal and business assets of David Larsen as well.
This outrageous Illegal Wholesale Seizure was facilitated:
1) Despite the fact that there was NO pre-deprivation hearing, as is required by law.
2) Despite the fact that there were NO warrants to seize any of the personal, business, or retirement assets.
3) Despite the fact that all personal, business, and retirement assets had NO nexus to any kind of crime, and despite NO claim to the contrary of such ever having been made by the government, or anybody else.
4) Despite the fact that there was NO probable cause to believe that ANY of the personal, business, or retirement assets/property would ever be subject to forfeiture or seizure to begin with.
5) Despite the judge's existing and undeniable serious conflict of interest. The judge (Faye M. Flancher) was the wife of Prosecutor Robert S. Flancher, who was prosecuting Larsen in the same Racine County Circuit Court.)
6) Despite the fact that the Racine Court completely lacked jurisdiction over any of the sovereign legal entities (trust, partnership, and company).
7) Despite the fact that there was NO "Service of Process" to David Larsen, Magnum Opus Investments Deed of Settlement Dated November 2, 2000, Velocity Investments Family Limited Partnership, or Worldwide Dome Construction, L.L.C.
8) Despite the fact that each of these sovereign legal entities (trust, partnership, and company) had the right to dispute what was occurring but were denied that right by virtue of being denied all access to their respective funds and assets for the purpose of retaining their independent counsels to do so.
Both Amendment IV and Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution prohibit such seizures. Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution very specifically states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall note be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."
Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution further states, in relevant part, that:
"No person shall... Be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
The Federal Courts, including the 7th Circuit, have also consistently held that seizing personal property without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable. (See United States v. James, 571 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2007)). Even the United States Supreme Court has previously stated the same: "seizure of personal property [will be] pre se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized." United States v. Place. 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983).
The United States Supreme Court has recently stated, in 2016, that the government cannot improperly freeze assets of a defendant when those assets have no connection to the charged crimes, thereby depriving the defendant of those untainted assets intended to pay for counsel, because doing so deprives the defendant of his fundamental right to the assistance of counsel of the defendant's choice at the defendant's expense. The court further stated that the government's non-constitutional interest in preserving the assets to provide for payment of potential criminal forfeitures, or restitution if the defendant was convicted, is not the equivalent of the defendant's constitutional right to the assistance of counsel of the defendant's choice. Luis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1083, 194 L.Ed.2d 256, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2272.
The United States Supreme Court "concluded that the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth amendment." Luis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1083, 1085 (2016).
The government clearly must accord owners a level of process when it seeks to deprive owners of any protected property interest. As stated above, on June 30, 2004, the Racine court illegally seized all assets and accounts of a sovereign Trust, foreign Partnership, and foreign Limited Liability Company. It did so without ever even having conducted a pre-deprivation hearing, which is required by law, and furthermore, it did so WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY TYPE OF HEARING WHATSOEVER. There was NO DUE PROCESS to speak of, AT ALL! Assets were simply seized, no warrants ever having been sought or issued. Numerous court precedents establish the general rule that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them of property. Yet, Larsen was afforded no such opportunity whatsoever to be heard; there, simply put, was NO due process! The pure outrageousness of these actions is best demonstrated by examining the very actions which initially occurred and then continually "snowballed" out of control with the court doing absolutely nothing to correct its own numerous errors. The Racine court does not have jurisdiction over a Nevisian Trust, a South Dakota Partnership, or an Arizona Limited Liability Company. Next, a one sentence statement made by Judge Faye M. Flancher at the tail end of a child support hearing is then demonstrably perverted into an extensive illegal wholesale seizure of everything and anything Larsen has ever owned or had an interest within: personal assets, business assets, retirement assets, "beneficial interests" within things such as the Trust, or even insurance policies. That one sentence comes from the transcript of a child support hearing held on 6/30/04, specifically Record #231, page 32, lines 6-7, which simply states,
"there's to be no transfer of assets of any kind, no depletion of any accounts"
It's very important to make note of TWO significant items at this point:
1) Judges in Racine County rarely, if ever, draft and write their own orders from the hearings that take place within their respective courts. More often than not, one of the attorneys involved with the hearing either volunteers or is directed to draft and write the associated order and then forward it to the judge for review and signature; quite often resulting in nothing more than a "rubber stamping" procedure by the court with very little thought exerted, other than a pile of documents needing to be signed at any given point.
2) Judges in Racine County, as a standard procedure, rotate from one court to another every two years. (i.e. Criminal Court to Civil Court, Family Court to Criminal Court, etc...)
In the situation at hand, opposing counsel at the child support hearing (Attorney Karen Youso) immediately volunteered to write the associated order from the hearing and apparently for no other purpose than so as to inject her own preferred language, bias and lean as to the interpretation of what was actually said. The order very well could have just contained the one sentence the judge actually stated, but instead, Attorney Youso changed it into the following (taken from Record #91, page 3, item number 5):
"#5. In the interim, pursuant to §767.42 Wis. Stats., David M. Larsen is, enjoined until further
order of the court from committing or causing to be committed the waste, harm,
encumbrance, transfer, or disposition by sale or gift, of any interest in property, whether real
or personal and whether tangible or intangible, that he held on, or acquired after January 31,
2004, whether said interest was held in his own name, through an ownership interest in a
corporation, through his participation in a partnership, or otherwise, including but not limited
to, any interest in: pension accounts, individual retirement accounts, savings accounts,
other cash accounts, 401K accounts, motor vehicles, boats, aircraft, trusts over which he
exercises control of and of which he is beneficiary, certificates of deposit, things of value
contained in any safety deposit box, stocks and bonds (Whether held by Mr. Larsen personally
or on his behalf by a brokerage or other third party), annuities, life insurance benefits, and the
cash value of any life insurance policy."
Next, the judges in Racine County rotated courts on August 1, 2004, and Judge Richard J. Kreul rotated into the court previously occupied by Judge Faye M. Flancher.
Another thing worth noting at this point is the fact that before this rotation within the courts occurs, the judge leaving one court must clear up and address all things/issues that occurred in their court prior to rotating. Since the new court assignments were effective on August 1, 2004, the very last opportunity to do so would have obviously been the very end of July; more specifically, Friday, July 30, 2004, since July 31, 2004 would have been a Saturday when the court was not in session).
An order from the June 30, 2004 child support hearing had not been addressed anytime during the month of July 2004, and then all of a sudden the Attorney Youso prepared order is signed on the very last day possible (July 30, 2004) prior to the aforementioned rotation. One can only imagine how little attention was paid to the actual content of said order, by virtue of the fact that the court had to clear up everything it had left in its court on that day alone.
Moving back to the issue of jurisdiction itself, the Racine County Circuit Court only has jurisdiction as has been conveyed to it by article VII of the Wisconsin Constitution, and subsequent relevant statutes.
The Wisconsin Constitution , article VII, section 2 states:
"Court system. SECTION 2. [As amended April 1966 and April 1977] The judicial power of this
state shall be vested in a unified court system consisting of one supreme court, a court of
appeals, a circuit court, such trial courts of general uniform statewide jurisdiction as the
legislature may create by law, and a municipal court if authorized by the legislature under
section 14. [1963 J.R. 48, 1965 J.R. 50, vote April 1966; 1975 J.R. 7, vote April 1977]"
Wis. Stat. §753.03 states:
"Jurisdiction of circuit courts. The circuit courts have the general jurisdiction prescribed for
them by article VII of the constitution and have power to issue all writs, process and
commissions provided in article VII of the constitution or by the statutes, or which may be
necessary to the due execution of the powers vested in them. The circuit courts have power
to hear and determine, within their respective circuits, all civil and criminal actions and
proceedings unless exclusive jurisdiction is given to some other court; and they have all the
powers, according to the usages of courts of law and equity, necessary to the full and
complete jurisdiction of the causes and parties and the full and complete administration of
justice, and to carry into effect their judgments, orders and other determinations, subject to
review by the court of appeals or the supreme court as provided by law. The courts and the
judges thereof have power to award all such writs, process, and commissions, throughout
the state, returnable in the proper county."
Nowhere within any of the above is a Wisconsin circuit court given jurisdiction over entities which are based out-of-state. In fact, article VII of the Wisconsin Constitution very specifically states: "within this state". Wis. Stat. §753.03 references article VII of the Wisconsin Constitution and then goes even further to state; "unless exclusive jurisdiction is given to some other court". That very jurisdiction HAS been given "TO SOME OTHER COURT," and that other court is very specifically indicated within any entities Articles of Incorporation or other equivalent formational documents. It is beyond question that any given company, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity has specifically chosen to operate or base itself within a certain state, country, or geographical locality for reasons that are particular to that specific entity, including, but no limited to, that of jurisdiction. This is also very distinctly why you see companies move from one state to another today, or even one country to another. As it pertains to the jurisdiction of entities listed above: Nevis Law and its courts govern the Trust,; South Dakota Law and its courts govern the Partnership; and Arizona Law and its courts govern the Company.
The fact remains that the Racine County Circuit Court (Judge Faye M. Flancher) made an ILLEGAL WHOLESALE SEIZURE of an Irrevocable Trust, a Family Limited Partnership, and a Limited Liability Company over which it did not have jurisdiction. It did so despite Judge Flancher's serious conflict of interest, and it did so contrary to constitutional protections. It did so never even having conducted a pre-deprivation hearing, as is required by law.
Specifics related to other aspects of the same extensive Illegal Wholesale Seizure (apart from the Trust, Partnership, and Company) will be further described and discussed within separate sections directly pertaining to those areas, and titled as follows:
"The Illegal Wholesale Seizure of Retirement Accounts and Pension Account Assets That
Were Taken by a Court in Complete Violation of ERISA Anti-forfeiture and Anti-Alienation
Protections"
"The Illegal Wholesale Seizure of Personal and Business Assets Taken by a Court Without
Warrant, and Without Any Type of Pre-deprivation Hearing, Which Is Required By Law"
"The Serious "Conflict of Interest" Issues of the Person Whom Initiated the Illegal
Wholesale Seizure"
"Verbiage effectuating Illegal Wholesale Seizure"
Still other sections (not yet written) will be added as necessary to fully describe other relevant issues and facts, and will ultimately be found within the "Table of Contents" for all subject matter areas covered within this document.