(Edwin W. Lynch. Jr.'s 2013 sales contract)
Why would Edwin W. Lynch. Jr. have Jean Nader sign a sales contract for the Trust property that, among other things, does not mention the Trust Deed?
This sales contract has numerous clauses about "title objections" which makes it appear that a title problem is expected. Not mentioning the Trust Deed in a sale of the Trust property creates a title problem.
The problem is planted between members of our family. Not with those who created it. It is a wedge. The more I say the Deed should be recognized the more it drives the wedge deeper because Jean Nader will do what the accountants and their collaborators want her to do and that would be to not recognize the deed. Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith's Order of January 25, 2013, already shows that he does not recognize the Deed but does not say why. The Director of DTA has already shown that the does not recognize the Deed but does not say why. No one recogniese te Deed and no one says why.
The signature cover of the accountants and their collaborators is to render the family powerless by dividing and destabilizing the family using the trust of a family member to unwittingly carry it out. See 545820-18p for example. This may be the perfect cover.
Would the Deed be made to disappear like the $518,903.26 in 545820-18p was made to disappear? Would B&K ask the Court to officially recognize Jean Nader's position that the Deed should not be recognized? And I be made responsible for the Deed not being recognized, such as me being made to appear responsible for Judge Smith agreeing to the B&K prepared Complaint? (Insert quote from Order)
" The material facts set forth in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this action are
deemed to be admitted by Defendant Anthony M. O'Connell pursuant to Va. Sup. Ct. Rule
1:4(e);- based on the failure of Defendant Anthony M. O'Connell to deny such facts in the
responsive pleading filed by him, entitled "Response to Summons Served on September 8,
I know this is a good deed but I have no voice.