The narrative below accompanied the formal ethics complaint by Spencer C. Young against Jane Isern of Brown, Isern & Carpenter (sadly, the attorney representing Leah Krier in a series of fraudulent acts described below). It was filed earlier today (March 21, 2011) with the State of Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. [Important: this document contains hyperlinks to compelling corroborating evidence, and what Jane was caught doing is EXACTLY out of the Kirkland & Ellis "playbook".] This is yet another example of how MorganStanleyGate can bring the absolute worst out in people.
The Petitioner & Respondent
In this narrative, Ms. Isern’s “client” and “Petitioner” is Leah R. Krier, and she has included Ms. Krier’s nearly 3-year-old son, Jackson S. Young in a feckless attempt to claim jurisdictional authority on a matter that has no relevance whatsoever to Kansas. (Refer to Mr. Young’s Motion to Dismiss.)
The “Respondent” is Spencer C. Young, who was engaged to and lived with Ms. Krier for approximately 2 ½ years, until she abruptly abandoned him, kidnapped their son and has since serially cohabited with various other men in Durham, North Carolina. Sadly, this reflects a complete lack of moral values that appear to coincide with those of Ms. Isern – hence the saying: “Birds of a feather, flock together”.
Ms. Krier commenced her abandonment in February 2010 when their young family of three was unlawfully evicted from Mr. Young’s condominium in what may be the worst bank foreclosure fraud in the history of the United States – for it was on a mortgage that was NEVER late, NOT delinquent, and PAID-IN-FULL.
This tragic event is as “un-American” as you can get, and has managed to bring the very worst out in Ms. Krier, where her behavior has transmogrified in such an atrocious manner, her current personality traits are unrecognizable to Mr. Young -- accordingly, he legitimately fears for the welfare of little Jackson, irrespective of whether the little boy is really his natural son, and he feels a growing urgency to rescue him from an amoral, poorly educated woman, who is now spiraling out of control.
This bank foreclosure fraud represents an element of “FraudClosure” that has yet to be exposed in the national news. Moreover, Mr. Young is currently in the midst of bringing Federal claims against the bankers, attorneys and public officials who conspired in perpetrating this and other malicious transgressions – all of which were executed as part of a cover-up in the MorganStanleyGate scandal.
Mr. Young is undertaking a leadership role in this pursuit for justice and is intent on reversing the devastating effects of these scandals, and reclaiming the assets that were stolen in this elaborate grand larceny. This is evidenced in his numerous websites.
Jane Isern’s Role
Whether witting or non-witting, Ms. Isern’s role is to continue to bring as much strife and vexation to Mr. Young as possible, utilizing Ms. Krier as a necessary pawn, so as to further tarnish his character reputation in yet another in a string of smear campaigns, supplementing the New York campaign, the North Carolina campaign, the attempted national campaign, and even a surreptitious effort launched from a rural farm house in Potwin, Kansas.
The objectives of these vicious smear campaigns are two-fold: (1) overwhelm and beat down Mr. Young with so much emotional strife so he will give up his pursuits for justice; and/or (2) undermine his credibility in order to effectively achieve the same effect.
Notwithstanding her efforts, by her doing so, the opposite of its intended effect has manifested – for Ms. Isern has effectively poured gasoline on an open flame, and this complaint represents the beginning of a conflagration that will eventually envelop her . . . for as described herein, Jane Isern MUST be stripped of her license to practice law for as evidenced herein, she is a bully who preys on unsuspecting others for her self-aggrandizement.
Jane Isern is Dangerous
In Mr. Young’s opinion, Jane Isern of Brown, Isern & Carpenter is a woefully unethical lawyer, and is dangerous to the general public as an officer of the legal system in the state of Kansas.
1. Client Exploitation – Jane Isern took advantage of Ms. Krier, who possesses only a high school diploma, by lying about laws that do not exist and providing false assurances predicated on erroneous advice, in order to extract legal fees from someone who can ill afford them. Among other things, and as detailed in Mr. Young’s March 9 letter to Ms. Isern, she failed to serve her client’s best interests, she did not know the operative facts, nor her client at all, and provided flawed legal advice and disturbing guidance, while demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth;
2. Fraudulent Claims – Jane Isern submitted monetary claims in a Paternity Petition, where she knew the identity of the natural father was uncertain due to the well-documented promiscuous proclivities of her client (click here and refer to pages 9 to 13 of the hyper-linked document). She was also aware her client had no valid monetary claims against Respondent, because any obligation (should it be proven to exist through verifiable paternity testing), has been pre-paid for the next five years, based on her client’s statement of needs (click here and refer to ”item II” on page 13).
3. Denial Of Due Process Via Fraudulent Misrepresentation – Jane Isern filed a Motion for Default Judgment, stating the Respondent had failed to file a response to her Paternity Petition within the 30 day prescribed time frame. She knew her representation was 100% FALSE, in that: (1) an answer was provided to her on the 28th day (i.e. Pages 8 to 15 of this Mar. 2, 2011 document), along with an overture for resolution; and (2) Respondent’s answer was timely filed on the 30th day, which was confirmed by Judy Burnette of the Barton County District Court and separately communicated as such to Ms. Isern.
Jane Isern’s Blatant Fraud
Despite such irrefutable evidence of Respondent’s compliance in answering the fraudulent Paternity Petition she drafted on behalf of her client, Ms. Isern engaged in an even more profound fraud in what appears to be a desperate effort to deny Respondent his right to due process. Here’s how she went about it:
a) Motion for Default Judgment Filed – On March 14, 2011 Ms. Isern filed this FRAUDULENT motion (without Mr. Young’s knowledge) and hastily-arranged hearing one week later in Kansas. This would require him to make a trip of 1,500 miles to attend, which she very well knew attending would be an impossibility at this time, as Mr. Young’s wife of 24 years is in the last stages of terminal pancreatic cancer, and he is intent on spending as much time with her in New York as possible before her passing;
b) Notice of Hearing Sent by Regular Mail – Although informed that all communications be made by email (necessary because Mr. Young has been rendered homeless by the aforesaid bank foreclosure fraud) Ms. Isern sent the notice by regular mail (as indicated on the Motion) to an address he only occasionally stays at and as of this writing (and also the date of this fraud-based hearing), the notice of the hearing has NOT been received.
c) Refusal to Otherwise Communicate – Mr. Young tried to call Ms. Isern early in the week, and after ducking his calls for two days, she called back at a time when she was expressly told Mr. Young would not be available. On Wed. Mar. 16, 2011, she called at 8:22 am Eastern time and left a bizarre voicemail message, which would ensure Mr. Young would not be notified of the Motion for Default Judgment – in it she said she would only accept mailed correspondence and would not accept any phone calls and block any emails. Click here to listen to her actual message, which plays on Apple’s Quickplayer, or any cell phone.
d) Subsequent Phone Calls Not Answered or Returned – Mr. Young tried on five subsequent occasions to call Ms. Isern, but was unsuccessful in reaching her, or in getting her to return his calls.
What This Means
The aforementioned events reflect a malicious and fraudulent attempt to deny Mr. Young legal due process. And because Mr. Young independently learned of Ms. Isern’s scheme, he drafted and filed a Motion for Dismissal on Friday, Mar. 18 but gave her enough rope to effectively hang herself. So let’s summarize what she did . . .
ØJane Isern deliberately drafted a fraudulent Motion for Default Judgment, which was predicated on representations she knew to be BOLD-FACED-LIES
ØJane Isern set an unreasonable hearing date one week hence
ØJane Isern sent the notice of the Motion and hearing date by regular mail (return receipt requested), such that it wouldn’t be received until the date of the hearing or thereafter
ØJane Isern avoided having a phone conversation with Mr. Young, where she would be obligated to inform him of the motion and hearing
ØJane Isern needlessly and unjustifiably restricted her receiving any communication from Mr. Young until after the hearing and the bogus default judgment was granted, which would deny Mr. Young his right to legal due process and inequitably result in a highly compromised position
Violations of Lawyers’ Responsibilities
The Lawyers’ Responsibilities (as per the Kansas Judicial Branch) have been redacted in the table below for those elements having direct application to the observed unethical behavior of Jane Isern.
Jane Isern’s Violations
A lawyer is an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.
As described herein, Jane Isern has failed to fulfill this responsibility, and has substantially compromised the notion of justice in the matter of Case no. 2010-DM-399 (the “Case”).
A lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations.
Jane Isern falsely advised her client that she was the rightful owner of a $34,000 engagement ring after her client terminated her engagement to the Respondent. This is patently false under Kansas law (which does not jurisdictionally apply anyway) AND under North Carolina law, which has direct applicability because both parties are residents of North Carolina and lived together in Chapel Hill, NC before and during their engagement, approximating 3 years.
Jane Isern’s Violations
A lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client, but consistent with requirements of honest dealing with others.
By surreptitiously filing a false and meritless motion for default judgment, Jane Isern has engaged in outright fraud in a deliberate and malicious attempt to deny Respondent his rights to legal due process.
A lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Jane Isern willfully engaged in fraud to deny Respondent the right to legal due process, on a matter which has no jurisdictional relevance to Kansas, and predicated on advice provided to her client, which she knew to be false.
In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent.
Jane Isern has demonstrated herself to be woefully incompetent and the general public should be protected from her, through the disbarment process
A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others – it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process.
Jane Isern deviously manipulated the law’s procedures in an entirely illegitimate manner, and made a mockery of the legal process.
A lawyer should further the public's confidence in the justice system
Jane Isern’s actions and behavior serve to undermine the public’s confidence
A lawyer is guided by personal conscience and should strive to exemplify the legal profession's ideals of public service.
Jane Isern’s acts in this matter suggest she has no moral standards and lacks a personal conscience altogether. Her shameful fraud is a disgrace to the legal profession.
A lawyer should maintain a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons
As evidenced by a recent voicemail message Ms. Isern left for Respondent, she is rude and unreasonable – and in the context of her underlying intent to obtain an entirely fraudulent judgment without allowing Respondent his right to due process suggests Jane Isern may not be a civilized human being, but rather a dangerous monster who will continue to unethically prey on a unsuspecting public.
The legal profession is largely self-governing, and this relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar.
How this matter is addressed with be reflective of just how legitimate such self-governance is because the evidence is prima facie and overwhelming.
Jane Isern’s fraudulent and repugnant behavior was pre-meditated and is disturbing enough to undermine the public’s trust – She MUST be disbarred. And to ensure legitimacy in the review process (which is fraught with conflict due to its self-policing), this is being concurrently shared with 56 separate national news agencies, and posted on-line at http://MorganStanleygate.blogspot.com, where progress will be monitored and reported.
Spencer C. Young