You are on page 1of 6

V ETWO

PAGE T E(CONT’D)
RANS FOR
CR 11 Notice
GEmily
Ms. U AHansen
RDIANSHIP AND
PR
Nov. 26,O BATE REFOR
2018 M, S. P.C.

Dec. 31, 2018

Mr. Chris Lee


Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, P.S.
801 2nd Ave #1200
Seattle, WA 98104-1518

RE: The Estate of D. Douglas Titus; Liability Exposure for Aiken St. Louis

Mr. Lee:

This is in relation to the matter above-referenced. I represent Fred Christianson and am General Counsel
for Veterans for Guardianship and Probate Reform ("VGR").

While Mr. Christianson was removed but not discharged as administrator of the Titus Estate, the facts
establish that Mr. Christianson's removal was unlawful. An appeal has been filed.

1) Of Immediate Relevance.

A National Model of Fraud. The Titus case has escalated to the point that it is now cited by
experts (Exhibit "A") across the country as the nation's model for guardianship and probate fraud
("GPF"), and is receiving broad interest from reform advocates and members of the press.

Aiken’s Central Role in the Titus GPF. The involvement of Aiken in the Titus case is now
attracting national attention. It has been discovered that your firm has acted as a central component of
the Titus GPF from the beginning.

Escalation of the Titus Case. The rapid escalation of public awareness of the Titus GPF case
within the past few weeks includes a thorough examination by national guardianship fraud experts, state
legislators, their respective staff and committees, recent hearings in the legislature, and several other
state and federal organizations, as well as our own staff.

Aiken’s Involvement. The close examination of the Titus case resulted in the discovery of
serious issues regarding your associate Mr. Furman’s involvement from the beginning. Given your
recent acceptance of the Titus case, those concerns are amplified. Aiken’s further involvement will have
significant liability implications for you personally and professionally, as well as for Aiken.

Selection out of Rotation. Regarding your selection in the Titus case, Judge Schubert stated on
the record (Exhibit “B”) that you were not chosen from the GAL list or from a random rotation. He
continued by saying that the Ex Parte department handpicked both you and Mr. Longyear to be on the
Titus case.

(206) 492-1773 4742 42nd Ave SW #542 www.VGPR.io


JonathanG@VGPR.io Seattle, WA 98116 info@VGPR.io
PAGE TWO(Cont’d)
Mr. Chris Lee
Dec. 31, 2018

2) Background and Overview.


Reference About VGR. VGR is a national organization based in Seattle. We are closely affiliated
with two other national guardianship and probate fraud (“GPF”) groups, AAAPG and CEAR, for whom
we provide close support within our focus and objectives. VGR has two primary objectives: national
support of federal criminal investigation and prosecution of GPF, and civil RICO actions.

The Beginning of the End: The Titus Case. The Titus case marked the beginning of the end of
GPF in Washington. Created by the friends of the late Mr. Titus, within three months VGR became
affiliated with two national organizations and thousands of supporters. The pattern and methods of GPF
in our state is rapidly being made clear to victims, the press, the public, and senior federal law
enforcement officials. The GPF game is over.

Deconstruction of GPF. The GPF game has only been played by people who knew what the
puzzle looked like. The picture of the puzzle is now clear to all: pretext allegations to gain guardianship;
false accusations/separation of the target’s support via TRO; control/isolation of the victim and their
assets; and payoffs to public officials via residential re-fi (Exhibit “C”).

Origin and Refocus. VGR was created after two years of effort to bring the Titus GPF to the
attention of the legislature. Although substantial evidence of GPF was presented, no action was taken.
After discovery that dozens of individuals and ad hoc groups have presented evidence of GPF over
decades, VGR was formed. Substantial evidence was gathered from GPF organizations, individuals and
ad hoc groups nationwide.

Affiliation with Law Enforcement. After concluding that a resolution of GPF was not practical
within state government, in Sept. 2018, our Executive Director renewed a prior working relationship
with federal law enforcement. Extensive evidence of bribery of state officials was presented relating to
commissioners, judges, assistant attorney generals, and employees of the Department of Social and
Health Services.

3) The Evolution of GPF.


In the Beginning. As many of us are now performing post-mortems on GPF, we speculate that in
the beginning, GPF targets were chosen by people such as your associate Mr. Longyear who worked in a
bank trust department, care facilities, social services and other venues with access to isolated victim’s
financial information. As GPF expanded to include more public officials, GPF collaborators likely
became increasingly confident and emboldened.
PAGE THREE (Cont’d)
Mr. Chris Lee
Dec. 31, 2018

Entitlement Mentality. The Titus case appears to be the end result of a progressively
predatory attitude of GPF collaborators resulting in an entitlement mentality. Mr. Titus, a practicing
attorney who was not incapacitated by any legal definition, with his friend and associate Mr.
Crawford, a paralegal and legal software designer, together had a legal team including retired Supreme
Court Justice Richard Sanders, former U.S. Attorney Mike McKay, and five other attorneys.

Perception of Invincibility. Regardless of the facts of the Titus case, and the substance of the
legal team, the collaborators in the Titus GPF appear to be of the conviction that their collective scheme
is invincible. Although the Titus case has resulted in national attention and is the subject of a federal
criminal investigation, GPF participants, including public officials, seem to have taken personal offense
that anyone would presume to challenge their respective fiefdoms.

4) Emily Hansen: A GPF Career Criminal.


Cognitive Dissonance. The fact that the GPF game is over appears to not yet be clear to Titus
guardian ad litem, guardian, and attorney Emily Hansen as well as her collaborators - all of whom seem
to believe they may continue perpetrating GPF as though it is business as usual, and that the discordant
music of GPF will never end.

A Likely Immodest Proposal. Based on consistent methodology as documented in the court


record, and by a well-established pattern of GPF committed by Ms. Hansen over decades, you likely
have or will be contacted by Ms. Hansen with an offer to collaborate in an attempt to further the fraud of
the now nationally-exposed Titus case.

Consistently Inconsistent with the Law. Specifically, Ms. Hansen may likely try to collude with
you to again attempt to revert ownership of the former Titus home to the estate. Her purpose in doing
would be to attempt to collect her fraudulent claims from the estate. Should you do so, Aiken will again
be participating in and furthering the Titus fraud.

5) Duty of Counsel. Per GR 24, at all times Ms. Hansen acted as attorney for Mr. Titus and his
estate. Among Ms. Hansen’s many acts of fraud is the violation of her duty to maintain the
position that Mr. Titus established regarding the sale of his former home, per RPCs 1.8, 1.9, Teja
v. Saran, 846 P. 2d 1375 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. (1993), and RCW 4.20.046. Any
attorney representing the Titus estate in any capacity has a clear duty to maintain the position
that the decedent had assumed prior to his passing. In a voicemail message left for Titus’ realtor,
she states that she is the court appointed attorney for Titus (Exhibit “D”)

6) Mr. Titus' Position. At all times during his life, Mr. Titus and his counsel together established
with conclusive medical evidence and oral testimony (Exhibit "E") that Mr. Titus: A) had never
PAGE FOUR (Cont’d)
Mr. Chris Lee
Dec. 31, 2018

experienced a stroke; B) at all times was of sound mind; C) had never had any business dispute
whatsoever with his friend and associate Mr. Crawford; D) had lawfully transferred his former
home to Mr. Crawford's corporation for agreed consideration; and E) that every allegation of
guardian ad litem Emily R. Hansen regarding Mr. Titus' alleged incapacity and conflicts with
Crawford were, and I directly quote Mr. Titus’ counsel per the referenced Exhibit "E," “wildly
baseless." No attorney may legally oppose Mr. Titus’ position that he did not dispute the sale of
his former home.

7) Summary of Facts. Although your firm is in possession of the court record, for your convenience
attached herewith is a summary of facts (Exhibit “F”), together with documents pertaining to the
Titus case based on the referenced record, declarations, and expert testimony all of which
extensively establish criminal activity in the case.

8) Implications of Aiken’s Involvement.

Additional Causes of Action. As the record extensively documents Ms. Hansen’s GPF, and your
firm’s central involvement, any further attempt by any party to transfer the former Titus home to the
estate would add to the causes of a fraud action and incur significant liability for those who further
collaborate with Ms. Hansen.

Further Involvement. Any action taken by any party in this case prior to adjudication and the
conclusion of state and federal criminal investigations will be challenged and opposed to the full extent
of all applicable civil and criminal laws and the rights of the parties affected by this fraud.

RICO. Please consider this a courtesy notice that any party who chooses to participate in
furthering the fraud of the Titus case will be named in an amended federal criminal complaint and will
be added as a defendant in a civil RICO by Veterans for Guardianship and Probate Reform.

A Spotlight of Public Exposure. Any party who is considering acting as a front-line agent to
further the Titus fraud may wish to consider asking themselves if they would care to experience
continuous public exposure under a microscope of public attention focused on both their current and
past activities.

Familiarity. As our staff and investigators examine the cases you have been involved in, and the
parties you have worked with, we look forward to becoming continuously better acquainted with your
firm’s relationship to the guardianship and probate ecosystem.

9) An Opportunity for Aiken to Benefit from Public Exposure. As a courtesy to you and your firm,
we would be glad to provide the opportunity to address the issues presented, and respectfully
request your written response to questions presented herein. Court records relating to your firm’s
involvement will soon be posted on our web site; your answers will provide your firm the
opportunity to respond in the interest of fairness for public review.
PAGE FIVE (Cont’d)
Mr. Chris Lee
Dec. 31, 2018

10) Preliminary Questions.

A) Why was your firm and Mr. Furman hired in the Titus case from the beginning?
B) By whom? The State of Washington? The AG? Emily Hansen? DSHS? AWC? Keating
Bucklin? Shannon Ragonesi? Reed Longyear?
C) Did any other person, firm, or entity consult or pay you or Aiken to consult on the Titus case,
directly or indirectly?
D) For what purpose was your firm and Mr. Furman retained for the Titus case?
E) How much has your firm been paid to date, and by whom in relation to the Titus case?
F) Has AWC consulted with you on this case, directly or indirectly?
G) Has your neighbor Shannon Ragonesi and/or Keating Bucklin consulted?
H) Has your other neighbor, Michael Longyear or Reed Longyear consulted?
I) Has your firm retained other attorneys to jointly consult for the Titus case?
J) Why did your firm allow dozens of criminal acts to occur in the Titus case, without your firm
seeking intervention or involvement by the Bar or law enforcement? As you and your firm
knew or should have known, attorney-client privilege ends when an attorney has knowledge
of criminal intent or activity per in re Discipline of Anderson, 138 Wash.2d 830, 981 P.2d
426 (1999); Dike v. Dike,75 Wash.2d at 11, 448 P.2d 490. (1968); RPC 8.3(a); 8.4(a)(3) or
(a)(4); and In re Himmel, 125 Ill 2d 531,
533 NE2d 790, 127 Ill Dec 708 (Ill 1988), reh'g denied, 1989, and Skolnick v Altheimer, 191
Ill 2d 214, 730 NE2d 4, 246 Ill Dec 324 (Ill 2000).
K) Why were you chosen out of rotation to be administrator in the Titus case?
L) Why did you accept the role of administrator when your firm has knowledge of extensive
criminal activity in the Titus case from the beginning?
Mr. Furman’s involvement in the Titus case from the beginning establishes Aiken’s knowledge of the
facts and complicity in the Titus fraud. The fact that your firm has accepted the appointment as
administrator provides further proof of your firm’s involvement, and serves to establish not only
involvement in GPF, but your willingness to accept the public exposure of your involvement.

An Invitation. You and your associates are invited to visit our website to review successful criminal
investigations and prosecutions of our affiliates who closely monitor this matter and have offered a
broad range of support for the federal criminal complaints and related investigation of the Titus case,
including press coverage.

Injustice is like water pressure that builds behind a structurally compromised dam: there is no apparent
flaw in the dam, until the pressure reaches a critical point. The countless acts of fraud and collusion
committed by all collaborators in the GPF ecosystem have daily accrued liability.
PAGE SIX (Cont’d)
Mr. Chris Lee
Dec. 31, 2018

The dam is breeched. It will be interesting to see how the public will soon react upon the discovery
of how they have been cheated by those they have put into positions of power, compensated well, and
most of all, trusted.

Drexel Burnham. Enron. Arthur Anderson. Madoff. Like addiction, greed has its own logic. Ms.
Hansen’s logic and pathological pursuit of the Titus case has exposed you and your firm’s central role in
GPF. Greed and the abuse of power is a very old story and is ultimately its own solution.

It will be interesting to see how the public judges people who would presume to live under the rule of
law for themselves and their families, while wearing masks of public service and denying our veteran
constituents who have sacrificed all for the rights they deny others.

Hansen’s pathological pursuit of the Titus case has resulted in the unraveling of the machinery of GPF
in our state, and now massive public exposure. It now appears inevitable that participants in both GPF
and anti-trust activities relating to AWC will face criminal charges and convictions.

From our associates in law enforcement at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, we have learned that
fraud is nearly always accompanied by tax evasion. You and your law firm are now the subject of a
complaint we have filed in the Titus case.

With public exposure of GPF, insiders are now coming forward with substantial evidence. While the
opportunity to provide evidence will end when arrests begin, at present, we are willing to advocate
for anyone and help prepare evidence for those who a gree to testify.

If any partner, associate, or any employee of Aiken is willing to add to the rapidly expanding body of
evidence to protect themselves, their careers and their families, we will be glad to work with
our associates in federal law enforcement to request accommodation.

We look forward to adjudicating this and all related matters to its just conclusion, and bringing to
public attention the collusion and machinery through which the public has been denied justice.

Thank you for your review of this courtesy notice.

Regards,

Jonathan Grindell, General Counsel


Veterans for Guardianship & Probate Reform, S.P.C.

Exhibits and Attachments: Declaration of Expert Witness Dr. Sam Sugar; Preliminary Transcript
of TEDRA Hearing; FinCen Briefing on Public Official Bribery; Transcript of Hansen’s Voicemail
to Realtor; Titus and Counsel’s Proof of Capacity; Summary of Facts