Real victim stories and warnings

Our story

Our story covers a period of eleven years--more or less. The following are letters, complaints, etc., that have been addressed to various government officials, courts, et al. These items tell my late wife's and my story:

                                                                                                           P. O. Box 3                                                                                                                                                                                       Bronston, KY 42518                                                                                                                                                                       September 8, 2026

 

Hon. Harold "Hal:" Rogers                                                                                                                                                            Congressman (Ky. 5th)                                                                                                                                                                  551 Clifty Street                                                                                                                                                                              Somerset, KY 42503 

Dear Congressman Rogers:

     I need your assistance--if the Congressional Rules--allow you to do so. 

     Starting in 2015 in Woodford County and continuing until all of our assets--approximately $2.5 million--were used, misused, used, stolen or embezzled with out a single deed being legal.

     I filed numerous legal actions in states courts, U.S. District Court in Lexington and Frankfort, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking justice. Not a single culprit was brought to justice. Most, if not all, witnesses called by the state's employees committed perjury or were unqualified to testify. I believe--but cannot prove--that the judges refused to comply with state statutory and controlling case law and relevant controlling U. S. Supreme Court's opinions because they were bribed to deny my wife's and my constitutional rights to Equal Protection of the Law, and Due Process of Law. When judges refuse to comply with controlling law and do whatever they wish, the violate their oath of office and make a mockery of the constitution.  Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1, 17-19.

     After Patricia WILEY was fired by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) for lying and stealing from the state--perhaps part of the money she stole was federal grant money. One of the most pathetic liars and crooks in the state, Robert Horn, of Nicholasville was appointed my wife's guardian/conservator by a District Court judge in Frankfort, and he obtained illegal court orders from the Frankfort judge to sell every inch of my wife's and my real estate, valued at approximately $1.5 million.

     A Circuit Judge in Clark County permitted Mr. Horn to sell our home in Winchester which was  deeded to us jointly in fee simple and was free and clear of any indebtedness. The judge's judgment was based entirely on hearsay and a lawyer's argument, neither of which is competent evidence.

     I fully understand that as a federal congressman, you have no authority over state government issues. However, the misdeeds related to this correspondence also involved federal law violations constituting federal crimes under several statutes, Civil Rights, Title 18 USC section 242, Medicare fraud, Honest Services fraud, Farm Credit Services, FDIC insured bank fraud, etc. Also, the state law violations violated our rights to Equal Protection and Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment actionable under 18 USC 242.

     One of the farms that HORN sold was financed by Farm Credit Services of Lexington, and one was financed by the First Southern National Bank, of Somerset, Danville Branch. 

     Horn sold a rental property in Wilmore on a land contract. Estimated value of the house and lot $20,000. Horn demanded the buyer insure the house for $100,000. It was not long until the house burned under questionable circumstances and the insurance was collected. I complained to the State Fire Marshal and the Department of Insurance and the issue was settled by the insurance company's funds being repaid.

      Title to stolen property remains with the owners and never transfers to the thieves. Therefore, my wife and I still own all of the real estate that we owned in 2015 and are due to recover all of the income generated from its use. On the jointly owned house in Winchester, the rent would be $1,000 per month it being a duplex, one unit renting for $400 and the other $600 per month, $108,000 as of today.

     Marriage is a right under state, federal (14th Amendment) and International law (Universal Declaration of Human Rights [DDHR]), Art. 16.

       "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted to him by the constitution or by law." Art. 8.

     "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the state." Art. 16(3).

      The late Justice Douglas wrote in re marriage: "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights, older than our political parties, . . . and intimate to the degree of being sacred." Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965). Marriage is indeed a sacred institution. It is the first of three divine institutions that God created for mankind. The other two being the Priesthood of the Old Testament and the Church of the New Testament. Marriage is gift of God and none of the States' business. In fact there were no laws regulating marriage in the West cavitation until Wales enacted the Marriage Act of 1753. Prior to that it was controlled by the Church and if people said they were married, the Church recognized it. At least two History of Marriage books ascertain this fact and one was quoted by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644.

      Kentucky allows for the crooked and thieving guardians/conservators to hide under the cover of secrecy  by holding the records of guardianships/conservatorships out of public view. Kentucky's law is unconstitutional under Art. 6 of the U. S. Constitution--international treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land equally with the Constitution and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,  Art. 14(c) mandates that court records to be public--except juveniles, matrimonial disputes, and GUARDIANSHIPS OF CHILDREN [emphasis added]. Apparently, the Kentucky General Assembly never researches any law before they passing unconstitutional acts.

     When I filed my first Civil Rights violations action in the U.S. District Court in Lexington, Judge Karen K. Caldwell did not cite a single controlling state or federal law or a controlling Supreme Court opinion to support her finding. One of the main cases she cited was Apple v. Glenn, 183 F. 3d 477, which held that a Congressman did not have a legal obligation to reply to a constituent's letter. Not one word in Apple mentioned marriage or one of the fourteen/fifteen opinions of the Supreme Court or the more than a thousand federal statutes defining married parties' rights.

     When my wife's estranged daughter filed her petition for guardianship over her mother, she clearly stated that she wanted guardianship for the purpose of seeking to annul our marriage. Nicholasville attorney, Seth Thomas, represented her. He clearly was privy of her intentions. He had a professional duty to advise her that a guardian could  NOT seek to annul a ward's marriage. Johnson v. Johnson, 294 Ky. 77 (1943) followed by the Supreme Court, Rachel v. Rachel, 504 S.W. 3d 7 (1976).

     My wife's daughter died of lung cancer about 90 days after filing her petition for guardianship and the Woodford District Judge Vanessa M. DICKSON appointed the CHFS as her guardian/conservator and in a few weeks, CHFS assigned Patricia WILEY as my wife's guardian. When I proved that Judge DICKSON had illegally adjudicated the case in violation of Kentucky's relevant statutory laws, she recused herself and a judge in Frankfort was appointed,

     Wiley largely farmed her duties out to Robert Horn. Just weeks before the daughter died,  a motion was filed to pay Robert Horn for goods and services he had provided for my wife. He had not provided the listed goods and services and eventually ADMITTED in court under oath that he had not provided the listen items. Yet the judge in Frankfort eventually appointed him as my wife's guardian/conservator knowing or should have known that he had accepted money by fraud he was not owed, and he was not entitled to accept.

     Mr. Thomas had recently done legal work for my wife and was privy to the locations of her money and the value of her assets. It is a conflict of interest for a lawyer to sue his own client representing another client. However, the Kentucky Bar Association took no action against him.

     When the first hearing was held, the County Attorney disclosed to the court that my wife had called him and clearly and articulately expressed her wishes and desires to him. From that point he never made any attempt to prove her disabled. Kentucky statutes mandated that he was the only person that could legally do that. Judge DICKSON allowed Thomas to ask as a self-appointed County Attorney. At the subsequent trial, the County Attorney did not ask a single question of a single witness. He apparently knew the proceeding was totally illegal.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                                                         P. O. Box 6                                                                                                                                                                                       Bronston, KY 42518                                                                                                                                                                        August 8, 2026

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation                                                                                                                                                  2012 Ronald Reagan Drive                                                                                                                                                            Cincinnati, OH 45236

 

                                                 Re: Public Corruption, Civil Rights, and Bribery                                                                                                         Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 16-6290; DOJ Report No. 815876-RRP                             

Gentlemen:

     The Department of Justice has somewhat suggested? that I contact the FBI regarding my complaints. I have been seeking justice for a long time without success.

     Most of my concerns are a matter of public record in various courthouses in Woodford and Jessamine countries and would require very little independent investigation. All of my allegations are provable factually true--except BRIBERY and I believe it could be proven. Considering the sums of money used, misused, stolen and embezzled, it is the only theory that makes any sense and it is the only viable motive for nearly $1 million dollars to be blown in six to nine months' time.

     In 2015, Mary Ellen Reynolds and I were married in Woodford County, KY, by the late County Judge/Executive, who testified in the Jessamine Family Court that there was "no doubt " in his mind that Mrs. Reynolds did not know what she was doing. Her long time banker, Nancy Hoop, testified likewise. Both the judge and the banker had known Mrs. Reynolds for many years.

     The above letter to Congressman Harold "Hal" Rogers (Ky. 5th) is incorporated herein by reference as if restated in full.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                                P. O. Box 6                                                                                                                                                                                      Bronston, KY 42518                                                                                                                                                                       September 4, 2026

 

Federal Trade Commission                                                                                                                                                          600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW                                                                                                                                                          Washington, DC 20580

Government Accountability Office                                                                                                                                               441 G. Street, NW                                                                                                                                                                            Washington, DC 20548

In Re: Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex rel. v. Mary Ellen Reynolds, Woodford District Court, No. 15-H-003-001;  Anderson v. Moss, et al., 15--CI--00723, 20203-CA-1342-OA; Anderson v. Dickson, et al., USDC (E.Ky.) 2016--CV--00071, U.S. 6th Cir., No. 16-6290, 715 F. App'x 481, Cert. Den. 384  US 938.

Gentlemen:

     This is a Complaint and request for an investigation of the Kentucky Judicial system.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

     Mary Ellen Reynolds [hereinafter referred to as Mary] and I were married on the 11th day of May 2015 by the County Judge/Executive of Woodford County, Kentucky. The Kentucky Court of Appeals found that we were married in the above referenced Appeal No. 2023-CA-1342-OA. However, the Court refused to require the judge in the lower case to comply with controlling law.  The Court's decision is a casebook case of judicial corruption. Every lawyer knows and most people know and high school students know that lower courts are required to follow superior court's opinions and have known since the controversies following Roe v. Wade; Brown v. Broad of Education, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

     "State must strictly comply with the statutes or judgment is void." Downing v. Siddens, 247 Ky. 311, 57 S>W. 2d 1

     About a week after Mary and I were married, Mary's daughter retained Seth Thomas of Nicholasville to filed a petition for guardianship/conservatorship in the Woodford District Court, Case Number 15-H-001-003. According to her testimony, she was seeking the guardianship so she could seek the annulment of our marriage.

     Lawyer Thomas had a legal obligation to advise Mary's daughter that:

     1. He had recently done legal work for Mary and, therefore, representing her would be a conflict of interest prohibited by the Kentucky bar Code;

     2. That a guardian could not seek the annulment of a ward's marriage, Johnson v. Johnson, 294 Ky. 773.

    3. That since Mary had not been adjudged to be disabled before the marriage, it could not be claimed after the marriage,  Smith v. Flynn, 390 S.W. 3d 157.

     Lawyer Thomas' illegal deeds were only beginning.

     At the first court hearing after Thomas has accepted Mary's daughter as a client, he self-appointed himself as a County Attorney and represented the daughter and the Commonwealth, AFTER the real County Attorney--who was the ONLY person that could put on evidence to prove Mary was disabled, recalled a conversation that he and Mary had had that morning via phone that had proven to him that Mary was able to communicate with him competently, rational, and articulately. The County Attorney's statement before the Court ended the Court's jurisdiction to proceed with the disability hearing. Judge DICKSON proceeded anyway over my objection, and appointed the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) and Mary's guardian/Conservator absent of any jurisdiction to do so, and handed off my clearly defined constitutional rights to the CHFS in violation of U.S. Supreme Court mandates, which include making medical decisions, visitation, taxation, inherence, etc., [emphasis added] Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644, 670. Judge DICKSON violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, violation of civil rights under color of state law subjecting her to up to ten years' in federal prison, and she became a co-conspirator with lawyer Thomas to violate several other federal criminal statutes in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Section 371 is clear; one co-conspirator does not need to know what another co-conspirator does to be held liable. Therefore, Judge DICKSON is criminally liable for every illegal deed that lawyer Thomas and other judges, et al., commits from that time forward. When I complained about Judge DICKSON's criminal acts, rather than VACATE her illegal ORDER, she recused herself and a Frankfort judge was appointed. She eventually authorized Robert Horn to sell all of Mary's and my property in violation of state and federal laws. 

     Lawyer introduced an affidavit signed by the daughter--which had not been served on me--which was perjured and largely plagiarized from a professional legal publication, and another affidavit signed by a doctor attesting that Mary was disabled--however, the doctor had stated in Mary's medical records signed the same day, and co-signed by a neurologist stated that Mary's judgment was "normal."

      Lawyer Thomas should have been disbarred and held liable for all damages his actions caused the victims of his illegal deeds. Hundreds of Complaints are filed against Kentucky's lawyers each year and few are acted on and the majority of the ones that are, only public or private reprimands are the consequences. The Kentucky Bar Association took no action against him. 

     Eventually, CHFS assigned Patricia WILEY as Mary's guardian/conservator. Apparently, she advanced a certain sum of Mary's money to Robert Horn to pay for him a ten day Hawaiian vacation? Then she advanced a certain sum of Mary's money to HORN for goods and services that he had NOT provided for Mary. Then she stated in court at Frankfort that Mary was running short of money. If true, she and HORN, et al., had blown through approximately $1 million during a few months' time.

     CHFS employee WILEY retained lawyer Thomas to file a Petition in Jessamine Family Court to annul Mary's and my marriage. I filed a Motion to Dismiss citing  Johnson v. Johnson, 294 Ky. 77 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943), therein the Court held that a guardian could NOT seek the annulment of a ward's marriage. Jessamine Family Court Judge, Jeff MOSS, refused to follow the higher court's opinion in violation of Ky. Supreme Court's opinions and Supreme Court Rules (SC). Judge MOSS' acts violated my rights to Equal Protect and Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was criminal under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky failed to prosecute in violation of Supreme Court's opinion:

     "Citizens of the United States have a right to force compliance with constitutional law." Georgia R & R Banking v. Redwine, 342 US 299. When government officials fail or refuse to follow controlling law they "violate their oath of office and make a mockery of the Constitution." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1, 17--19.

     "Citizens have a right to have their constitutional rights vindicated without delay." Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 US 526.

     When courts issue decisions which violate the law, they have no legal affect and are nullities and nullities may be attacked in any court at any time. Jordan v. Gilligan, 500 F. 2d 701 (6th Cir. 1974), Cert. Den.  421 US 991.

CONCLUSION

     Not one single decision, ORDER, finding, etc., in this guardian/conservatorship proceeding complied with any controlling law. Every decision were made in violation of laws and they were criminal under federal law. The misdeeds included, inter alia, Judge MOSS accepting Dr. Coburn's deposition notwithstanding to fact that he was not a qualified witness because he had not seen Mary within six (6) months as required by KRS 387.510(8)(b).

     Judge MOSS ignored the testimony of the County Judge/Executive and Mary banker, both of whom had known her for thirty-forty years, the testimony of CNA Mary Wilson, and relied on people that had never met her proir to the day of the marriage for maybe fifteen minutes.

    While I cannot prove that judges, doctors, witnesses, et al, were bribed to lie and commit perjury, given for lack of an alternative motive, their behavior is very persuasive and the circumstantial evidence is strong that that is exactly what happen because far too much money was spent, and the known FACTS that Robert Horn is a known thief and liar and WILEY was fired by the state for lying and about her working hours and stealing from the state--fifty plus counts.

CONTACT

     We may be contacted by mail:

P. O. Box 6                                                                                                                                                                        Bronston, KY 42518 

Email: