Mother of NASGA Iowa Legislative Liaison, Jay Driesen
Dorothy Driesen, a 96 year old widowed Mother, has had her entire estate taken away from her by court decree and forced to reside at a Rock Valley, IA nursing home that has had multiple felony accounts charged against it in 2003.
Judge Jeffrey A. Neary took our Mother into his chamber, asked her a few questions, had her read from a prepared statement and then fired both Dorothy and her sons as Trustees, appointed a bank to be her new Trustee, appointed a known adversarial guardian over her and accepted a purported amendment devising her entire Trust estate to the new guardian. All of this happened within one days time upon the filing of court documents by the wannabe guardian and friend of the court.
After this drastic and unbelievable event in the local district court, the two sons of our Mother have been falsely accused of various things and arrested and incarcerated on four separate occasions. To add insult to injury, the two sons of our Mother and their families have not been able to visit their Mother since early 2008.
The last call of desperation was made from our Mother during New Years weekend in 2009 in which our Mother claimed her life was in danger and she pleaded with us to get her out of this nursing facility. Mail that the family tries to send our Mother is received by the guardian and does not appear to reach her. All incoming calls to our Mother are screened by the front desk and she has no way of calling out.
Shortly after our Mother was incarcerated in this nursing home, before this disastrous court decision, the family would attempt to visit our Mother and shortly after we would arrive, either the guardian would show up in the doorway and demand that we leave or the town police officer would show up and threaten us with arrest.
This case has been heard by the Sioux County, IA District Court in early 2008 and appealed. Jay, as the original trustee, lost this entire first court battle. Then the predators and bank, thinking they had victory, later filed for perceived monetary damages from Jay, Dorothy’s eldest son, in neighboring Lyon County, IA District Court, where Jay resides. Jay fought back pro se in attempt to save his incarcerated Mother and her Irrevocable Trust. For over one year, the predators and bank attempted to gain their loot and then labored to shut this second case down by way of motion. After the judge initially ruled in Jay’s favor three separate times; for some reason, the bank was finally successful in receiving a judgment against Jay for over $34,000. This amount was deemed necessary by the court to adequately compensate this bank (was appointed as Trustee in August, 2008), that is highly active in farm land, for their effort in defending the case and to cover their expense in securing the assets of Mother Driesen. This case had originally been scheduled for a jury trial, including all evidence of the murders in this nursing home during 2003, but the case was shut down by motion for Summary Judgment.
On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals applied the doctrine of “claim preclusion” as an original error was not raised by the defense attorney.
A small victory was gained in the Iowa Legislature in 2010 wherein a guardianship hearing can not take place unless notice of service is served on the proposed ward (protected person) and their present family and / or care taker. In our Mother’s case, a guardianship hearing took place without advanced notice being served on her and her present children caretakers. Notice of what had happened was served on the family over 20 days later.
Since the initial dramatic events occurring in 2007 – 2009, the family members were forced to retreat into survival mode and tend to numerous law suits hurled their way by the predatory parities to our Mother’s cause….suits aimed at destroying their finances and business.
During the fall of 2011, Jay was successful in reaching his Mother by a late evening phone call placed to the nursing home. An unsuspecting nursing assistant brought Mother Driesen to the front desk and gave her the phone to converse with her son Jay. Very quickly the supposed “incompetent” Mother asked Jay about her farm land and etc. Suddenly there was a scuffling noise as Jay could hear the phone receiver fall to the floor with a later hang up click.
Further negative efforts levied against Jay’s business led to action in Federal District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The District Court ruled: “For the reasons discussed, I find that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted and this case is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” That by Judge Mark W. Bennett. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that federal courts other than the US Supreme Court should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. In short, federal courts below the Supreme Court must not become a court of appeals for state court decisions. This is case law made up by a couple of decisions of the US Supreme Court masquerading as the rule of law when in reality the US Congress has not issued any such law. Violations of Constitutional law such as “impairment of contract” along with civil rights violations such as encroachment of “life, liberty and property” can and do take place on a regular basis in state courts, but a large number of personal rights and contract impairment cases, and select cases of interstate commerce (the issue in Jay’s case), are thrown out of the federal court system. The US Supreme Court will supposedly hear these cases, but most are denied as the US Supreme is unable to hear the vast majority of them. Currently this case resides with the Lyon County District Court of Iowa. This case resulted in the predators of our Mother’s beneficiaries transferring a perceived remaining South Dakota judgment against the company of Jay to Iowa in attempt to collect the same from Jay personally even though the South Dakota default judgment did not name Jay but was applied against Jay’s company only. A default judgment took place as the attorney working for Jay’s company did not show for the hearing. Attorney Michael Jacobsma, now attorney for both a previous South Dakota customer of Jay and the guardian of our Mother, transferred this perceived remaining judgment against Jay into Iowa and applied Lis pendens to farm land Jay had deeded to his brother in 2004. Lis pendens is applied to the property record listing pending legal action against the property. Jay’s brother, already having suffered four wrongful imprisonments from the estate predators of our Mother, managed to sell the family farm and paid off over $300,000 to clear a debt that never was applied to Jay personally. Jay maintains that the South Dakota customers had no right to any additional judgment as the log home customers received all of their materials after failing to supply necessary building decisions.
Another action was initiated by Jay in Sioux County, Iowa in May, 2014, concering the initial action and damage against our Mother, her Irrevocable Trust, her property and her beneficiaries that took place as ruled on by Judge Jeffrey A. Neary on August 04, 2008. The case is a malpractice case against the trust attorney of our Mother’s Irrevocable Trust. This trust attorney worked in lock step with the predators of our Mother and without question refused to apply even a limited standard of professional care to our Mother, her person, her estate and her beneficiaries. The defense attorney for this trust attorney played the card that lay persons would not be able to understand the intricacies of probate law and that that Jay needed to supply an expert witness as obviously he is not one. In May of 2015, Judge Duane E. Hoffmeyer ruled in favor of the defendants on the sole issue of Jay not providing an expert witness. The judge refused and ignored to rule on many of the claims Jay raised in his Original Petition and numerous filings by ignoring his responsibility to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. The truth of the matter is that there currently is no attorney from the NW corner of Iowa hat will serve as an expert witness much less even represent our Mother. At present she remains without representation in her deplorable condition. This case has entered the appeal stage.
Our Mother has now reached the age of 96 years and regardless of the stress placed on her by denial of her civil rights per 42 USC Sec 1395i-3, IA Code 235F and IA SF 306, she remains in good physical and mental health. Jay has been in to see his Mother numerous times and is continually run out with threat of arrest made regardless of Jay’s Mother expressing strong desire for him to continue with the visit. Previously, the nephew attorney of the guardian has sent a letter to Jay threatening arrest if Jay attempts to visit his Mother again, in direct violation of both federal law and the new IA visitation law, still known as Senate File 306. At least one case has already been filed in Iowa using this new law. The guardian in that case resisted vigorously.
On April 19, 2014, a distant relative of our Mother stopped at the Rock Valley nursing home for a visit. Very happy to see the visitor, Mother soon began reminiscing with him about bygone days on neighboring small family farms. Our Mother was asked if she would like to talk to her son, Jay. Yes she would, Mother replied, and so the visitor connected Jay to his Mother with his cell phone. A lengthy visit ensued to the joy of our Mother. Upon scolding, Jay had to explain why he does not come to see her. Shortly the call ended as Jay could hear his Mother commenting; “they do not like what we are doing”. Jay felt uneasy and within a period of time the visitor called Jay from the Sioux County, Iowa jail explaining the events and requesting someone to furnish bail for him in the morning. Meanwhile, at the nursing home, the guardian of our Mother arrived and ordered the visitor out, explaining that she was the legal guardian of our Mother. The visitor noted the frightened reaction of our Mother who requested the visitor to remain there with her. The guardian attempted to walk around the visitor in quest for the cell phone still in possession of our Mother which did not happen as the visitor quickly retrieved the cell phone. The visitor explained that our Mother pointed to the guardian and ordered her to leave her room which was repeated over eight times. The guardian ignored the pleas and soon the local police appeared, ignoring the pleas of our Mother and proceeded to arrest the visitor for Interference with Official Acts and Assault, both simple misdemeanors. This visitor was also sent a letter threatening to arrest him should he come back to visit our Mother.
In June, 2014, an out of state relative stopped by the Rock Valley nursing home to visit their cousin, Dorothy. They were directed down the hallway towards the particular wing of our Mother’s location. The doors to this wing were shut. After securing the attention of the staff on duty, they were told that they could not see their cousin, our Mother.
The new Elder Abuse Bill has been signed into law (IA Code 235F) in Iowa on July 1st, 2014. Jay, along with others, worked tirelessly on this bill for over seven years.
Surely some would ask: “why isn’t Jay doing something about this especially with two new favorable laws on the books?” The Lord willing this will happen. The problem with this case of Elder Abuse, as with many others, the original trustees, beneficiaries and family member Power of Attorneys (POA) are so severely damaged that many never get to the task of defending their vulnerable elder and family member.
As an update to the sordid history of Jay’s Mother, Jay filed suit December 10, 2015 to gain access and visitation to his Mother, using the new sections of Iowa law that were in inserted into the IA Code 633 Codes, namely IA Code 633.635(1)(f), 633.635(2)(d), and 633.637A that went into effect July 1, 2015, known as the James Perry Davis bill under Senate File (SF) 306 during deliberation at the end of the IA 2015 legislative session. Interestingly the bill passed by unanimous consent by both the IA House and the IA Senate. Listed under IA Code 633.635 are the new sections in 633.635(1)(f), Placing reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on communication, visitation, or interaction between the adult ward and another person. 633.635(2)(d) states, Denying all communication, visitation, or interaction by an adult ward with a person with whom the adult ward has expressed a desire to communicate, visit, or interact or with a person who seeks to communicate, visit, or interact with the adult ward. A court shall approve the denial of all communication, visitation, or interaction with another person only upon a showing of good cause by the guardian. 633.637A states, Rights of ward under guardianship. An adult ward under a guardianship has the right of communication, visitation, or interaction with other persons upon the consent of the adult ward, subject to section 633.635, subsection 1, paragraph “f”, and section 633.635, subsection 2, paragraph “d”. If an adult ward is unable to give express consent to such communication, visitation, or interaction with a person due to a physical or mental condition, consent of an adult ward may be presumed by a guardian or a court based on an adult ward’s prior relationship with such person.
By late May, 2016 Jay did receive the right to visit and interact with his Mother after over eight years of separation. On September 26, 2016, some family and friends were able to celebrate our Mother’s 97th birthday. But as guardians, many along with their totalitarian mind sent, are not inclined to yield ground to their scheme of control and money, this guardian has managed to maintain her “allowable visitor’s list”, wherein all visitors have to first seek approval or vetting from the guardian. The guardian implemented this scheme since a relative was arrested for visiting Dorothy in April, 2014 claiming safety concerns of her ward. However the “list” has had the effect since April, 2014 of further isolating any would be family, relatives and friends from visiting with Dorothy as fear was already instilled in many knowing of the arrest in April, 2014. The “list” was known through the discovery process of the December, 2015 to May, 2016 county court case Jay filed based on the mentioned new laws. Jay believed that this tactic was initiated and maintained as a distracting feature of the defense put up by the guardian and therefore stuck with the one issue to be granted visitation. Sure enough the judge in his purported “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law” attempted to justify this issue that had resulted in the continual isolation of my Mother. Jay filed a Motion to Enlarge on that single issue. The judge came back and maintained that the guardian only needed to know the visitors that were visiting with Dorothy and as such was a measure for her safety. Jay maintained it was a tactic in violation of and inversion of 633.635(2)(d) wherein a guardian can only deny visitation “upon a showing of good cause by the guardian”. In other words visitation and interaction stands upon the desires of the ward (protected person) unless good cause can be shown by the guardian and/or court. To have all friends, acquaintances and family be required to undergo a vetting process first places authority back with the guardian as a tool to deny and supersede the desires of the protected person.
Jay filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Iowa Supreme Court on July 1, 2016 on this single issue, which awaits further reveal by the higher court.
Please stay tuned as any and all support is greatly appreciated!