I, Linda L. Shelton, Ph.D., M.D. am NOT an attorney and I DO NOT draft documents to use in litigation of any kind. I have extensive knowledge of the law due to a hobby of reading U.S. Supreme Court cases for decades and due to extensive pro se litigation in all levels of state and federal court. I am willing to share with anyone my legal documents in my cases that have worked or not worked for me. I am willing, for a fee to be negotiated on an individual basis, to work like a paralegal for people who ask me and for whom I agree to work for the purpose of doing the following services. I am also, for a fee, willing to review, summarize, and organize medical records for attorneys who wish to be better able to decide if there has been medical negligence as shown in a medical record. I have worked as a consultant for malpractice attorneys in the past. I have also testified in court as an expert witness, most notably in a case against Graco resulting in 15 deaths of infants due to a design flaw in a swinging cradle – in the areas of neonatology, pediatrics, epidemiology, physiology, pathology, and physics. I have testified as a fact witness in child abuse cases and in malpractice cases. I have a Ph.D degree in experimental pathology and some rudimentary knowledge of forensic pathology. I will NOT serve as an expert witness at the present time.:
1 – Legal research, I will research a topic that you give me and provide to you a review of the statutes, codes, rules, and case law with summaries and citations. As I do not have complete access to on line legal research sites due to lack of funds, I cannot guarantee that my summaries will be completely up to date or useful to you in any way. You would use the results of my research at your own peril in your own cases under your own direction. You would be legally responsible in your case(s) to check the references and sumaries I provide to you for accuracy. I will guarantee NOTHING.
2 – I will give you copies of my documents used in litigation for a fee (2 times the copying + handling cost).
3 – I will give you blank copies of blank fill in the blank forms that I find on the Clerk’s or Court’s web sites along with the Court’s intructions for filling them in (2 times the copying + handling cost).
4 – Other research services to be negotiated on an individual basis.
5 – I will review medical records for attorneys in order to summarize the record and make them understandable to the attorney. I will provide appropriate references as needed. I will give my opinion to you as to whether there is evidence of medical services provided outside the standard of medical care for the specialty. I do not guarantee any results or the accuracy of my opinion. Fees negotiated on an individual basis. I have extensive experience or knowledge in neonatology, pediatrics (Board-Certified in recent past, but have not renewed my certification), pathology, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, and dermatology).
Contact Dr. Linda Shelton by e-mail listed on this web site: picepil@aol.com
THE WILL AND TRUST OF MY FATHER BETRAYED
My name is Gerald Ace Guice. I am the first born son of an African American business success story Gerald Guice, the founding CEO of Sentinel Computers (now Sentinel Technologies – one of the largest computer maintenance companies in the mid west) My father helped Ken Hunt the CEO of Vasco, finance the reorganization of VASCO Data Security International Inc to the company it is today. My father also established Integral GH. LTD a pineapple export company in Ghana West Africa and was instrumental in establishing the regular shipping routes from Ghana to Europe. (Google – Gerald Guice)
I am the tragic victim of the injustice in the courts of Illinois. My father passed away on August 23, 1999. My sister hired an attorney who fraudulently diverted an estate asset of 1.033.333 shares of Vasco stock (VDSI) away from the control of the estate in the guise of a lifetime gift.
While working for my father’s estate in Ghana West Africa I was involved in a serious motorcycle accident and suffered a severe blunt trauma head injury and a serious injury to my right arm. When I returned to the US over a period of time I recognized what occurred and hired an attorney to represent me in the matter of the estate of my father. During the probate of my father’s estate I remember what Doug Hopson told me a former attorney of John Cochran’s law firm Montgomery & Associates. He said that “We do not ordinarily take cases like this but what this lawyer has done almost rises to the level of a civil rights issue”
I was able to hold my sister accountable for a small sum but nothing compared to what my father’s estate had been compromised so I hired a legal malpractice attorney. My Legal malpractice attorney later withdrew from the case because we could not agree on my damages which he said was $ 300,000.00 when based on the Mentor Valuation Group my damages were in excess of $2.4 million. I have been representing myself Pro Se in the legal malpractice matter and I utilized (Robert Alan Romanoff – one of Worth’s Top 100 Attorneys in America in 2007) the Estates attorney arguments why the stock that was diverted from the estate was not and could not be a gift as the attorney that my sister hired fraudulently asserted.
My case was dismissed on the grounds that I did not have an expert witness. The defendants expert witness testimony was not based on the facts of the case. I pointed this out but Judge dismissed my case anyway and refused to consider the expert witness testimony that I had that was based exactly on the provable facts of the probate of my father’s estate.
Grounds for Appeal
1. Expert Testimony based on inaccurate and/or triable statements in Defendants affidavit
a) Schar states in his first two affidavits that he was not representing Gerry Jr. expert testimony based that Schar represented Gerry at the beginning of the relationship
b) Evidence obtained in the citation proceedings concluded that stock certificates were located at Charter One Bank in Matteson Illinois not a safe deposit box in Chicago that Mrs. Butler was alleged to have had both keys as stated in Schar’s third affidavit and used in expert testimony.
c) Mrs. Butler stated in her deposition that Mr. Guice Sr. had access to the safe-deposit box where the stock certificated where located
d) Mr. Schar fails to present any written discovery to substantiate the statements in his latest affidavit it is apparent that his latest affidavit was an attempt to get an expert witness testimony
2. A Motion for Summary Judgment is made on the grounds that there is no triable issue of fact as to liability, and therefore the moving party is entitled to judgment on the issue of liability as a matter of law.
a) Defendants Cross motion is based on the very triable issue that this case was based as to whether Schar represented the Plaintiff
3. The Defendants reply in support of their cross motion for summary judgment that the Judge and the defendant referred to in the dismissal of the Summary Judgment has the wrong docket number and was not stamped
4. Judge refused to allow me to refer to my expert witnesses because he said it was not supported by an affidavit even though the expert witness testimony was accepted and acknowledged in Federal Court proceedings and was referred to in my Summary Judgment Declaration of Gerald Ace Guice Jr.
5. Case Law regarding a fiduciary relationship was not considered
a) Once a party challenging a transfer has shown that a fiduciary relationship existed between the transferor and the transferee, the presumption is that all transaction that profits the agent is fraudulent. Lemp, 525 N.E.2d 203, 206; White v. Raines, 215 IIl.App.3d 49, 574 N.E.2d 272 (5th Dist. 1991).
The burden then rests upon the agent to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the subject transaction was fair and equitable. White, 215 Ill.App.3d at 59 Hackenbroch.3,5 I11.App.2d at 162. In the absence of independent testimony, it may be very difficult for a donee to prove the validity of a gift, particularly in those circumstances when the donee occupies a fiduciary relationship with the donor. One Illinois commentator has stated that “this proof can almost never be made by the uncontroverted testimony of the person standing in the fiduciary relationship”. (See Baker, Estate, Trust and Guardianship Litigation § 4.34, Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education 2002).
Why is established Illinois case law not considered and/or ignored in favor of a paid expert Witness?
Because the Judge was partial to the Attorney’s
Comment by Gerald A. Guice — February 18, 2009 @ 3:53 pm