* * * ATTENTION LAWYER - INVESTORS * * *

The eternal love of Donald Kettleberg and Janette Kent can be the foundation for your security and prosperity. *Unique circumstances present rare opportunity for tremendous profit for the right buyer/investor. This opportunity is founded upon the eternal love between Kettleberg and Kent which has survived, thrived and prevailed despite many attempts to attack it, in ultimately futile efforts to steal their estate, now valued at over $100,000,000. The potential profit for the buyer/investor is between $500,000,000 - $1,000,000,000, within 1-3 years, or sooner if settled. A settlement is probable due to prima facie evidence of Extrinsic Fraud(s) on the Court by the losers.

The theft was attempted by Kettleberg’s former Tenancy in Common 50% co-owner Milton Brown. Brown has been disbarred relating to another theft, apparently using his MO (method of operation) of forged documents, smear campaigns against his intended victim and compromising his intended victim’s attorney. In this case, Brown was also apparently in collusion with Carolyn Brune, the Kettleberg estate’s first “personal representative” (PR), followed by Norman Lindstedt, the successor “PR”, who was, along with Brown, also in privity with PR Brune and thereby also bound by the preclusive Judgments and Orders to turn over all of the estate assets to plaintiff (Kent) forthwith.

During the time that Brune was the “PR”, she was also Brown’s secretary and on his payroll. Kent defeated the machinations and deceptions Brown and “PR” Brune employed in their theft and attacks. This included forged documents including forged “buy-sell agreements”, destruction of evidence; concealment of evidence; the apparent compromising of their “witnesses”- whose “testimonies” were impeached; the compromising of attorneys and “PR” Brune; agent provocateurs and smear campaigns against Kettleberg and Kent . These machinations and lies were defeated by the evidence.

In spite of all of the deception, Kent’s case was so obvious, she still won by the judicial standard of clear and convincing evidence. The preclusive Kent v. Brune (estate PR ) A8601-00570 Circuit Court Judgment was affirmed on appeal, in the Kent v. Brune (estate PR) CAA48711 Appellant Judgment Published at 97 Or App 691 (1989). Brown’s claims were represented by PR Brune’s attorney including his “claims” of “buy-sell agreements” ( Trial Exhibits 11 & 128). Brown is in privity with PR Brune and therefore also bound by the Judgments. See Oregon statute ORS 111.005(19). Brune also represented other claimants who also lost in privity with PR Brune. The losers did not appeal to the Supreme Court. Thereafter, no other court has jurisdiction regarding Title.

The Final Decree transferred Title of the entire estate to Kent when it was entered into the Court Register in 1988 and affirmed in 1989. See - Patton on Land Title, Section 279: (Transfer of Title by Decree of Court). Kent’s Title is the origination of our Title. These Res Judicata Judgments are written in stone. Yet, incredibly, even after Kent won, the losers and their sycophants tried to deceive Kent and others from learning the entire truth. This includes the scope of Kent’s status as not only the Sole Heir and adjudicated Sole Constructive Trust Beneficiary, but also the Judgment Creditor of the entire estate - both probate and non probate; that Brown’s claims were adjudicated against and he is in privity with “PR” Brune and thereby also bound by the Judgments and Orders of the courts to turn over the entire estate assets to Kent forthwith. Unlawful attempts to relitigate Title are prohibited by Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel and Issue and Claim preclusion.

However, the entire truth is now universally known and proven to all by the prima facie evidence proven in the Exhibits in this website. Apparently the losers and their sycophants did not realize that “love eternal will not be denied“. This universal wisdom emanates from the “Moody Blues” hit song “I Know You’re Out There Somewhere“. This case clearly illustrates the cosmic truth proving that true love is the strongest force in the universe, transcending all - opposition, conspiracies, space, time and even that mysterious portal called death. This is truly comforting to anyone who has ever been in love.

Due to the unique circumstances of this sale/investment, we are providing this website in order to ensure disclosure of relevant facts, court certified documents and other evidence to the buyer/investor. Included in this presentation are copies of the preclusive Judgments - Final Decree Granting Specific Performance, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Per Curiam Appellate Affirmance, and Appellate Judgment and our ownership interests in the commercial real estate assets in Oregon and Washington adjudicated in the preclusive Judgments, now for sale. Click Properties at the Menu for current list.

After Kent won the preclusive cases, the losers (PR Brune and Brown in privity), and later “PR” Lindstedt, who as successor “PR” was in privity with “PR” Brune and Brown, violated the preclusive Judgments of the Circuit and Appellate courts by not turning over the entire estate assets (both probate and non probate) to Plaintiff (Kent), forthwith, as Ordered by the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals. (See final sentence in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). However, the Final Decree itself transferred Title to Kent as a matter of law. See previously mentioned Patton on Land Title: Section 279.

Instead of complying with the valid, preclusive, res judicata Judgments and Orders of the courts, the losers falsely claimed that Brown had to be separately sued. However, Brown was in privity with “PR” Brune and thereby also bound by the Final Decree. Oregon statutes clarify that probate claimants are Interested Persons ORS 111.005(19) whose claims are represented by the PR. Brown’s title claims were litigated by PR Brune’s attorney and adjudicated against when the courts decided all Title issues in favor of Kent.

The losers then committed Extrinsic Fraud on the Court by filing a sham “lawsuit” between themselves- [PR] Brune v. Brown et. al., Case A8812-07114, which was later amended by successor PR Lindstedt: [PR] Lindstedt v. Brown et. al., Case A8812-07114.

This sham “lawsuit” was prohibited by law -(Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, issue and claim preclusion) - because it brought into issue the same Title issues which had already been adjudicated in Kent’s favor and against them in the preclusive case. The losers then “settled” their sham “lawsuit” between themselves in probate court before a deceived judge, who was without jurisdiction for many reasons including a huge conflict of interest which he said was unbeknownst to him at the time, and later discovered. These sham “lawsuits” and sham “settlement” which the losers used to deceive Kent and subsequent courts are also included in this website.

The losers also deceived the probate court and other courts by not timely filing the preclusive Final Decree, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Appellate Affirmance and Appellate Judgment of the prior res judicata courts -- to any subsequent court. This is outrageous in view of the fact that it is clear in the Final Decree that Kent is not subject to invalid orders of the probate court which are inconsistent with the Final Decree. Nor did the losers disclose to any subsequent court the fact that they were under explicit prior Orders of the res judicata courts to turn over the entire estate to Kent forthwith.

The losers also failed to advise the probate court and other courts that Brown’s claims had already been adjudicated against in the prior preclusive Kent v. [PR] Brune, Case A8601-00570 Circuit Court case which was affirmed on appeal. Therefore, their sham “lawsuit” was prohibited by Res Judicata, collateral estoppel, issue and claim preclusion. This is how the losers and their sycophants deceived other courts, especially probate, where the losers “settled” their sham “lawsuit” between themselves before a defrauded and deceived judge who was without jurisdiction. See Menu for Summary. However, the Final Decree is Res Judicata and no other court has jurisdiction to relitigate those same Title issues.

Kent was not a party to this Extrinsic Fraud on the Court, also often referred to as Fraud on the Court. Yet, for years the losers and their sycophants tried to deceive Kent and others by falsely claiming that she was somehow bound by their sham “settlement”. Kent is not a lawyer and at the time, did not know the law including the legal doctrines and principles of Res Judicata, Jurisdiction, Privity or the legal definition of Specific Performance and Constructive Trust. Kent relied upon her several attorneys, including Lindstedt ( who became the successor “PR”), who failed their fiduciary duties to advise Kent of these legal doctrines and her legal rights under her Res Judicata Judgments, to receive the entire estate- probate and non probate (including stolen income) forthwith.

Instead, “PR” Brune filed and “PR” Lindstedt amended their sham “lawsuit” case #A8812-07114 in attempts to re-litigate (and then settle amongst themselves) what they had lost and Kent had already won in Case A8601-00570. The attempted re-litigation of Title in Kent’s favor, was intended to defraud Kent and subsequent courts. Because plaintiffs “PR” Brune and Successor “PR” Lindstedt are in privity (and conspiracy) with defendants Brown et. al. , their sham “lawsuit” is a non-suit. This explains why successor “PR” Lindstedt did not file a “Motion for Default Judgment” when Brown never Answered the (sham) Amended Complaint, even though Brown was properly served.

Kent now also understands the legal doctrine of Res Judicata and its importance to the operation, relevance, and credibility of our Judicial System (see Menu for Summary). “Preclusive Judgments of the Courts Must Be Honored”……. by Janette Kent Because the Title claims had already been adjudicated in the preclusive case and affirmed on appeal, re-litigation of those same title issues is prohibited by law.

Therefore, no court other than an Appellate Court in the preclusive case, had jurisdiction to re-litigate those same Title issues. As mentioned, The Final Decree itself proves that Kent is not subject to invalid probate orders that are inconsistent with the Final Decree. In addition, the probate judge lacked jurisdiction for 11 different reasons which also render his orders void. Further, any order based upon his void judgment/orders is therefore also a void order as a matter of law and logic. (See Summary at Menu). Kent’s attorneys also never disclosed to her the fact that the probate judge lacked jurisdiction.

It has long been well established that a court’s orders and judgments without jurisdiction are void. Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a court is without authority or jurisdiction, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (18_ _)

This is even more egregious considering the fact that Kent was not a party to the sham “lawsuit” and the Title to the entire estate assets (both probate and non probate) had already been transferred to Kent, as a matter of law, upon the entry of the Final Decree in the Trial Court Registry [docket sheets] in 1988 and entry of the Appellate Judgment in 1989. Therefore, the “PR” did not have any estate assets left to relitigate and then “settle” with Brown, nor do any subsequent courts have jurisdiction to relitigate the Title issues.

The losers’ sham “lawsuit” was also a violation of ORS 43.130 which states: “In case of a Judgment or Decree against a specific thing (PR and estate assets), the Final Decree is conclusive upon the Title and the administration of the estate.” Clearly the PRs and Brown are bound by the preclusive Final Decree and Orders to turn over all of the assets to Kent.

Because of Brown’s MO of often compromising the plaintiff’s attorney, the right buyers/investors are preferably lawyer-investors or other astute investors with Litigation Lawyers they trust. According to some of Brown’s former business associates, he rarely pays bribes. Instead, they say, Brown or his agent will often contact his intended victim’s attorney and get evidence (such as a secret tape recording) of their willingness to accept or negotiate for a bribe. They say Brown then uses the secret tape recording to blackmail the plaintiff’s attorney into sabotaging Brown’s intended victim’s case and rights.

Therefore, it makes sense to sell the assets to lawyers who know the law and will not be compromised regarding their own assets or assets of another with whom they can be trusted. The rest is easy, as you will see by reviewing the evidence at this website. Kent has already won all Title issues - clearly Res Judicata, which is the foundation of our entire Judicial System. After reviewing this entire website, you will understand why this is a golden opportunity for the right buyers. The prima facie evidence are Exhibits herein. A Sample Complaint is (or soon will be) included, as a guideline, in this website.

Extrinsic Fraud on the Court or Fraud on the Court is considered very serious by the Judicial System because it proves the intent to defraud by officers of the court ( PRs & attorneys) and undermines the integrity of the judicial process. It interferes with and violates the laws, the legal procedures, and normal standard operation of the courts. If not corrected or settled, it also undermines the relevance, credibility, respect and public confidence in the Judicial System itself. This is probably the reason why there are no statutes of limitation for this Cause of Action.

* This ownership, Cause of Action, and FRCP Rule 60(b)6 authority provide the buyer standing and is the opportune basis for the profit potential for the right buyer/investor. We are willing to assign our Choses in Action of the damages for Extrinsic Fraud(s) on the Court (est. $150,000,000 - $650,000,000) and damages for the diverted income (est. $50,000,000 +), and all other damages, including punitive damages (est. $300,000,000 +) at no additional cost above the current market value of the purchase of the commercial assets themselves of approximately $50,000,000. This does not include the diverted income whose damages will also be assigned to the buyer/investor. The buyer/investor could realize a Judgment of $1,000,000,000.

The damages for Extrinsic Fraud on the Court for the sham “lawsuit” and “appeal”-with damages of $150,000,000 are the losers’ main Extrinsic Fraud on the Court. However, because of their false claims that Brown had to be separately sued, following their sham “settlement” other lawsuits which were filed in which the total damages of those Extrinsic Fraud(s) on the Court is estimated at $500,000,000. Most of these “lawsuits” were filed by Kent at the instigation of Roger Weidner, one of Brown’s agent provocateurs. Due to the deceptions by the losers, unbeknownst to Kent at the time, she was fighting for what she had already won, but was being concealed by the deceptions and frauds of the losers.

As in the case of the losers’ sham “lawsuit”, the losers also failed to file the Final Decree, Findings and Appellate Judgment to these subsequent courts. They also failed to advise these other courts that the Kent v. PR Brune case CAA48711 is res judicata; that Brown’s claims had already been adjudicated against; that Brown was in privity with “PR” Brune and thereby also bound by the preclusive Final Decree; that they were under Orders to turn over the entire estate to Kent forthwith and that the probate judge lacked jurisdiction. Instead, they falsely claimed that the probate judges’s orders were res judicata even though they knew he approved the “settlement” of a sham “lawsuit” and they knew he lacked jurisdiction. The deceived judges lacked jurisdiction for many reasons including res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue and claim preclusion.

The $50,000,000 fair market value of the assets is determined by a Comparative Market Analysis which was done in 2002-2003, factoring in the appreciation since then and dividing by 50% to ascertain the current value. Since Brown’s 50% interest is close to the $50,000,000 he diverted (embezzled) in rental income, in addition to a Money Judgment, the lawyer could also request 100% interest in Title to all of the assets. This will clear up all title issues created by Brown’s “wild deeds” that were recorded by “PR” Brune after Kent‘s Decree and Findings 1988 were filed, ordering defendant Brune (and Brown in privity) to turn over all of the assets to plaintiff (Kent) --- not Brown.

Kent did not discover this illegal recording until years later. However, Brown’s wild deeds are outside the Chain of Title and are thus void as a matter of law for the reasons stated above and Also see Partlow v. Clark, 295 Or 778, 653 P2d 568 (1983) (Oregon Supreme Court en banc: Deed void where recorded after entry of Decree); Chaffin v. Solomon, 255 Or 141, 465 P2d 217 (1970) (cited in Partlow).

A more detailed narrative is included in the document entitled “ Title to Estate Assets of Donald Kettleberg” (Title Document). This document also explains and presents the evidence in the Exhibits. At the end of this article is a file you can click regarding the Title Document which is a narrative and the Exhibits, providing the evidence. The large Exhibits in the first part of the narrative, such as the sham complaints etc., contain the first and last page only, in the interests of brevity. These large Exhibit documents can be accessed in their entirety, towards the end of the file.

As mentioned, our Title originated with Janette Kent. Kent conveyed her interests to the Janette Kent Trust (JKT) who transferred most of their interests to the Janette Kent Business Trust (JKBT). The Trustees of the JKT and JKBT conveyed their interests to our corporations. Our corporations reconveyed to each other. The buyer could buy our corporations, which includes our 50% ownership interests, providing immediate standing for an Extrinsic Fraud or Fraud on the Court case. Kent is the current President of our corporations. John Salter is the Vice President and one of the investigators.

Salter had replaced Weidner as the investigator. Weidner was a former investigator/inactive attorney whom we later discovered was apparently one of Brown’s agent provocateurs and was, like Brown, also disbarred. Weidner also concealed the entire truth from Kent and the courts & had insisted that Lindstedt be the successor “PR“ and amend the sham “complaint“. The Washington property interests are owned by the Janette Kent Trust and are also for sale.

The Title Document is several years old and is updated by the prime information available by clicking the desired category at the Menu. For example, the “Properties” category includes the current information of the properties and ownership. The documents reflect the ownership at the time the document was written. For example, lawyer Richard Speight’s letter regarding Title vesting in the Trustees of the Janette Kent Trust (JKT) and Trustees of the Janette Kent Business Trust (JKBT) was dated August 6, 2003, before the Trustees conveyed to our corporations and our corporations re-conveyed to each other. Even so, Mr. Speight’s letter shows our Chain of Title originating with Janette Kent, then the JKT and the JKBT.

Due to all of the lies, frauds and other deceptions by the losers, the Trustees of the JKT and the JKBT, Kent and Salter, had sought Mr. Speight’s opinion in 2003, because he was highly recommended as an honest, competent and respected expert in the specialized fields of Real Estate, Title and Probate Law in Oregon for the past 30 years. Following his research, investigation and analysis, Mr. Speight wrote his Letter of Ownership vesting in Kent and Salter - the trustees of the JKT and the JKBT. Mr. Speight is a very knowledgeable lawyer in his field. However, he does not do litigation. Working with a Litigation Lawyer is essential for this investment.

Mr. Speight’s letter also brought some words to our attention in this website which are inaccurate. As stated in Mr. Speight's letter, the property interests for sale are 50% Tenancy in Common interests, not partnership interests or joint interests. Because that’s what they were told, even well meaning people unwittingly made that mischaracterization. This misrepresentation apparently first started with Brown and was then continued by “PR” Brune and later “PR” Lindstedt, who claimed the interests were “partnership” or “joint” ownership interests.

Notice the sham Brune - Lindstedt PR v. Brown “lawsuits” which also make that claim. Perhaps Brown knew that “buy-sell agreements” between partners were more common and credible rather than between Tenants in Common, which is far less credible. Tenancy in Common owners have no right to each other’s interest. They each have a separate, undivided interest which they can sell without the other’s knowledge or permission.

Buyers should be discreet regarding this sale and investment. If Brown discovers the sale before it is consummated, he may try to interfere. Brown was able to steal from Kent for years because she was very vulnerable at the time. She was consumed with grief over the loss of Kettleberg and she did not know the law. She depended upon her attorneys whom she did not know personally. They betrayed their fiduciary duties to her and the courts because they were apparently in conspiracy with Brown. They did not tell Kent and subsequent courts the truth and in “PR” Lindstedt’s case, (who was also one of Kent’s attorneys) even amended and then “settled” their sham “lawsuit“ with Brown.

The buyer will not be faced with these problems. The buyer knows the truth, the evidence and relevant laws. That information is included in this website. A Sample Complaint is (or will soon be) included in this website. Most significantly, the buyer should preferably be lawyers or other astute investors with a Litigation Lawyer they can trust. Also because of a lawyer’s understanding of the law, he will easily understand the prima facie evidence of Extrinsic Fraud on the Court. This evidence includes the Final Judgments of the courts versus the evidence of the Extrinsic Fraud on the Court including the sham “lawsuits” and “settlement” filed, amended and signed only by the losers of the preclusive case.

The losers used their sham “settlement” of their sham “lawsuit” in probate court before a deceived judge without jurisdiction as a basis for their “Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal” of their sham “lawsuit” A8812-07114, in circuit court between themselves in 1991. This was after the entry of the preclusive Judgments in 1988 and affirmed in 1989. In addition their “Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal” between themselves, is not valid and is prohibited by Res Judicata. Any judgment after the preclusive Res Judicata Judgments regarding vesting of Title is void if inconsistent with the preclusive Judgments.

This void “Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal“ should be easy to overturn by an honest and competent Litigation Lawyer. “[fraud on the court should] embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court (Brown, the PR’s and other compromised attorneys) so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication … It permits a party to overturn a judgment long after it has become final.” 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 60.33 at 60-360

The court has the power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.        Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)6

As a matter of law, Extrinsic Fraud on the Court sabotages judicial machinery such that any order thereby obtained is Void. Lack of jurisdiction also renders orders void.

“Anyone who under color of law deprives any citizen of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution is subject to civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to Title 42, USC, Sections 1983, 1985, 1986 and/or Title 42, USC, Sections 41 and 42.” This cite and other cites relating to theft, fraud, perjury and treason to the U.S. Constitution, also show the criminal liabilities of the losers.

Recently there were two Rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court in Marshall v. Marshall, Case 04-1544 which should further assure victory in an Extrinsic Fraud on the Court case. The White House directed the Solicitor General to file a brief supporting the appeal so as to establish federal court jurisdiction without an exception which now allows federal jurisdiction over state matters. The Ruling is landmark that now there is no probate exception to bar federal jurisdiction.

The other Ruling further reinforces and further confirms the Res Judicata doctrine by stating that when there is more than one Judgment, the first valid Judgment is the only valid and controlling one. Clearly the preclusive Judgments in the Kent v. Brune A8601-00570 (1988) and Appellate Judgment CAA48711 (1989) published at 97 Or App 691 (1989) are the first and only valid Judgments regarding the Title of the 50% Tenancy in Common interests in all of the properties including the 50% interest in the corporations, Tri-County Industrial Park, Ore-Wash and Prindle Mt.

All courts must comply with Res Judicata which is further confirmed by the recent U.S. Supreme Court Ruling. All inferior courts must comply with the U.S. Supreme Court Rulings as a matter of law, precedent and procedure. This is the Supreme Law of the United States of America.

Res Judicata is recognized by every civilized nation in the world.

Res Judicata is the general principle of International Law under Article 38(1)(c) of the International Court of Justice Statute. “The court, whose function is to decide in accordance with International Law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply Article 38(1)(c) (Res Judicata): the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.”

Although we originally preferred a sale, we are now also considering a Joint Venture with the right partner. The Sample Complaint at this website is for a Joint Venture, but can be easily modified in the case of a sale. The state in which to file the Complaint is blank since there are several states to choose from which we believe have jurisdiction. Oregon and Washington have jurisdiction because that is where the properties are located. Wyoming has jurisdiction because that is where our corporations are located which own the properties including options on the Utah corporation. Wyoming also holds the ownership (personal property) of the shares of the corporations. The location of the buyer or his corporation (in the event he does not buy our corporations) also might have jurisdiction. Also, we believe whichever state in which we establish the Joint Venture would also have jurisdiction.

We are not lawyers, but have provided much of the above information from lawyers and our own legal research. Although we are not lawyers, we wrote this Sample Complaint ourselves to illustrate how simple and obvious this case is. The sample Complaint includes the prima facie evidence in the Exhibits proving the allegations in the Complaint. The Litigation Lawyer may want to use this sample Complaint as a guideline with whatever modifications deemed necessary. The buyer/investor’s lawyers may have many more ideas regarding remedies for recovery and legal strategies to expedite a quick Global Settlement and Global Release. Considering the civil and criminal liabilities of the perpetrators of the Extrinsic Fraud on the Court, it would certainly be in their interests to settle this soon.

We will consider options, to assure the availability of the ownership interests, in order to give the buyer/investor or Joint Venture Partner time to verify the information herein. 

The following first chart illustrates the profit potential for the buyer/investor.

The second chart illustrates the profit potential for the Joint Venture Partner.

 In the event of a Joint Venture, $25,000,000 is payable to us upon the signing of the Joint Venture Agreement. The potential net recovery is estimated between $500,000,000 - $1,000,000,000. The Joint Venture will split the net recovery 50% - 50% between both Joint Venture Partners.