The lawyers knew one thing for sure. If they lose to the Vance defense, they lose the mortgage. It would become null and void. These "sharks" weren't going to take any chances by letting a jury decide. So they exploited a mentally ill wife, claiming to serve her only and then claim, once you serve one spouse, you legally serve both.

If Susan were actually given new foreclosure papers, she would have brought them to me beause she relied onme for all her needs......a home transportation, a job in the company, clothes, medications and celebrating the meaningful dates of her life. Susan trusted everything to G2 or myself and she was afraid of authority being exerted over her from outside her world.

If she could not defend against small problems.....obviously, Susan could not raise a defense against an invisible opponent, that was in actuality a real opponent. It was I who could defend, and that was the point: They wanted me left out, exceptthey’d claim, by serving the wife, that they had served the husband. Once I was leftout, the Vance defense was left out too.

Of course, they’d next appear in court and attest that the Vances did not “answer” and further attest that theyhad no idea where the Vances might be located.

Then they sought a default judgment, which was granted, and they obtained a writ of assistance from the Sheriff. And then, during the bitterly cold, subzero January of 1996 . . . A very big female deputy threw Susan into a snow drift while other deputies locked up the house and turned it over to the mortgage company. This company then promptly packs up all of the Vance personal property and locks it away in a Broken Arrow mini-storage, never to be seen again.

All becomes totally lost while in FNMA's care, custody and control. All pictures, toys, G2's comic books were abandoned; nothingremained of the Vance's Family property. Susan had only the clothes she was wearing: a thin cotton dress and a sweater and shoes. Nothing else and  nothing more.

 She looked to me, in the most innocent way, and asked me, “When can I go back home to our house?”

The law firm had defeated me, by using Susan’s mental illness against her--or against me, in fact. I turned to Mr. Gregory Meier, who had fought in lockstep with me on several occasions, but this was his finest hour.

First, Greg went to the District Court for Susan and me, where he asked the district court for justice. The law firm argued that Susan had no right to comebefore the district court, again stating she never answered their original contrived petition and should not be heard now. The district judge threw Susan out of the case, agreeing with the law firm.

In a battle of briefs at a time of durability not for the faint of heart, and citing a ruling by the New York Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, Greg argued that there were many protections of a person’s liberty, including the liberty of the mentally challenged. Does it not follow that there should be protections (due process) for a person’s property, including the property of the mentally challenged? Theunderhanded methods of FNMA's lawyers were no only hard to explain, they were clear to see....SO CLEAR.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court made a precedential ruling--that is, a ruling that sets a precedent---in the Vance name, specifically the Susan C. Vance name, about the rights of the mentally ill and their property.

When we had nothing more to argue with, only the New York Supreme Court’s and U.S. Supreme Court’s somewhat vague precedents about individual rights, the Oklahoma Supreme Court jumped in “big time,industrial strength, top drawer, etc., etc., and so forth.” The FNMA settled the case by paying theVances for their egrecious actions. The law firm would play the Vance's false nomore.

What is Susan’s legacy to the many in America who also suffer from mental illness and are compromised by more powerful or sly adversaries, such as those whotried to exploit her, without compunction. The lawyers for "other weak of the world" were gifted by Susan, and they can argue, with assistance from a precedential ruling by the OSC (Oklahoma Supreme Court). In fact they have . . . According to Mr. Greg Meier, Susan’s champion, the Vance precedent has been cited 20 times between October 2004 and today, in cases all over the nation. It's the one major ruling, that specifically addresses the rights of personal property for mentally challenged people; who are easy targets to those, that will do whatever's necessary to win. The total use and arrogance of power against the afflicted, by unethical lawyers, became a victory. Virtue had triumphed over villany, for the Vance's.

Next

Page One/ Page Two/ Page Three/ Page Four/ Page Six/ Page Seven/ Home