----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos To: mec@rc-law.com Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:20 PM

Subject: I will wager Mr Frederickson did not show you my note to him

----- Original Message ----- From: M. Ellen Carpenter

To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:56 PM Subject: RE: The trials are in Oct This is docketed

WOW! Do you have any idea how he found your e-mail address?

-----Original Message-----

From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:23 AM

To: mec@rc-law.com

Subject: Fw: The trials are in Oct This is docketed

----- Original Message ----- From: David Amos To: rudnick@mslaw.edu

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:07 AM Subject: The trials are in Oct This is docketed

Maryanne Frangules has an exact copy of what I gave to the press the Attorney General and the FBI etc May I suggest that Mr. Marshall, Mr. Frederickson, and Mr. Crane take a refresher course in ethics before they renew their licenses.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

NORFOLK, SS. PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT

NO. 97 P 0288-E2

JEAN F. OMEARA, as she is )

a beneficiary under the will of )

Lawrence F. Kickham )

)

v. )

)

CHARLES J. KICKHAM Jr., as he is )

executor of the will of )

Lawrence F. Kickham )

STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PLAINTIFF, JEAN F. OMEARA,

TO REMOVE THE DEFENDANT, CHARLES J. KICKHAM JR. AS EXECUTOR

OF THE WILL OF LAWRENCE F. KICKHAM AND APPOINT

DAVID R. AMOS AS HIS SUCCESSOR

Now comes Jean O Meara, the plaintiff in the within action and states her reasons to

complain to the Norfolk Probate and Family Court and pray to have said Honorable Court revoke

the decree and remove the defendant, Charles J. Kickham Jr. as executor of the will of

Lawrence F. Kickham and appoint David R. Amos as his successor.

In support thereof the plaintiff states:

1. That as is clearly stated in the attached petition, dated January 20, 2002, the plaintiff only

became aware of the fraud practiced against the Norfolk Probate Court by her cousin, the defendant,

Charles J. Kickham Jr. beginning in December of 2001. As stated in said petition it pertained to

the

matter of the estate and trust under the will of Elaine G. Kickham, Norfolk Probate # 98 P 0792-E2

which is a directly related matter and the petition to revoke that decree of judgment in the estate

of

Elaine G. Kickham is dated January 17, 2002.

2. The plaintiff further states the reason the two said matters are related are because of the

questionable relationship between her Uncle William J. Kickham and her cousin

Charles J.

Kickham Jr. This relationship became apparent to be based in fraudulent behavior for their gain.

3. The plaintiff further states that in the estate of Elaine G. Kickham, William J. Kickham is the

executor of said estate and Charles J. Kickham Jr. is the attorney for said estate.

4. The plaintiff further states that in the attached documents of the plaintiffs statement of

complaint against William J. Kickham as the executor and trustee of the trust u/w/o Elaine G.

Kickham, is the evidence of perjury, fraud, tax fraud and larceny practiced against the

interested

parties.

5. The plaintiff further states that William J. Kickhams crimes were committed with the assistance

of the attorney, Charles J. Kickham Jr. byway of the said attorney practicing fraud

against the court.

6. The plaintiff further states that Lawrence F. Kickham and Elaine G. Kickham were brother and

sister and that Elaine G. Kickham died just two days before the estate of Lawrence F. Kickham was

closed by the decree of this court for the petitioner, the attorney, Charles J. Kickham Jr.

7. The plaintiff further states that during those two days Charles J. Kickham Jr. was executor for

the estate of Lawrence F. Kickham and attorney for the estate of Elaine G. Kickham.

8. The plaintiff further states that the ethics or lack thereof of the attorney, Charles J. Kickham Jr.

before, during and after those two days must be the same.

9. The plaintiff further states that William J. Kickham was not an interested party in this matter.

10. The plaintiff further states that William J. Kickham received three times the amount of

disbursements from the executor, Charles J. Kickham Jr. than any other interested party

in the estate

of Lawrence F. Kickham.

11. The plaintiff further states that Charles J. Kickham Jr. in his inventory as executor of the said

estate declared that Smith Barney acct. # 353-43875-13 752 was an asset of the estate of

Lawrence

F. Kickham. However in the final account of Charles J. Kickham Jr. as executor of said estate he

disburses the Smith Barney acct. to William J. Kickham. Please view attachments.

12. The plaintiff further states that there are many valid reasons to question the relationship

between

Charles J. Kickham Jr. and his cousin, and her Uncle William J. Kickham in the estates of her Aunt

Elaine and Uncle Lawrence. The plaintiff demands that the account of the executor

Charles J.

Kickham Jr. be reviewed and that she suspects the entire Smith Barney Account and possibly others

belonged to her Uncle Lawrence. The plaintiff believes that it was only in both Uncle Williams and

her Uncle Lawrences names as a matter of convenience for Uncle Lawrence in his last

years. She

believes that Uncle William stole most of the assets from that account but failed to close it and erase

its existence before Charles J. Kickham Jr. inventoried the said account. In support

thereof please

view the attachment showing a check she received at Christmastime from her Uncle Francis. The

plaintiff believes that William J. Kickham will practice the same crimes with Uncle

Franciss affairs

as well. What worked twice should work three times.

13. The plaintiff further states that under the General Laws Of Massachusetts:

Chapter 260: Section 12. Fraudulent concealment; commencement of limitations.

"If a person liable to a personal action fraudulently conceals the cause of such action

from the

knowledge of the person entitled to bring it, the period prior to the discovery of his cause of action by

the person so entitled shall be excluded in determining the time limited for the commencement of the

action." The plaintiff has every right to ask that the decree of judgement be revoked. She only

became aware of the fraud of Charles J. Kickham in December of 2001 when her husband examined

these matters at her request.

14. The plaintiff further states that General Laws Of Massachusetts Chapter 206: Section 24 there is

a case that set a precedent that may apply, Quote:

Withington v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1921) 237 Mass 73, 129 NE 418

"The assent of a beneficiary to the allowance of her trustees accounts does not exonerate

the trustee if the accounts were false, particularly where the beneficiary was a woman without

business knowledge or experience, of advanced years, and naturally confiding in the trustee,

who was the attorney for her family." And "On settlement of a trustees final account, his

earlier accounts may be opened, under this section, so as to correct a mistake or error therein.

And the probate court has power to revoke its decrees allowing the accounts of a trustee if its

approval thereto was induced by fraud practiced on the court."

The plaintiff is a woman without knowledge or experience of these matters and the law. She

did trust the executor, Charles J. Kickham who is an attorney and family member.

15. The plaintiff further states that this complaint is substantial, not frivolous and advanced

in

good faith with merit, even though her cousins, the liars, Charles J. Kickham Jr, and his

partner, James M. Kickham claim otherwise. In support of the allegation that James M.

Kickham is a liar is the fact that he tried to amend the late answer of the defendant, William J.

Kickham before he withdrew in the pretrial hearing. His lies had been proven to the

Board of

Bar Overseers by the plaintiffs husband , David R. Amos. He said that the Bar Counsel

asked him to amend that answer at exactly the same time the Bar Counsel had sent a letter to

David Amos and claimed to him his complaint had no merit. James M. Kickham told

the

court of his troubles with the Bar Counsel and the plaintiffs husband on his own accord. In

doing so he affirmed the demands of David Amos to the Overseers that the matter be

investigated properly. He also told the court that his law firm had closed many estates

where

the interested parties had not signed assent. Judge Carey started to question him about that

and then stopped. She simply did not want to hear it.

16. The plaintiff further states that her motions for declaratory judgements were proper

because the evidence was in plain view in the dockets and proven in the plaintiffs

opposition

to the defendants late answer.

17. The plaintiff further states that James M. Kickhams motion to dismiss without notice to

the plaintiff is another act of misconduct. He is attempting to have his partner escape

charges

of fraud under M.R.Civ.P Rule 60 in the estate of Lawrence Kickham because too much time

had past. He was also trying to amend his fraudulent late answer before his withdrawal of

services to their client in the Elaine Kickham matter in an effort to escape the fact that they

had assisted him in his wrongs.

18. The plaintiff further states that her husband, David R. Amos and herself have made many

Members of the Bar who are employed within the Justice System of Massachusetts and others

as well, well aware of the misconduct and fraud of Charles J. Kickham Jr. and his partner

James M. Kickham.

19. The plaintiff further states that wherefore the Probate Court has refused to believe her

complaints or to even listen to them and has forced both matters to trial, the plaintiff shall

depose and call all to testify about the part they have played in these matters. They include

such people as an Overseer, Dr. David Rind, General Counsel to the Overseers, Michael

Frederickson, The Bar Counsel, Daniel Crane, his Assistant John W. Marshall and many

others. They must explain why the rules of conduct of their license and the rules of their

office were not obeyed. They must explain why the oath they swore before the Bar was

forgotten. They must explain that since all have acted in a conspiracy to conceal fraud that

involves interstate securities and tax fraud why Title 18 does not apply to them.

20. The plaintiff further states that the court has said that some other person but definitely not

David R. Amos must be appointed executor for no legal reason except for the malice of Judge Carey

towards David R.Amos. All interested parties in both estates want him to be the

successor to the

executors in both estates. It was his diligence and competence as a layman that has brought this

matter before the court. Judge Carey has claimed it was improper for the plaintiff to

bring this

matter before her. Judge Carey has claimed the plaintiffs husband is not an interested party and yet

cannot be a trustee because of his interest.

21. The plaintiff further states that any new executor can only find more assets not less and

it would

be applied properly as per the directions of the will. The Court exists to insure that fact.

David R. Amos could do no further harm to these estates but he may find more assets.

22. The plaintiff further states that Charles J. Kickham Jr., James M. Kickham, William J. Kickham

and Brian Kickham are not interested parties of either estate. But merely crooked

employees and the

son of one. They have no right to argue with the interested parties or the court as to who would be

the successor executors or trustee in the estate of Lawrence F. Kickham or Elaine G.

Kickham. .

23. The plaintiff further states that Judge Carey has refused to allow David R. Amos to speak on his

wifes behalf. The plaintiff had introduced a proper motion before the court for him to speak as her

attorney. This was denied for no reason that the plaintiff can accept and Judge Carey did not

give

any other than claiming that he was not as one with his wife. The plaintiff states that before the

pretrial conference commenced her husbands opposition to the motion to amend the answer of the

defendant, William J. Kickham followed by declaratory judgements should have ended the

matter.

24. The plaintiff further states that she could appeal many things but it would only delay the matters

further and wants her right to a swift trial but not before Judge Carey.

25. The plaintiffs further states that she feels the court is in contempt of her and her

husband

because of a pro se complaint. The plaintiff had no choice. No attorney was interested in their

matter and they have no money to pay for one. The funds that supported this action

against the

Kickhams were borrowed from the plaintiffs mother in law. The plaintiff has received no support

from her own kin what so ever, not even a phone call wishing her luck.

26. The plaintiff further states that her husband has complained to the Commission of

Judicial

Conduct of Judge Careys conduct. The plaintiff has also introduced a motion for the Judge to

disqualify herself from future proceedings in the matter. In support thereof when the

plaintiffs

husband was at the Probate Court on May 23, 2002 he had trouble getting the dockets of the related

matters in order to file some documents in them. The dockets were in the hands of a lady named

Tracy. It was asked of him to return them to her when he was finished, which he did. He

was

concerned that maybe James Kickham had filed his motion to dismiss this matter and wished to

know in order to have enough time to prepare an opposition to it. He was told that the

Judge wanted

something copied out of it. He did notice in the docket of Elaine G. Kickham that the Judge had not

allowed Mr. Kickham to amend his late answer. At the same time as he was viewing the

docket he

received a tape of the pretrial hearing. Listening to the tape that evening confirmed that fact. The

next day a letter from the court dated May 23 arrived and in it the Judge had accepted

Mr.

Kickhams motion to amend and it was backdated to May16, 2002. The plaintiff states she has no

doubts of the Judges malice. In the hearing of the pretrial conference, the Judge clearly

heard

James M. Kickham admit to his lies and the reason to amend the lie. It was the plaintiffs husband

that had forced the truth to come out. Now James M. Kickham is abandoning his cousin as a client

so as to separate he and his partner from their clients wrongs. Associate Justice Paula M. Carey

allowed it all even though she knows the truth. She must have read the docket by now.

27. The plaintiff further states that since all investigations of a Judges conduct are held strictly

confidential, the Judge may escape admonishment for her disobedience of the Canons. The

plaintiff does not expect any better service from the Commission on Judicial Conduct in view of

rules in common with the Board of Bar Overseers. Therefore her husband is telling the

world of the

Judge and invites the Judge Carey to sue him. It will save him the cost of filing a suit against her.

Thus his complaint of Judge Paula M. Carey can be heard in public rather than behind

closed doors.

28. The plaintiff further states that by allowing James M. Kickham to amend his answer has further

added to the error of the court, particularly in view of the evidence in the docket before the

Judge.

29. The plaintiff further states that part of James M. Kickhams amended answer is correct. If Judge

Langlois had not believed the fraud of Charles J. Kickham Jr. and had reviewed the docket of

the

estate before passing his decree, then these matters would not be in dispute. The judge is obliged to

look at the matter before closing it. The Court did error. It was the fault of Judge Langlois. He

is

aware of it. He has done nothing to correct his error.

30. The plaintiff further states that she wonders why Judge Langlois has not informed Judge Carey

of his error. If he has then her husbands allegations of a conspiracy against her interests

in order

that the Justice System may save face are undeniably true.

31. The plaintiff feels that she is not out of order in any of her acts but that the whole court is out of

order with regard to the law. During the pretrial hearing on May 16, 2002, the plaintiffs

husband

had filed legitimate complaints against every Member of the Bar in the hearing, except one, she

had not as of that time made an appearance in the matter. The Members of the Bar present knew that

fact and displayed their contempt. Now at least these matters go to trial and into the public view.

32. The plaintiff further states that she is pleased that the court has finally allowed her motion of

February 8, 2002 and has temporarily removed William J. Kickham as trustee u/w/o Elaine G.

Kickham. The plaintiff feels certain that the matters in dispute within the said estate will be properly

resolved as prescribed by law. In support thereof the new trustee, James A. McLaughlin, appointed

as William J. Kickhams successor, is a well respected Member of the Bar who is ordered to

file a

bond with sureties and will be paid from the interests of the interested parties to competently and

diligently act in their best interests. The plaintiff prays that he be successful in the endeavor to

regain all lost assets of said estate and trust and that William J. Kickham, Charles J. Kickham

Jr.

and James M. Kickham be made to pay for their crimes. The plaintiff also prays that James A.

McLaughlin deals with her Uncle Francis in a very gentle manner in consideration of his health and

age. Francis C. Kickham is truly an innocent party in this matter in every respect and he

deserves

the utmost respect.

33. The plaintiff further states that the complaint for removal of Charles J. Kickham Jr. as executor

of the will of Lawrence F. Kickham is a separate matter and trial. The Jean F. OMeara v.

Charles J.

Kickham Jr. matter directly relates to the misconduct of Charles J. Kickham Jr. in the estate of

Elaine G. Kickham, but it should not be the concern James A. McLaughlin as trustee u/w/o said

estate. The plaintiff prays to continue in the pursuit of this matter byway of her husband, David

R.

Amos, acting under her power of attorney. In support thereof the plaintiff states that she is one of

twelve interested parties in this matter. All of who are brothers or first cousins to her. The plaintiff

states that all interested parties have been properly served months ago and are well aware of the

matter. She has heard nothing from them pro or con. Not one of these interested parties has stood

with her in her opposition to a patriarch of a family smattered with priests and lawyers past and

present. This patriarch, Charles J. Kickham Jr., has a profound legal reputation including such

honors

as: Harvard Law School Association of Massachusetts Member, Board of Governors, Massachusetts

Bar Association, 1979 - 1980 President, Norfolk County Bar Association, 1968 - 1969 President

Norfolk County, Assistant District Attorney. This does not mention his long standing and influential

Democratic political ties.

The plaintiff believes that the other interested parties chose not to become involved in this matter

because their interest in the matter appeared small in comparison to the opposition Charles J.

Kickham Jr., his partners and his friends would provide. The plaintiff states that this is true and does

not judge them for their decision to stay out of the matter to save the costs and the high possibility

of embarrassment of their family. The plaintiff states that she had no choice other than to give up. If

she does not prevail it will be of no cost to the other interested parties. If the plaintiff does

prove her

complaint against Charles J. Kickham Jr. the other interested parties shall all receive their equal

portion of lost assets from the estate of Lawrence F. Kickham as prescribed by law and the court

duties to insure that it is done..

34. The plaintiff further states that the amount of lost assets in the estate of Lawrence F. Kickham are

less important than the rights of Jean F. OMeara and the wrongs Charles J Kickham Jr. The

plaintiff states that win or lose her husband wishes to teach their children a valuable lesson in life by

his example. The plaintiff does not feel the need to explain. All Members of the Bar know the ethics

of the matter and how any decent man must answer to his familys pride and honour.

The plaintiff further states that her husband, David R. Amos, swears to do battle with her cousin,

Charles J. Kickham Jr., and all those who have assisted him in his attack on the plaintiffs interests.

He shall do it in court rather than the field, with the law rather than the sword, with simple truths

spoken clearly rather than battle cries and all done with dignity in his best effort to cause

Charles J.

Kickham Jr. to lose his dignity

The plaintiff, Jean F. OMeara prays to the court to delay the interested parties no longer.

Wherefore, the plaintiff, Jean F. OMeara demands a Judgment:

1. Revoke the decree of Judgment of the First and Final Account of Charles J. Kickham Jr.

as executor u/w/o Lawrence F. Kickham Norfolk Probate # 97 P 0288- E2 and appoint

David R. Amos as his successor.

2. Revoke the decree of Judgment of the First and Final Account of William J. Kickham as

executor u/w/o Elaine G. Kickham Norfolk Probate # 98 P 0792-E2 and remove

William J. Kickham as executor and appoint David R. Amos as his successor.

3. Remove William J. Kickham a trustee of the trust u/w/o Elaine G. Kickham Norfolk

Probate

# 98 P 0792- T2 and appoint David R. Amos as his successor.

4. Award the plaintiff her costs. 5. Grant such other relief as this court determines is proper and just.

6. Notify the Attorney General of a possible conspiracy subject to the laws under Title 18. 7. Notify the IRS and confirm the original information submitted to that office by

David R. Amos by way of a form 211 in January 2002

8. Notify the District Attorney of Norfolk County of the white-collar crimes within these

matters.

9. Notify the Board of Bar Overseers of the misconduct of all Members of the Bar involved

in these matters.

By her husband under her power of attorney,

David R. Amos

153 Alvin Ave.

Milton, MA. 02186

(781) 964-9001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, David R. Amos certify that on , 2002 I delivered exact copies of the

within documents to my cousin, James M. Kickham, attorney for his partner,

the defendant, Charles J. Kickham Jr. to their office at 1318 Beacon Street

Brookline, MA.

02146

(617) 566-5900

David R. Amos

153 Alvin Ave.

Milton, MA. 02186

(781) 964-9001

The Attachment

Mr. Frederickson I suspect you may want a little insight of your adversary. If

you viewed my website, as no doubt you did, you would have seen that I have a

sense of humour as well. Here is a second sight just in case. My photo proves that I

am a child of the sixties who never grew up. By my shirt you can tell I admire the

Indian way. So I must drive my stake into the turf and tie my ankle to it.

As I stand in defense of my kin, I will pound my chest and count a little coop:

I am smarter than the average bear and as mean as a snake.

Does that count?

I am slipperier than a salmon and as sly as a fox.

Does that count?

My dogs daddy knew an ex President of the USA.

Does that count?

I have been taught and trained by the best of old warriors who never said die.

Does that count?

I have never attended Oxford but I played chess with a man who did and had

Rudyard Kipling for a Professor.

Does that count?

I have a friend that was a Rhodes Scholar that considers me his peer. He will

scoff at your vain attempt to handle me. He knows me better than you.

Does that count?

Right now I am bearing witness for the dead.

Does that count?

The affidavit I swore out against the Feds was no fairy tale.

Does that count?

I too am writing a tale of corruption in high places. But it aint fiction.

Does that count?

I too have read a little. I can imagine things too. Imagine you walking into one of

the scumy bars where one needs no membership that I frequent down by the sea. I

doubt you would have wished to talk my friend and I. I know you may have

appreciated the lack of snotty twenty-five year-olds, but I figure you would of

thought of she and I as a couple of the low getting high. In truth we were just

some snuff Queen and a dirty biker having a pow wow. What you would have missed

though was what we spoke of whenever she came back and sat down to talk to me.

(She was often excusing herself from my presence to socialize awhile with some

guy or another that may have appreciated her for something other than her mind. I

never asked plus it aint for me to judge) Hermans great grand daughter and I had

great fun debating such things as her ancestors take on why ol Ishmael, ol Ahab

and even men from Vermont so loved the sea.

I know all that stuff dont count.

Its just hot air. But sometimes it has its place. What does count is what I do,

not what I say. Just look at what I have wrought. There is a big cloud over the Bar

and I am doing my best rain dance. Ya think Oxford would have taught you to never

judge a book by its cover and before you pick a fight you should know thy foe. You

must see that I have been looking into you so I figured I give you a glance at me.

This is just to inject a little fun into the fight.

I am making every effort to show this matter to the world. Ol Shakes said all

the world is a stage. You picked your part to play. In my opinion it is that of the

strutting stuffed shirt. Mine is that of the fool

Can ya tell I am jerking your chain? Lets hear ya growl. I promise I wont hang up.

I aint as rude as you.

Lets Play