National Center for Rights
Helsinkidog@gmail.com                                                                    Even if the children complain, who will listen?

False Claim 2 Ross stole Murphy's Money

1) Ross Stole Police Trooper Murphy's Money because Murphy had no need for legal services, did not authorize legal services, received no billing for legal services, and received no communication of the existence of such legal services.  Trooper Murphy contends that he gave Ross checks marked for the purpose of the "Brian and Dawn Murphy Trust." 

Proof of the sham is easy. The Bank tenders sworn official copies of the checks that Ross deposited into the Court's IOLTA Account for Legal Services.
The first disputed check is issued on 30 July 2008. This is the day after Murphy's 29 July 2008 hearing described in the Murphy Pedophile Crimes tab. 

The numbers shown below the checks make clear that the checks were deposited in the court's IOLTA Account where Attorneys are required to deposit  dvanced fee payments.  Photos of the bank statements are  provided below. 

Notice that there is no statement anywhere on the face of this check that the payment is from DAWN MUPRHY. 
The Second Disputed Check is also deposited in the Court's IOLTA account for unearned legal fees.  This check is also issued the day after Murphy's CASE IV scheduled for the 14 October 2008.

So when the court says that the above checks are for the "Brian and Dawn Murphy Trust" and not for Murphy's legal fees is complete sham.
Attorneys do not take further steps to establish trusts for un-deposited voided checks. 

Attorneys do not work for free, when the court appoints them under MRPC 6.2 at $250 per hour and Murphy signed several agreements to the effect. 

Therefore Ross applied the payments to Murphy's outstanding bills in 2008 in a manner consistent with the Maryland Rules on unearned fees. 
As for the check, that the court refers to issued on 24 July 2008. It was voided by Murphy alone. If the check were from Ms. Murphy, then it would require her signature as well to void the check. 

Most importantly Murphy cancelled the check and wrote under his signature (as he confirmed in his testimony) "NOT USED FOR INTENDED PURPOSE." Thus the Court is prohibited from assigning the purpose of this voided check to the above check given to Ross to pay for fees. 

What the Court forgets are two things in their theory that the funds were for a "personal trust." 

1) Such personal trust would make Ross the trustee and therefore Ross could pay Murphy's outstanding legal bill. 

2) Ross would not come to court for even five minutes if Murphy was not paying his bill in 2008.

3) There is no evidence that Ross accepted the funds for a "Trust Purpose" required for a Trust to be created. Those who paid attention in law school know that Trusts are created only when Capacity, Three Certainties, Constitution, and Formality is respected. 

Ross put the money in the Court's account for unearned fees, and withdrew the money in 2008 in payment of those fees as the Murphy plainly admit in a sworn statement to their bank in November 2008. Ross is the only attorney paid from the SECU Account after 26 Jan 2008.
Click to Replace