➡️Before the Submission of Chandler’s Appeal Brief on September 1, 2015.
July 15, 2014 — Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal – with the two probate cases which had been the center of the entire will contest, throughout.
July 28, 2014 — Downey’s Response to Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal. It was Downey’s first filing with the Court of Appeals and contained deliberate false information.
“Here, after final judgment, Appellant seeks to introduce probate proceedings as part of the circuit court record in this case –matters which were neither introduced nor considered by the circuit court. Kentucky law could not me more on point, and Appellant cites no authority in support of the motion. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion should be denied.”
July 30, 2014 — Downey started off using the United States Postal Service within his first filing with the Court of Appeals, which contained intentional lies. Regardless, Downey placed his initial response in the actual United States Postal Services, (in the mail.) Envelope
August 6, 2014 — Court of Appeals Return of Unauthorized Pleading. (I didn’t file a Motion for Leave to file a Reply.) This in of itself, seems to aid and assist the Court of Appeals, in controlling what makes it into the actual official Record, at the Court of Appeals Level. REMEMBER THIS CONCEPT FOR LATER DISCUSSIONS! But only someone with a person on the inside, would know how to utilize this ridiculous notion to their advantage. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT STEVEN DOWNEY DID!!!
August 14, 2014 — Filed a Motion Seeking Permission to resubmit a Reply to Downey’s False assertions.
Please Note that within Downey’s, very first filing with the Court of Appeals, he submitted an entirely fabricated Response. As the direct result of his lies, I had to file the first of many Motions seeking permission to Submit a Reply, in order to maintain veracity of the record.
BUT AS MANY OF YOU ALREADY KNOW, VERACITY OF RECORD IS WHAT THE JUDICIARY ALLOWS AN ATTORNEY TO SUBMIT. TRUTH HOLDS LITTLE MERIT THESE DAYS, AND IT MOST DEFINITELY HAS NOT HELD ANY MERIT THROUGHOUT THE CHANDLER CASE OR THE FALSE PROSECUTION OF ME.
Downey’s Response falsely asserts that, neither probate proceedings were introduced or considered by the circuit court.
August 15, 2014 — Order of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Acree Ruled that Judge Williams would be in the best position to determine whether the two probate cases were ever introduced or considered by the trial court.
BACK TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, where JUDGE WILLIAMS gets to DECIDE IF THE TWO PROBATE CASES — AT THE CENTER OF THE APPEAL – COULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE RECORD ON APPEAL!
PLEASE RECALL THAT STEVEN DOWNEY HAD ALREADY ATTEMPTED TO FALSELY PAD THE RECORD WITHIN HIS TENDERED PRETRIAL LIMINIE ORDER ABOUT AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN CHANDLER AND THE DEFENDANTS, WHERE HE ALLEGES THAT CHANDLER AGREED TO NOT ALLOW ANY TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE UNDISTRIPUTED PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE CHANDLER HOMESTEAD, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DEFENDANTS DISMISSING THEIR COUNTERCLAIM FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS.
AS NOTED WITHIN CHANDLER’S BRIEF, THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED OVER CHANDLER’S OBJECTION. THIS WAS INCLUDED WITHIN CHANDLER’S BRIEF AS DIRECT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING JUDGE WILLIAMS EXTREME BIAS, THROUGHOUT.
LOCATE APRIL 14 TELEPHONE HEARING
August 22, 2014 — Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal. (As directed by the Court of Appeals, I filed same motion to supplement the record on appeal, in Circuit Court, back in front of Judge Williams, with a Hearing set for September 11, 2014.)
September 5, 2014 — Downey submitted a Contradictory Response to the Motion in Circuit Court, then what he previously asserted in his first filing with the Court of Appeals.
“The Will of Mary Katherine Chandler (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4) and the Will of Harold Keith Chandler (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6) were both considered by the court and are properly included in the appellate record. Further, in Order entered on June 12, 2014, the Court admitted Plaintiff’s Proffer of evidence relating to the probate estate of Mary Katherine Chandler.”
Paragraph 1: “Plaintiff Steve Chandler, ……..testimony concerning his brother’s non-performance regarding the distribution of the personal property in his mother’s estate. Testimony from the relatives listed above about what was promised to them by Mary Katherine Chandler and their repeated attempts to retrieve said property.”
Aside from both wills and the testimony specifically allowed in the proffer, the probate records of Mary Katherine Chandler and Harold Keith Chandler were not introduced by the parties nor considered by the court.”
Two weeks before trial Steven Downey submitted a motion to stipulate, to the contents of the two probate cases, Harold Keith Chandler and Mary Katherine Chandler. This should leave anyone asking why is he fighting so hard to prevent the inclusion of these two probate cases in the record on appeal. The answer became readily apparent during the September 11, 2014 Hearing, back in front of Judge Williams in Circuit Court.
September 11, 2014 –HEARING with Supplemental Reply in front of Judge Williams, to seek approval to include the two probate cases, part of the record on appeal.
This also being the first time, I had the opportunity to call Judge Williams out on purposefully swapping out the terms Limine Order with General Order. And further point out to the Court, Chandler and I were NEVER served with any type of notice on the post-trial hearing, within Harold Keith’s Probate Case, where Brucie Moore sought approval of Attorney fees, which had already been paid out to Steven Downey.
WHICH IN MY OPINION IS ULTIMATELY THE REASON FOR DOWNEY NOT WANTING THE PROBATE CASES INCLUDED. THAT AND THE FACT THAT DOWNEY AND MOORE, THEN USED BOTH PROBATE CASES TO ILLEGALY CUT OF STEVE CHANDLER’S INTEREST IN CONTINUING ANY CAUSE OF ACTION.
September 26, 2014 –Motion to Continue Period of Abatement – Pursuant to Court of Appeals Order, date August 15, 2014, I had to file a Motion to Continue Period of Abatement, every 45 days, while waiting on Judge Williams to issue an Order. I had to file a second Motion on December 4, 2014, because Judge Williams still had not issued a ruling.
December 9, 2014 — Notice & Judge Williams, December 9, 2014, Order filed with the Court of Appeals
Wherein the Order was extremely non-sensical. Judge Williams ultimately acknowledged that arguments were made throughout the proceedings concerning the two probate cases, BUT THAT…..”The Court didn’t deem them relevant, therefore it wasn’t considered and the record on appeal could not include them.”
December 22, 2014 —Motion for Permission To Amend Notice of Appeal to include Judge Williams December 9, 2014, Order. (Including the Amended Notice of Appeal and Amended Designation of Record on Appeal.)
January 5, 2015 — Downey’s Combined Response to Chandler’s Motion to Supplement Record and Motion for Permission to Amend the Notice of Appeal.
Despite not even attending the September 11, 2014 Hearing, Steven Downey falsely asserts that, “as part of the proceedings, Chandler tendered the disputed probate files to the Circuit Court for review and consideration.”
At no time during the course of that hearing, was any probate files presented to the Circuit Court. This was just one of many endless false assertions made by Downey throughout his filings with the Court of Appeal.
January 9, 2015 — Chandler’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Downey’s Response to Chandler’s Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal, to include December 9, 2014 Order.
Within the tendered Reply that I submitted, I produced a copy of the transcript from that hearing, as well as flash drive of the full hearing. I called Downey out on his direct attempt to falsely pad the record and keep evidence out of the Record on Appeal, and made a direct plea with the Court of Appeals, to accept Chandler’s Reply to ensure the veracity of the record.
PICK UP HERE … Just before letter to Samuel Givens
January 11, 2015 — Motion for Leave to File Excess of Page Limit with (10) Page attached Memorandum
January 16, 2015 — Downey’s Response to Chandler’s Request for additional pages.
Condescension throughout
STEVE DOWNEY’S FALSE DEPICTION -January 16, 2015
⬇️And/or at best Rewrite of Chandlers Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages⬇️
- Appellant submitted his unnumbered 10-page memorandum attached to his motion -a motion that purportedly does not “disparage any parties” -Appellant generally complain as follows:
- (1) Appellees’ counsel and the trial judge conspired to deny Appellant a fair trial because the Court struck parts of the complaint and excluded matters form the record on appeal;
- (2) the trial judge and Chief Circuit Judge engaged in an “improper” conversation about Appellant’s counsel, apparently behind Appellant’s counsel’s back, made for “sole purpose of slandering counsel’s reputation;”
- (3) Appellant’s Counsel was the victim of “bullying” by the Court and Appellees’ counsel;
- (4) there were “intentional mischaracterization of facts and sequence of events, which seemed to serve the sole purpose of padding the record in defendant’s favor and attempt to paint Plaintiff’s counsel in a false light”;
- (5) Appellant (or his counsel) was somehow prejudiced by the addition of new counsel for Appellees at trial;
- (6) Appellees’ counsel’s evidentiary objections at trial were somehow designed to make Appellant’s counsel “look bad in front of the jury.” Appellant also complains about procedural issues regarding issues which have already been addressed in motion practice on appeal.
- Downey placed a FOOTNOTE: “the Court will note that this is Appellant’s eighth procedural motion, and there has yet to be briefing.
- The Court should deny Motion for additional pages, CR 76.12(4)(b)(i) is a good rule. It forces parties to narrow the issues on appeal an edit their arguments appropriately. In any event, twenty-five page is clearly sufficient to address any meritorious issues in a case with average size of record on appeal from…..
- There is no cause for page extension, if the Court is inclined to grant the motion, Appellees request the same number to respond.
January 22, 2015 — Chandler’s Motion to Strike Downey’s Response or/in the Alternative Combined Motion for Leave to File Reply to Downey’s Response – with tendered Reply
January 20, 2015 — Downey’s Response to Motion for Leave to File a Reply.
⬇️DOWNEY’S RESPONSE TO STEVE CHANDLER’S REQUEST TO SUBMIT A REPLY⬇️
-January 20, 2015
- CR 76.3 Titled “Motion” allows for a motion and a response. Appellant filed a motion. Appellees filed a response. The rule does not contemplate a reply.
- For that reason, the motion for leave to file a reply should be denied.
- Neither the rule allows for this type of amendment.
- Appellant also attempted to have the circuit court clerk include in the record the very maters exclude.
- This is also not supported by rules.
- Appellees do not believe that, by pointing this out, it is somehow a mischaracterization of the rules of procedures, a cover-up, or a fraud on the court as alleged by the Appellant.
- To be clear, Appellees dispute the improper allegations contained in the motion and proposed reply, and if Appellant continues to disparage counsel or the trial court in future pleadings, or persists inappropriate motions, Appellees reserve the right to as for appropriate relief.
RECALL THAT STEVEN DOWNEY DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY MISCHARACTERIZED THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2014, HEARING THAT HE DIDN’T EVEN ATTEND. HE FALSELY STATED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS RECORD THAT I SUBMITTED THE DISPUTED PROBATE FILES FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THE COURT DURING THAT HEARING.
When in reality I brought the Court’s attention to Steven Downey’s misappropriation of funds, and Keith Chandler’s 401K, Brucie Moore failed to disclose to the Court, as well as addressing issues that both myself and Steve Chandler has taken with her direct false depiction of Steve Chandler’s Proffer. Judge Williams adopted almost verbatim the proposed order submitted by Steven Downey, but went even a step further revealing her bias, by swapping out the two terms Limine Order for General Order.
Steven Downey does not address any of the accusations which established that he has in fact made several false assertions throughout. IGNORES THEM COMPLETELY! But then goes onto to threaten me for filing motions, seeking permission to submit a Reply to ensure the veracity of the record.
DOWNEY LIED IN EVERY SINGLE FILING WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS. Downey submitted a condescending Response Objecting to all of Chandler’s Motions to submit a Reply to HIS fraudulently fabricated Responses.
JUMPING AHEAD A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU WILL COME TO LEARN THAT THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT ORDER SUSPENDING ME FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW; CHARACTERIZES MY THE ABOVE AS FOLLOWS:
“The Commissioner was also struck by the number of times Powell lamented about Downey getting “the last word,” and noted ten times in the record that it occurred.”
See how the Kentucky Judiciary switched up the facts, to suit their own desire. I repeatedly filed endless attempts to correct the record and keep it truthful and accurate, as the direct result of Downey’s Endless Lies, throughout. The Kentucky Court of Appeals, DENIED all requests, the Kentucky Supreme Court deliberately ignored all information, and ultimately perpetuated the ongoing fraud.
But now four of the former Court of Appeal Judges who actively concealed this egregious misconduct and tragic injustice, are now sitting on the Kentucky Supreme Court. They are protecting themselves, and exposure from their own actions.
I have no doubt that I repeatedly stated that Downey, always got the last word. But it was in relation to the Court of Appeals, not giving two craps about the veracity/truthfulness of the Record, because they denied all of Chandler’s request to submit a Reply to Downey’s fabrication.
February 2, 2015 — Downey’s Combined Response to Chandler’s Motion to Strike or in the alternative Motion for leave to File a Reply, to Chandler’s Request for excess pages.
The Will Contest Appeal was temporarily stalled while events took place within the Probate Cases and I filed a CIVIL ACTION against the two underlying defendants, and Attorney Moore and Attorney Downey.
However, on February 9, 2015, Judge Daniel Heady signed the proposed Order which was tendered by Attorney Brucie Moore, in opposition of Steve Chandler reopening Mary Katherine Chandler’s probate case in order to preserve his legal interest in the personal household content of the home.
Steve Chandler filed an Appeal to Circuit Court and a Motion to Recuse Judge Williams from reviewing a decision that she herself, was currently on appeal for. (i.e. denying Steve Chandler the ability to bring his Equity Claim within his will contest.) Exact same property, the exact same parties.
March 30, 2015 — Chandler filed a civil action against the defendants, Moore and Downey for the misappropriation of funds, among other causes of action. (Downey’s deliberate announcement during a bench trial, and during his closing argument, put Steve on notice and thus beginning his one-year statute of limitation.)
April 29, 2015 — Steve requested an accounting of his brother’s estate. Brucie Moore objected to having to give Steve Chandler an accounting, in light of the jury verdict. Brucie argued that he no longer maintained any legal interest in his brother’s estate, or have a legal interest to file suit against her and the other named defendants.
In reality, nothing was really stalled, the Defendants were just working overtime to utilize the probate cases in an attempt to cut off any legal interest Steve Chandler had to continue any cause of action.
May 18, 2015 — ORDER OF COURT May 18, 2015 Order – Denying every single attempt to submit a Reply to ensure the veracity of the Record – Signature stamp of Kelly Thompson OF Court OF APPEALS
D. Lambert; Maze; and Kelly Thompson
Despite being given direct evidence showing Downey’s endless attempts to pad the record with false information, the Court of Appeals Order DENIED all Motions filed to submit a Reply, the Downey’s False assertions, to ensure the veracity of the Record.
Since the burden was on Chandler to ensure that the Court of Appeals was presented with the necessary documentation to support the arguments and issues, that he intended to present on appeal, the COA’s Order passing the issue onto the merit panel assigned to the case, placed Chandler in a conundrum of sorts.
The three-judge merit panel, isn’t even assigned until after the briefing is complete. I filed a request seeking guidance and clarification, as to whether Chandler should include the probate papers within the appendix, or as an attachment to his brief. Downey Responded with his usual condescending manner, wherein he attempted to mock or belittle me for not understanding the simplicity of the Court of Appeals Order, on the matter. (AGAIN… keep this in mind, for later Kentucky Supreme Court Order Suspending me, from the practice of law.) The actual filings can be found on the Post-trial / Post-Briefing page.
May 29, 2015 — Chandler’s Motion Asking For Clarification And Direction.
June 8, 2015 — Downey’s Condescending Response To Motion For Clarification Motion
July 9, 2015 — Chandler’s Motion for Extension of time To File His Brief
ADD IN COA CORRESPONDENCE LETTER
July 20, 2015 — Downey’s Response For Extension Of Time To File Brief.
(Wherein he graciously allotted me 15 more days.)
July 30, 2015 — Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to file Brief with Affidavit of Cindy Linton, due to the unexpected death of my mother.
August 3, 2015 — ORDER OF COURT OF APPEALS
D. Lambert; Maze; and Kelly Thompson
Despite having previously filed a Motion for 60 day Extension of time, which is routinely granted, the three judge panel allegedly met on August 3, 2015, to issue one ORDER Denying my Motion for Clarification… .nothing more, just an outright DENIAL.
Both the May, 2015, Court of Appeals Order and the August 3, 2015, Court of Appeals Order contained the signature stamp of Judge Kelly Thompson.
August 4, 2015 — Emergency Motion for Extension of time filed by me!
I had to file one myself after someone named Doris, called my office and spoke with my colleague, and informed her that the Court of Appeals could not accept the previous Emergency Motion that she filed on my behalf, because she was not an “attorney of record” on the case.
My colleagues filing was later returned to her office in a handwritten envelope, with nothing more than a post-it note, which simply stated Per our conversations, these are being returned. No notation was ever made of record, until weeks later, when I contacted Samuel Givens. Steven Downey was served on the Emergency Motion, but somehow knew there was no reason for him to submit a response to the one my colleague filed.
August 11, 2015 — Downey’s Response to Emergency Motion for Extension of Time, due to my mother’s passing.
Ironically, the two Emergency Motion for Extension of time submitted at the same time, by the same colleague, was met by the Court of Appeals with zero objections and was properly filed.
THE REASON BEING IS THAT BECAUSE, NOBODY AT THE COURT OF APPEALS, HAD ANY IDEA THESE TWO MOTIONS WOULD BE FILED IN THE ESTATE OF MARY KATHERINE..., which goes directly to establish someone was assisting Downey and Moore in their never-ending efforts to falsely pad the record, and conceal Downey, Moore and Williams action, at the Court of Appeals.
Downey asked the Court to Order Chandler’s Brief filed no later than August 21st at the close of business, or Chandler’s Appeal should be dismissed. It had been less than two weeks since I had to bury my mom, Downey was demanding a dismissal. Downey is either heartless or desperate to prevent being exposed for misappropriating $25,000.00 from the Estate.
August 17, 2015 — Chandler’s Motion to Leave to File a Reply to Downey’s Response – with Proposed Reply and Attachments.
I attached the recent periodic accounting from the Estate of Harold Keith, which revealed that Steven Downey was paid $20,000 from the Estate two weeks before trial, and another $5000, post-trial work, and is owed $8,766.50, as of March 23, 2015, and close to $70,000 being owed to Brucie Moore.
See CIVIL ACTION PAGE – On March 30, 2015, I filed a civil action against the defendants, both Downey and Moore for several counts, but in relation to Steven Downey, MISSAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.
August 24, 2015 — Downey filed the following: Response to the Motion for Leave to File a Reply To Downey’s Response to Chandler’s Motion to Extend Time to File Brief until September 1, 2015 with attached proposed Reply
-given that it is now August 24, 2015, Downey agrees that I can have until September 1, 2015, to file Chandler’s Brief.
Downey’s Moton to Strike my Motion for Leave to file a Reply to Downey’s Response to my Motion to Extend time to File Brief Until September 1, 2015 with attached proposed Reply.
Downey’s Motion misconstrues the arguments set out within my proposed Reply, attempts to rephrase my statement as accusing him of “billing at excessive rates.” “These allegations have no basis in fact, have no bearing on this case and should be stricken from the record.
–I initially thought that this was great, because for the first time, Downey filed a Motion, which according to him and the Court of Appeals, a Response is the only thing allowed by the Court of Appeal Rules, never subsequent Replies.
August 31, 2015 — My Response to Downey’s Motion to Strike proof of his illegal conduct from the Court of Appeals Record.
(At this point, I was completely done playing around!) –included his affidavit that he produced for District Court on July 28, 2015. There was a hearing in the Harold Keith’s Probate case scheduled for July 29, 2015. Downey learned of my mother passing on July 27, 2015, same day of her passing. For the first time in 15 months, Downey seeks an after the fact, District Court approval for the funds that he had already misappropriated a couple weeks before trial.
NO DOUBT, KNOWING THAT I WOULD NOT BE MAKING IT TO THAT HEARING! Recall that neither Chandler nor myself, were notified for their initial attempt to obtain “after the fact” approval, immediately following trial in June 2014.
Since the Court of Appeals Order, repeatedly denied Chandler the ability to correct the record from Downey’s never-ending misrepresentations and outright lies, and the fact that only one of the three Emergency filings, filed by a colleague of mine, was returned I began to suspect that Downey had an in, at the Court of Appeals. Giving the fact that both Judge Kelly Thompson and Steven Downey, are Bowling Green, Ky, natives, I began my enquire here.
But to say the least, I was astonished to discover for the first time, that Cynthia Downey, Steven Downey’s sister-in-law, whom he shares jointly owned real estate with, was the COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANAGER FOR NONE OTHER THAN JUDGE KELLY THOMPSON.
RECALL THAT ALL CHANDLER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT A REPLY TO DOWNEY’S DELIBERATE FALSE ASSERTION, WERE DENIED BY SIGNATURE STAMP OF JUDGE KELLY THOMPSON.
CYNTHIA DOWNEY — WARREN COUNTY — COURT OF APPEALS — CASE MANAGER FOR NOW JUSTICE KELLY THOMPSON (Who interestingly enough, was a Clerk for the Court of Appeals back in 1973-1975, when the Amendment to the Constitution created the Unified Court System.
Since Steven Downey was not incorporated, his personal property would be directly at risk, if Chandler had won his civil action claim against the Downey, Moore and the named defendants. I had already filed the Civil Action on March 30, 2015. By the time the May 18, 2015, Court of Appeal Order came out that DENIED all attempts that I made to correct the truthful nature of the record, Cynthia Downey had an indirect interest in the outcome of the case, yet she was the appointed case manager.
THIS WAS THE AHA MOMENT!!!
September 1, 2015 – I submitted Chandler’s Brief, however the Court of Appeals noted it received on September 8, 2015. Since I specifically asked for up September 1, 2015, I telephoned Samuel Givens and sent him documentation and UPS Receipt of filing date.
November 10, 2015 – Downey asked for extension of time to file his RESPONSE BRIEF
I graciously gave him the same 15 days he allotted me.