1. Real Estate Transfer Statement

•      This Real Estate Transfer Statement was filed by Nebraska attorney John C. Chatelain on September 26, 2018, along with Barbara J. Humphrey's fraudulent Affidavit for Transfer of Real Property without Probate. Barbara Humphrey was supposed to be John Chatelain's client.
•      However, according to Nebraska Law, there is no lawyer/client privilege if found as follows under Nebraska Revised Statute 27-503(4)(a) 
• (4) There is privilege under this rule: (a) If the services of the lawyer are sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.
•      In this case Humphrey v. Smith and Prosolow the Plaintiff did know that her filing this lawsuit was fraudulent.

•     
• Here was a situation where Ms. Humphrey filed false statements on her Affidavit claiming half ownership in Smith's property per her deceased husband's will. This was the fraudulent document filed by John C. Chatelain to begin this case as Douglas County, Nebraska District Court Case No. CI 18-9530. Folk’s, this WILL never existed. So once again and as found under Nebraska Revised Statute 27-503(4)(a) (4) There is privilege under this rule: (a) If the services of the lawyer are sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud. Barbara Humphrey's testimonials under oath during her May 29, 2020 Deposition offers evidence of Ms. Humphrey's having known that her deceased husband Donald W. Humphrey had forgiven Edward Smith of the loan before Donald died and therefore should not have sought out John Chatelain to file the lawsuit because she’d held no interest in the property.
• The following is testimony from Ms. Humphrey's deposition which she did not disclose under No. 25 of her interrogatories but her own testimonials prove that this meeting had taken place and not disclosed before filing her fraudulent lawsuit..
• Excerpts from Barbara’sMay 29, 2020 Deposition
• 46:16-18 Smith: I'm getting to a point here okay? When I explained that to him, the first thing he said was that we can afford to go up to ten; am I correct?
• 46:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 46:20 Smith: And it angered you?
• 46:21 Barbara: Yes.
• 4622-24 Smith: The first words out of your mouth was, oh, so he's got the house and he's getting a new truck. And with that, you jumped up and you ran out the front door; am I correct?
• 46:25; 47:1 Matthew Saathoff: Listen to his question, and answer his question.
• 47:2-3 Barbara: I was upset with that statement, yes. I went to the front door.
• Under Cross-Examination Barbara testified as follows:
• 80:15-16 Mr. Saathoff: Did you ever make the statement "So now he has a house and a car?" Yes or no?
• 80:17 Barbara: A house and a truck.
• 80:18 Mr. Saathoff: A house and a truck.
• 80:19 Barbara: Yes.
• 80:20 Mr. Saathoff: Okay. And what did you mean by that?
• 80:21-22 Barbara: Well, Don had wanted to give him the house, the 25,000 that he put up front for the house.
• With this testimony being in the records, this shows evidence of a meeting having taken place before Don died whereas Don had forgiven Smith for the remainder of the loan. 
• So here had been a situation where Barbara had known the loan had been forgiven before she'd sought for John Chatelain to file this fraudulent Affidavit.

· Page 2 of this document shows an Amortization Schedule, or payment Schedule that was forged by Barbara's daughter Elizabeth Humphrey.

· This forgery was then used by John C. Chatelain as the basis and foundation for Barbara's Complaint for Partition where line 9 from #7 the Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories states this fact. 

•   
• Under 640 the high court writes that when a partition action involves a dispute over ownership or title as well as a dispute over the method of partition, the parties have a right to have title determined first.
• On appeal, this court recognized that the "sole matter contested was the construction and effect of the WILL" 
• Under 641 the high court writes: because the order construing the WILL determined the whole controversy.
• Also under 641 the high court rights, in making this determination, we recognized that the real controversy in this action was the issue of title and that the partition prayed for was only incidental, because if the Plaintiffs did not succeed in establishing their title, they would have no right to partition.
• Under 642 the high court recognized Barbara by name when writing; the real controversy in this case is the issue of title, and the partition is incidental to the issue of title. If Barbara does not succeed in establishing her title, she has no right to partition. 

• These trial transcripts discloses that Barbara Humphrey never had the WILL she'd claimed on her Affidavit supposedly entitling her to 50% of Smith's real estate property. In fact, after six hears this claimed WILL has never been seen nor verified.
• During her trial testimonials under oath on April 10, 2023 Nebraska attorney Darnetta Sanders questioned Ms. Humphrey on pages and lines as follows:
• 241:16-17 Ms. Sanders: Okay. Have you presented the will as part of this case?
• 241:18 Barbara: No.
• On May 23, 2023 and acting pro se I'd personally questioned Ms. Humphrey as follows:
• 656:6-11 Smith: So you're sitting here telling me that Don had a will, a signed will, and yet I have a tape recording here, every time I've asked for that will because I know my property is not in this will per the will as you claim on this document. I haven't seen it.
• 656:12 Barbara: Your property is not in the will.
• 656:13 Smith: I know it's not in the will.
• 656:14 Barbara: That's correct. We don't want it in the will.
• 659:9-12 Smith: Thank you. Now, you're sitting here telling me or telling the court - - may I have that? You're sitting here telling the court that Donald Humphrey had a will; am I correct?
• 659:13 Barbara: He had a will.
• 659:14 Smith: A signed will: is that correct?
• 659:15 Barbara: That house was not in the will.
• 765:2-5 Judge Dougherty: The Court does not have a will though, sir, so the contents of the will are not going to be considered by the Court because I don't have one.

• In another documented case finding Barbara preparing and presenting false statements to the Court. Under lines 31, 33 and 34 from her Complaint for Partition find Barbara falsely claiming that Smith owed her back rent on Smith's own real estate property. False statements that were later retracted.

• Nearly every word in the Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories were false statements or matters of withholding information. But one incidence of withholding information stood out above the rest because it'd involved Barbara's knowledge of the loans already being forgiving before she'd approached John Chatelain and hired him to file her lawsuit. No 25 stood out above the rest because Ms. Humphrey had been asked to reveal all times when there'd been a meeting where the loan had been discussed and Barbara never mentioned the meeting that'd caused her to jump up and run out of her own home. This had been the meeting where Don forgave Smith of the remaining portion of the loan.

1. Over the objections of his wife Barbara Humphrey, his daughter Elizabeth Humphrey and son in law Joe Hendrick's. Donald W. Humphrey "now deceased," made a loan to Ed in the amount shown as $25,219.92. Below shows a copy of the Cashier's Check which was used for purposes of helping Ed to purchase the subject Real Estate property at issue in the Douglas County, Nebraska District Court Case No. CI 18 9530 Lawsuit against Ed and Dora. Evidence from Barbara's own trial testimonials offer proof that Don acted as the mortgage holder (only), when making this loan to Ed. Don's name was placed on the property's title (only), until Ed  repaid the loan in full. At which time Donald Humphrey's name would be remove from the title and Ed would become sole owner of the property. However, before Don's death on August 24, 2018, Don, Ed, Dora and Barbara were gathered in a meeting at the Humphrey's residence. During this meeting Barbara had been seated to the right side of Don within 3 feet . While sitting in the presence of his wife Barbara, Don forgave the remainder of the loan at issue in this case. On May 27, 2022 the opinion's of The Nebraska Supreme Court acknowledged that if Don did indeed forgive the  loan, that this forgiveness had acted as a relinquishment of any ownership interest Don may have held in the subject property and that his relinquishment had left Ed as sole owner of the Real Estate property. Evidence from Barbara Humphrey's May 29, 2020 Deposition discloses facts of this meeting having taken place as well as Don's forgiveness of the loan which at the time had angered Barbara and caused her to jump up from her seated position and run out of her front door. Further, evidence from Barbara's May 23, 2023 trial testimonials had once again acknowledged this meeting had taken place and her reactions to Don's forgiveness of the loan relinquished his interest as the property's mortgage holder. 

1. This Special Warranty Deed is a copy of the original document which listed both  Donald W. Humphrey and Edward J. Smith as the property's owners. (Address whited out). As orally agreed, Donald Humphrey's name had been added to the Deed for security reasons but (only) until Ed repaid the loan in full. Somewhere around mid June to mid July 2018, Don forgave the remainder of the Loan relinquishing any interests he may have held in the real estate as the mortgage holder. 

• After Donald Humphrey forgave Ed for the remainder of the outstanding loan, Don then instructed his wife Barbara Humphrey to write Ed a check in the amount of $10,000. This money was meant to replace an older pickup truck that he'd gifted Ed and that his wife Barbara, daughter Elizabeth Humphrey and Joe Hendrick's had towed away from Ed's property and sold. Barbara wrote this $10,000 check on August 8, 2018. Since Elizabeth, Joe and Barb conspired to take back the gifted Chevy Silverado this $10,000 was gifted to Ed for purposes of buy another truck which can be viewed as #6 2007 Ford F150 SuperCab XLT.

Meant to replace an older model Chevy Silverado towed and sold by his family members, Don gifted Ed with $10,000 for purposed of purchasing the truck shown here. 

Rest in Peace!