Attorney Pleas For Recognition In Tragic Wrongful Death Case; Widow Buries Husband in Ziploc Bags










Attorney at Law

511 W. 9TH Street

P.O. Box 4

Hopkinsville, KY 42240

(270) 889-1709 Telephone


Illinois & Kentucky


Senator Ted Cruz

Washington Office

185 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510


Dear Senator Cruz:

My name is Kayce Powell. I am attorney, whose primary practice is located in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. I have a story that fits squarely into the controversial issues of Immigration Reform, and the need to enforce current laws. I have been actively attempting to seek media attention to cover the story. At the present time I have forwarded hard copies of all information to Dateline NBC, 20/20, 48 Hours, and 60 Minutes.

Being a Kentucky resident, I first sent this to Senator Mitch McConnell less than a week after the published Appellate Court decision was rendered. Which was before I realized the possible confusion amongst the Courts concerning the legal representative of Clay Mohon, Individually, and each entity’s legal representative. After being made aware that both the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court Judge was operating under a misconception concerning the parties representatives, I subsequently sent a generic email to Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Ed Whitfield requesting an email address, or address to mail hard copies to them. I have received no response from any of them, and just ended up on their email mailing list.

I am now reaching out to you because you have not been hesitant to challenge Obama’s unconstitutional actions, and have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding the negative impact that amnesty would create on the economy and the American workforce. It really baffles me that the majority of the people do not even realize that the Democrats ulterior purpose is to regain power.

With the recent amnesty issues, and President Obama’s attempt to side step Congress, I feel that there is no better time to seek attention on this subject while it is a hot topic on the political forefront. However, regardless as to where anyone falls on the current amnesty issue, no citizen or politician would ever think it is okay for an employer to financially gain by illegally obtaining and using immigrant farmworkers on government contracts, taking away jobs from American Citizens, all while being at the expense of American taxpayers.

For the past three years I have been working on a wrongful death/negligence case which involves the employment of illegal untrained/unsupervised H-2A Visa Farmworkers on Government DOT contracts. On Friday, December 5, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals rendered a decision which ultimately ignored all the evidence presented by Plaintiff that clearly established that the H-2A Mexican Farmworkers were being exploited for financial gain by their sponsor and legal employer, Clay Mohon, Individually, who applied for the H-2A Visa Farmworkers under the name Clay Mohon, of Mohon Farms. Mohon Farms is not a legal registered entity, and the best that I can tell has not even existed since 2008[1].

For all intense and purpose, it appears that the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals were deceived by the deliberate misleading filings of the five Appellees, and further incorrectly applied a cut off date to the evidence that was considered upon appellate review. (Which is explained in great detail in Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing (GREEN COVER))  In this box you will find a copy of the Appellant’s Brief (RED COVER)Estate of Anthony Stevenson – Appellant’s Brief (Red Cover) Minus Exhibits, EXHIBITS FOR APPELLANTS BRIEF a copy of each Appellee’s Response Briefs (BLUE COVERS), Clay Mohon, Individually, as Owner-Manager of Mohon Farms and Mohon Mowing, Inc. Response Brief (Blue Cover)Mohon Tractor Sales and Service Response Brief (Blue Cover)M&J Landscaping Products, LLC Response Brief (Blue Cover), Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC Reponse Brief (Blue Cover) a copy of Appellant’s Reply Brief (YELLOW COVER) Estate of Anthony Stevenson’s Reply Brief (Yellow Cover), and a copy of the Kentucky Court of Appeals decision rendered on December 5, 2014. The Court of Appeals decision ignores the vast majority of the Plaintiffs arguments, and instead seems to recite from the Appellees Briefs, without regard to the truthfulness of the assertions. 1. APPELLATE COURT RULING



  1. Estate of Anthony Stevenson’s – Petition for Rehearing (Green Cover)
  2. Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC -Response to Petition for Rehearing (Gray Cover)
  3. Estate of Anthony Stevenson’s Reply to Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC (Beige Cover)
  4. Clay Mohon, Individually as owner manager of Mohon Farms, Mohon Mowing, Inc. Response to Estates Petition for Rehearing (Gray Cover)
  5. M&J Landscape Products, LLC Response to Estates Petition for Rehearing (Gray cover)
  6. Mohon Tractor Sales & Service – Response to Estate’s Petition for Rehearing (Gray Cover)
  7. Estate of Anthony Stevensons Motion to Strike Untimely Reponse in alternative Reply to Appellees (Beige Cover)

Consequently, on December 23, 2014, the Appellant filed a Petition for Rehearing, [number (1) (GREEN COVER) posted above,] with the Kentucky Court of Appeals since it appears that both Courts were operating under the mistaken assumption and deliberate intent of the Appellees/Defendant to mislead both Courts regarding representation of each entity.  A summary judgment hearing was scheduled on June 3, 2013. Due to inadvertent filings by several parties the Courthouse had not yet received the Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Response or Plaintiff’s subsequent Motion to Compel. Hopkins County, Kentucky had recently built a new courthouse, and  the Plaintiff and a couple of the defendants had sent their  filings to the old mailing address.  However, at the scheduled hearing, all named Defendants acknowledged the receipt of Plaintiffs filings. 

Consequently, the Appellate Court’s opinion seems to disregard all filings of the Plaintiffs after the scheduled hearing date, but takes into account filings by the Defendants in the form of a Response or Reply to the Plaintiffs’ filings. This being one of the reasons that the Appellant filed her Petition for Rehearing. (GREEN COVER) number (1) listed above.

All attorneys representing the interest of Clay Mohon or one of his entities has responded by asserting that the Court’s Opinion was rendered after a complete and thorough review of the entire record, which includes the H-2A Visa assigned to Mohon Farms. However, if this were the case, by disregarding and ignoring evidence presented by the Plaintiff,  the Court’s published opinion, ultimately condones the Defendants fraudulent illegal employment of unsupervised/untrained immigrant farmworkers, which evaded taxes, and is part of the Defendant’s direct scheme to underbid legitimate contract employers. Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT 6 – 2011 Winning Bid for Federal DOT Contract

Furthermore, this was not the first or only year that the employer has successfully underbid on Government Contracts through his fraudulent employment of H-2A Visa Farmworkers. He has been awarded Federal Contract bids in both Tennessee and Kentucky.  In 2007 a migrant worker fraudulently employed by Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC’s mowing crew was struck and killed by a car while mowing the right-of-way.

  1. Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT 2 – Clay Mohon – MOHON FARMS -H-2A Visa App. & Federal Contract

On the January 6th, 2015 the alleged employer Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC filed a Response to Appellants Petition for Rehearing. [number (2) (GRAY COPY), posted above].  My concern is that the Appellees are still trying to play a cat-and-mouse game within their filings to the Court of Appeals. In response, the Appellant was forced to file a Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Appellees Response [number (3) (BEIGE COVER), posted above], to address the fault contained in Appellee Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC’s arguments. [number (2) (GRAY COPY), posted above].   Not to mention for the most part Defendant simply filed his original Reply Brief, attached above, and did not address any arguments raised by Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing.


A little background information about the Defendants listed in this case is necessary to better understand what exactly has taken place. The Defendant is Clay Mohon. Clay Mohon owns several companies throughout Christian County, Kentucky. The list of those companies include the named Defendants, Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC; Mohon Mowing, Inc., M&J Landscaping Products, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Mulch; and Mohon Tractor Sales and Service, LLC.

The mere fact that Mohon Farms has not existed since 2008, has not prevented Clay Mohon from filing for and obtaining H-2A Visa Farmworkers every year, and then illegally employing them within his various non-farm related entities. The H-2A Farmworker Visa application and contract is attached to (RED COVER) Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT 2 – Clay Mohon – MOHON FARMS -H-2A Visa App. & Federal Contract, [marked as EXHBIT (2) PDF pages 46-61.] As you are probably aware there are very strict government restrictions and limitations pertaining to H-2A Visa Farmworkers. Just to name a couple relevant restrictions. The Visa Farmworkers are not allowed to work for anyone other than the applicant and named entity. They are limited to the job site location listed on the application, and further restricted to working on the singular crop listed in the H-2A application by the named Employer. As you will see in [EXHIBIT (2) of the Appellant’s Brief, PDF pages 46-61] Clay Mohon of Mohon Farms, is the one who signed the ETA FORM 790. The job site location was 2310 Madisonville Road, Hopkinsville, KY 42240, and was limited to working on singular crop of tobacco.  Clay Mohon, Mohon Farms (not a legal entity) using this address as a “farm” for Federal Migrant Worker Applications

It should be noted that there is no farm at or even in the proximity to the listed job site location. In fact it is a shop/building directly off U.S. Hwy 41. This establishment has served as registered office to all the above named entities at some point in time.

Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT 6 – 2011 Winning Bid for Federal DOT Contract

Clay Mohon, applies for H-2A Visa Farmworkers to gain a competitive advantage in government contract bidding.2 In 2009, Clay Mohan Mowing, LLC, was awarded a contract bid, to mow the right-of-way on Pennyrile Parkway, in Christian, Daviess, Henderson and Hopkins County, Kentucky, in 2011. Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC, came in $76,000 less than the next highest bidder, and almost $52,000 less than the government’s Engineer’s Estimate for the project. [(RED COVER) EXHIBIT (6) of Appellant’s Brief. PDF page 73]

I represent the estate of Anthony Stevenson. Anthony was an employee of the Clay Mohon Mowing, (LLC) in August of 2011. Anthony had worked for the (LLC) for several years prior to the day of the accident. Anthony Stevenson was mowing the right of way, on the government contract with two of the H-2A Farmworkers on August 4, 2011. Anthony was mowing in between the two Mexican employees. Obviously, they were all a good distance apart from one another. As it would not make sense to have huge tractors and bush hogs mowing right on top of each other.

The tractor in front of Anthony Stevenson somehow caught on fire. The summer of 2011 was an exceptionally hot, dry and humid summer in Kentucky. Mr. Stevenson had to get off of his tractor run to help the farmworker driving in front of him put out a fire on the tractor he was driving. The farmworker driving the tractor in front of him, either didn’t have a fire extinguisher on his tractor, or couldn’t communicate its location. So Anthony had to run back and forth between the two tractors in excess heat, to get his own fire extinguisher. Not withstanding the fact that it was illegal for Clay Mohon to have his H-2A Visa Immigrant farmworkers working on the government contract, at the time of the accident, there was nobody supervising these employees, no interpreter on staff to aid in communication, no water truck present to supply water, or to offer employees breaks from the 100 plus temperatures.  Anthony Stevenson was left alone with the Mexican farmworkers, and was left with no choice but to assist and aid the Mexican farmworker in distress.  Witnesses traveling on the parkway reported that moments after Anthony returned to mowing, he was seen slumped over the wheel of his tractor. He was then thrown from his tractor, and ran over by the bush hog he was pulling behind him. His wife had to bury her husband’s remains in zip-lock bags.

The Estate did file for and received workers compensation death benefits from his employer Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC, minus 30% since Anthony Stevenson was not wearing his seat belt. Ordinarily, workers compensation would be the Estate’s only legal recourse to recoup from the employer. However, Kentucky case law and statute, allows a party to collect death benefits from worker compensation and maintain a separate cause of action against any at fault third party involved. As I am sure you are aware, an (LLC) or (Inc.) are separate entities from the individual owner. As such, any blurred lines between individual actions and actions of the business entity can subject the corporation to the possibility of losing its protection by opening up the door, to a creditor being able to pierce the corporate veil.

Furthermore, controlling Kentucky case law clearly sets out that the capacity, upon which someone is sued, is the determining factor when deciding if workers compensation exclusion protection is applicable to them. [As discussed on page (6) of Appellants Brief (RED COVER), PDF page 14, and included in Mohon Tractor Sales & Service Brief, (BLUE COVER) as Exhibit (1), PDF page 15, further recognized in the Appellate Court’s Opinion on page 15.]

  1. Appellee’s Tractor Reply Brief EXHIBIT 1 – CASE LAW JESSIE v. DERMITT

Accordingly, the Plaintiff/Appellant filed a claim for wrongful death, negligence, alter-ego, negligent hiring, supervision, and/or training; negligence of the Mexican farmworker; and vicarious liability against the Mexican Farmworkers legal employer, and the entity which owner/operated/controlled or performed maintenance on the tractors and equipment.

Plaintiff’s position from the start was that Mohon Farms was the legal employer of the Mexican Farm Workers. Therefore, Clay Mohon, Individually and of Mohon Farms is responsible for, among other things, negligence of the Mexican Farmworker, and failure to supervise them, failure to have a water truck present at the time of the accident for any of the workers, failure to train the Mexican Farmworkers, failure to offer an interpreter, negligence in working employees excessive hours, working employees under extreme hazardous working conditions, direct violations of labor laws that placed Anthony Stevenson at risk, along with countless other negligent actions.

Appelalnt’s Brief EXHIBIT 3 – Misleading Affidavit – Proof of hours – After accident Sale of Equipt.

Clay Mohon was under a strict schedule imposed by the government contract. If the mowing is not timely completed, the LLC would be assessed a penalty and be fined a daily fee. As seen by (RED COVER)  Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT 3 – Misleading Affidavit – Proof of hours – After accident Sale of Equipment.[Clay Mohon would work the farmworkers in excess of 86 plus hours a week, under extreme dry and humid conditions. The (LLC) employee who was assigned to work with the Mexican Farmworkers, also had to work the same excessive hours, under the same conditions. [See (RED COVER) Appellants Brief, Exhibit (2), where it is reported that Anival and Pedro Vargas worked 86 and 85 hours respectively, and Tony Stevenson worked 96 hours that same week.] There have been endless studies on abuse of labor laws throughout the US concerning immigrant farmworkers, which include hours worked, unreasonable pay, and extreme hazardous conditions.

At the risk of not being politically correct, it is somewhat a common perception that Mexican farmworkers are better equipped to handle working under extreme working conditions, including in excessive heat, and long exhausting hours day in and day out. This correlation is easily connected with the unemployment being at an all-time high in 2011, but still nobody was lining up to work endless hours as a farm laborer. If that was the case, the government would have no need to make H-2A Agriculture Visa’s available.

Not only are the Mexican farmworkers thankful to be in America and employed, the employer does not have to pay them federal overtime wages or pay employer taxes, so he can essentially work them as long as he chooses. They are not going to raise any concerns regarding any dissatisfaction with the working conditions. They are not going to complain about working with no breaks, and without a water truck being present. Thus, Clay Mohon directly placed Anthony Stevenson at risk, simply by employing untrained, unsupervised Mexican Farmworkers with him on the same job site and essentially making Mr. Stevenson conform to the same unreasonable labor conditions he illegally employs on his farm workers. Including, his refusal to pay Mr. Stevenson federal overtime.

Now that you have a little background information, I will attempt to tell you how it played out with the Court proceedings. By law the only legal entity who was entitled to workers compensation exclusion protection was Clay Mohon Mowing, (LLC), Anthony Stevenson’s legal employer.

As previously stated, the victim’s wife still possessed a legal claim against any possible third party entity. In the present case that would have included, the entity or individual who owned /operated / controlled / or performed maintenance on the tractors and equipment that were being used by the deceased and the Mexican Farmworkers. Likewise, since the Mexican Farmworkers were not legally employed by Clay Mohon Mowing, (LLC), the estate had a valid claim against Clay Mohon, Individually, and as manager or owner of Mohon Farms. So the case primarily boiled down to these two issues.

Within a month of the Plaintiff/Appellant filing her complaint, all named Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss / Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that the claim should be dismissed in its entirety, because all named parties were entitled to the protection afforded by workers compensation exclusion provision. After a hearing on the Defendants Motion to Dismiss/ Summary Judgment, the Court ruled against the Defendants stating that the Plaintiff has stated a cause of action, and should be given an opportunity to conduct discovery to develop her proof.

The Plaintiff/Appellant then sent out discovery request to all named Defendants, and responded to the Defendants discovery request. It should be noted that the deceased legal employer, Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC, never responded to Plaintiff’s discovery request. Instead chose to send Plaintiff’s Counsel the attached condescending letter to arrogantly mock the Plaintiff’s cause of action.

As for the other named Defendants. Despite the fact that both M&J Landscaping, LLC, d/b/a as Mr. Mulch, and Mohon Tractor Sales and Service, LLC, were both given an independent opportunity to sign an agreed release from the case, simply by signing their own Affidavit setting out the following provisions:

  1. Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing – EXHIBIT 4- Letter from Tractor two days before SJ renewal
  2. Appellant’s REPLY Brief EXHIBIT 2 – Email with Tractor Sales & Service – knowledge of FOIA Request
  3. Email Correspondence with M&J for agreed release
  • That the named entity didn’t employ the Mexican Farmworkers;
  • That the named entity didn’t have any interest in the DOT Government Contract;
  • That the named entity didn’t own/ maintain/ control / operate or have any legal interest in the tractors or equipment being used by the deceased or Mexican Farmworkers on the day of the accident; and
  • That the named entity maintained separate books and accounting from all other entities, and keeps all assets separate and apart from Clay Mohan, Individual assets.

Both M&J Landscaping, and Tractor Sales and Service both refused to sign their own release, and attempted to rely on two misleading, self-serving affidavits filed by Clay Mohon, Individually, and as owner/manager of Mohon Farms, and Mohon Mowing, Incorporated. [The Circuit Court and the Appellate Court’s reliance on these two Affidavits was unjustly misplaced, and is discussed in great detail in [(GREEN COVER), Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing]

Clay Mohon, legal owner and manager of all named entities has purchased multiple insurance policies for each entity that contain millions of dollars in coverage on each and comprehensive coverage. [(RED COVER) Appellants Brief, Exhibit (1), PDF page 41-46] The insurance policies purchased by Clay Mohon, on behalf of his entities has allowed him to employ four separate law firms, and 5-6 different attorneys on the case alone. Instead of signing their own release, the Defendants all worked in unison and employed a very successful cat and mouse game within their filings, orchestrated to mislead and confuse both Circuit Court, and the Appellate Court. [(GREEN COVER) Appellants Petition for Rehearing, Exhibit (2), PDF page 42] Petition for Rehearing discusses in greater detail, and Exhibit (2), DOCKET Sheet clearly shows that the Circuit Court was in fact misled by their filings and actions.

  1.  Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing – EXHIBIT 2 – Circuit Court Docket for SJ Hearing

During discovery, the Plaintiff specifically requested the I-9’s, copy of H-2A Visas, and 2011 W-2s of the Mexican Farmworkers. Along with copies of checks and proof of endorsement, written to the named Mexican Farmworkers. As noted, the legal employer of the deceased (LLC), never responded. Other named entities asserted lack of personal information to respond. Yet one day after the scheduled hearing on the Defendant’s Second Summary Judgment motion, Mr. Mulch, a.k.a. M&J Landscaping, faxed the two Mexican Farmworkers Visa to the (LLC). The Visa clearly shows that the names given for the two Mexican Farmworkers were in fact H-2A Visa, Farmworkers for Clay Mohan of Mohon Farms. [(RED COVER) Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT (7) – H-2A Visa’s issued to Mohon Farms for Anival and Pedro Vargus

Plaintiff informed both Mohon Tractor Sales & Service, and M&J Landscaping Products that she was waiting to schedule Clay Mohon’s deposition until after she received immigration documents pertaining to Mr. Mohon. Since the Defendants all failed to produce the requested documents, Plaintiff was forced to seek them through a Freedom of Information Request. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST  Within days of being made aware of this request, Defendants began to immediately file a second motion for summary judgment to circumvent the Plaintiff from receiving the proper immigration papers that would validate and establish proof in the Plaintiffs cause of action. [(YELLOW COVER) Appellants Reply Brief, Exhibit (2)], Appellant’s REPLY Brief EXHIBIT 2 – Email with Tractor Sales & Service – knowledge of FOIA Request .

Plaintiff was then forced to file a Motion to Compel, seeking the documents from the Defendants prior to the Court granting them summary judgment. The Court’s Order and Court of Appeal, ultimately ruled that Plaintiff had enough time to develop their proof, despite the fact that the Defendants were uncooperative at best, and were playing a cat and mouse game to mislead the Court. [The Circuit Court’s Judgment and Order, is included in Appellant’s Brief, (RED COVER)]

  1. Hopkins County Circuit Ct Order & Docket Sheet

[The first part of Appellant’s Brief (RED COVER), discusses in detail how the exclusive remedy protection is not applicable to any of the parties except the deceased legal employer, (LLC). The second part of the Appellant’s Brief discusses how the Mexican Farmworker was not a co-employee of the deceased, nor would he be classified as a “loaned servant.”]

Along with the claims previously asserted against Mexican farm workers and their legal employer, there remained an issue of ownership/ maintenance/ control of the tractors. [(YELLOW COVER) Appellant’s Reply Brief, EXHIBIT (2), PDF page 22,] shows that the Tractors were purchased by Clay Mohon, Individually, and not by the (LLC).  The one and only document that the defendants attempted to use to support the position that the (LLC) owned the tractors, was a sales invoice three months after the fatal accident from Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC, to a company called Asset Protection. Asset Protection was not even a registered entity at the time of the accident, but the name should speak for itself. It is a company whose sole purpose is to help other entities protect their assets. So basically an after accident sales receipt being used to establish ownership, but all other documentations prior to the accident reveal the equipment was owned by the Clay Mohon, Individually.

Like most states, Kentucky has a strict standard for summary judgment. Summary Judgment should not be granted unless it appears there is no genuine issue of material facts.3 The trial court must consider the evidence in light most favorable to the Plaintiff and grant summary judgment only if the Plaintiff could not possibly produce evidence at trial to warrant a favorable judgment, and all doubts in a motion for summary judgment are to be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.4

One of the most insulting part of the Court’s ruling, is that both Courts ignored the fact that the Defendants faxed the H-2A Farm Visa’s that the Plaintiff had been requesting all along, one day after the scheduled hearing. Summary judgment standard requires that it only be granted if the Plaintiff could not possibly produce evidence at trial to warrant judgment in their favor.

  1. Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT 7 – H-2A Visa’s issued to Mohon Farms for Anival and Pedro Vargus

So essentially, the Court unknowingly allowed the Defendants to circumvent the Plaintiff from completing discovery, in doing so it ultimately condoned the Defendants deliberate actions to conceal the legal employment of the H-2A Mexican Farmworkers and denied the Plaintiff her right to sue a third party defendant. Clay Mohon, Individually as owner/manager of Mohon Farms, as the federal contractual legal employer of the H-2A Mexican Farmworkers, is a third party defendant. Furthermore, the published Opinion of the Court of Appeals asserts multiple times the Appellant failed to rebut the evidence concerning the legal employer of the Mexican Farmworkers, and that the proof of record establishes that Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC, was the legal employer of the Mexican farmworkers, despite the fact that the Appellant directly attached the H-2A Visas which were issued to Clay Mohon, of Mohon Farms. Appellant’s Brief EXHIBIT 7 – H-2A Visa’s issued to Mohon Farms for Anival and Pedro Vargus

It should also be noted that for some reason, the Appellant Court only received every other page of the Plaintiff’s deposition. Thus, a great deal of the Court’s ruling concerning the Plaintiffs deposition has been taken out of context and seems to make the Appellant look like a babbling idiot. The missing pages was only discovered after the Appellate Court’s Ruling. Estate of Anthony Stevenson’s – Petition for Rehearing (Green Cover)     Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing – EXHIBIT 3 – Missing Deposition Pages   


The Appellate Court’s Opinion, ultimately ruled against the Plaintiff, stating the proof of record establishes that the Mexican Farm Workers were employed by Clay Mohon Mowing, (LLC.) The Court based their entire decision on two affidavits that were actually filed by Clay Mohon himself.  The attorney that represented Clay Mohon, Individually, and of the FARM, filed an extremely deceptive affidavit entitled, SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF CLAY MOHON. MANAGER OF CLAY MOHON MOWING, LLC. [Estate of Anthony Stevenson – Appellant’s Brief (Red Cover) Minus Exhibits) [Appellant’s Brief, EXHIBIT (3), ] Appelalnt’s Brief EXHIBIT 3 – Misleading Affidavit – Proof of hours – After accident Sale of Equipment.


As discussed thoroughly in Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing, Clay Mohon’s individual attorney and attorney for Mohon Farms further attempted to confuse the Court within all of his filings, by always placing Mohon Farms, and Clay Mohon Mowing, LLC on the same line to imply that the same attorney represented Mohon Farms, and the (LLC.) The Defendants cat and mouse game to confuse is discussed in great detail in Appellants Petition for Rehearing, (GREEN COVER) and in Appellant’s Reply to Appellees Response. (BEIGE COVER)

During the course of the Circuit Court Action, all named Defendants stuck together, and even refused to sign independent releases which would have allowed them off of the case. They all purposefully failed and refused to address arguments raised by the Plaintiff/Appellant. As if to say, we don’t acknowledge the argument concerning the fraudulent employment of the Mexican Farmworkers, and the risk created by such, it doesn’t exist.

However, within their Reply briefs to the Appellate Court, they no longer asserted unity, but instead stated that “this Defendant is not a proper party.” Whereas the attorney who represented Clay Mohon, of Mohon Farms, failed to mention his representation of Mohon Farms within his conclusion, and further attempted to confuse the court by asserting that the issue regarding these named Defendants was whether workers compensation exclusion bars any claims against them.

I feel this story could be used to show the extreme impact of ignoring and ultimately condoning what is happening not only in your state but other states as well. All of a sudden millions of immigrants will be available for legal hire, and if there is any truth to the perception that immigrants are harder workers in certain industries, and are less likely to complain regarding working conditions, the end result will be American Citizens losing jobs to immigrants, or have to conform and except labor law violations and unnecessary safety risk. Obviously, due to language and education barriers, this notion may only play out, and be apparent in blue collar labor positions, but regardless it will still have a negative impact.

It should also go without saying that the H-2A Mexican Farmworkers illegally working for the Appellee Clay Mohon, are very much aware of the federal immigration laws and limitations applicable to their visas and legal employment in the United States. Amnesty would afford these individuals a get out of jail free card for violation of federal laws, and for stealing jobs from Americans. This is the equivalent of Obama waking up one morning and choosing to pardon anyone who ever engaged in illegal activity, and ultimately expunging their records.

Without question the Defendant, Clay Mohan, intentionally defrauded American taxpayers, and legitimate contract bidders, in pursuit of personal financial gain, which ultimately creating unnecessary risk to Anthony Stevenson that wound up costing him his life.

Please note this is my attempt at briefing three years of litigation, and trying to summarize years of attorney deception and manipulation to deceive the Courts and conceal immigration fraud, tax evasion and countless labor violations that essentially cost the life of my client’s husband.

Please feel free to share this with anyone other Senators, Congressman, and especially media outlets that you feel would assist in shedding light on the overall negative impact of President Obama’s Executive action and granting of amnesty, and ultimate refusal to enforce existing immigration laws.


Again, as previously asserted, Appellant has no way of knowing why the Court’s ruled the way they did. By all implication it does appear that the Circuit Court was operating under a misconception concerning legal representation of Clay Mohon, Individually, and of each entity. Likewise, it appears the Appellate Court might have inappropriately issued a cut off date concerning what evidence would be considered as part of the record. In any event if the attorneys for Clay Mohon is correct, and the entire records was considered by the Court of Appeals, they must have overlooked the Federal H-2A Contract under the name Clay Mohon of Mohon Farms, and the attached H-2A Farm Visas issued to the alleged named unknown Mexican Farmworkers at the job site with Anthony Stevenson. 

  1. Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing – EXHIBIT 2 – Circuit Court Docket for SJ Hearing

It has been said that Immigration will be a make or break issue in the upcoming elections for 2015, and presidential election in 2016. Obviously, the Democratic Party recognizes this, and is simply trying to regain control under the guise of amnesty and everyone’s right to citizenship. For some reason nobody ever seems to question the underlying political purpose, and ulterior motives that is the driving force behind our Nation’s most controversial issues. It’s much easier to debate the pros and cons, than to acknowledge and question whose underling political agenda is being served. But if I learned anything in life, it is that common sense is not that common.

Should you have any questions while reviewing the material, feel free to contact me in the daytime at my office number: (270) 889-1709, or by


Thanks again for even taking the time to review the information. I know it’s a lot to go through. I really appreciate your willingness to even read over it.

Kayce Powell

Attorney at Law

Illinois & Kentucky

OFFICE: (270) 889-1709


Contact Mrs. Powell



Related News

  • Local Mother and Grandmother, warns Meth Beware!
  • Obama Offers Firms 3 Grand to Hire Illegal Workers!
  • Confessions of an RX Drug Pusher
  • ASPARTAME: Toxic GMO, FDA Serves it to you!
  • Criminal charges filed against Duke Energy « Appalachian Voices
  • AMNESTY: The Real Victims of Ignoring Immigration Laws – Financial Gain Through Fraudulent Employment – All On Taxpayers Dime
  • House Votes to Sell Sacred Apache Lands to International Mining Corporation
  • %d bloggers like this: