The Supreme Court will hear argument in Briscoe v. Virginia on January 11, 2010, a case revisiting the need for live testimony when introducing lab reports established by Melendez-Diaz. Prof. Richard Friedman, who writes the Confrontation Blog will argue for the defense. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer's amicus brief was co-authored by a Washington PDS lawyer and Jeffrey Fisher, who argued Melendez-Diaz and Crawford v. Washington and in the "our rock stars are different than your rock stars" vein, is probably the Mick Jagger of appellate advocacy.
So what's the difference between the ink-barely-dry Melendez-Diaz and Briscoe? Justice Sotomayor, for one. There are other differences, but that may be the one that counts. As the New York Times points out here, we'll soon find out what Justice Sotomayor thinks about the right to confrontation.
Chủ Nhật, 20 tháng 12, 2009
Mandatory Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) and NY DWI
Well Friday, December 18, 2009 was a historic day. It was the first day that the "new" New York DWI laws took effect. It was thirty days from Governor Paterson's signing, and Ithaca City Court Judge Kerrigan mandated the first case of the day, my DWI case, with a sentence of a conditional discharge (one year - no new trouble ie. crimes), and a Ignition Interlock Device to be imposed for six months. This of course was in addition to the fines, NYS surcharge, mandated DDP (drinking driver program), and a one time VIP (Victim Impact Panel) for March 31, 2010.
The IID is not discretionary for NYS DWIs, it is Mandatory since August, 2010.
All DWI convictions, whether for VTL DWI "per se" with a BAC .08 or higher, 1192 (2), or
VTL Aggravated DWI with a BAC .18 or higher, 1192 (2) (a), or VTL DWI "common law" 1192 (3) with no BAC will now have the mandatory imposition of a six month IID on their vehicles.
The applicable section of the new act is below:
(ii) In addition to the imposition of any fine or period of imprisonment set forth in this paragraph, the court shall also sentence such person convicted of a violation of subdivision two, two-a or three of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article to a period of probation or conditional discharge, as a condition of which it shall order such person to install and maintain, in accordance with the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-eight of this article, an ignition interlock device in any motor vehicle owned or operated by such person during the term of such probation or conditional discharge imposed for such violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article and in no event for less than six months. Provided, however, the court may not authorize the operation of a motor vehicle by any person whose license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been revoked pursuant to the provisions of this section.
Information on Ignition Interlock Devices and/or installation / service centers, contact:
Ron Bergstrom
Community Corrections Rep I
NYS DPCA
80 Wolf Road, Suite 501
Albany, NY 12205
518 485-9941 or: Ron.bergstrom@dpca.state.ny.us
Company Websites and more information:
INTERCEPTOR IGNITION INTERLOCK INC.
(www.interceptorusa.com)
SENS-O-LOCK DETERMINATOR
(www.sens-o-lock.com)
INTOXALOCK BY CST, Inc. (call 877 777-5020)
(www.intoxalock.com)
DRAEGER SAFETY, INC.
(www.draeger-breathalyzer.com)
NATIONAL INTERLOCK SERVICE
Telephone For All: 1 800 871-5462 or (www.nationalinterlock.com)
SMART START
(www.smartstartinc.com)
There are a lot of problems with these devices in general. I will compare and discuss the various devices in future blogs as to reliability and ease of use.
2012 Update to IID BASICS or the Most Common FAQs
1. Is an IID a Must or a Should have?
The IID is not discretionary for NYS DWIs, it is Mandatory since August, 2010.
The Judges and the District Attorneys have no leeway or power here, if is a DWI (VTL 1192 (2), VTL 1192 (3), or ADWI (VTL 1192 (a) (a) then a device MUST be installed within 10 days of sentencing.
Bottom Line: There is NO plea bargaining concerning IIDs.
2. What if I live in another state?
It does not matter if you live in NYS or someplace else, you will have to get it installed. So if you live in PA, TX, or CA expect to hunt down an IID provider location, and then they will report back to the county monitor in NYS every 30 days. many of these IID providers have National Support. If you plan on moving (relocating) then plan on continuing monitoring as well. As long as the County Monitor is kept informed and updated it should not be a problem. The device must be downloaded at a physical location every 30 days.
Download times run 5 to 15 minutes. Some places can come out to your car with a handheld downloader.
I have not had the issue with "Out of the Country" (Foreign) License Holders unless they desired NYS privileges. My Canadian Clients end up with far worse consequences from their own country.
3. Could you just say (tell the Court) that you don't have (own) a car?
You could but it is still on your NYS DMV record, a hold will be in place by the county monitor (will be seen in any other state). With this new thing called the internet, and a National Registry of licenses:
When you apply for a license or renew an existing license then they will run your record. If it shows up with a serious driving offense, like a DWI or DUI then the system is alerted. Your license (or driving privilege) in NYS will remain revoked UNTIL it is lifted by the County IID Monitor. If you choose NOT to comply with the NYS Court Ordered IID then other states will not give you (or renew) driving privileges either.
All Motor Vehicle Associations must check you under Federal Law 23 CFR 1327.5(b)(1).
4. What if You really don't Own a car?
It still remains on your NYS record, and the National Database as a revoked privilege/license. I have had clients have to borrow or buy cars to fulfill the Court obligation. They had a rental car, and were merely visiting NYS when they received a DWI. A Court Order is a Mandatory Obligation. It cannot be argued that you are in an unreasonable situation. In fact, a North Carolina client had to figure a way to get their car to a state with IID providers because North Carolina has none. When I spoke to NYS DMV they just shrugged it off, not a perfect law by any stretch of the imagination. It has a great many issues with practical application in a day and age where people frequently travel, relocate, and are city dwellers.
5. Can it be installed prior to the Court's sentencing?
You "may" be able to get it installed BUT most places (providers) will NOT install it without the Court documents/final Court Order.
6. Are there differences between the units (IIDs)?
For sentences of a CD (Conditional Discharge) which is lieu of Probation and/or Jail, the Tompkins County Monitor has only been requiring a Class I (lowest level device). This one is the least expensive, and has NO camera. Higher level and naturally more costly devices have cameras to take your picture when blowing.
In Tompkins County, Probation sentences require the Class 3 device (with Camera) for the three year probation term.
7. Where Can I get one (an IID) in Tompkins County?
In Tompkins County we have three main providers:
1. Route 366 and Route 13 next to AAA Motor Club, Autowerks (carries Smartstart IID vendor)
2. Highway Hi Fi, on Route 13 across from Papa John's Pizza Plaza.
3. Hunt's Auto service, Intoxalock Vendor, a little across from Tompkins Trust off Route 13.
Smart start was offering a free install, as an incentive, But I prefer the Intoxalock to avoid problems with the device's operation.
8. How do I get One installed?
You just call and say you need an IID, they will schedule you. Bring the final Court Order. Takes about an hour or less to install. Camera IIDs take longer because of the camera placement.
9. What else Must I do when installing the IID?
You must contact the County Monitor within 3 days of sentencing. It may be a different person if you are on a term of Probation versus receiving a CD (Conditional Discharge). Generally the minimum term for the device is 6 months, but some Judges place it on for 12 months or longer, even for a CD. All misdemeanor Probation terms are for three years.
The contact name and number for the Tompkins county IID monitor:
Michelle Barber: Phone: 607-274-5461
Fax: 607-274-5429
Email: mbarber@tompkins-co.org
10. What Should I be aware of when installing the IID?
My Warnings:
1. If the car that is getting the install has issues (mechanical and/or electrical) with the following it "can" affect the function of the device:
low battery
alternator voltage
defective horn
untimed engine
frequent stalling
Check the car out throughly before it gets this device installed. People that do not (screen and fix) or place it upon a junker are not usually happy because the device will malfunction. This can then provide the monitor with false readings of intoxication.
2. Do not drink the night before you drive, or else the device may be triggered from alcohol still in your system (body).
WARNING: A BAC of .05 is an automatic Serious Violation/Failure that will require a Court Appearance.
3. Do not use cologne, perfume, mouth wash, toothpaste, mints while in the car or with anything that could trigger the device
11. How is the device set up and used?
The unit is calibrated for up to .25 BAC before it triggers but that said I would not rely upon that as a number because your body naturally produces some alcohol.
-the unit will demand a start up test
-then an initial rolling test (within a random interval ranging from 5 - 15 minutes)
-subsequent rolling tests, not to exceed 30 minutes
They will (the installer) give you more information, these are merely some highlights.
12. What if I am in found in Violation?
A violation of a CD will result in your being re-sentenced by the Court. The matter can be re-opened, you can receive jail time, you can receive three years of probation, you can receive a longer term for the IID to be in place.
Law Offices of Lawrence Newman
Lawrence (Larry) Newman, D.C., Esq.
Doctor of Chiropractic
Attorney and Counselor at Law
504 North Aurora Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-229-5184
Thứ Bảy, 19 tháng 12, 2009
Knee-jerk Positive Thinking Is A Mental Disorder
In her new book "Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America", social critic Barbara Ehrenreich lays out how an epidemic of postive American thinking from the Iraq War to the build up to the recent financial collapse has led to misery and brought us nearly to the brink of economic collapse.
Ehrenreich recently noted that, "two weeks ago, I was in Fort Wayne, Indiana, at a meeting where people who were about to be laid off told their stories. A woman next to me said that when her unemployment insurance runs out, she'll live in her car. Then, another woman said, 'Well, we have to remember to be positive, and that means don't watch the news, don't read the newspaper, just concentrate.'"
There is no shortage of postive thinking delusion when it comes to the law school scam. The Wall Street Journal for example did a front page story not long ago questioning the integrity of the post graduate career statistics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. When it comes to delusion, facts and statistics apparently don't matter. Just last week the ass clown career center dean of the law school (Graham Sherr) gave a presentation to the unsuspecting 1L's in which he stated, "there are more jobs than there are of you, but you have to shun bitterness; bitterness is ugly." He then proceeded to demonstrate how positive delusional thinking would somehow reach out and magically bend the supply curve in the legal marketplace. Apparently, it worked because several minutes later the same fraudulent, puffed up career stat numbers that were criticized in the WSJ piece magically appeared on the overhead screen.
Thứ Sáu, 18 tháng 12, 2009
Labaton Suckaroo - Scrooge Of The Year
"Dear Tom,
I nominate Labaton Suckaroo for the Scrooge of the season award. I worked for them at their offsite Merrill Corp hellhole earlier this year and I blogged about the infamous Blondie who was the team leader at the site. I managed to find something else, but I have some friends who are still working on the same Countrywide project back at Labaton’s headquarters downtown. They related the following to me: Labaton promised their temps, who they made short temp attorney employees, benefits after six months of service. Last week, they were called into a meeting on their six-month anniversary and told by a nasty personnel troll that they would not be receiving their paid vacation that had accrued or be paid for company holidays, Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, for this year. Some of these short term attorney employees had already planned vacation days over Christmas and got it approved, but now were told that you are not getting paid for it and that you are not getting paid for the company holidays either, and it’s too bad if you made plans. Lousy Labaton postponed all benefits until 2010 in order to avoid paying their employees for Christmas.
You can imagine what this has done for morale in a situation where they expect their short-term attorneys to build a plaintiff’s case in a multi million-dollar lawsuit against Countrywide, which was acquired by Bank of America. This is not mere document review. They expect their ex temps to do substantive work for $32 an hour flat while temps who are doing the same work, but representing a co-counsel on the same case at Labaton are making $45 an hour. Also, they recently blocked Internet access because the sleazy Guliani type COO came down and observed a few people on the Internet; apparently the same greaseball was instrumental in stopping Christmas pay.
Well, I guess Labaton Suckaroo is following in the great tradition of other ambulance chasing plaintiff firms like Paul Weiss and Milberg Weiss. I suggest you also put Labaton Sucharoo in your hall of shame. I know that they are very conscious of their image, as Paul Weiss was when you embarrassed them before, and they do monitor this blog. Thanks for providing this forum to expose the hypocrisy and abuse of these toilet law firms. I know that your blog does make a difference; Blondie almost got fired last time.
All the best!"
I nominate Labaton Suckaroo for the Scrooge of the season award. I worked for them at their offsite Merrill Corp hellhole earlier this year and I blogged about the infamous Blondie who was the team leader at the site. I managed to find something else, but I have some friends who are still working on the same Countrywide project back at Labaton’s headquarters downtown. They related the following to me: Labaton promised their temps, who they made short temp attorney employees, benefits after six months of service. Last week, they were called into a meeting on their six-month anniversary and told by a nasty personnel troll that they would not be receiving their paid vacation that had accrued or be paid for company holidays, Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, for this year. Some of these short term attorney employees had already planned vacation days over Christmas and got it approved, but now were told that you are not getting paid for it and that you are not getting paid for the company holidays either, and it’s too bad if you made plans. Lousy Labaton postponed all benefits until 2010 in order to avoid paying their employees for Christmas.
You can imagine what this has done for morale in a situation where they expect their short-term attorneys to build a plaintiff’s case in a multi million-dollar lawsuit against Countrywide, which was acquired by Bank of America. This is not mere document review. They expect their ex temps to do substantive work for $32 an hour flat while temps who are doing the same work, but representing a co-counsel on the same case at Labaton are making $45 an hour. Also, they recently blocked Internet access because the sleazy Guliani type COO came down and observed a few people on the Internet; apparently the same greaseball was instrumental in stopping Christmas pay.
Well, I guess Labaton Suckaroo is following in the great tradition of other ambulance chasing plaintiff firms like Paul Weiss and Milberg Weiss. I suggest you also put Labaton Sucharoo in your hall of shame. I know that they are very conscious of their image, as Paul Weiss was when you embarrassed them before, and they do monitor this blog. Thanks for providing this forum to expose the hypocrisy and abuse of these toilet law firms. I know that your blog does make a difference; Blondie almost got fired last time.
All the best!"
Thứ Tư, 16 tháng 12, 2009
Can you hear me now?
On 12/15/09 in People v Wrotten (a name that works), the Court of Appeals, relying on People v Cintron (75 NY2d 249 [1990]) held that permitting an adult complainant living in another state to testify via real-time, two-way video after finding that because of age and poor health he was unable to travel to New York to attend court was within the trial court's inherent powers under Judiciary Law § 2-b, absent any specific statutory authority for such procedure.
The majority elides over the substantial impairment to the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause that must necessarily result from attempting to cross-examine a witness who is watching the process on T.V.; roughly equivalent to trying to hit a marshmallow out of the new Yankee Stadium (even over the short wall). By contrast, Judge Smith in dissent, while not using that analogy exactly, gets the point across:
"The right of confrontation includes -- indeed, is, at its core -- the right to meet one's accuser face to face (Coy v Iowa, 487 US 1012, 1016 [1988]). Neither our Court nor the United States Supreme Court has held, and I would not now hold, that a two-way-television encounter is "face to face" in this sense. The assumption underlying the constitutional right of confrontation is that a witness brought into the presence of the accused will be less likely to swear to a false accusation, or to do so convincingly (id. at 1019). The point of confrontation is thus the psychological effect it has on the witness. That effect is, beyond question, substantially diluted when, though the witness and the accused can see each other, the witness knows that the accused is far away. I therefore conclude that defendant in this case was not permitted to "confront" her accuser in the constitutional sense . . ."
Judge Jones, also in dissent, notes that absent any legislative authority that would explicitly provide for the procedure used here, the majority essentially manufactures some extra trial court authority out of whole cloth, noting that "the majority's view of the courts' inherent powers presents a number of problems . . . there does not appear to be any discernible limitation, within the inherent powers of the courts, on a court's authority to allow the admission of an absent witness's televised testimony as long as it is 'necessary to carry into effect the powers and jurisdiction possessed by [the court]' . . . what happens when individual courts, on similar facts, reach different conclusions as to whether to allow the admission of televised testimony or some other subject pertaining to the state's public policy? . . . it appears that the majority's ruling effectively circumscribes the Legislature's role by allowing trial courts to . . . create procedural rules for the sole purpose of allowing prosecutions to proceed (in direct contravention to state law)."
Another case of bad facts making bad law. The 85 year old complainant in this case was in ill health and unable to travel to the trial. Judge Jones proposed the remedy of a pretrial deposition, a solution that either didn't occur to the trial court, or couldn't be swallowed (who wants be known as the judge who let an attorney cross-examine a witness to death?) So the appellate result is an amorphous, undefinable, boundry-less "I'll know it when I see it"-like legal standard.
The majority elides over the substantial impairment to the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause that must necessarily result from attempting to cross-examine a witness who is watching the process on T.V.; roughly equivalent to trying to hit a marshmallow out of the new Yankee Stadium (even over the short wall). By contrast, Judge Smith in dissent, while not using that analogy exactly, gets the point across:
"The right of confrontation includes -- indeed, is, at its core -- the right to meet one's accuser face to face (Coy v Iowa, 487 US 1012, 1016 [1988]). Neither our Court nor the United States Supreme Court has held, and I would not now hold, that a two-way-television encounter is "face to face" in this sense. The assumption underlying the constitutional right of confrontation is that a witness brought into the presence of the accused will be less likely to swear to a false accusation, or to do so convincingly (id. at 1019). The point of confrontation is thus the psychological effect it has on the witness. That effect is, beyond question, substantially diluted when, though the witness and the accused can see each other, the witness knows that the accused is far away. I therefore conclude that defendant in this case was not permitted to "confront" her accuser in the constitutional sense . . ."
Judge Jones, also in dissent, notes that absent any legislative authority that would explicitly provide for the procedure used here, the majority essentially manufactures some extra trial court authority out of whole cloth, noting that "the majority's view of the courts' inherent powers presents a number of problems . . . there does not appear to be any discernible limitation, within the inherent powers of the courts, on a court's authority to allow the admission of an absent witness's televised testimony as long as it is 'necessary to carry into effect the powers and jurisdiction possessed by [the court]' . . . what happens when individual courts, on similar facts, reach different conclusions as to whether to allow the admission of televised testimony or some other subject pertaining to the state's public policy? . . . it appears that the majority's ruling effectively circumscribes the Legislature's role by allowing trial courts to . . . create procedural rules for the sole purpose of allowing prosecutions to proceed (in direct contravention to state law)."
Another case of bad facts making bad law. The 85 year old complainant in this case was in ill health and unable to travel to the trial. Judge Jones proposed the remedy of a pretrial deposition, a solution that either didn't occur to the trial court, or couldn't be swallowed (who wants be known as the judge who let an attorney cross-examine a witness to death?) So the appellate result is an amorphous, undefinable, boundry-less "I'll know it when I see it"-like legal standard.
Ten Years After - DNA and delayed prosecution
Extending the ability to belatedly prosecute cases where defendants are identifiable by DNA only, in People v. Ramon Ramos (12/15/09) the Court of Appeals held that "The prosecution was not barred by the five-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPL 30.10(2)(b). Although the indictment was nearly 10 years after the incident, defendant's whereabouts were 'continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable,' despite the reasonable diligence of the detectives assigned to the case, until his DNA profile from the rape kit taken from the victim was matched to DNA evidence taken from defendant pursuant to a subsequent incarceration (CPL 30.10 [4][a][ii]; see also Executive Law §§ 995 [7], 995-c [3]; People v Seda, 93 NY2d 307, 311 [1999]; People v Brown, __ NY3d __, 2009 Slip Op 08475 [2009]).
Defendant's belated claim that the extension of the statute of limitation violated ex post facto considerations was not preserved below. Personally, I'm a little jealous of anyone who can put together a 10-year unbroken stretch with their whereabouts "continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable." That's a lot of time in the wind.
Defendant's belated claim that the extension of the statute of limitation violated ex post facto considerations was not preserved below. Personally, I'm a little jealous of anyone who can put together a 10-year unbroken stretch with their whereabouts "continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable." That's a lot of time in the wind.
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System
The judges and their colleagues in the New York State Unified Court System are operating under the umbrella of "absolute immunity" in order to rob and harass you and convert your property to their ownership. Dont fool yourself into thinking that anyone in the State legislature doesn't know this is happening, and wants to do anything about it. You just have to outsmart them all by documenting everything, like I did. I may not win my lawsuit against them in Federal Court, but I now have the intervenors/conspirators online for the public to see how it all works. Please share this information. Betsy Combier
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them. Part I
LINK
People are being victimized by the courts of America's "justice system" every day, often without knowing anything until it is too late, and you are left without your property, family member and/or child. Judges threaten lawyers - the people who are being paid by you to defend you and protect your interests - and make the Attorneys facing the Court do what "they" - the judges and their political partners - want, and work with the "fixer" to steal property, take children, and plunder estates for personal gain. I know what 'they' do, because when my church - Madison Avenue Presbyterian, ("MAPC") in New York City - came after me in 1998 after my mom's death, I was an innocent victim of a collusion so powerful, I almost died in the hospital on July 21 2006. However, I did survive, and I am now helping any person who is harassed/victimized/harmed by this conspiracy of harm in our nation's courts.
Fred Anderson
When my mother died during the night March 15-16 1998, I had no idea that my church, the New York City Presbytery, and the Judges and courts of New York State would collaborate on an eleven-year campaign to defame and harass me for researching their organized conspiracy to commit extortion and coercion and for being named, in my mom's Will, the beneficiary of my mother's apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York City. The Surrogate's Court in New York City is located at 31 Chambers Street. The Public Administrator's office is on the fourth floor, while the Surrogate Judges - Interim Acting Judge Troy Webber and Judge Kristen Glen - are on the fifth floor of this building. Their jobs are to convert property from your ownership to theirs, and take whatever cash is available through altering Wills and/or outright theft of property. I call this a form of Court-supported eminent domain policy. Since 1998 I have been subjected to this gang, all of whom are now named in my Federal Lawsuit, and I have documented all of their actions and conversations. In New York State it is the law that anyone can tape anyone else without telling the person who is being taped, if you are in the conversation. When Mary Santamarina, the senior Attorney for the Surrogate Judge (Renee R. Roth) in the law department at 31 Chambers Street, started calling me up with lawyer Kenneth Wasserman, the man who has made all the errors for the past eleven years while carrying the burden of making the RICO work, I turned on my tape recorder. I guess you could say that the intervenors picked the wrong person to make into a victim. I may die before getting any relief, but I wont die a victim.
Santamarina and Wasserman threatened me, screamed at me, and tried their very best to alter my reality. I didnt fall for it. A man named "Bill Jorgenson" from Eliot Spitzer's office called me and did the same thing. I wouldn't fall for that either. But it wasnt easy, and when Judge Roth ordered my mother's last Will out of existence on July 21, 2006, my heart failed and I spent three days in the hospital as the doctors tried to get my heart back on track. Fortunately for me and you, the general public, they were successful, so that I can bring this story to the internet and, if something does happen to me, the people involved can be held accountable for setting up the RICO of the New York State Unified Court System.
Background
MAPC was unionized when my mom and I started helping the building staff in 1994. However, the Pastor, Dr. Fred Anderson, was harassing the building staff in order to bust the Union, Local 32 B&J and remove the union from the church. Additionally, the Trustees of MAPC were engaged in using the church property to finance real estate deals for "political friends" (both members and non-members of the church) with Mr. Gregory Moundas of the law firm Proskauer Rose. A Partner at Proskauer, the late Stephen Rachow Kaye, was the husband of the Chief Judge of New York State, Judith Kaye, arguably the single most powerful person in the State of New York. This really is the perfect crime. Due to the Establishment Clause in our Constitution, there is a separation of church and state in America that works for some, but not others, in putting religious institutions above and outside of the law (whenever it suits "them"). My mom, Julia Taschereau, understood that the Church that she donated her life to was the perpetrator of theft, false claims, and crimes against the public, so she kept her volunteer job at MAPC for more than 49 years, telling me everything that was going on at 921 Madison Avenue, 7th floor.
Fred Anderson knew that I was hearing about what he and the Trustees were doing, and admitted at his deposition in 2001 that they decided to get rid of me as soon as my mother died or was incapacitated. In 1996 Fred and the Associate Pastor Charles ("Chuck") Amstein joined up with my twin sister Julia Danger ("Jill") to destroy the relationship that my mom and I had, which was a close mother-daughter loving friendship. Fred, Chuck, and Jill started writing my mom and calling her up to say that I was a terrorist, I was "crazy", and other such things. Instead of pulling my mom away from me and my four daughters these attacks made her angry. She silently despised Fred Anderson for his treatment of the staff at the Church and then of me.
You cannot understand this story unless you get to know the person my mother was. She was born on Valentine's Day February 14, 1914, in New York City, to newspaperman/journalist Samuel Strauss and Broadway theater angel Irene Rosenfield, both of whom were of German descent and they married in Des Moines, Iowa in 1903. Julia Strauss was their only child, and they raised her in New York City, Katonah New York, Paris and London. My mom was a people magnet. All her life she drew people to her with a genuine interest in this person's life and hopes for the future, and her caring nature. She had the lightest and biggest blue eyes I have ever seen. She gave parties at her apartment every couple of weeks for the church choir or for someone's birthday, and her apartment was always packed with people because everyone and anyone was always welcome, until the beatings from my sister Jill became extreme, and there were no parties when Jill arrived for her summer visits. My mom had a lawyer write a Will in November 1997 and she arranged for the signing ceremony to be at her apartment, after Jill threw her to the floor on July 25, 1997 and put her into the hospital emergency room.
When my mom died in her sleep after working at the Church all day (the night of March 15, 1998), Chuck told Fred that I had received my mother's apartment in the Will. They immediately contacted Guide One Insurance Company and an Attorney called "Kenneth Wasserman". They gave Mr. Wasserman the job of torturing me into giving up the apartment, and silencing me from talking - or writing - about Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church. Luckily for me, Wasserman turned out to be incompetent at implementing the corruption and fraud that the Church management, Presbytery, and their colleagues in the New York State Court System wanted to set up. On June 8, 2009, I filed a lawsuit in Federal court that was the end result of their 11-year scheme to rob me and harm me and my family. See below.
Kenneth T. Wasserman
Second Amended Complaint
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian
The bench trial (trial without jury) on the issues of the capacity of Julia Taschereau and undue influence began on August 4, 2009 after 11 years of fraud on the Surrogate Court by Julia Danger and her alleged Attorney Kenneth T. Wasserman, who was, in 1999, fraudulently designated the real person of interest in these proceedings by this Court. The judge, Troy K. Webber, was already being sued by me for locking me in her courtroom on April 1, 2009, and threatening me that I could not put the tape of the meeting on my website. I brought a sound engineer to the personnel office of the court on April 10, 2009, and we copied the two-hour proceedings, and then I made a transcript of the meeting. Troy Webber was appointed to the Interim position after Nora Anderson won the election for Manhattan Surrogate to replace Renee R. Roth, but then Anderson was indicted for fraud along with Attorney Seth Rubenstein (who, by the way, I saw in court with Troy Webber on June 9, 2009).
From 1998 to 2006 I was not fully aware of the conspiracy that was working to harm me, but in November 2005 I ("Proponent") found a handwritten note in the Surrogate's Court case file showing that Law Dept Attorney Mary Santamarina told Mr. Wasserman to remain in the Court of Judge Renee Roth, and she gave him the Roth calendar for 1999.
But Mary Santamarina and former Judge Renee Roth knew that these proceedings, the Probate Proceedings of the Will of Julia Taschereau, could not stay in the courtroom of Judge Renee Roth due to the conflict of interest with Proponent’s witness Henry “Hank” Sheinkopf, who knew my mother. My mom liked Hank a lot because she thought he was very smart and he was on TV, which made him a TV star in her eyes.
In Wasserman’s case of undue influence, he cited the collusion of Proponent with Henry Sheinkopf to obtain the services of an employee in his office who also happens to be an Attorney, Mr. Kenneth Brown.
I did not do this, and this was part of the fairytale that Wasserman has made up and the conspirators have followed and used against me since 1998. In 1999 Wasserman filed a lawsuit against me in New York State Supreme Court, saying that I converted money from the Samuel Strauss Trust (created in 1953 by my grandfather, for me and my sister Jill) that my mom lived on, to my own use. Only Jill and I had already closed the Trust at Banker's Trust, and signed a contract that there would be no liability for either me or Bankers Trust (and, I never had access to the Trust funds, anyway). Yet Wasserman was allowed to harass me from 1999 until October 1, 2009, when the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the case on my papers.
Starting in or around 2003 until 2006, as I explained to the Surrogate court on several occasions during the trial, Mr. Wasserman and Ms. Santamarina called her at home approximately once or twice a month, and they both yelled at her that she would win the Will contest but not the Banker's Trust case, made up by Wasserman, and she must immediately give her sister $375,000. Then the amount became $300,000, then $200,000. The threats were abusive. I knew that there was no Trust case, so I was able to withstand these attacks and say no. I knew that the only case over which the Surrogate Court had any jurisdiction was over the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau, just as Judge Roth admitted in July 2006, five days after she ordered my mom's Will out of existence.
This Court handed Proponent and Wasserman alleged “certified” copies of the proceedings of April 1, 2009, during this trial just ending, and in these proceedings Judge Webber tells Proponent that she cannot tape Mr. Wasserman nor Mary Santamarina. New York State law allows a party to a conversation to tape another party if he/she is part of the conversation, without the other party knowing about it. On April 1, 2009 Interim Acting Surrogate Troy Webber locked Proponent Combier inside the Courtroom #509, and prevented Proponent’s two colleagues with her, from entering. Both colleagues were there simply to sit in the room and make sure that Proponent Combier did not have heart failure like she did in 2006 when Judge Roth ordered the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau out of existence for about five days. A complaint was filed against this court and Court Officer Randy Dash with badge number 4689 with this court.
For this act and others Proponent sued Surrogate Webber and Mary Santamarina on June 8, 2009 in United States District Court, Southern District, and filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 24, 2009. Proponent alleged every day of trial that the trial forced upon her by Surrogate Webber without a jury was a fraud and was scheduled because Judge Webber wanted to retaliate against Proponent for suing her. Every day of trial Judge Webber insulted Proponent, complained about her being the “problem”, and explained all the reasons for Ms. Combier being a problem for the court. Herein is evidence of prejudice against Proponent by this Court and by Mr. Wasserman, an “Attorney of the Court” as a visitor described him. Every ruling and every insult by the Court to the character and actions of Proponent during the trial must be viewed through the prism of bias and prejudice against her, by the Manhattan Surrogate Court and Defendants Webber, Santamarina, Levitan, Wasserman and Danger. The appearance of impropriety and prejudice to harm Proponent and damage her reputation as a person of outstanding character and integrity is a constant fact in this case, and it was for this reason that Proponent reminded this court of the prejudice on a daily basis during trial.
The Surrogate's Court never showed any concern for the constant belittling of proponent, including an order from the bench never to say “thank you” to the Court for anything. The Court characterized the Temporary Letters of Testamentary issued by Roth on July 19, 2006, that gave the position of administrator of the estate to Public Administrator Ethel Griffin, saying that Julia Taschereau died “intestate” as “only a piece of paper”. The remaining estate, which Mr. Wasserman never wanted appraised and that he removed from the apartment in 1999 and took to Croton, could never have been given to the Public Administrator. The Will should have been probated in 2001. Additionally, we found out during the testimony of Kenneth Brown that he had never heard from Mr. Wasserman since his deposition in 1999, although he was the designated Successor Trustee. Mr. Wasserman insisted that he “could not find him”. Mr. Wasserman was allowed by this Court to prevent a trial and/or closure of these proceedings for at least nine years, in violation of Proponent’s Constitutional due process rights, rule of law, laches, estoppel, and her First, fifth, seventh, and 14th, amendment rights as stated in the Constitution. In this effort Proponent states, Surrogate's Court and Mr. Wasserman have failed to overcome the errors which have made this proceeding a fraud on the Unified Court System of New York State as well as on the people of New York State.
This Court frivolously stated from the bench and in the July 17 order that brought the trial to the calendar in this court, that the “brief delay” by Charles Amstein at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church in returning Proponent’s mother’s ashes to her was just that, simply a brief delay, all the while knowing this is an actionable tort and a crime. Charles Amstein was sued in New York State Supreme Court in July 1999 for withholding Proponent’s ashes from her for eight days, and was found liable at two trials. This is a misdemeanor and also a violation of Public Health Law. Mr. Kenneth Wasserman told Mr. Amstein to withhold the ashes from Combier, and he gave the Appellate Division a secret memo about me that I found in the case file on March 15, 2005. I took a picture of the caption in Wasserman's document, where he described himself as "APPOINTMENT-RESPONDENT-PRO SE"
On August 4, 2009, the proceedings designed to invalidate the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau, begun in 1998, climaxed with the filing of a Verification signed and notarized by Julia Danger on July 30, 2009. This Verification stated that the two-page document filed on February 16, 2000 with the title “Objections To Probate” was indeed truthful, and that objection No. FIRST (number one) had been withdrawn. Surrogate's court has no power to decide on the validity or falsehood of the “Objections To Probate” due to lack of jurisdiction, laches, and testimony of Julia Danger that nothing in her “Objections” is true or known by her, and everything was conveyed to her by third parties who spoke with her attorney, Kenneth T. Wasserman (“Wasserman”). Therefore, there can be no objections recognized by this Court, and the 1997 Will must be probated. The Objections are simply hearsay, made up by Wasserman, who has no personal knowledge of any facts concerning Julia Taschereau. Julia Danger, or "Jill", admitted she knew nothing about the Objections, 7 months after these had been filed in the Surrogate's Court.
This trial was not about Julia Taschereau, but about something reprehensible to decent minds: the crushing of truth, sabotage of evidence, and denial of due process rights. This issue that needs to be addressed by the legal system of this state and. Perhaps, of this country, is how the Rule of Law was pushed aside for eleven years to punish me for whistleblowing union busting, construction sabotage and fraud at my church, and fraud on the public by a large and powerful insurance company.
I filed the following in Surrogate's Court after the bench trial before Judge Webber was over:
POINT 1: THE TRIAL STARTING AUGUST 4, 2009 SHOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE
(A) THIS COURT’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE DANGER VERIFICATION AS VALID AND AS A LEGAL BASIS TO PROCEED TO A BENCH TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY BEFORE JUDGE TROY WEBBER WHO IS BEING SUED BY PROPONENT COMPROMISES THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND DENIES PROPONENT COMBIER HER DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
Proponent objected to the acceptance of the Verification notarized by Kenneth T. Wasserman and signed by Julia Danger on July 30, 2009, as invalid due to its’ untimely validation and the admission of fraud by Julia Danger at her deposition in 2000 as well at trial. This Court’s acceptance of the “Objections To Probate” on the first day of trial is prejudicial to the rights of the Proponent and cannot be valid nor can the trial be seen as equitable due to laches. The “Doctrine of laches” is based upon the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights. It is defined as neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken together with a lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity. Wooded Shores Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v Matthews, 37 Ill.App.3d 334, 345 N.E.2d 186, 189. Laches also applies here as the neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time under the circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. Lake Development Enterprises, Inc. v Kojetinsky, Mo.App. 410 S.W.2d 361, 367.
This Court has failed to address or remedy the unreasonable and unexplained delay of nine years in asserting rights which work to disadvantage Proponent. Kennedy v Denny, 237 Ky. 649, 36 S.W.2d 41, 42.
The conduct of this Court in collusion with Mr. Kenneth T. Wasserman (“Wasserman”) has placed Proponent in a situation where her rights are imperiled and her defenses embarrassed. This is the basis of laches. State v Abernathy, 159 Tenn. 175, 17 S.W.2d 17, 19.
Laches requires an element of estoppel or neglect which has operated to prejudice a party, and this is the case in this proceeding. Estoppel by laches is a failure to do something which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time. Hutchinson v Kenney, C.C.A.N.C. 27 F2d 254, 256; namely, that Danger needed to file a Verification in 2000, not 2009.
In the proceedings pursuant to validating the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau (“proceedings”) which has remained before this Court for eleven years, probate of the Will should have been considered in 2001 when all the 1404 depositions as well as the depositions of draftsman Kenneth Brown, Julia Danger, and Elizabeth Combier were completed. Proponent attempted to get the necessary relief at that time, but was prevented from enforcing her rights to the property left to her by her mother by Wasserman and this Court. Croyle v Croyle, 184 Md. 126, 40 A.2d 375, 379.
Estoppel in pais (equitable estoppel) rests upon the principle that when a person by his/her acts causes another to change his/her condition to his detriment, the person performing such acts is precluded from asserting her right which she otherwise might have had. Peplinski v Campbell, 37 Wash.2d 857, 226 P.2d 211, 213. Estoppel by laches is presented here and Julia Danger, the party estopped, had knowledge of the transaction to deny Proponent her property rights, yet mislead Proponent to her prejudice. Wisdom’s Adm’r v Sims, 284 Ky. 258, 144 S.W.2d 232, 235, 236.
(B) THE UNVERIFIED “OBJECTIONS TO PROBATE” DATED FEBRUARY 2000 DID NOT GIVE THE SURROGATE COURT JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AS IF THERE WERE VALID OBJECTIONS AND THE 1997 WILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROBATED UPON COMPLETION OF THE 1404 DEPOSITIONS AND THE DEPOSITIONS OF BROWN, DANGER, AND COMBIER
The Surrogate Court Procedure Act (SCPA) grants full and complete general jurisdiction in law and in equity to administer justice in all matters relating to estates and the affairs of decedents, and upon the return of any process to try and determine all questions, legal or equitable, arising between any or all of the parties to any action or proceeding, or between any party and any other person having any claim or interest therein, over whom jurisdiction has been obtained as to any and all matters necessary to be determined in order to make a full, equitable and complete disposition of the matter by such order or decree as justice requires. SCPA §201, Const. Art. VI §12.
SCPA §203: The jurisdiction of the court is exercised by the commencement of a proceeding in the court. All proceedings are special proceedings and are commenced by filing a petition.
SCPA §303: All pleadings shall be verified.
The fact that Danger’s “Objections To Probate” were filed on or about February 16, 2000 in Surrogate’s Court and not verified until the first day of the trial, August 4, 2009 is a jurisdictional defect which required dismissal of the Objections. Danger never made a motion to correct this error, and therefore this Court never took jurisdiction over the objections nor Objectant, and this is a basis for rejecting the “Objections To Probate”. Red Roof Inn Inc. v Penninpede, SP 5454/07; District Court, Nassau County, 2007; this court has had no subject matter or individual jurisdiction over Danger to be given any power to rule on the proceedings cited herein. Pinner v Pinner, 33 N.C.App. 204, 234 S. E.2d 633
Proponent Combier made consistent references to the unverified “Objections To Probate” as fatally defective, but this Court took no notice. Thus this Court had no power to verify any “Objections To Probate” because the conditions essential to the exercise of jurisdiction have not been complied with. This court never took subject matter or personal jurisdiction over Julia Danger and her “Objections”.
The Surrogate Court lacks the power to determine the rights of persons not parties to a proceeding and over whom there is no jurisdiction. In re Crighton’s Estate, 20 NY2d 124, 281 NYS 2d 811, 228 N.E. 2d 799 (1967).
These proceedings should have been closed in or about 2001, and Mr. Wasserman should be sanctioned for neglecting his duties to this court by withholding the 1404 testimony as well as the deposition of Kenneth Brown for nine years.
(c) THE “OBJECTIONS TO PROBATE” PLEADING IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN FACT OR LAW AND IS HEARSAY
The “Objections to Probate” were defective as there was no verification, and this was not corrected until August 4, 2009, however by then Danger had denied the truth of her objections.
Julia Danger told the Court that her mother was “fine”, “”competent” at all times, denying the truth of her own Objections. The statement from her deposition was read into the record: “My mother seemed capable of – she was herself. ..She was – her mind was fine". And, Jill added, there must have been undue influence, but I knew nothing about it.
Julia Danger refused to answer any questions about her evidence of “undue influence” because her lawyer told her about the evidence, she had no personal knowledge of anything. She testified that she found out about the threats of Proponent from her lawyer, who was told by Maryanne Weaver. This is hearsay. Maryanne Weaver is also the wife of John Weaver, the designated executor of the 1989 Will of Julia Taschereau. The testimony that neither Maryanne Weaver nor John Weaver knew this fact before the death of Julia Taschereau is not credible, and is not true.
After the deposition of Maryanne Weaver Proponent testified that she was concerned about the health of Mrs. Weaver, and called her up. Mrs. Weaver told her during this call that Mr. Wasserman had told her to make up the lie about how Proponent was going to sue her mother, and that was why she started shaking at her deposition. She knew, she told Proponent, that this was not true testimony. Mr. Wasserman was creating a fraud.
The Objections To Probate are, therefore, hearsay and must be stricken from the record. The only part of Danger’s testimony that is believable is that she never heard anything about undue influence nor did she ever believe that her mother was not of sound mind. She “knew” about Proponent’s threats about moving to New Jersey and leaving Julia Taschereau alone, from her lawyer, Mr. Wasserman, who spoke to Maryanne Weaver about it.
POINT 2: PROPONENT HAS MET HER BURDEN IN PROVING THAT JULIA TASCHEREAU WAS OF SOUND MIND WHEN SHE SIGNED HER 1997 WILL, AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY LACK OF CAPACITY
(A)All the witnesses at trial testified in court to the alertness, and full capacity of Julia Taschereau at all times. Virginia De Bono remembers seeing her the day she died, and had conversations with her at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church the day that Julia Taschereau died, March 15, 1998. Mrs. De Bono gave Julia Taschereau the money for the concert that day, showing that she was capable of handling money and that the church and the 300+ people who attended that concert saw her handle the admission fees as well.
(B) Ann Connor said that Julia Taschereau was always “chipper as a cracker”, meaning that she never observed any change in the way Julia Taschereau acted on her job or with her friends. Mrs. Connor and all the other witnesses stated that Julia Taschereau was always at her volunteer position at the church, “every day”.
(C) Priscilla McOstrich testified that she never saw Julia confused about anyone’s name, or any information. Scott Vanos, Mary Hanley, Hank Sheinkopf, Kenneth Brown, and Charles Amstein never saw Julia act strangely or with any confusion about who she was or where she was. Mrs. De Bono said that Julia Taschereau was a strong person mentally and knew what she wanted.
(D) Diane Stennett, Julia Taschereau’s home care aide from November 4, 1997 until the end of December 1997 saw Julia Taschereau doing her work and never saw any lack of capacity. In fact, her testimony is that Julia Taschereau didn’t just ask her to be a witness to the signing of the Will on November 21, 1997, but demanded it:
Page 19 of the July 29, 1998 deposition of Ms. Stennett was read into the record and here it is:
Q: Did Mrs. Taschereau ever speak with you about a Will?
A: Yes
Q: When was the first time that she spoke to you about a will?
A: I think it was about three or four days prior. I know it was like this week, and the other week was signing. She said to me that – she’s asking me if I could be a witness on her Will, and I jokingly said to her, “No”, to see her reaction, and she said, “Why? And I said, “Because I’m too young”, and she said, “Oh no you’re not, and I want you to be a witness on the Will. “ I said, “No”. She said, “Yes, If you cant do it, then I’ll have to make you do it” So I said, “Okay, I guess you win this one”. We were just joking about it.
Ms. Stennett testified that she observed Julia Taschereau during these moths always understanding what was going on and that Julia Taschereau was always alet. (p. 37, deposition 1404)
(E) the hospital records submitted to this court from Lenox Hill Hospital and De Witt nursing Care show that Julia Taschereau was always “alert”, conversing with people, and mentally sound.
Proponent has met her burden proving sound mind and capacity on the part of Julia Taschereau throughout the years 1995-1998.
POINT 3: THERE WAS NO UNDUE INFLUENCE EXERTED OVER JULIA TASCHEREAU AT ANY TIME BY PROPONENT
(A)Julia Taschereau was never of “unsound mind”. The law states that unsound mind exists when there is an essential deprivation of the reasoning faculties, or where a person is incapable of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life.
Undue influence is that persuasion that overpowers the dominated party’s free will or judgment that he or she cannot act intelligently and voluntarily, but acts, instead, subject to the Will or purposes of the dominating party.
There is no evidence whatsoever by any witness at trial to any domination over Julia Taschereau by Proponent. In fact, this would have been impossible, according to all the testimony.
Priscilla McOstrich, a person who was personal friends with Julia Taschereau for more than 40 years at the time of Julia’s death in 1998, observed Julia at parties at Julia Taschereau’s apartment in 1997, especially November 2, 1997. Julia spoke to Priscilla about her apartment and how she did not want Jill Danger to come and stay. Julia told Priscilla that Jill was stealing items from her apartment, and that she was afraid of her daughter Jill, not Betsy. These types of conversations took place three weeks before she signed her will in front of three witnesses and her draftsman, Kenneth Brown.
Julia Danger “knew” that there “must have been” some undue influence over her mother. But Julia Danger never verified her Objections until the first day of trial on August 4, 2009, and even after she verified her objections and the Court fraudulently accepted them, she still never gave any instance of undue influence over the Will and her mother by Proponent.
Point 4: JULIA DANGER WAS REMOVED FROM THE 1997 WILL AFTER REPEATED ATTACKS, BOTH VERBAL AND PHYSICAL, ON HER MOTHER JULIA TASCHEREAU DURING THE SUMMERS OF 1996 AND 1997
(A)So, why was Jill Danger removed from the 1997 Will, deliberately, by Julia Taschereau?
Robert Siegel was asked by Julia Taschereau to become the successor Trustee of a Trust in name only as a “legal shield” against Julia Danger’s constant attacks against Julia Taschereau. Mr. Siegel’s testimony is so powerful and credible that Mr. Wasserman interrupted him and made him an interested witness after he started his testimony at trial. Then Mr. Wasserman lied about the Trust set up with Julia Taschereau, Elizabeth Combier and Robert Siegel and stated that it was still open! Proponent objected and asked for proof, which Mr. Wasserman could not produce. The trust ended at the death of Julia Taschereau in 1998. It was a revocable Trust, and Julia Taschereau knew this and could have revoked it at any time. Julia Taschereau also had the telephone number of Kenneth Brown, and could have changed her Will signed on Nov. 21, 1997 if she had wanted to.
On February 14, 1996, Robert Siegel was told by General Elm Properties that Julia Taschereau’s maintenance was in arrears. Mr. Siegal spoke with Julia Taschereau at a meeting in her apartment, at which Julia Taschereau asked for help with her finances as well as with Jill Danger’s abuse. As a friend, Mr. Siegel agreed, and never received any money at all.
Soon after that Julia Taschereau asked proponent to help her with her checks and her money, and told her that she had signed a Power of Attorney and wanted Proponent to assist her. Proponent did not want to take on this responsibility, as she has four children and a Thheater company for disabled children, but Julia Taschereau insisted. The testimony of Charles Amstein and Maryanne Weaver support the fact that Julia Taschereau wanted her daughter Betsy Combier to take the Power of Attorney so that she could get her finances in order. Starting in 1996 Proponent kept records of every check signed by her in a log that remained at Julia Taschereau’s apartment. All notations were made contemporaneously, and Julia Taschereau approved every entry.
Maryanne Weaver also stated that Julia Danger was demanding money from Julia Taschereau. But Julia Taschereau called Julia Danger’s financial representative in 1996, Dee Osborne, and asked her how much money Julia Danger had at that time. Ms. Osborne said “more that $200,000.”
In 1996 Julia Danger wrote a letter to her mother Julia Taschereau describing how “Chuck, Tita, Gary, everyone…thought Betsy needed to be in a mental institution” On July 14, 1996, Chuck Amstein called up Proponent and told her that she disgusted him. This call and Julia Danger’s letter were the two events which started Julia Taschereau not wanting Julia Danger near her. Julia Taschereau’s fear of Julia Danger had nothing to do with Proponent, but this was a reaction to Julia Danger’s increasingly hostile and abusive behavior in 1996 and in 1997 towards her mother.
In July 1997 Julia Taschereau was harmed while Julia Danger and her children were staying with Julia Taschereau. But Julia Danger flew to California on July 26, 1997 anyway, leaving Julia Taschereau on the sofa in pain. Anne Connor called Proponent who took Julia Taschereau to Lenox Hill Hospital. Upon information and belief, the hospital records on that day, which Lenox Hill never submitted to this court, show that Julia Taschereau had an accident at the hands of her daughter and/or her grandchildren.
After this injury, Julia Taschereau called people to do a Will for her and made the Will happen according to her wishes, not those of proponent.
The fraud on this court made up by Mr. Wasserman that there was undue influence over Julia Taschereau by her daughter Elizabeth Combier has failed, there is no evidence or testimony to these alleged acts. The deceit of nine years on this court by Kenneth Wasserman must stop.
A request from Betsy Combier:
A current update of this story occurred on Sunday, August 16, 2009, when a friend of a friend called me at approximately 2:10PM, a Mr. John Libecci. Mr. Libecci is, I understand, a private investigator who knows a friend of mine socially. I asked whether he could help me find out some information involving my federal court case filed in United States District court on June 8, 2009 involving the Surrogate Court and my mother's Will. After I told him about the property being taken by the court, he told me that the court never takes property without a reason; after I told him that the Will was not probated for eleven years, Mr. Libecci told me that "obviously the Will was not done right", and said that he worked for the Courts and the Judges, would not tell me what he did for the Court and the judges, then hung up. If anyone has information about Mr. John Libecci please email me at betsy@parentadvocates.org.
You may send me any information anonymously.
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them. Part I
LINK
People are being victimized by the courts of America's "justice system" every day, often without knowing anything until it is too late, and you are left without your property, family member and/or child. Judges threaten lawyers - the people who are being paid by you to defend you and protect your interests - and make the Attorneys facing the Court do what "they" - the judges and their political partners - want, and work with the "fixer" to steal property, take children, and plunder estates for personal gain. I know what 'they' do, because when my church - Madison Avenue Presbyterian, ("MAPC") in New York City - came after me in 1998 after my mom's death, I was an innocent victim of a collusion so powerful, I almost died in the hospital on July 21 2006. However, I did survive, and I am now helping any person who is harassed/victimized/harmed by this conspiracy of harm in our nation's courts.
Fred AndersonWhen my mother died during the night March 15-16 1998, I had no idea that my church, the New York City Presbytery, and the Judges and courts of New York State would collaborate on an eleven-year campaign to defame and harass me for researching their organized conspiracy to commit extortion and coercion and for being named, in my mom's Will, the beneficiary of my mother's apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York City. The Surrogate's Court in New York City is located at 31 Chambers Street. The Public Administrator's office is on the fourth floor, while the Surrogate Judges - Interim Acting Judge Troy Webber and Judge Kristen Glen - are on the fifth floor of this building. Their jobs are to convert property from your ownership to theirs, and take whatever cash is available through altering Wills and/or outright theft of property. I call this a form of Court-supported eminent domain policy. Since 1998 I have been subjected to this gang, all of whom are now named in my Federal Lawsuit, and I have documented all of their actions and conversations. In New York State it is the law that anyone can tape anyone else without telling the person who is being taped, if you are in the conversation. When Mary Santamarina, the senior Attorney for the Surrogate Judge (Renee R. Roth) in the law department at 31 Chambers Street, started calling me up with lawyer Kenneth Wasserman, the man who has made all the errors for the past eleven years while carrying the burden of making the RICO work, I turned on my tape recorder. I guess you could say that the intervenors picked the wrong person to make into a victim. I may die before getting any relief, but I wont die a victim.
Santamarina and Wasserman threatened me, screamed at me, and tried their very best to alter my reality. I didnt fall for it. A man named "Bill Jorgenson" from Eliot Spitzer's office called me and did the same thing. I wouldn't fall for that either. But it wasnt easy, and when Judge Roth ordered my mother's last Will out of existence on July 21, 2006, my heart failed and I spent three days in the hospital as the doctors tried to get my heart back on track. Fortunately for me and you, the general public, they were successful, so that I can bring this story to the internet and, if something does happen to me, the people involved can be held accountable for setting up the RICO of the New York State Unified Court System.
Background
MAPC was unionized when my mom and I started helping the building staff in 1994. However, the Pastor, Dr. Fred Anderson, was harassing the building staff in order to bust the Union, Local 32 B&J and remove the union from the church. Additionally, the Trustees of MAPC were engaged in using the church property to finance real estate deals for "political friends" (both members and non-members of the church) with Mr. Gregory Moundas of the law firm Proskauer Rose. A Partner at Proskauer, the late Stephen Rachow Kaye, was the husband of the Chief Judge of New York State, Judith Kaye, arguably the single most powerful person in the State of New York. This really is the perfect crime. Due to the Establishment Clause in our Constitution, there is a separation of church and state in America that works for some, but not others, in putting religious institutions above and outside of the law (whenever it suits "them"). My mom, Julia Taschereau, understood that the Church that she donated her life to was the perpetrator of theft, false claims, and crimes against the public, so she kept her volunteer job at MAPC for more than 49 years, telling me everything that was going on at 921 Madison Avenue, 7th floor.
Fred Anderson knew that I was hearing about what he and the Trustees were doing, and admitted at his deposition in 2001 that they decided to get rid of me as soon as my mother died or was incapacitated. In 1996 Fred and the Associate Pastor Charles ("Chuck") Amstein joined up with my twin sister Julia Danger ("Jill") to destroy the relationship that my mom and I had, which was a close mother-daughter loving friendship. Fred, Chuck, and Jill started writing my mom and calling her up to say that I was a terrorist, I was "crazy", and other such things. Instead of pulling my mom away from me and my four daughters these attacks made her angry. She silently despised Fred Anderson for his treatment of the staff at the Church and then of me.
You cannot understand this story unless you get to know the person my mother was. She was born on Valentine's Day February 14, 1914, in New York City, to newspaperman/journalist Samuel Strauss and Broadway theater angel Irene Rosenfield, both of whom were of German descent and they married in Des Moines, Iowa in 1903. Julia Strauss was their only child, and they raised her in New York City, Katonah New York, Paris and London. My mom was a people magnet. All her life she drew people to her with a genuine interest in this person's life and hopes for the future, and her caring nature. She had the lightest and biggest blue eyes I have ever seen. She gave parties at her apartment every couple of weeks for the church choir or for someone's birthday, and her apartment was always packed with people because everyone and anyone was always welcome, until the beatings from my sister Jill became extreme, and there were no parties when Jill arrived for her summer visits. My mom had a lawyer write a Will in November 1997 and she arranged for the signing ceremony to be at her apartment, after Jill threw her to the floor on July 25, 1997 and put her into the hospital emergency room.
When my mom died in her sleep after working at the Church all day (the night of March 15, 1998), Chuck told Fred that I had received my mother's apartment in the Will. They immediately contacted Guide One Insurance Company and an Attorney called "Kenneth Wasserman". They gave Mr. Wasserman the job of torturing me into giving up the apartment, and silencing me from talking - or writing - about Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church. Luckily for me, Wasserman turned out to be incompetent at implementing the corruption and fraud that the Church management, Presbytery, and their colleagues in the New York State Court System wanted to set up. On June 8, 2009, I filed a lawsuit in Federal court that was the end result of their 11-year scheme to rob me and harm me and my family. See below.
Kenneth T. WassermanSecond Amended Complaint
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian
The bench trial (trial without jury) on the issues of the capacity of Julia Taschereau and undue influence began on August 4, 2009 after 11 years of fraud on the Surrogate Court by Julia Danger and her alleged Attorney Kenneth T. Wasserman, who was, in 1999, fraudulently designated the real person of interest in these proceedings by this Court. The judge, Troy K. Webber, was already being sued by me for locking me in her courtroom on April 1, 2009, and threatening me that I could not put the tape of the meeting on my website. I brought a sound engineer to the personnel office of the court on April 10, 2009, and we copied the two-hour proceedings, and then I made a transcript of the meeting. Troy Webber was appointed to the Interim position after Nora Anderson won the election for Manhattan Surrogate to replace Renee R. Roth, but then Anderson was indicted for fraud along with Attorney Seth Rubenstein (who, by the way, I saw in court with Troy Webber on June 9, 2009).
From 1998 to 2006 I was not fully aware of the conspiracy that was working to harm me, but in November 2005 I ("Proponent") found a handwritten note in the Surrogate's Court case file showing that Law Dept Attorney Mary Santamarina told Mr. Wasserman to remain in the Court of Judge Renee Roth, and she gave him the Roth calendar for 1999.
But Mary Santamarina and former Judge Renee Roth knew that these proceedings, the Probate Proceedings of the Will of Julia Taschereau, could not stay in the courtroom of Judge Renee Roth due to the conflict of interest with Proponent’s witness Henry “Hank” Sheinkopf, who knew my mother. My mom liked Hank a lot because she thought he was very smart and he was on TV, which made him a TV star in her eyes.
In Wasserman’s case of undue influence, he cited the collusion of Proponent with Henry Sheinkopf to obtain the services of an employee in his office who also happens to be an Attorney, Mr. Kenneth Brown.
I did not do this, and this was part of the fairytale that Wasserman has made up and the conspirators have followed and used against me since 1998. In 1999 Wasserman filed a lawsuit against me in New York State Supreme Court, saying that I converted money from the Samuel Strauss Trust (created in 1953 by my grandfather, for me and my sister Jill) that my mom lived on, to my own use. Only Jill and I had already closed the Trust at Banker's Trust, and signed a contract that there would be no liability for either me or Bankers Trust (and, I never had access to the Trust funds, anyway). Yet Wasserman was allowed to harass me from 1999 until October 1, 2009, when the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the case on my papers.
Starting in or around 2003 until 2006, as I explained to the Surrogate court on several occasions during the trial, Mr. Wasserman and Ms. Santamarina called her at home approximately once or twice a month, and they both yelled at her that she would win the Will contest but not the Banker's Trust case, made up by Wasserman, and she must immediately give her sister $375,000. Then the amount became $300,000, then $200,000. The threats were abusive. I knew that there was no Trust case, so I was able to withstand these attacks and say no. I knew that the only case over which the Surrogate Court had any jurisdiction was over the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau, just as Judge Roth admitted in July 2006, five days after she ordered my mom's Will out of existence.
This Court handed Proponent and Wasserman alleged “certified” copies of the proceedings of April 1, 2009, during this trial just ending, and in these proceedings Judge Webber tells Proponent that she cannot tape Mr. Wasserman nor Mary Santamarina. New York State law allows a party to a conversation to tape another party if he/she is part of the conversation, without the other party knowing about it. On April 1, 2009 Interim Acting Surrogate Troy Webber locked Proponent Combier inside the Courtroom #509, and prevented Proponent’s two colleagues with her, from entering. Both colleagues were there simply to sit in the room and make sure that Proponent Combier did not have heart failure like she did in 2006 when Judge Roth ordered the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau out of existence for about five days. A complaint was filed against this court and Court Officer Randy Dash with badge number 4689 with this court.
For this act and others Proponent sued Surrogate Webber and Mary Santamarina on June 8, 2009 in United States District Court, Southern District, and filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 24, 2009. Proponent alleged every day of trial that the trial forced upon her by Surrogate Webber without a jury was a fraud and was scheduled because Judge Webber wanted to retaliate against Proponent for suing her. Every day of trial Judge Webber insulted Proponent, complained about her being the “problem”, and explained all the reasons for Ms. Combier being a problem for the court. Herein is evidence of prejudice against Proponent by this Court and by Mr. Wasserman, an “Attorney of the Court” as a visitor described him. Every ruling and every insult by the Court to the character and actions of Proponent during the trial must be viewed through the prism of bias and prejudice against her, by the Manhattan Surrogate Court and Defendants Webber, Santamarina, Levitan, Wasserman and Danger. The appearance of impropriety and prejudice to harm Proponent and damage her reputation as a person of outstanding character and integrity is a constant fact in this case, and it was for this reason that Proponent reminded this court of the prejudice on a daily basis during trial.
The Surrogate's Court never showed any concern for the constant belittling of proponent, including an order from the bench never to say “thank you” to the Court for anything. The Court characterized the Temporary Letters of Testamentary issued by Roth on July 19, 2006, that gave the position of administrator of the estate to Public Administrator Ethel Griffin, saying that Julia Taschereau died “intestate” as “only a piece of paper”. The remaining estate, which Mr. Wasserman never wanted appraised and that he removed from the apartment in 1999 and took to Croton, could never have been given to the Public Administrator. The Will should have been probated in 2001. Additionally, we found out during the testimony of Kenneth Brown that he had never heard from Mr. Wasserman since his deposition in 1999, although he was the designated Successor Trustee. Mr. Wasserman insisted that he “could not find him”. Mr. Wasserman was allowed by this Court to prevent a trial and/or closure of these proceedings for at least nine years, in violation of Proponent’s Constitutional due process rights, rule of law, laches, estoppel, and her First, fifth, seventh, and 14th, amendment rights as stated in the Constitution. In this effort Proponent states, Surrogate's Court and Mr. Wasserman have failed to overcome the errors which have made this proceeding a fraud on the Unified Court System of New York State as well as on the people of New York State.
This Court frivolously stated from the bench and in the July 17 order that brought the trial to the calendar in this court, that the “brief delay” by Charles Amstein at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church in returning Proponent’s mother’s ashes to her was just that, simply a brief delay, all the while knowing this is an actionable tort and a crime. Charles Amstein was sued in New York State Supreme Court in July 1999 for withholding Proponent’s ashes from her for eight days, and was found liable at two trials. This is a misdemeanor and also a violation of Public Health Law. Mr. Kenneth Wasserman told Mr. Amstein to withhold the ashes from Combier, and he gave the Appellate Division a secret memo about me that I found in the case file on March 15, 2005. I took a picture of the caption in Wasserman's document, where he described himself as "APPOINTMENT-RESPONDENT-PRO SE"
On August 4, 2009, the proceedings designed to invalidate the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau, begun in 1998, climaxed with the filing of a Verification signed and notarized by Julia Danger on July 30, 2009. This Verification stated that the two-page document filed on February 16, 2000 with the title “Objections To Probate” was indeed truthful, and that objection No. FIRST (number one) had been withdrawn. Surrogate's court has no power to decide on the validity or falsehood of the “Objections To Probate” due to lack of jurisdiction, laches, and testimony of Julia Danger that nothing in her “Objections” is true or known by her, and everything was conveyed to her by third parties who spoke with her attorney, Kenneth T. Wasserman (“Wasserman”). Therefore, there can be no objections recognized by this Court, and the 1997 Will must be probated. The Objections are simply hearsay, made up by Wasserman, who has no personal knowledge of any facts concerning Julia Taschereau. Julia Danger, or "Jill", admitted she knew nothing about the Objections, 7 months after these had been filed in the Surrogate's Court.
This trial was not about Julia Taschereau, but about something reprehensible to decent minds: the crushing of truth, sabotage of evidence, and denial of due process rights. This issue that needs to be addressed by the legal system of this state and. Perhaps, of this country, is how the Rule of Law was pushed aside for eleven years to punish me for whistleblowing union busting, construction sabotage and fraud at my church, and fraud on the public by a large and powerful insurance company.
I filed the following in Surrogate's Court after the bench trial before Judge Webber was over:
POINT 1: THE TRIAL STARTING AUGUST 4, 2009 SHOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE
(A) THIS COURT’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE DANGER VERIFICATION AS VALID AND AS A LEGAL BASIS TO PROCEED TO A BENCH TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY BEFORE JUDGE TROY WEBBER WHO IS BEING SUED BY PROPONENT COMPROMISES THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT AND DENIES PROPONENT COMBIER HER DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
Proponent objected to the acceptance of the Verification notarized by Kenneth T. Wasserman and signed by Julia Danger on July 30, 2009, as invalid due to its’ untimely validation and the admission of fraud by Julia Danger at her deposition in 2000 as well at trial. This Court’s acceptance of the “Objections To Probate” on the first day of trial is prejudicial to the rights of the Proponent and cannot be valid nor can the trial be seen as equitable due to laches. The “Doctrine of laches” is based upon the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights. It is defined as neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken together with a lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity. Wooded Shores Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v Matthews, 37 Ill.App.3d 334, 345 N.E.2d 186, 189. Laches also applies here as the neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time under the circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. Lake Development Enterprises, Inc. v Kojetinsky, Mo.App. 410 S.W.2d 361, 367.
This Court has failed to address or remedy the unreasonable and unexplained delay of nine years in asserting rights which work to disadvantage Proponent. Kennedy v Denny, 237 Ky. 649, 36 S.W.2d 41, 42.
The conduct of this Court in collusion with Mr. Kenneth T. Wasserman (“Wasserman”) has placed Proponent in a situation where her rights are imperiled and her defenses embarrassed. This is the basis of laches. State v Abernathy, 159 Tenn. 175, 17 S.W.2d 17, 19.
Laches requires an element of estoppel or neglect which has operated to prejudice a party, and this is the case in this proceeding. Estoppel by laches is a failure to do something which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time. Hutchinson v Kenney, C.C.A.N.C. 27 F2d 254, 256; namely, that Danger needed to file a Verification in 2000, not 2009.
In the proceedings pursuant to validating the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau (“proceedings”) which has remained before this Court for eleven years, probate of the Will should have been considered in 2001 when all the 1404 depositions as well as the depositions of draftsman Kenneth Brown, Julia Danger, and Elizabeth Combier were completed. Proponent attempted to get the necessary relief at that time, but was prevented from enforcing her rights to the property left to her by her mother by Wasserman and this Court. Croyle v Croyle, 184 Md. 126, 40 A.2d 375, 379.
Estoppel in pais (equitable estoppel) rests upon the principle that when a person by his/her acts causes another to change his/her condition to his detriment, the person performing such acts is precluded from asserting her right which she otherwise might have had. Peplinski v Campbell, 37 Wash.2d 857, 226 P.2d 211, 213. Estoppel by laches is presented here and Julia Danger, the party estopped, had knowledge of the transaction to deny Proponent her property rights, yet mislead Proponent to her prejudice. Wisdom’s Adm’r v Sims, 284 Ky. 258, 144 S.W.2d 232, 235, 236.
(B) THE UNVERIFIED “OBJECTIONS TO PROBATE” DATED FEBRUARY 2000 DID NOT GIVE THE SURROGATE COURT JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AS IF THERE WERE VALID OBJECTIONS AND THE 1997 WILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROBATED UPON COMPLETION OF THE 1404 DEPOSITIONS AND THE DEPOSITIONS OF BROWN, DANGER, AND COMBIER
The Surrogate Court Procedure Act (SCPA) grants full and complete general jurisdiction in law and in equity to administer justice in all matters relating to estates and the affairs of decedents, and upon the return of any process to try and determine all questions, legal or equitable, arising between any or all of the parties to any action or proceeding, or between any party and any other person having any claim or interest therein, over whom jurisdiction has been obtained as to any and all matters necessary to be determined in order to make a full, equitable and complete disposition of the matter by such order or decree as justice requires. SCPA §201, Const. Art. VI §12.
SCPA §203: The jurisdiction of the court is exercised by the commencement of a proceeding in the court. All proceedings are special proceedings and are commenced by filing a petition.
SCPA §303: All pleadings shall be verified.
The fact that Danger’s “Objections To Probate” were filed on or about February 16, 2000 in Surrogate’s Court and not verified until the first day of the trial, August 4, 2009 is a jurisdictional defect which required dismissal of the Objections. Danger never made a motion to correct this error, and therefore this Court never took jurisdiction over the objections nor Objectant, and this is a basis for rejecting the “Objections To Probate”. Red Roof Inn Inc. v Penninpede, SP 5454/07; District Court, Nassau County, 2007; this court has had no subject matter or individual jurisdiction over Danger to be given any power to rule on the proceedings cited herein. Pinner v Pinner, 33 N.C.App. 204, 234 S. E.2d 633
Proponent Combier made consistent references to the unverified “Objections To Probate” as fatally defective, but this Court took no notice. Thus this Court had no power to verify any “Objections To Probate” because the conditions essential to the exercise of jurisdiction have not been complied with. This court never took subject matter or personal jurisdiction over Julia Danger and her “Objections”.
The Surrogate Court lacks the power to determine the rights of persons not parties to a proceeding and over whom there is no jurisdiction. In re Crighton’s Estate, 20 NY2d 124, 281 NYS 2d 811, 228 N.E. 2d 799 (1967).
These proceedings should have been closed in or about 2001, and Mr. Wasserman should be sanctioned for neglecting his duties to this court by withholding the 1404 testimony as well as the deposition of Kenneth Brown for nine years.
(c) THE “OBJECTIONS TO PROBATE” PLEADING IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN FACT OR LAW AND IS HEARSAY
The “Objections to Probate” were defective as there was no verification, and this was not corrected until August 4, 2009, however by then Danger had denied the truth of her objections.
Julia Danger told the Court that her mother was “fine”, “”competent” at all times, denying the truth of her own Objections. The statement from her deposition was read into the record: “My mother seemed capable of – she was herself. ..She was – her mind was fine". And, Jill added, there must have been undue influence, but I knew nothing about it.
Julia Danger refused to answer any questions about her evidence of “undue influence” because her lawyer told her about the evidence, she had no personal knowledge of anything. She testified that she found out about the threats of Proponent from her lawyer, who was told by Maryanne Weaver. This is hearsay. Maryanne Weaver is also the wife of John Weaver, the designated executor of the 1989 Will of Julia Taschereau. The testimony that neither Maryanne Weaver nor John Weaver knew this fact before the death of Julia Taschereau is not credible, and is not true.
After the deposition of Maryanne Weaver Proponent testified that she was concerned about the health of Mrs. Weaver, and called her up. Mrs. Weaver told her during this call that Mr. Wasserman had told her to make up the lie about how Proponent was going to sue her mother, and that was why she started shaking at her deposition. She knew, she told Proponent, that this was not true testimony. Mr. Wasserman was creating a fraud.
The Objections To Probate are, therefore, hearsay and must be stricken from the record. The only part of Danger’s testimony that is believable is that she never heard anything about undue influence nor did she ever believe that her mother was not of sound mind. She “knew” about Proponent’s threats about moving to New Jersey and leaving Julia Taschereau alone, from her lawyer, Mr. Wasserman, who spoke to Maryanne Weaver about it.
POINT 2: PROPONENT HAS MET HER BURDEN IN PROVING THAT JULIA TASCHEREAU WAS OF SOUND MIND WHEN SHE SIGNED HER 1997 WILL, AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY LACK OF CAPACITY
(A)All the witnesses at trial testified in court to the alertness, and full capacity of Julia Taschereau at all times. Virginia De Bono remembers seeing her the day she died, and had conversations with her at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church the day that Julia Taschereau died, March 15, 1998. Mrs. De Bono gave Julia Taschereau the money for the concert that day, showing that she was capable of handling money and that the church and the 300+ people who attended that concert saw her handle the admission fees as well.
(B) Ann Connor said that Julia Taschereau was always “chipper as a cracker”, meaning that she never observed any change in the way Julia Taschereau acted on her job or with her friends. Mrs. Connor and all the other witnesses stated that Julia Taschereau was always at her volunteer position at the church, “every day”.
(C) Priscilla McOstrich testified that she never saw Julia confused about anyone’s name, or any information. Scott Vanos, Mary Hanley, Hank Sheinkopf, Kenneth Brown, and Charles Amstein never saw Julia act strangely or with any confusion about who she was or where she was. Mrs. De Bono said that Julia Taschereau was a strong person mentally and knew what she wanted.
(D) Diane Stennett, Julia Taschereau’s home care aide from November 4, 1997 until the end of December 1997 saw Julia Taschereau doing her work and never saw any lack of capacity. In fact, her testimony is that Julia Taschereau didn’t just ask her to be a witness to the signing of the Will on November 21, 1997, but demanded it:
Page 19 of the July 29, 1998 deposition of Ms. Stennett was read into the record and here it is:
Q: Did Mrs. Taschereau ever speak with you about a Will?
A: Yes
Q: When was the first time that she spoke to you about a will?
A: I think it was about three or four days prior. I know it was like this week, and the other week was signing. She said to me that – she’s asking me if I could be a witness on her Will, and I jokingly said to her, “No”, to see her reaction, and she said, “Why? And I said, “Because I’m too young”, and she said, “Oh no you’re not, and I want you to be a witness on the Will. “ I said, “No”. She said, “Yes, If you cant do it, then I’ll have to make you do it” So I said, “Okay, I guess you win this one”. We were just joking about it.
Ms. Stennett testified that she observed Julia Taschereau during these moths always understanding what was going on and that Julia Taschereau was always alet. (p. 37, deposition 1404)
(E) the hospital records submitted to this court from Lenox Hill Hospital and De Witt nursing Care show that Julia Taschereau was always “alert”, conversing with people, and mentally sound.
Proponent has met her burden proving sound mind and capacity on the part of Julia Taschereau throughout the years 1995-1998.
POINT 3: THERE WAS NO UNDUE INFLUENCE EXERTED OVER JULIA TASCHEREAU AT ANY TIME BY PROPONENT
(A)Julia Taschereau was never of “unsound mind”. The law states that unsound mind exists when there is an essential deprivation of the reasoning faculties, or where a person is incapable of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life.
Undue influence is that persuasion that overpowers the dominated party’s free will or judgment that he or she cannot act intelligently and voluntarily, but acts, instead, subject to the Will or purposes of the dominating party.
There is no evidence whatsoever by any witness at trial to any domination over Julia Taschereau by Proponent. In fact, this would have been impossible, according to all the testimony.
Priscilla McOstrich, a person who was personal friends with Julia Taschereau for more than 40 years at the time of Julia’s death in 1998, observed Julia at parties at Julia Taschereau’s apartment in 1997, especially November 2, 1997. Julia spoke to Priscilla about her apartment and how she did not want Jill Danger to come and stay. Julia told Priscilla that Jill was stealing items from her apartment, and that she was afraid of her daughter Jill, not Betsy. These types of conversations took place three weeks before she signed her will in front of three witnesses and her draftsman, Kenneth Brown.
Julia Danger “knew” that there “must have been” some undue influence over her mother. But Julia Danger never verified her Objections until the first day of trial on August 4, 2009, and even after she verified her objections and the Court fraudulently accepted them, she still never gave any instance of undue influence over the Will and her mother by Proponent.
Point 4: JULIA DANGER WAS REMOVED FROM THE 1997 WILL AFTER REPEATED ATTACKS, BOTH VERBAL AND PHYSICAL, ON HER MOTHER JULIA TASCHEREAU DURING THE SUMMERS OF 1996 AND 1997
(A)So, why was Jill Danger removed from the 1997 Will, deliberately, by Julia Taschereau?
Robert Siegel was asked by Julia Taschereau to become the successor Trustee of a Trust in name only as a “legal shield” against Julia Danger’s constant attacks against Julia Taschereau. Mr. Siegel’s testimony is so powerful and credible that Mr. Wasserman interrupted him and made him an interested witness after he started his testimony at trial. Then Mr. Wasserman lied about the Trust set up with Julia Taschereau, Elizabeth Combier and Robert Siegel and stated that it was still open! Proponent objected and asked for proof, which Mr. Wasserman could not produce. The trust ended at the death of Julia Taschereau in 1998. It was a revocable Trust, and Julia Taschereau knew this and could have revoked it at any time. Julia Taschereau also had the telephone number of Kenneth Brown, and could have changed her Will signed on Nov. 21, 1997 if she had wanted to.
On February 14, 1996, Robert Siegel was told by General Elm Properties that Julia Taschereau’s maintenance was in arrears. Mr. Siegal spoke with Julia Taschereau at a meeting in her apartment, at which Julia Taschereau asked for help with her finances as well as with Jill Danger’s abuse. As a friend, Mr. Siegel agreed, and never received any money at all.
Soon after that Julia Taschereau asked proponent to help her with her checks and her money, and told her that she had signed a Power of Attorney and wanted Proponent to assist her. Proponent did not want to take on this responsibility, as she has four children and a Thheater company for disabled children, but Julia Taschereau insisted. The testimony of Charles Amstein and Maryanne Weaver support the fact that Julia Taschereau wanted her daughter Betsy Combier to take the Power of Attorney so that she could get her finances in order. Starting in 1996 Proponent kept records of every check signed by her in a log that remained at Julia Taschereau’s apartment. All notations were made contemporaneously, and Julia Taschereau approved every entry.
Maryanne Weaver also stated that Julia Danger was demanding money from Julia Taschereau. But Julia Taschereau called Julia Danger’s financial representative in 1996, Dee Osborne, and asked her how much money Julia Danger had at that time. Ms. Osborne said “more that $200,000.”
In 1996 Julia Danger wrote a letter to her mother Julia Taschereau describing how “Chuck, Tita, Gary, everyone…thought Betsy needed to be in a mental institution” On July 14, 1996, Chuck Amstein called up Proponent and told her that she disgusted him. This call and Julia Danger’s letter were the two events which started Julia Taschereau not wanting Julia Danger near her. Julia Taschereau’s fear of Julia Danger had nothing to do with Proponent, but this was a reaction to Julia Danger’s increasingly hostile and abusive behavior in 1996 and in 1997 towards her mother.
In July 1997 Julia Taschereau was harmed while Julia Danger and her children were staying with Julia Taschereau. But Julia Danger flew to California on July 26, 1997 anyway, leaving Julia Taschereau on the sofa in pain. Anne Connor called Proponent who took Julia Taschereau to Lenox Hill Hospital. Upon information and belief, the hospital records on that day, which Lenox Hill never submitted to this court, show that Julia Taschereau had an accident at the hands of her daughter and/or her grandchildren.
After this injury, Julia Taschereau called people to do a Will for her and made the Will happen according to her wishes, not those of proponent.
The fraud on this court made up by Mr. Wasserman that there was undue influence over Julia Taschereau by her daughter Elizabeth Combier has failed, there is no evidence or testimony to these alleged acts. The deceit of nine years on this court by Kenneth Wasserman must stop.
A request from Betsy Combier:
A current update of this story occurred on Sunday, August 16, 2009, when a friend of a friend called me at approximately 2:10PM, a Mr. John Libecci. Mr. Libecci is, I understand, a private investigator who knows a friend of mine socially. I asked whether he could help me find out some information involving my federal court case filed in United States District court on June 8, 2009 involving the Surrogate Court and my mother's Will. After I told him about the property being taken by the court, he told me that the court never takes property without a reason; after I told him that the Will was not probated for eleven years, Mr. Libecci told me that "obviously the Will was not done right", and said that he worked for the Courts and the Judges, would not tell me what he did for the Court and the judges, then hung up. If anyone has information about Mr. John Libecci please email me at betsy@parentadvocates.org.
You may send me any information anonymously.
Đăng ký:
Bài đăng (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Provisions in Settlement Agreement Which Govern Award of Attorney's Fees, Rather than Statutory Provisions, Control. In Berns v Halberst...
-
The Cultural Property Advisory Committee will be holding public sessions on October 12 and October 14, 2010 to consider renewing the cultura...
-
For what its worth, the BG&S website has some articles I've authored, each of which should have been published by now in "The S...
-
I have just turned the magic age of 48. Getting a bit more grey, having a few more excuse me "sirs" thrown my way pauses me to th...
-
I'm living my dream. When I told my friends five years ago where I was moving they recommended I see a therapist. I escaped the big city... -
In People v Helmer ( 2009 NY Slip Op 04830 4th Dept 6/12/09) the sole issue was whether the victim was a stranger to defendant for purpose...
-
The need to renew previously made requests has been in the news recently with lots of reminders that if you don't a request to be on the...
-
Judge Nelson Roman, Deputy Mayor Carol Robles-Roman, Is Approved For Seat in Southern District CourtSenate Committee Approves Roman for Southern District By Mike Paquette New York Law Journal March 4, 2013 LINK Cover Story: Hispanic Power ... -
Let us thank the American Bar Association for giving the green light late last year to allow the corporations and corrupt TARP receiving ban...
-
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org LINK The subtitle of the article on the July 29, 2012 New York Post: "Judges' pals cashing in...
