The color-of-law interception (theft) of family generational
asset transfers is a serious organized crime industry operating out of state
probate courts. The variety and number of schemes and artifice employed vary
according to the case but when you read the following list of “Courts”, keep in
mind that this is only one simple case or controversy, involving a family
trust, and there is only one nucleus of operative facts.
I.
List of Courts
1.
Southern District of Texas [SDTX-592] Cause No. 4:12-cv-592
(Feb 2012)
2.
Harris
County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No 412248
3.
Harris
County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No 412249
4.
Fifth Circuit No. 12-20164 [USCA5]
5.
Harris County District Court 180 [DC180]
a. [USCA5] Curtis v. Brunsting
704 F.3d 406 (Jan 2013)
6.
Harris County District Court 164 [DC164]
Southern District of Texas [SDTX] Cause No. 4:12-cv-592
a. Injunction
b. Special Master
7.
[-401] Harris
County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No 412249-401
8.
[-402] Harris County Probate Court No. 4
a. Remand from SDTX to Harris County Probate Court No. 4 entered as transfer
order Cause No 412249-402 [-402]
9.
RICO Southern District of Texas [SDTX-1969] Cause
No.4:16-cv-1969
10.
Fifth Circuit [USCA5] No. 17-20360
a. [SDTX-592] Rule 60 Motion
11.
Fifth Circuit
[USCA5] No. 20-20566
12.
[-403] Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause
No 412249-403
[-403]
13.
[-404] Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause
No 412249-404
[-404]
14.
[-405] Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause
No 412249-405
[-405]
15.
[SDTX-1129] Southern District of Texas [SDTX- Case 4:22-cv-01129]
16.
[1st
COA] Texas First District Court of Appeals, No. 01-23-00362-CV
The Deafening Sound of Silence
We
have a very long chronology of litigation events consuming more than twelve
years, visiting a number of theaters, not all of which can be defined as courts
of competent jurisdiction. We have also been presented with demands for more
than a million dollars in attorney fees. What we do not have is an evidentiary
hearing or declaratory judgment in the
probate theater lawfully addressing the very first issues confronting the trust
beneficiary’s.
What instruments are we referring to when we talk about “the trust”?
I
think it is abundantly obvious and reasonable to conclude that these attorneys
have not been representing their client’s interests at all.
THE FILTHY
LUCRE SOUP LINE
“Grift of the Brunsting’s”, [Also referred to as the Brunstein
Frankensuits] is a case study in staged probate litigation schemes designed
to facilitate third party interception of family generational asset transfers,
often described as inheritance hijacking and other such euphemisms. This
particular case is unique in a number of unusual ways. It is not subject to the
Probate Exception to federal jurisdiction nor is it estopped by the
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. The real party in interest, Candace Curtis and I had
determined from a variety of occurrences and conversations, that Candace
youngest sister had implemented a scheme with the intention of stealing her
share of the family trust. We filed Candace lawsuit for breach of fiduciary
(failure to account) in the Southern District of Texas under diversity
jurisdiction on February 27, 2012. We lost this lawsuit.
Well, we know where it was the last time we saw it and we think it is still
there, despite appearances. This is a very convoluted story and the problem is
where to start so, let us start in the middle. Here is what I am going to tell
you, How to Steal Your
Family Inheritance! This describes the front-end pattern of what I consider an
estate planning bait and switch.
Transcript April 9,
2013 Hearing on Candace Curtis Application for Preliminary Injunction in
Southern District of Texas Case Number 4:12-cv-592. The Honorable Kenneth Hoyt
Jr, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas:
“Here's what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting
that this will not become a
feast and famine, feast for the
lawyers and famine for the
beneficiaries in this Court where
we are sitting around
churning the time out…” Page 35
So what I am telling the
parties, and I am
saying to you and to all
those who have ears to hear, that
this matter is going to get
resolved. It's not going to turn
into one of these long,
drawn-out episodes like the ones we
see on TV that go on for
years where lawyers make money and
people walk away broke. Page
40
Judge
Hoyt summarized the probate mafia staged
litigation methodology in these two paragraphs. I came to understand it
over time as, never having been to law school I was learning everything as a
first. The particulars of this methodology can best be
demonstrated by the case in point, which has so many things that
happened in appearance that did not happen as a matter of law, that it baffles
the mind.
Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless email to Rik Munson Sun, 18 Aug
2013
|
“This really needs to be away
from Hoyt and under one umbrella so that Anita, Amy, and Carole have to
account for what they did. Hoyt has already said he is going to resist doing
anything except dividing what is left. Even if you can somehow convince him
that isn't good enough, he is going to make your life miserable if you try to
make him do more----and in the process potentially do real damage to the
existing claims. Maybe my view is colored too much from having been in his
court on other cases, but I just don't see any benefit to being over there,
and I really don't see any benefit that outweighs the potential harm.”
|
Bayless
herself tells us why… to get the case Away
from Judge Hoyt because Hoyt was going to settle it and the attorneys would
not be allowed to play their staged litigation and wealth extraction games.
|
“Where
the federal case is filed substantially prior to the state case, and
significant proceedings have taken place in the federal case, we perceive
little, if any, threat to our traditions of comity and federalism. See Moses
H. Cone Hosp.,460 U.S. at 21-22, 103 S.Ct. at 940 (fact that substantial
proceedings have occurred is a relevant factor to consider in deciding
whether to abstain). In fact, by filing a state suit after a federal action
has been filed, the state plaintiff can be viewed as attempting to use the
state courts to interfere with the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We
agree with Royal that if we were to hold that Jackson applied in this
scenario, litigants could use Jackson as a sword, rather than a shield,
defeating federal jurisdiction merely by filing a state court action. Neither
Jackson nor the concerns underlying it mandate such a result.” Royal Ins. Co.
of America v. Quinn-L Cap. Corp., 3 F.3d 877, 886 (5th Cir. 1993), cited by
|
I bring
these quotes into the story at the onset as they explain a great deal about
what happened to the federal plaintiff and why there has been no remedy for the
real parties in interest. The attorneys (Thieves with P.H.D.’s) avoided any
hint of substantive remdy while generating fees amounting to more than a
million dollars. The Southern District of Texas is the court
of original jurisdiction and does have the authority to review
the state court proceedings for interference with federal jurisdiction, denial
of due process, forgery, misapplication of fiduciary assets and related claims.
This story has heros and villains so let’s find out who is who. Oh, here is one
more little quote before we get started.
Held: the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is confined to cases of
the kind from which it acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the
federal district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review
and rejection of those judgments. Rooker-Feldman does not otherwise override or
supplant preclusion doctrine or augment the circumscribed doctrines allowing
federal courts to stay or dismiss proceedings in deference to state-court
actions. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280,
291-294 (2005).
|
 Attorney Stephen
A. Mendel
Bar Card Number: 13930650
TX License Date: 11/06/1987
The Mendel Law Firm, L.P.
1155 Dairy Ashford, Suite
104
Houston 77079
United States (US)
Phone: (281)
759-3213
Fax: 281-759-3214
|
 Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless
Bar Card Number:
01940600
TX License Date:
05/26/1980
Bayless and Stokes
Houston Office
2931 Ferndale Street
Houston, Texas 77098
Phone: 713-522-2224
Fax 713-522-2218
|
|
 Attorney Candace
L. Kunz-Freed
Bar Card Number:
24041282
TX License
Date: 11/06/2003
9545 Katy Freeway, Suite
400,
Houston, Texas 77024
713-467-1060
|
 Attorney Bernard
Lisle Mathews III
State Bar of Texas ID
Number: 13187450
Staff Attorney with Vacek
& Freed
|
|
 Attorney Neal
Even Spielman
Bar Card Number: 00794678
TX License Date: 11/03/1995
Griffin and Mathews
1155 Dairy Ashford Suite
300
Houston, Texas 77079
Phone: 281-870-1124
Fax: 281-870-1647
|
 Attorney
Corey S. Reed
Thompson Coe
4400 Post Oak Parkway
Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77027
713-403-8213
creed@thompsoncoe.com
|
|
Gregory
Albert Lester Esq.
Eligible to Practice in Texas
Bar Card Number: 12235700
TX License Date: 11/02/1984
Primary Practice Location: Houston , Texas
PO Box 79766
Houston, TX 77279-9766
Practice Areas: Wills-Trusts-Probate
|
 Anita
Brunsting
Wannabe Family
Inheritance Thief
203 Bloomingdale Circle
Victoria, Texas 77904
|
|
 Mr. Jason
Bradley Ostrom
Deceased
Bar Card Number:
24027710
TX License Date: 11/01/2000
Primary Practice Location:
Houston , Texas
Practice Areas: Litigation: Commercial, Real Estate, Wills-Trusts-Probate
Statutory Profile Last Certified On: 01/29/2021
|
 Christine Riddle Butts
Former
Judge Harris County Probate Court No. 4
Riddle & Butts, LLP
Bar
Card Number: 24004222
TX
License Date: 12/11/1997
Primary
Practice Location: Houston , Texas
8777
W Rayford Rd
Spring,
TX 77389-5187
|
|
 Ms. L. Darlene Payne Smith
Eligible
to Practice in Texas
Crain, Caton &
James, P.C.
dsmith@craincaton.com
Bar Card Number:
18643525
TX License Date: 11/06/1987
Primary Practice
Location: Houston , Texas
1401 McKinney St Ste
1700
Houston, TX 77010-4037
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Every year millions upon
millions of dollars are stolen in staged litigation schemes devised with the
sole purpose of generating fraudulent bills for alleged attorney’s fees. In the
process of such schemes, unsuspecting citizens are being pulled into a vortex
of litigation posturing, disguised as legitimate court proceedings. The result
is financial and emotional devastation for the victims and unjust enrichment
for the color-of-law predators. A key battleground, well known for such staged
litigation schemes, are the state probate courts. The dot com revolution
generated great wealth and we, as a nation, are in the midst of the largest
transfer of family generational wealth in our history.
The objective of the probate
mafia is to intercept (steal) those assets using a cookie cutter system in
order to minimizing the work while maximizing the return on investment. The
problem confronting victims is where to find remedy. In probate, the heirs are
held in stasis (hostage) while the attorneys pose and posture, manufacturing
unnecesasry attorneys fees. In the end the fees are so large the family has to
submit to a settlement agreement (contract) that is always under terms drafted
by the predators themselves.
Every estate planning and
asset protection services provider will tell you that a pour-over will, with
independent administration devising solely to your living trust, will spare you
the horror of guardianship protection and spare your chuildren from suffering
the well known horrors the probate courts have been known to offer. The legal
and equitable theories are generally sound. The problem is in getting judges
and attorneys to burden themselves with the law, when they are clothed in
self-manufactured doctrines of impunity; having everything to gain and nothing
to lose.
Grift of the Brunstings is a
two-part story that includes a front end and a back end. The front end is an
estate planning bait and switch that follows a well beaten path and the back end is an attorney exploitation of
the front-end setup that also follows a well beaten path where the attorneys pose and posture and
generate bills for unearned fees while the court keeps the suckers in stasis by
not ruling on anything. (See comments on Page 35 Ln. 15-18).
|
“I am suggesting that this will not become a feast and famine, feast
for the lawyers and famine for the beneficiaries in this Court where we are
sitting around churning the time out…”
|
This has been a war of attrition coupled with
“disinheritance threat extortion” in effort to coerce a settlement agreement
that would launder the extorted ransom by contract, under the label of “fees
for legal services”
as will be shown in the case in point.
The
Family Estate Plan
Elmer and Nelva Brunsting had five adult children and having
heard a great deal about corruption
in the Harris County Probate Court they called an estate planning and asset
protection firm who then created an estate plan that included pour-over wills
and a living trust with assurances that his
products and services would avoid guardianship for the parents and obviate any need for the
children to suffer the expense and inconvenience of probate.
Elmer passed April 1, 2009
and Nelva passed November 11, 2011.
The entire Brunsting Frankensuit controversy was caused by improper
changes to the Brunsting Trust implemented by agents of the Vacek &
Freed Law Firm after Elmer Brunsting was certified non compos mentis and, that
continued incrementally following each subsequent family crisis event. The
acrimony thus created has since been exacerbated and exploited by collusion
among attorneys in pursuit of their own unjust self-enrichment at the
expense of their client’s interests, the interests of justice and the
inefficient use of the people’s forum for their own private interests.
A trust, in property law, is a specific type of private law
contract defining a relationship relating to property. Trusts are governed
according to the general law of contracts. The trust contract is referred to as
an indenture because the “Trustee”, holds a position of fealty “fiduciary
obligation” whereas the cestui que, commonly referred to as the “beneficiary”
holds a position of right. The trustee holds bare legal title to the Corpus
(property) of the trust for the sole purpose of performing the obligations
entrusted for the enjoyment of the beneficiary.
|
A trust is a mechanism used to
transfer property. Bradley v. Shaffer, 535 S.W.3d 242, 247 (Tex.
App.—Eastland 2017, no pet.); Hallmark v. Port/Cooper-T. Smith Stevedoring
Co., 907 S.W.2d 586, 589 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, no writ).
|
The hierarchy of controlling law is the trust indenture,
then the trust code. If neither the indenture nor the code addresses the
subject, the common law is controlling. The public policy parameters within
which trusts must confine their operation are covered in Title 9 of the Texas
Property Code, [a/k/a the trust code].
In distinguishing trusts from other kinds of legal
relationships there are two vital distinctions to be noted. The first is
separation of legal and equitable title wherein a fiduciary (loyal and
trustworthy) holds the bare legal title to property and the beneficiary
(deserving of a windfall) holds the equitable title and right to enjoy the
property. The beneficiary is considered the true property owner.
For a trust relationship to exist the separation of legal
and equitable title must be maintained, Texas
Property Code § 112.034, because when legal and equitable titles are held
by the same person merger occurs and
either the trust fails or no trust is created. When merger of legal and
equitable titles occurs the property is held by the beneficiary in their
individual capacity and not protected by the trust relationship.
The second aspect of a valid trust is the Imposition of
active and enforceable (fiduciary) duties on the holder of legal title (trustee).
Precatory language is insufficient. The duties of the trustee must be
affirmative and legally enforceable by the beneficiary and not merely moral or
ethical. The imposition of affirmative and enforceable duties is called
“executing the uses”, which finds origin in King Henry’s Statute of Uses of 1535. If the trustee has no enforceable
affirmative obligations to perform for the benefit of the beneficiary, the
trust becomes dry and both legal and equitable titles merge in the beneficiary
as no trust relationship exists. See Property Code § 112.032. This is the framework in which I will
explain the controversy that has arisen among the successor beneficiaries of
the Brunsting Family Living Trust.
The following hyperlinks are to the referenced documents.
The (P.?) references are to the page numbers where these instruments can all be
reviewed in a single file 0
- Front End thru Nelva passing 11-11-2011.pdf.
In 1996 Elmer Brunsting and his wife Nelva
created the “Brunsting Family Living Trust” for their benefit and for the
benefit of their five adult progeny. Elmer and Nelva were the original
co-trustees and Anita Brunsting was named as the sole successor trustee.
(Article IV)
In 1999 Elmer and Nelva also created an
irrevocable Life Insurance Trust for the benefit of their five issues, naming
Anita Brunsting as the sole trustee.
[This trust has been settled]
Elmer and Nelva Original Co-Trustees No
change to Article IV Anita is Successor Trustee
Elmer and Nelva Original Co-Trustees No
change to Article IV Anita is Successor Trustee
In 2005 Elmer and Nelva restated their
trust, replacing the original 1996 trust agreement in its entirety. The 2005
Restatement removed Anita from
becoming a successor trustee and replaced her with Carl and Amy as successor
co-trustees with Candace Curtis as the alternate.
[Article IV]
In 2007 Elmer and Nelva jointly amended
Article IV of the 2005 Restatement. With the 2007 Amendment, Elmer and Nelva
replaced Amy with Candace, leaving Carl and Candace as successor co-trustees
and naming Frost Bank as the alternate. (Amy removed)
2008
On June 9, 2008 Elmer Brunsting was certified
Non
Compos Mentis by three doctors and was
no longer able to make legal or medical decisions.
Article III of the 2005 Restatement provides
an “either/or” for making changes to the trust agreement. Either (1) the
signature of both Settlors or (2) a court of competent jurisdiction, neither of
which accompanied any instrument dated after June 9, 2008. It necessarily
follows that the administration and disposition provisions for Elmer’ trust
share could not be changed after June 9, 2008 and that the September 6, 2007
Amendment was the last family trust instrument signed by both Settlors.
“Our Right to Amend
or Revoke This Trust”
|
Section A.
We May Revoke Our Trust
While we are both living, either of us may
revoke our trust. However, this trust will become irrevocable upon the
death of either of us. Any Trustee, who is serving in such capacity, may
document the non-revocation of the trust with an affidavit setting forth that
the trust remains in full force and effect. Tile affidavit may, at the
Trustee's discretion, be filed in the deed records in each county in which
real property held in trust is located or in the county in which the
principal assets and records of the trust are located. The public and all
persons interested in and dealing with the trust and the Trustee may rely
upon a certified copy of the recorded affidavit as conclusive evidence that
the trust remains in full force and effect.
Section B. We May Amend Our Trust
This trust declaration may be amended by
us in whole or in part in a writing signed by both of us for so long as we
both shall live. Except as to a change of trust situs, when one of us
dies, this trust shall not be subject to amendment, except by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Each of us may provide for a different
disposition of our· share in the trust by using a qualified beneficiary
designation, as we define that term in this agreement, and the qualified
beneficiary designation will be considered an amendment to this trust as
to that Founder's share or interest alone.”
|
Article III of the 2005 Restatement contains a provision
that allowed each settlor the option of altering the disposition for their
individual share. The exercise of this power could only apply to the share of
the Settlor who exercised the power. Even then the Article III conditions
requiring the signature of both Settlors or a court of competent jurisdiction,
would be necessary. The reason is simple: Elmer’s incapacity created a vacancy
in the office of Co-Trustee. Nelva could not exercise plenary jurisdiction over
either trust share without causing a merger of legal and equitable titles, in
which case the trust would fail. Thus, no changes could be made after June 9,
2008, when Elmer Brunsting was certified Non
Compos Mentis, without a court of competent jurisdiction standing in for
the absent Co-Trustee. See [Tex.
Prop. Code 112.034], [Article
III], and Texas
Property Code Section §112.051 and Texas
Property Code 112.034(a). The provisions for
administration and disposition of Nelva and Elmer Brunsting’s irrevocable trust
remains those contained in the 2005 Restatement as amended in 2007.
Carl Henry Brunsting and Candace Louise Curtis are the lawful co-trustees.
The family trust was
to be terminated, divided by five and distributed to the beneficiaries at the
passing of the last settlor. No division of assets has ever been performed and
no balance sheet has ever been produced.
The
Rupture of
the Irrevocable Trust
Notwithstanding the fact that the trust had become
irrevocable, estate planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed, with the assistance
of Vacek associate attorney Bernard Lisle Mathews III, produced incremental
alterations to Elmer and Nelva’s trust agreement, beginning with drafting instruments
altering Article IV, installing their new client Anita Brunsting,
as successor co-trustee with Carl and issuing new certificates of trust.
None of the instruments authored after June 9, 2008 were signed by both
Settlor’s or approved by a court of competent jurisdiction and none could
affect the trustee designations in Article IV or the disposition provisions
expressed in Article X Section B; 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5.
· July 1, 2008 Certificate of Trust alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone (P.203)
· July 1, 2008 Appointment of Successor trustees alleged
to have been signed by Nelva alone (P.205)
These instruments and the series to follow are alleged to
have been signed by Nelva alone and even if they were signed by Nelva, they
were not approved by a court of competent jurisdiction and could not apply to
the disposition of Elmer Brunsting’s irrevocable trust share in any event.
Nelva’s was entitled to the income from Elmer’s trust share but had a yearly
limit of $5000 on access to the corpus. (Article IX Section A (2)) with
specific exceptions strictly limited to the Surviving founders “health, education, maintenance and support”.
2009
When Elmer passed on April 1, 2009 the successor co-trustees
for the irrevocable Family and Decedent’s trusts could only be those named in the
2007 Amendment; Carl Brunsting and Candace Curtis. None-the-less, V&F
continued making their illicit changes as the instruments dated after September
2007 were neither signed by Elmer nor approved by a court of competent
jurisdiction and none are valid.
2010
· Feb. 24, 2010 Certificate of Survivor’s Trust alleged
to have been signed by Nelva alone (P.210)
· Feb. 24, 2010 Certificate of Decedent’s Trust alleged
to have been signed by Nelva alone (P.212)
· February 24, 2010 General warrantee deed re 13360
Pinerock alleged to have been signed by Nelva alone (P.349)
· June 15, 2010 QBD/TPA (P239)
alleged to have been signed by Nelva alone
An identical certificate to one not signed on July 1, 2008
appears to have been signed by Nelva alone on February 24, 2010 and thus, the
steady encroachment continued as the Vacek & Freed Attorneys improper
changes to Elmer and Nelva Brunsting's trust agreement are implemented one
incremental alteration at a time, with Vacek & Freed’s new client,
"Anita Brunsting", now improperly embedded as a successor co-trustee with
Carl.
Freed and Mathews second wave of incremental alterations
came with the Certificates of Trust dated February 24, 2010.
·
New Family Trust
[BRUNSTING005810-5813]
·
Elmer H.
Brunsting Decedents Trust (disposition of this share was irrevocable as of June
9, 2008)
·
Nelva E Brunsting
Survivors Trust (disposition of this share was amendable as constrained by the
terms of Article III)
On June 15, 2010, Nelva executed a Qualified Beneficiary
Designation (Art III) combined with a Testamentary Power of Appointment (Art
IX) in which she advanced Candace Curtis $20,000 to be offset against her
future inheritance.
When Carl fell weak the Vacek & Freed team went to work
exploiting this family crisis as an opportunity to continue their alterations
of Elmer and Nelva's trust agreement. When Carl was is in a coma, Anita took
that opportunity to launch a character attack on Carl’s wife Drina, thus
distracting attention from the changes Anita and the Vacek crew were making to
remove Carl as a successor co-trustee. Freed's notes say "Anita called, Carl has encephalitis,
amendment to trust, Anita and Amy to be co-trustees". This is
clearly where we see the collusion between Anita, the Settlor’s disloyal estate
planning attorneys, and the irrevocable trust rupturing instruments that
followed Elmer’s incapacity.
|
2010-07-30 Freed Notes “Anita
called change the trust” Anita
is Telling Candace Kunz-Freed to “Change the Trust”. Candace Kunz-Freed in
concert with Bernard Lisle Mathews had already created instruments that they
kept secret, improperly naming Anita Brunsting as successor trustee in 2008.
|
· August 25, 2010 QBD/TPA allegedly executed by Nelva
alone
· Signature Above the Line
· CAN before signature
· Signature On the Line
· 2010-08-25 3 new certificates of trust
· 2010-08-25 Appointment of Successor Trustee P1016-1020
Texas Penal Code Section 32.46 -
Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution
2010-10-27 Carole
October 27 2010 email to Candy
2010-10-28 Exhibit Carole
email overhearing Nelva on phone with Freed telling Freed to Change it
back! Nelva told Freed to change it back (re 8/25/2010 QBD) and Freed’s
response was to use the HIPPA waiver against her own client.
Anita Brunsting and Candace Kunz-Freed caused Nelva Brunsting to be subjected
to a competency evaluation. These estate planning Grifters promised Elmer and
Nelva that their products and services would avoid guardianship and probate and
here comes the “Guardishsip Threat”.
Having failed to get Nelva declared incompetent, The Trio of
Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and Candace Kunz-Freed converged on Nelva in her
home on December 21, 2010, leaving her nowhere to retreat. Nelva is alleged to
have voluntarily resigned, appointing Anita as her successor yet again.
2011
|
2011-03-08 Anita
explaining the changes to Nelva
2011-03-11 V&F 000001 –
101 NEW survivor
and decedent trust certificates
2011-11-08 Candy
wanting to know where Nelva is
August 25, 2010 QBD/TPA alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone
August 25, 2010 QBD/TPA Appointment of Successor
Trustees
alleged to have been signed by Nelva alone
August 25, 2010 Certificate of Family Trust (P.249) Notary Stamp March 27,
2011 alleged to have been signed by Nelva alone
August 25, 2010 Certificate of Decedents Trust (P.251) successor trustee
designation Anita Kay Brunsting and Amy Ruth Tschirhart alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone
August 25, 2010 Certificate of Survivors Trust (P.253) successor trustee
designation Anita Kay Brunsting and Amy Ruth Tschirhart alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone
August 25, 2010 Certificate of Family Trust (P.255) alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone - successor trustee designations Anita Kay Brunsting
and Amy Ruth Tschirhart
August 25, 2010 Certificate of Decedents Trust (P.257) alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone - successor trustee designation Anita Kay Brunsting and
Amy Ruth Tschirhart
August 25, 2010 Certificate of Survivors Trust (P.259) alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone - successor trustee designation Anita Kay Brunsting and
Amy Ruth Tschirhart
2010-10-07 Freed's
Notes or 10.7.10 call with Nelva.V&F676
December 21, 2010 Certificate of Decedents Trust (P.291) Anita Brunsting Trustee
with Amy as Successor (Signed by Anita)
December 21, 2010 Certificate of Family Trust (P.294) Anita Brunsting Trustee
with Amy as Successor (Signed by Anita)
December 21, 2010 Certificate of Survivors Trust(P.297) Anita Brunsting Trustee
with Amy as Successor (Signed by Anita)
December 21, 2010 Appointment of Successor Trustees (P.301) alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone
December 21, 2010 Resignation
of Original Trustee (P.307) alleged to have been
signed by Nelva alone
Another Barrage of illicit instruments (P.319) is followed by changes to
all of the trust accounts.
|
Nelva had no autonomous power to change the irrevocable
trust as to do so would cause the merger of legal and equitable titles in one
person and the trust would fail. For a trust relationship to exist the separation
of legal and equitable title must be maintained, Texas
Property Code § 112.034, because when legal and equitable titles are held
by the same person merger occurs and
either the trust fails or no trust is created. When merger of legal and
equitable titles occurs the property is held by the beneficiary in their
individual capacity and not protected by the trust relationship. Nelva could
not make any changes without a court of competent jurisdiction standing in for
Elmer, the absent co-trustee. After more than twelve years in a probate court
with no probate administration pending, NONE OF THSES ISSUES HAVE EVER SEEN A
HEARING!
At the passing of the second Settlor the survivor’s share
was to terminate [Article VIII Section D]
and the decedents share was to terminate [Article IX Section D]
and the assets were to be divided into five equal shares, one for each
beneficiary [Article X]. Rather
than create five separate shares or 5 personal asset trusts as Amy’s March 6, 2012 affidavit
claims, Anita and Candace Freed created new certificates of trust for the
trusts that terminated with Nelva’s passing, making themselves the trustees of
the New Decedents Trust
and the New Survivors Trust
and the New Family Trust!
These are the facts at this juncture despite claims and
appearrances. Estate Planning Attorney Candace Kunz-Freed betrayed the
fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty owed to clients Elmer and Nelva Brunsting
by forming a conflicting confidential relationship with Anita Brunsting, one of
the five intended beneficiaries of the estate planning products and services
sold to Elmer and Nelva. Estate Planning Attorney Candace Kunz-Freed assisted
and encouraged Anita feeding into Anita’s desire to control (steal)
the family inheritance. Amy does not appear to have been involved with
Kunz-Freed directly and was only designated Co-Trustee after Nelva’s passing
but by then Anita already had full control.
Amy is not known to have exercised control over the trust
check book and was thrown under the bus by estate planning attorney Bernard
Lisle Mathews III in the SDTX with the filing of a false affidavit of facts [Doc
10-1] based upon what she had been told that Amy did not know to be true.
In any event those facts never manifest. In the instant of Nelva Brunsting’s
passing both shares of the family trust terminated and were to be divided into
five separate shares.
2012
After Nelva’s passing, the procedural catalyst for
commencing litigation was Anita Brunsting’s failure to provide a full, true and
complete accounting within 90 days of a request by current trust income
beneficiary Candace Curtis. Anita simply failed to provide a mandatory
accounting required under Article
XII Section E and waited for the lawsuits so she could play her fraudulent
8/25/2010 QBD “No-Contest” Card. All this encouraging and facilitating
performed by the Vacek & Freed law firm to put Anita in control, only opened
the 3rd party door to
looting this family’s inheritence.
After Nelva passed, Anita failed to properly respond to a
request for accounting from her co-beneficiary sister Candace Curtis and
Candace was aware that she was in a race to the courthouse. Compelled to sue
the alleged Co-Trustees, to obtain an accounting and fiduciary disclosures and
to compel specific performance, rather than file her action is a state court
Candace Curtis chose to file in the federal court under diversity of
citizenship, 28 USC §1332 (a) (1) 28 USC §1332 (b) and 28 USC §1332 (C) (2).
Anita Brunsting appeared in the Southern District of Texas
represented by Vacek
staff attorney Bernard Mathews III. Thus, the Vacek law firm appeared
representing Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting against the co-beneficiaries
that had been displaced by the Vacek law firm’s own creation of illicit
instruments.
The Vacek law firm gave specific assurances that their
products and services would avoid
probate and guardianship and yet, the first thing Mathews did was plead
the probate exception to federal jurisdiction. Candace federal lawsuit was
filed Pro se on 2/27/2012, dismissed sua sponte under the probate exception
March 8, 2012 and Candace Curtis promptly filed notice of appeal. In
researching the probate exception I found a number of alarming resources, among
which were seven hours of Texas Senate Hearings on the judiciary where the
problems with their probate courts was the main topic of discussion.
2006-10-11
791067a October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791067b October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791068a October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791068b October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791069a October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791069b October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791070a October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791070b October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791071a October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791071b October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791072a October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
791072b October 11 2006 Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
2006-10-11
Robert Alpert Texas Senate Hearing on Jurisprudence.mp3
I also
found a treatise titled: “FIGHTING THE PROBATE MAFIA: A
DISSECTION OF THE PROBATE EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION” and I observed a number of
lawsuits alleging federal civil RICO in the probate courts which I
read through and took under advisement. This was also my introduction to the
human trafficking industry called Guardianship Protection. Before moving forward I will
point out two allegations that attorneys for Defendants Anita Brunsting and Amy
Brunsting have since proven.
(1) Anita’s plan to steal the trust in a way that if Carl
or Candace objects, she gets to keep it. (Page 20 para 4) affidavit page 3 of 13
(2) Wiretapping Nelva’s phone. Affidavit page 7 of 13
Here is the first federal appeal:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Reversed and Remanded to
SDTX for further Proceedings finding Candace Curtis trust litigation outside
the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.
On April 9, 2013 Candace Curtis, now back in SDTX No.
4:12-CV-592, attended a hearing
on her application for a Preliminary injunction. The injunction was issued
in open court and a Memorandum
of Preliminary Injunction was issued April 19, 2013. Of particular note was
the observation of anomalies with the trust instruments provided by Anita.
Anita apparently tried to fool the Honorable Kenneth Hoyt Jr. by mixing parts
of the irrevocable life insurance trust (Anita was always the only trustee)
with parts of the 2005 restatement and Judge Hoyt noted the inconsistency.
a.
Because Candace
Curtis filed her pro se complaint for breach of fiduciary in the Southern
District of Texas and not a state court, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not
apply.
In
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-294 (2005)
the United States Supreme Court revisited the Rooker-Feldman doctrine after
only applying the doctrine in two previous cases.
|
Held: the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine is confined to cases of the kind from which it acquired its name: cases
brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
judgments rendered before the federal district court proceedings commenced
and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.
Rooker-Feldman does not otherwise override or supplant preclusion doctrine or
augment the circumscribed doctrines allowing federal courts to stay or
dismiss proceedings in deference to state-court actions.
|
b.
Because Candace
Curtis obtained a unanimous opinion from the federal Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeal in this case, the probate exception does not apply. Curtis v. Brunsting
704 F.3d 406 (Jan. 2013)
c.
The one thing
stopping the probate mafia, the only thing standing in their way, the one thing
they needed to get rid of in order to loot this family trust, is Candace
Curtis, federal jurisdiction and that damned preliminary injunction.
It is the federal case and the preliminary injuction that
compelled the probate mafia acolytes to engage in Cheshire Cat law gymnastics.
Ordinarily, the family would have been robbed under the pretext of “fees for
legal services” until there was nothing left to fight over and that would be
the case here if
not for Candace Curtis and that damned injunction.
On April 3rd 2012, Elmer’s will [412248]
and Nelva’s Wills [412249]
were filed in Harris County Probate Court No. 4.
2012-08-15 App to Probate Will 412249 and Issuance of Letters Testamentary
1. 2012-08-28 PBT-2012-287037 Order Admitting Nelva Will and Issuing letters to Carl
2013
2. 2013-04-05 ORDER approving INVENTORY APPRAISEMENT AND LIST OF CLAIMS
3. 2013-04-04 Certified Drop Order in 412249
The
Probate was Over on April 4, 2013 and no further action of any nature could be
had in that court with very few exceptions. None of those exceptions apply
here.
2012-03-09
The day after the federal case was dismissed Houston Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless
filed a Petition to take depositions before suit in Harris County 80th Judicial District Court Cause No. 2012-14538
whereupon she began conducting discovery. Harris
County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455
The
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Reversed and Remanded Candace Curtis action to
SDTX for further Proceedings finding Candace Curtis trust litigation outside
the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.
On
January 29, 2013, Attorney Bobbie G.
Bayless filed a professional negligence action against the estate planning
attorneys with Carl Brunsting as “independent executor” of his Parents estates.
Letters
testamentary for “independent administration” were issued to Carl Brunsting August
15, 2012. Independent Executor Carl Brunsting filed the verified inventory,
the inventory
was approved and the probate
was closed April 5, 2013.
|
"Independent
executor" means the personal representative of an estate under
independent administration as provided by Chapter 401 and Section 402.001.
The term includes an independent administrator.
|
Tex.
Estates Code § 402.001, reads as follows:
|
"Sec.
402.001. GENERAL SCOPE AND EXERCISE OF POWERS. When an independent
administration has been created, and the order appointing an independent
executor has been entered by the probate court, and the inventory,
appraisement, and list of claims has been filed by the independent executor
and approved by the court or an affidavit in lieu of the inventory,
appraisement, and list of claims has been filed by the independent executor,
as long as the estate is represented by an independent executor, further
action of any nature may not be had in the probate court except where this
title specifically and explicitly provides for some action in the
court."
|
On
April 9, 2013, (the same day a Preliminary
injunction hearing is held in SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592),
Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless, using Carl Brunsting as her plaintiff, filed non-probate
related tort claims exclusively related to the Brunsting Family Trust, in
Harris County Probate Court No. 4, nameing all of the beneficiaries of the sole
devisee trust, as defendant’s.
Thus
the question arises: What valid reason did [Attorney Bayless] have for filing
two halves of the same integrally related action in two different courts? The
cases not only share a common nucleus of operative facts but the first case,
professional negligence against the estate planning attorney’s, was causative
of the second and all of the injuries suffered flow from that original source?
Attorney
Bayless filed Carl’s tort action in the probate court when no further action
could be had in that court and she never even mentions the estates code.
Bayless probate court tort suit never invoked the jurisdiction of the statutory
probate court. At this juncture it’s all theater and after 11 years of being
held hostage for ransom in a courtroom theater with no jurisdiction, no evidentiary
hearings and no evidence of anything, Attorneys for Defendant’s, Anita
Brunsting and Amy Brunsting, are filing a motion
for summary judgment.
I want you to keep this in mind
because Carl resigned the office of “independent executor” February 19 2015 and thus what we have is summary judgment on counter claims, filed after
six years, after no evidentiary hearings, no testimony and no evidence in no
court with no plaintiff and no claims to counter, after the no plaintiff cause
was combined with a federal plaintiff case that was not even filed in the
probate court.
If
Attorney Bayless was seeking remedy for her client, why did she file half the
case in the District Court, then file a tort action in the probate court
involving all of the estate planners victims, as soon as no further action
could be had in that court, and then file a motion to transfer the professional
negligence case from a court of competent jurisdiction to a court that could
not compose itself a court of competent jurisdcition?
Bayless
intentions were to prevent remedy and force the victims to agree to “launder” the attorneys “extorted ransom” under the label of “fees
for legal services” using a coerced
settlement contract. It is the only topic that has been allowed since this
case was smuggled out of the federal court as follows.
This
is alleged to be Candace Curtis federal lawsuit, leaving one to wonder how in
the world this non probate case [Curtis
v. Brunsting 704 F.3d 406 (Jan 2013)] finds its way from the Southern
District of Texas to a state probate court? The answer is shocking. It’s what
we call Cheshire Cat Law. It was made to look like it did but it did not
because it could not and it doesn’t matter which end of the equasion you start
at. The federal court cannot remand a case to a court it was not removed from
and the state court cannot transfer a case from the federal court to itself.
2014
Plaintiff
Candace Louise Curtis, a California resident, had been pro se in the federal
court but at the end of 2013 she was compelled to retain an attorney and had
the misfortune of contacting Houston Attorney Jason Bradley Ostrom Texas State
Bar No. 24027710, Fed. Id. No. 33680 (Ostrom). Ostrom filed his appearance
January 6, 2014 and Judge Hoyt allowed a $5000.00 retainer to be paid from the
trust for counsel for the plaintiff and a $5000.00 retainer to be paid from the
trust for counsel for defendants.
Rather
than litigate his client’s claims in his client’s choice of forum, where he
could not milk the money cow under the pretext of fees for legal services,
Ostrom presented the federal court with a bundle
of unopposed motions to Amend Curtis Complaint to add Attorney Bayless
client Carl Brunsting, as an involuntary Plaintiff to pollute diversity, with
an unopposed motion to “remand” the case to Harris County Probate Court No. 4,
a court from which it had not been removed. [ROA
276-287] and which was
to be avoided at all costs. The Southern District Court approved the
bundle of unopposed motions on May 15, 2014.
The
first thing Ostrom did in the probate court that his clients case was not in,
was file a motion for a $40,000 distribution to pay his fees. Judge Hoyt only
allowed $5000.00 for the attorneys and what Candace Curtis got for her money
was a motion to go to where the attorneys could steal from the trust without
restraint. As will be shown from the bilkling records of some of the attorneys,
Ostrom planned to non-suit the federal injunction
but was fortunately terminated by Candace Cuirtis before he could do any more
damage.
On
May 28, 2014 Ostrom filed the federal remand order in the probate court in
“Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412,249-401” as a motion to enter a transfer
order [ROA
268] citing jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Estates Code §
32.005, Texas Estates Code § 32.006, and Texas Estates Code § 32.007, none of
which specifically apply to independent administration. The Order accepting
transfer was signed by the Honorable Christine Butts on June 3, 2014. [ROA
274, & 302] Rounding
out 2014 are three expert witness designations:
2014-12-01 Carole Designation of Darlene Payne-Smith
as Expert on Attorney Fees
2014-12-02 Darlene Payne Smith Self Declared Expert on Attorney Fees
2014-12-01 Case 412249-401 PBT-2014-387708 Carl expert
Witness designation Naming Bobbie G. Bayless as Expert on Attorney Fees
2015
The
June 3, 2014 transfer order is alleged to have created ancillary cause No.
412249-402 but the -402 file wasn’t opened until February 9, 2015, nearly eight months later. [ROA
29 para 2] (Maybe someone can explain the gaps in this
sequence?)
On
or about February 19, 2015, Carl
resigned the office of “independent executor”, substituting his wife Drina
as attorney in fact [ROA 25-26] and
moving to appoint Appellant Candace Curtis as successor Independent Executor.
February
20, 2015, without a personal representative for the “estate of Nelva Brunsting”,
an “Agreed Docket Control Order” was signed by the participating attorneys. [ROA 27-28] An
“Agreed Order to Consolidate Cases” [ROA 289] appears
in the record on March 5, 2015, signed by all of the participating attorneys,
dissolving “estate of Nelva Brunsting 412249-402” into “estate of Nelva
Brunsting 412249-401” and closing the -402 docket to further filing.
The
question here is whether the closed probate of an estate with no assets and a
tort suit with no plaintiff can be consolidated with the case of a plaintiff
whose case is not in the probate court? This question of course, presupposes
the probate court had jurisdiction over the living trust controversy to begin
with. It did not.
On
March 30, 2015, after data mining to get information on her lawsuit and
discovering that Ostrom’s actions had impugned her cause in fatal
contradictions, federal plaintiff Candace Curtis terminated attorney Jason
Ostrom and found herself having to defend against the Defendant Co-Trustees
no-evidence motion for summary judgment, filed June 26, 2015 [ROA 346]. This Motion is arguing that Carl
and Candace could not prove that Defendant’s illicit trust modification
instrument, called “Qualified Beneficiary Designation and Exercise of
Testamentary Powers of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement” [ROA181]
dated August 25, 2010 (8/25/2010 QBD), is invalid.
The
alleged August 25, 2010 “Qualified Beneficiary Designation and Exercise of
Testamentary Powers of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement “ (QBD/TPA)
is a digital stamp FORGERY and all
three signature page versions contain a different signature and the seal
of estate
planning attorney/notary Candace Kunz-Freed. Oh, how convenient.
Candace
Curtis answered [ROA
348] Defendants No-Evidence Motion with an objection to assuming
facts not in evidence and a demand for the Defendant Co-Trustees to produce the
instrument and qualify it as evidence. They have not and they will not because
they cannot. See Appellants
Opening Brief on Appeal_17-20360 in the RICO case Page 10 para 2.
The
attorneys August 3, 2015 summary judgment hearings suddenly became a hearing on
an emergency motion for a protective order, (filed 7/20/2015) [ROA
349] regarding illegal
wiretap recordings disseminated by the Mendel law firm via certified mail
in early July. [See ROA
238 para 3]
The
first problem confronting the pro se federal plaintiff Candace Curtis at this
juncture was: “Where is my lawsuit”? Candace Curtis was named a nominal
defendant in the tort suit Carl Brunsting filed in the probate court [ROA
5-24] and “Candace
Louise Curtis vs Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and Does 1-100” (SDTX
No. 4:12-cv-592) [ROA
219-247] is not the estate of Nelva Brunsting by any number,
label or description and is simply not there. To make matters worse, "Texas
probate jurisdiction is, to say the least, somewhat complex." Shell Cortez
Pipeline Co. v. Shores, 127 S.W.3d 286, 292 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, no
pet.) (citing Palmer v. Coble Wall Tr. Co., 851 S.W.2d 178, 180 n.3 (Tex.
1992).
The
Defendants immediately began making disinheritance
threats and filing pleadings as if Candace Curtis’ lawsuit was in the
probate court and somehow blended with Carl’s action and that they were
challenging “the trust”. The question of what instruments define the trust and
which instruments are illicit, has never
seen a hearing and has never been ruled upon even though the Memorandum of Preliminary
Injunction identifies problems with Anita’s attempt to fool the court
with her mix and match of instruments.
Candace Curtis’ federal lawsuit is not a
probate proceeding or a matter related to a probate proceeding, [ROA 248-255] was
not removed from, returned to, transferred to, or refiled in the probate court
and thus, is not in the probate court and has not been consolidated with Carl’s
plaintiff less 412249-401 action [ROA 289] or any other action in the probate court
as there is no estate for any action to have been filed anciallry to.
This is Cheshire Cat Law. It looks like there are court proceedings but as a
matter of law, where there is no court there can be no court proceedings.
|
• June 3, 2014 Order accepting
transfer of the federal case signed [ROA
274, & 302]
• February 3, 2015 Carl
was deposed by Vacek & Freed in the District Court CAUSE NO.
2013-05455 164th Judicial District Court. (Audio & Video) JOB NO. 177755
US LEGAL SUPPORT 713-653-7100 Carl testified
that he had already paid attorney
Bayless $225,000.00
• February 9, 2015 “estate
of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-402” was opened [ROA
29 para 2]
• February 12, 2015 Carl is alleged
to have given Drina POA (Not in probate records)
• February 17, 2015 Carl
resigns and files substitution of Drina as attorney in fact [ROA
25-26]
• February 20, 2015 An Agreed
Docket Control Order was signed [ROA
27-28]
• March 9, 2015 an “agreed
order to consolidate “estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-402” with
“estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-401” was signed, closing the -402 file.
[ROA
289]
|
The
Remand
order” was accepted in Probate Court No. 4 as a transfer the Federal case
was then fraudulently converted into “Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-402”
and then Dissolved into Estate of Nelva
Brunsting No. 412249-401, which is the case brought by Carl Brunsting both
individually and as “independent” executor on April 9, 2013.
When
Bayless filed Carl’s suit in probate court, in an independent administration,
of a pour-over estate, five days after the inventory had been approved, he
failed to plead probate court jurisdiction as it applies to independent
administration and thus, no matter what it was staged to look like, nothing
actually happened in Carl’s April 9, 2013 probate court action because there
was no court. On June 26, 2015 Defendants’ new attorneys in Probate Court No. 4
filed a No-Evidence
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment claiming that Carl and Candace could
provide is no evidence that their 8/25/2010 QBD is invalid. They try to shift
the burden of showing their 8/25/2010 QBD is invalid but they are putting the
cart before the horse. The instrument is not in evidence. The defendants have
not and will not attempt to introduce the thing in evidence in a proper court
because they cannot.
The
Agreed Docket
Control Order, [that all of the attorneys
signed the day after the resignation
of the “independent executor”] had a deadline of August 3, 2015 for hearing
dispositive motions. On or about July 1, 2015 Candace Curtis received a CD, via
certified mail with signature required, containing illegally obtained wiretap
recordings sent from Anita’s counsel, Brad Featherston of the Mendel Law Firm.
On
July 7, 2015 Carl Brunsting filed an Emergency
Motion
for Protective Order regarding the illegally obtained wiretap recordings.
On July 9, 2015 Carl Brunsting filed a motion
for partial summary judgment focusing on improper financial transactions,
but did not respond to Defendants’
no-evidence motion. On July 13, 2015 Attorneys for Drina Brunsting (Carl’s
alleged attorney in fact) and the Defendants each filed notices setting hearing
on their dispositive motions for August 3, 2015. (Mendel
/ Bayless)
Later in the day on July 13, 2015 Plaintiff Curtis filed her answer
to Defendants’ no-evidence motion, with a motion and demand to produce evidence, demanding Defendants produce the archetypes
of the alleged 8/25/2010 QBD’s and qualify them as evidence. They have not and they will not because
they cannot. Defendants cannot produce the forged 8/25/2010 QBD instruments
and qualify them as evidence.
On
July 22, 2015, while Plaintiff Curtis was in flight home to California, Carl
Brunsting’s counsel, Bobbie Bayless, arranged with Defendants’ counsel to
remove the summary judgment motions from the August 3, 2015 calendar and
replaced that with hearing on an emergency
motion for protective order regarding the wiretap recordings. No
witnesses were called and no order after hearing followed. We wouldn’t see
another Docket
Control Order until June 2021, after more than six years of continued
attorney posing and posturing as if there were actual litigation. It seemed
like every time we traveled to Houston from California to have a meaningful
hearing it was always converted into a “status conference” where everything was
discussed except the thing set for hearing.
2016
We
still don’t know much about probate at this juncture but having suffered the expense
of traveling to Houston on three separate occasions to attend “HEARINGS” in the
probate court only to be greeted with some kind of staged performance called
“status conference”, it was abundantly apparent that something didn’t smell
right. After the Remand/transfer charade; the conversion labeled “agreed order
to consolidate”; the absence of a record of the proceeding in which these acts
were agreed upon; the docket tampering (infra); the threats and ransom demands
never committed to paper; the wiretap recordings used to eliminate the “agreed
docket control order; the Fraud Lester report and the amateurish
intimidation performance put on by Neal Spielman on March
9, 2016 in cooperation with the rest of the associates, and more; it became
clear that we were in a hostage ransom extortion and attrition crisis. The
question confronting Candace Curtis and I this entire time was remedy. What do
you do when all the attorneys are working tohgether to fleece their clients?
After
reading the horror stories of so many others it was obvious where the
“associates” were headed and that a number of clearly defined obstacles were
before us. Like a silver bullet for a werewolf or witch, a wooden stake for a
vampire, kryptonite for Superman, there has to be a simple answer to this very
complex question, requiring a multidisciplinary approach that includes game
theory, case study and the martial arts. The problem with an Aikido opponent is
getting them to commit to a position they have to defend. You do not have an opportunity to depose
opposing counsel and they are “immune” from accountability for injuries
suffered by their non-client victims.
|
“If you know the enemy and know yourself,
you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but
not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you
know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
|
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Unable
to get an evidentiary hearing, unable to locate Candace Lawsuit, no Docket
Control Order in place, No plaintiff with standing… We knew where they were
going and rather than being called “disgruntled
litigants seeking vengeance for being on the losing end of fully litigated
state court determinations” after they arrived at their destination, (Rooker-Feldman)
we filed racketeering claims out front.
On
July 5, 2016, we filed honest services fraud allegations under the RICO
statutes and, although not well written and not yet having full proof of facts,
the case was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, it
served its purpose of forcing the “probate mafia” attorneys to assume a
position they would then have to defend and every one of them lied, including the Judge and the Associate Judge!
|
Anita
Brunsting Doc 30 p.1
Amy
Brunsting Doc 35, p.1 (Ghost written)
Steven
Mendel Doc 36 p2, 6
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p2, 16, 30
Former Judge Christine Butts is board certified in estate planning and
probate law in Texas and she never ruled on a single dispositive issue, not
even on jurisdiction.
Jason
Ostrom Doc 78 p.1
Gregory
Lester Doc 83 p.1
Darlene
Payne Smith Doc 84 p.9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17
|
|
Vacek
& Freed Doc 20, p.4, 6, 7
Bobbie
G. Bayless, Doc 23, p.2, 3
Neal
Spielman Doc 40, p.3
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p3, 4, 7, 15, 29
Former Judge Christine Butts is board certified in estate planning and
probate law in Texas and she never ruled on a single dispositive issue, not
even on jurisdiction.
Darlene
Payne Smith Doc 84, p.8, 10
|
|
Neal
Spielman Doc39, p1, 2 - Doc 40, p.1, 2, 3
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p.18 - Doc 79 p.9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17
|
Jill Young Doc 25, p.3 At page 12 Doc 25
Jill Young asks for sanctions against the RICO Plaintiff’s as if it was the pro
se that manufactured this sham probate litigation.
|
Here,
Plaintiffs’ Complaint resorts to concocting conspiracy theories and
hypothesizing the existence of shadow organizations engaging in “poser
advocacy” through a cabal of probate mafiosos. Other courts in this Circuit
have held that almost identical allegations made by pro se litigants should
be dismissed and were sanctionable. See Whitehead v. White & Case, LLP,
12-CV-0399, 2012 WL 1795151, at *2 (W.D. La. Apr. 19, 2012), report and
recommendation adopted, 12-CV-0399, 2012 WL 1795148 (W.D. La. May 16, 2012)
(dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s conspiracy claims against judges, magistrate
judges, attorneys and law firms, as “frivolous and vexatious” and sanctioning
the pro se plaintiff). Plaintiffs’
allegations are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional—at best. They also appear
to constitute an attempt by Plaintiffs to seek revenge for being on the losing
end of trust and estate determinations that were already fully litigated in
Texas state court. (can you say Liar?)
|
That
brief was filed September 15, 2016 and today is Friday, July 26, 2024. I
dare you to find anything fully litigated or even introduced into evidence in a
state court with one exception: The federal preliminary injunction filed in the 151st District Court and authenticated as a final judgement
under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. All Jill Young’s
attorney did to answer this RICO complaint was cut and paste, right down to the
“Zanyism” spiel put on by attorney Mr. Rafe A. Schaefer at the preliminary
hearing. I read Sheshtawy, Peterson, Dexel, Chalupowski, and far too many other reprobate horror
stories to list.
If there is a decedent’s estate to administer, what’s in it?
|
GENERAL PROBATE COURT
JURISDICTION; APPEALS.
(a) All probate proceedings
must be filed and heard in a court exercising original probate jurisdiction.
The court exercising original probate jurisdiction also has jurisdiction of
all matters related to the probate proceeding as specified in Section 31.002
for that type of court.
(b) A probate court may
exercise pendent and ancillary jurisdiction as necessary to promote judicial
efficiency and economy.
(c) A final order issued by a
probate court is appealable to the court of appeals.
(d) The administration of the
estate of a decedent, from the filing of the application for probate and administration,
or for administration, until the decree of final distribution and the
discharge of the last personal representative, shall be considered as one
proceeding for purposes of jurisdiction. The entire proceeding is a
proceeding in rem.
|
Alongside
the “VexatiousLitigant” ruse used to
stuff a rag in the victims mouth, a leading artifice in the probate mafia game
after a completed theft is “Disgruntled
Litigants seeking vengeance for being on the losing end of fully litigated
state court determinations”. This is an invocation of the Rooker-Feldman
Doctrine that bars federal court review of state court proceedings. As
previously stated. The Rooker-Feldmen Doctrine does not apply to Candace Curtis
federal court lawsuit and the federal injunction
remains in force. In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries
Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-294 (2005) the United States Supreme Court revisited
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine after only applying the doctrine in two previous
cases.
The
Brunsting Trust RICO action was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim
but that is no shame for a pro se that is pleading one of the most difficult
claims in the federal criminal arsenal, against predatory attorneys who
specialize in sham litigation in the probate theater. We filed notice of appeal
anyway as building a record is one of the essentials in any case study styled
methodology and again, they all lied. Texas has a rather long history of this
shameful abuse of our legal system and whatever descriptive expressions may
have been used they were found in other such cases and Jill Young is
no stranger to being a defendant accused of this kind of wrong
doing. In fact, while the RICO case was before Judge Bennett Clarinda Comstock
and Judge Butts were before Judge Rosenthal with Probate Mafia Associate Judge
Comstock being represented by Cory Reed and Zandra Foley, the same attorneys
representing estate planning Grifter Candace
Kunz-Freed, the same attorney that ruptured the Brunsting Trust the instant
it could not be amended under the terms of the trust itself.
Let’s
talk about fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. This would be a good place to
note that Bayless named Candace a “Nominal Defendant” in Carl’s
probate court action and this becomes an issue when we talk about Carl as
(1) involuntary plaintiff and pollution
of diversity, (2) consolidation,
(3) severance and (4) non-suit.
1. How does a cross plaintiff pollute
diversity?
2. How does a plaintiff consolidate his
claims with those of his defendant?
a.
Who was
representing the estate on March 9, 2016 when all the attorneys signed their “Agreed Order to Consolidate Cases”? Carl’s probate court case has no
plaintiff with standing and Candace Curtis federal case is not even in that
theater.
b.
How did Candace Louise Curtis vs
Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and Does 1-100 become “estate of Nelva
Brunsting”?
c.
3. Nothing substantive has been resolved
and nothing has been entered into evidence as there have been no evidentiary
hearings in nearly ten years.
a. On what ground were Carl and Candace
consolidated if they have no claims in common?
b. Where is the transcript of the
“hearing” in which this Agreed Order to
Consolidate Cases was made? [See Docket
Tampering infra]
Ostrom’s
REMAND ruse to get out of Judge Hoyts court, where his fees would be limited, and
into the probate court where he immediately asked for $40,000 was clearly
motivated by self-interest. When we look at the history of the “Bayless and
Ostrom” tag team in cases like Lesikar v.
Moon, 237 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. 2007), we begin to see a pattern
coming fully into view. When Fraud Lester showed up as a Defendant in the RICO
action represented by Candace Curtis former attorney Jason Ostrom, the stench
of collusion was stifling.
The
denial of evidentiary hearings and entry of rulings and orders without evidence
along with death penalty sanctions to the real party in interest, based upon a
myriad of frauds, is common in these color-of-law organized crime theft
enterprises.
Anytime
a hearing was actually scheduled it would become a dog pile as all the
attorneys suddenly wanted their issues heard at the same time on the same date
and every “hearing” became a “status conference” where the issue at issue was
never addressed. . One cannot prove a negative but by specific negative
averance one can shift the burden of bringing forth affirmative evidence to prove
the fact at issue. Candice Curtis complained numerous times about not being
able to get an evidentiary hearing in the probate court. Title 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
2016-2017
Eleven
years later, not one evidentiary hearing has been held and not one witness has
testified in open court. None-the-less, the attorneys for the family
inheritance thieves filed a motion for summary
judgment where they say their
own fiduciary discloures in the SDTX are “hearsay”. This is an admission of fraud! The fact that they
are relying on a
known forgery, that has been objected to as assuming a fact not in
evidence, that is illicit on its face as attempting to amend an irrevocable
trust, in a court with no jurisdiction in a case with no plaintiff, is worthy
of note.
The
Heinous Extortion Instrument
Enter
into an agreement to launder the extorted ransom as fees for legal services or else,
if you read what fraudulent administrator Gregory Lester wrote, “there
might not be a divide by 5”. (Attorney Neal Spielman at the March 9, 2016
ambush hearing that was supposed to be on motions to transfer the District
Court case to the Probate Court.
2016-07-05
Case 4-16-cv-01969 Doc 1 Harris
County RICO_Complaint P.36, 37
2016-09-21
Case 4116-cv-01969 Dkt 35 Amy
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
2016-09-27
Case 4-16-cv-01969 DKT 33 Plainitff
Reply to Vacek and Freed Rule 12 Motions
2018-09-05
Responses
to Defendants Motions to Dismiss
The
Heinous Extortion Instrument, illicitly attempting to erase and replace an irrevocable
trust, is a forgery, three forgeries accompanied by a tampered Notary log. .
The
Record clearly shows 3 distinctly different “true and correct copies” of the
8/25/2010 QBD, all bearing (1) the likeness of Nelva signature, (2) a Candace Freed
signature, and (3) the image of Freed’s notary seal, but the three “true and
correct copies” do not share the same image of Nelva’s signature.
· In Anita’s 156 page objection filed December 5, 2014 the QBD appears at pdf pages 97 through 132 with
signature page 37 at p134 bearing bates stamp P229. (Exhibit B_1, P.22)
· On Page 1, Mendel argues that “the trust” does not
auithorize distributions to pay attorney fee creditors and that the trust
prohibits distributions to pay attorney fee creditors.
· By their own admission Anita and Amy Brunsting’s
November 5, 2011 Motion for
Summary Judgment claiming
Mendel and Spielmans attorney fees come from Candace Curtis share of the trust,
is a challenege to the settlors intentions.
· Using the corruption of blood provisions in the
Heinous Extortion Instruments (Signature Version 1,
Signature Version 2,
Signature Version 3
and the Notary Log)
this proves that Anita caused litigation to be brought (failure to account Article XII Section E) for the purpose of advancing a theory that, if true,
would enlarge her share. This is a clear violation of the in Terrorem Clause in
Article XI Section C of the 2005 Restatement.
· We also have to look at the injunction.
Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting and their attorneys Stephen Mendel and Neal
Spielman violated the preliminary injunction by contracting to pay attorney
fees from the trust corpus.
· In Carole’s 133 page objection filed in base Case [No.
412249] February 17, 2015, the QBD appears at pdf pages 97 through 133 with
signature page 37 appearing at p133 bearing Bates stamp P192. (Exhibit B_2, P.23)
|
OBJECTION
TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL DISTRIBUTION FILED IN BASE DOCKET BY
REQUEST OF CARLINDA COMSTOCK PROBATE COURT 4 Film code number PBT-2015-55734
|
· Curtis original federal court complaint, affidavit and
exhibits were made a part of the probate court record on February 9, 2015. In
the 601 page
notice document the August 25, 2010 “Qualified Beneficiary Designation and
Testamentary Power of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement” (QBD) appears
at pdf pages 552 through 588 with signature page 37 at p588. (Exhibit B_3, P.24)
It
is odd that Carole’s 133 page objection and this 601 page notice would be filed
in the base probate record in February of 2015 when the verified inventory was
approved April 5, 2013, the probate docket closed, and no further action of any
nature could be had in that court after that except where Title II of the
estates code specifically and explicitly provides for some action in the
probate court. (Texas
Estates Code § 402.001)
Independent
Executor is defined by Tex.
Estates Code § 22.017 as follows:
|
"Independent
executor" means the personal representative of an estate under
independent administration as provided by Chapter 401 and Section 402.001.
The term includes an independent administrator.
|
Tex.
Estates Code § 402.001, reads as follows:
|
"Sec.
402.001. GENERAL SCOPE AND EXERCISE OF POWERS. When an independent
administration has been created, and the order appointing an independent
executor has been entered by the probate court, and the inventory,
appraisement, and list of claims has been filed by the independent executor
and approved by the court or an affidavit in lieu of the inventory,
appraisement, and list of claims has been filed by the independent executor,
as long as the estate is represented by an independent executor, further
action of any nature may not be had in the probate court except where this
title specifically and explicitly provides for some action in the
court."
|
The
tort claims attorney Bayless filed in the probate court after the inventory had
been approved and the probate closed, using her disabled client Carl Brunsting
as “independent executor”, never even mentions the estates code.
An
honest services fraud case brought under the racketeer influenced corrupt organization
statutes filed July 5, 2016: dismissed for failure to state a claim. The point
of this exercise was to force the participants to assume a position they would
later have to defend. They all pled Probate
Case, Probate Matter and Probate Proceeding,
including the probate judges.
2018
· Affirmed for lack of a sufficient statement of
supporting facts June 28, 2018. We have those facts now.
Mr.
Mendel will have fun explaining his “fealties” (filed
April 8, 2022 as an alleged disclosure in Judge Rosenthal’s Court). This
statement has never been filed in any other court and while it says it does not
include the RICO, there are 15 pages of billing entries between July 5, 2016
and May 16, 2017 and there were no proceedings in the probate theater
that entire time. Moreover, he used it to fool Judge Rosenthal into believing
his lie that candace curtis sued her sisters in the probate theater. Attorney
Stephen Anthony Mendel is a
thief, a fraud and a liar.
The
Litigation Charade continued in the probate theater after the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeal upheald the dismissal of our RICO complaint, but it
served its purpose. All of the Defendants Lied claiming probate case, probate
matter and probate proceedings… probate, probate probate. There
is no estate to probate. Nobody wants that used car and it certainly
doesn’t justify a million dollars in attorney fees.
All
the Attorneys are Experts on Attorney Fees
|
Anita
Brunsting Doc 30 p.1
Amy
Brunsting Doc 35, p.1 (Ghost written)
Steven
Mendel Doc 36 p2, 6
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p2, 16, 30
Former Judge Christine Butts is board certified in estate planning and
probate law in Texas and she never ruled on a single dispositive issue, not
even on jurisdiction.
Jason
Ostrom Doc 78 p.1
Gregory
Lester Doc 83 p.1
Darlene
Payne Smith Doc 84 p.9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17
|
|
Vacek
& Freed Doc 20, p.4, 6, 7
Bobbie
G. Bayless, Doc 23, p.2, 3
Neal
Spielman Doc 40, p.3
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p3, 4, 7, 15, 29
Former Judge Christine Butts is board certified in estate planning and
probate law in Texas and she never ruled on a single dispositive issue, not
even on jurisdiction.
Darlene
Payne Smith Doc 84, p.8, 10
|
|
Neal
Spielman Doc39, p1, 2 - Doc 40, p.1, 2, 3
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p.18 - Doc 79 p.9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17
|
Jill Young Doc 25, p.3
2019
2019-02-01 E8_2016-12-29 Mendel email to Carole Distribution Denied - Injunction Liquidity
and Incurred Debt.pdf
This is case #3 supra, Harris County District
Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455 ordered
transferred to Harris County Probate Court No. 4 on April 4, 2019, without
a pending probate administration to be ancillary to and, where it remains
without a plaintiff.
2020
Filed
with Harris District Clerk on June 12, 2020, domesticating the federal preliminary
injunction. The Foreign Judgment was not challenged by the respondents
within 30 days as required and thus, the Foreign Judgment became a final
judgement on July 12, 2020.
2021
2021-11-05 Candace Curtis Expert Witness Designates all of the other parties
previously designated experts, as her witnesses.
2022
A statutory Bill of Review constituting a
direct attack on the Probate Courts Order denying Candace Curtis Plea to the
Jurisdiction.
This
case was created March 11, 2022 by an order severing Carl Brunsting from the
412249-401 lawsuit Carl Brunsting filed in the probate court April 9, 2013,
[No. 412249-401], leaving Candace Curtis as the sole defendant with alleged
Co-Trustee Defendants Amy Brunsting and Anita Brunsting and their attorneys
Stephen Mendel and Neal Spielman as the only remaining Plaintiff’s in the
lawsuit Carl Brunsting filed the same day as the preliminary injunction hearing
in the Southern District of Texas.
(Appeal
Withdrawn) The clerk will not compile a record from more than one case number.
This would explain why the attorneys create a mess with multiple case file
numbers when there is only one family and one family trust at issue.
· 2022-07-10 Petition for Writ of Mandamus (denied with no explanation)
After the attorney remand fraud, the case consolidation fraud,
the lengthy litigation pretention, the Rule 11 Agreement collusion, the Motion
to Sever and the Non-suit of the severed plaintiff charade, Candacxe Curtis
filed a Notice of Removal to the federal court. This SDTX case was created
April 7, 2022 by Notice of Removal of the alleged Co-Trustees’ counterclaims to
the Southern District of Texas.
Judge
Rosenthal remanded to the probate court saying Curtis
sued her siblings in the probate court.
This misstatement of facts was a a result of Attorney Stephen Mendel lying to
Judge Rosenthal and using
his fee statement cover to claim Candace Curtis was a “vexatious litigant”
that “sued her siblings in the probate
court.”
“In Reference
To:
C.A. No. 412249 &
412249-401; Candace Curtis v. Anita
Brunsting, Et Al; In Probate Court No. 4,
Harris County,
Texas.
C.A. No. 412249 &
412249-402; Candace Curtis v. Anita
Brunsting, Et Al - Plea in Abatement; In
Probate Court No.
4, Harris County, Texas.
C.A. No. 412249 &
412249-403; Carl Henry Brunsting,
Executor of the Estates of
Elmer H. Brunsting & Nelva E.
Brunsting; v. Candace L.
Kunz-Greed & Vacek & Freed,
PLLC; In Probate Court No. 4,
Harris County, Texas
(transfer of C.A. 2013-05455
from the 164th District Court,
Harris County, Texas).”
Stephen
Anthony Mendel Texas State Bar No. 13930650, is a liar and a fraud!
On
page 1 Mendel lies about who filed suit in the probate court in 412,249-401.
Curtis did not sue her siblings in the probate court. Curtis
sued Anita and Amy in the Southern District of Texas. More than a year
before Carl’s 412,249-401 action was filed in the probate court.
Candace
Curtis Notice
of Appeal
Appellants
Opening
Brief
Appellants
Appendix
of Exhibits
Then,
in Appellees pleadings before the 1st District Court of Appeal they
made it rather clear that they were colluding together against the federal
plaintiff they had defrauded with their fake probate/consolidation/summary
judgement/severance charade.
2023-07-27
Agreed Motion
to Extend Appellee Deadline
2023-08-31
Appellees opposed 2nd
Motion to extend time for filing Appellee Brief
When
they finally filed their answer it was nothing but an ad hominem rant
2023-10-02
Appellees
Brief
2023-11-01
Appellants
reply brief nails the lid on the appellees game coffin but leaves a way
out. The Appeal is a dead ringer but it
becomes moot if at any point there ceases to be a controversy among the parties
>>> $$$. They just have to
get the wind blowing in the right direction.
|
The
Brunsting trust controversy is not a probate matter, a probate case or a
probate proceeding and there is no estate administration for all of these
fraudulently manufactured cases to have been filed ancillary too.
Elmer
Brunsting [412248]
and Nelva Brunsting [412249]
had pour-over-wills and a living
trust. The wills provided for independent administration. Elmer’s estate inventory
does not contain any tangible property other than ½ of a 1970’s used car and
Nelva’s estate
inventory does not contain any tangible property other than ½ of a 1970’s
used car. Nothing else in either inventory provides a basis for probate’s in
rem jurisdiction
|
THE
PARTICIPANTS
Vacek
holds a copyright on his trust instruments but only those that legitimately
drafted. There is no direct evidence that Albert knew what Kunz-Freed and
Mathews were doing under his nose but his law firm is none-the-less liable for
damages resulting from illicit instruments drafted by Kunz-Freed and
Mathews.
(Vacek
& Freed P.L.L.C.) Estate planning attorney’s Candace Kunz-Freed and Bernard
Lyle Matthews III are the disloyal estate planning attorneys that abandoned
privity with their clients, Elmer and Nelva Brunsting and formed a conflicting
confidential relationship with Anita Brunsting, one of the five intended
beneficiaries of the products and services the Vacek law firm sold to Client’s
Elmer and Nelva Brunsting. Vacek employee/partner Candace Kunz-Freed (Freed)
worked very closely with Anita Brunsting using each family crisis event to
implement changes not authorized by the trust instrument and after the trust
had already became irrevocable by its own terms (Article III). Disciplinary
Rules 1.06(a), (b)(2), (d), (e), (f) and comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, & 9
The
most important thing Attorney Candace Freed said at her deposition is that she
couldn’t pass the board certification exam if she tried [P.141] and yet,
she still advertises “estate planning services” and “The Pursuit of
Excellence”. (http://www.freedlawyer.com)
However, having abandoned
privity
When
trust beneficiary and de jure trustee Candace Curtis filed breach of fiduciary
claims in the SDTX Bernard Lyle Matthews III (Mathews) appeared on behalf of
their new clients arguing the case fell within the probate exception. Mathews
appeared using a Green and Mathew’s law firm label to conceal his conflict of
interests. Disciplinary Rule 1.06 et seq.
Attorney
Bobbie G. Bayless (Bayless) representing Carl Brunsting (or his wife Drina) was
the attorney that engaged in state court activities while Candace Curtis
federal appeal was pending. That series begins with a petition to take
depositions before suit, Harris County 80th Judicial District Court No.
2012-14538. After the 5th Circuit revered and remanded for further
proceedings (Curtis v Brunsting 704 F.3d 406) and while the federal case was in
transition between courts, Bayless filed malpractice claims against the estate
planning law firm in Harris County 164th Judicial District Court No.2013-05455.
The Vacek & Freed Defendants are represented by Thompson Coe attorneys
Attorney Zandra E. Foley, State Bar No. 24032085 and Cory S Reed, Texas State
Bar No. 24076640.
|
At
a deposition July 3, 2015, [Tab
74, p.77
ln 16-25] Carl testified that he had already paid attorney Bayless a quarter
of a million dollars. That was more than eight years ago and none of Carl’s
claims have been resolved.
|
With
the estate planning attorneys sequestered in the district court and the trust
held hostage in the probate court Bayless resigns her incapacitated independent
executor [Tab
27] and began signing agreements [Tab 28
& 29]
with the other participating attorneys.
Bayless
filed Carl Brunstings non-probate tort suit in Harris County Probate Court
April 9, 2013. Bayless filed Hannah v Hatcher in August 2013. Bayless wrote a plea
to the jurisdiction and petition
for writ of mandamus No. 14-14-00126-CV, In Re Julie Hannah, effectively
arguing that the tort claims she filed in the district court were not probate
claims. [see In re Hannah , 431
S.W.3d 801] The ringer is Mortensen
v Villegas 630 S.W.3d 355! Mortensen is a judicial analysis of In re Hannah
In re Hannah,
431 S.W.3d 801, 807-08 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014. In
essence, Bayless
petition and the opiniuon of the Court of appeal both show that Bayless
knew Carl’s probate court claims were not probate realted claims and that the
Statutory Probate Court had no subject matter jurisdiction.
|
At
a deposition July 3, 2015, [Tab
74, p.77
ln 16-25] Carl testified that he had already paid attorney Bayless a quarter
of a million dollars. That was more than eight years ago and none of Carl’s
claims have been resolved.
|
Attorney
Darlene Payne-Smith participated as counsel for Carole Brunsting by filing
counter claims against Carl for suing her.
There
is no rule this attorney did not break. His conduct in this case was absolutely
reprehensible but the late Jason Bradley Ostrom (Ostrom) is no longer of
concern to the Bar and no longer a threat to public justice. It should be noted
that Ostrom appeared as a pro se defendant in the honest services fraud case
(SDTX 4:16-cv-1969) and also represented co-defendant Attorney Gregory Lester,
Texas State Bar No. 12235700, against the client he betrayed. Can you say
Conflict of Interest?
Attorney
Gregory Lester, Texas State Bar No. 12235700 was appointed Temporary
Administrator for the sole purpose of evaluating the pending “claims” (Tex.
Est. Code § 22.005). We
will get to the fraudulent temporary administrator and his report in due course
but Ostrom representing RICO co-conspirator, co-defendant, Gregory Lester
against his former client was a violation of Disciplinary Rule 1.06 et seq.
Ostrom also lied to the federal tribunal, claiming the honest services fraud
case arose from a “probate case” [SDTX NO. 4:16-cd-1969 Doc 78 p.1]
(Disciplinary Rule 3.03 et seq.)
|
“It
is settled law that a trustee is not entitled to expenses related to
litigation resulting from the fault of the trustee. See duPont v .
S. Nat'l Bank , 575
F.Supp. 849, 864 (S.D. Tex. 1983), modified, 771
F.2d 874 (5th Cir. 1985). ” Goughnour v. Patterson, No. 12-17-00234-CV,
at *25-26 (Tex. App. Mar. 5, 2019)
|
Nelva
passed 11/11/2011. Anita was unable to produce a competent accounting and had
already made her plans to steal the family trust well known. Candace filed a
breach of fiduciary suit 109 days after Nelva passed (2/27/2012). The case was
dismissed under the probate exception then reversed by the 5th
Circuit [Tab
2]. Upon returning to the Southern District of Texas with no accounting
having been produced, Candace applied for a preliminary injunction.
Anita
claims to have become sole trustee on 12/21/2010. The injunction hearing was
had April 9 2013.
1.
The existence of a fiduciary relationship.
2.
The fiduciary’s failure to perform the obligations owed to the beneficiary
3.
Benefit to the fiduciary (trustee) or injury to the beneficiary as a result of
the trustees failure to perform.
The
memorandum of preliminary injunction [Tab
4] established the existence of a fiduciary relationship (1). Anita
Brunsting and Amy Brunsting owe fiduciary obligations to Candace Curtis. (2)
that Anita’s had failed to perform the obligations required by the trust -
based upon the instruments Anita submitted to the Court; that Anita had failed
to establish books and records of accounts after more than two years as trustee
and failed to disclose unprotected trust instruments. (3) A May 9, 2013 Order
appointing a Special Master [Tab
5] verified how Anita caused the litigation to be brought by her failure to
account and the Report of the Special Master [Tab
6] filed August 8, 2013 revealed self-dealing and other undisclosed
transactions Anita had performed that benefitted only her or her, Amy and
Carole. One example is $40,000 in personal credit card debt paid directly out
of a trust checking account. Anita labeled that as “trustee compensation” but
failed to perform her trustee duties and made no record of any fiduciary acts
that would justify “compensation”.
On
January 6, 2014 Houston attorney Jason Bradley Ostrom (Ostrom) filed Notice of
Appearance in the SDTX as counsel of record for Candace Curtis [Tab
8]. At this juncture an accounting had been
produced and all that was necessary was for previous distributions to be
equalized among the beneficiary’s and the remaining assets divided by 5.
However, there is no indication that Anita had any intentions of performing
those obligations but fully intended on causing litigation to be brought so she
could play the In Terrorem card, as was stated in Curtis original complaint [Tab
1]. That complaint also mentioned hearsay of Anita wiretapping Nelva’s
phone and stalking her emails. All of this gets verified in due course.
Rather
than resolve the fiduciary issue and settle the trust, Ostrom perpetrated fraud
in order to obtain an order for Remand.
May
9, 2014 Ostrom filed a 1st amended complaint to pollute diversity [Tab
9], and on May 9, 2014 Ostrom
filed an unopposed Motion to “Remand”
the non-probate case to Harris County Probate Court No. 4 [Tab
10], from which the case had
never been removed. Ostrom never even filed notice of appearance in the state
probate court but simply started filing documents and signing agreements. May
28, 2014 Ostrom filed a Motion to Enter a Transfer Order. The order approving
the federal remand as a transfer was entered June 5, 2014 [Tab
26] February 9, 2015 Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-402 was opened,
and was allegedly the federal case remanded/transferred to the probate
court.
February
17, 2015, incapacitated independent executor Carl Henry Brunsting tendered his
resignation and substituted his wife Drina as his attorney in fact. [Tab
27]. Three days later, February 20, 2015, Ostrom and the participating attorneys all signed an Agreed
Docket Control Order [Tab
28] and March 5, 2015 the participating attorneys all signed an Agreed
Order to Consolidate “estate of Nelva Brunsting 412,249-402” with “estate of
Nelva Brunsting 412,249-401” [Tab
29].
The
probate court docket [ROA.20-20566.2869] shows that Ostrom did not even bother
to file an appearance in Harris County Probate Court No. 4, but simply filed a
motion to enter a transfer order [ROA.20-20566.2684-2690] and then entered into
agreements culminating in a merger so
complete [ROA.20-20566.2693-2696] that it deprived Appellant of her separate
legal identity and substantial rights.
In this manner Appellant’s own counsel, in concert with other attorney’s,
robbed Candace Curtis of her right to due process, her right to equal
protection of the law, her legal work product and access to the benefit of the
unanimous opinion of the 5th circuit court in the very cause in
which it was obtained. (Curtis v
Brunsting 704 F.3d 406)
Defendant’s
Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting appeared in SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592 represent by
their parent’s disloyal estate planning attorneys (Bernard Lyle Matthews III)
but changed to attorneys from Mills Shirley for the Fifth Circuit appeal [No.
12-20164]. George Vie III appeared in the federal court and Maurene McCutcheon
appeared in the state probate court. After the fraudulent “REMAND” to the state
probate court and a pointless mediation that didn’t seem to be about anything
but attorney’s fees, Mills Shirley Attorney Maurene McCutcheon, unwilling to
descend to the level of moral depravity required by her client’s intentions,
filed a motion for leave to withdraw citing conflicts between the law firm and
their clients. Affiant has no complaints regarding the conduct of the Mills
Shirley Attorneys.
Stephen
A Mendel made his appearance November 14, 2015 and page one of the very first
pleading Mendel filed [Tab
54] December 5, 2015 makes four claims:
|
1.
Distributions to pay legal-fee creditors are not authorized by the trust and,
therefore, the motions must be denied.
2.
Distributions to pay legal-fee creditors are prohibited by the trust and,
therefore, the motions must be denied.
3.
The Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the distributions for legal-fee
creditor issue because there are no allegations of fraud, misconduct, or
clear abuse of discretion with respect to Candace's and Carl's request that
the trust pay their attorneys' fees.
4.
If the Court finds the in terrorem clause is enforceable, then Candace and
Carl have no right to any distribution from the trust.
|
There
it is, Number 4, the intimidation artifice. Don’t forget sanctions and the
vexatious litigant label.
February
17, 2015, incapacitated independent executor Carl Henry Brunsting tendered his
resignation and substituted his wife Drina as his attorney in fact [Tab
27]. The very next day, February 20, 2015, Mendel Law firm attorney Brad
Featherston and the participating attorneys all signed an Agreed Docket Control
Order [Tab
28] and March 5, 2015 the participating attorneys all signed an Agreed
Order to Consolidate “estate of Nelva Brunsting 412,249-402” with “estate of
Nelva Brunsting 412,249-401” [Tab
29], and closing the -402 docket, effectively converting the federal
plaintiff into a state court co-plaintiff/defendant in Carl’s (Bayless) probate
case.
Curtis fired Ostrom immediately
upon discovering his treachery and the Agreed Order to Consolidate [Tab 29] quickly disappeared from the
docket record.
After
illegal WIRE TAP recordings
were disseminated by the Mendel law firm via certified mail in July 2015, the
“Agreed Docket Control Order” [Tab
28] and dispositive motions hearings were displaced by Bayless Emergency
Motion for a Protective Order [Tab
72]. See transcript [Tab 63]. We didn’t see another Docket control Order
until June 2021 [Tab
75]. Let’s see where we are in the war
of attrition, nothing resolved to date and everything is still pending.
Judge Christine Butts never ruled on a single dispositive or declaratory
issue.
In
the Honest Services Fraud case [SDTX
4:16-cv-1969] Mendel claimed the allegations stemmed from a probate case (Steven
Mendel Doc 36 p2, 6) and used the words “probate court” redundantly. Mendel
was also accused of extortion and obstruction of justice. The proof of extortion
comes in the form of a “pre-settlement accounting” [Tab
57] where the attorneys were demanding their fees be paid “off the top”,
a/k/a from the trust. So much for Mendel’s
December 5, 2014 pleading that:
|
1.
Distributions to pay legal-fee creditors are not authorized by the trust and,
therefore, the motions must be denied.
&
2.
Distributions to pay legal-fee creditors are prohibited by the trust and,
therefore, the motions must be denied.
|
Mendel
engaged in nothing but obstruction and evasion while making verbal threats of
disinheritance in effort to force beneficiary Candace Curtis to capitulate to
his ransom demands. He did not put his larceny on paper until his March 5, 2021
“settlement proposal” [Tab
57], where he completely ignored his December 5, 2015 arguments against
distributing anything to the beneficiary. [Tab
54]
|
Tex.
Prop. Code
Sec.
101.002. LIABILITY OF TRUST PROPERTY.
Although
trust property is held by the trustee without identifying the trust or its
beneficiaries, the trust property is not liable to satisfy the personal
obligations of the trustee.
Sec.
112.038. FORFEITURE CLAUSE. (a) A provision in a trust that would cause a
forfeiture of or void an interest for bringing any court action, including
contesting a trust, is enforceable unless in a court action determining
whether the forfeiture clause should be enforced, the person who brought the
action contrary to the forfeiture clause establishes by a preponderance of
the evidence that:
(1)
just cause existed for bringing the action; and
(2)
the action was brought and maintained in good faith.
(b)
This section is not intended to and does not repeal any law, recognizing that
forfeiture clauses generally will not be construed to prevent a beneficiary
from seeking to compel a fiduciary to perform the fiduciary's duties, seeking
redress against a fiduciary for a breach of the fiduciary's duties, or
seeking a judicial construction of a will or trust.
|
Mr.
Mendel and his client have been in perpetual violation of the federal
preliminary injunctions [Tab
4] command to deposit income into an appropriate account for the
beneficiary. Instead, Mendel has allowed his client to pay excess taxes
directly resulting from the trustees’ refusal to distribute anything to the
beneficiary. (see reference to “incurred debt” ROA.20-20566.2886) [Tab
100] The exercise of a cestui que right to hold the trustee accountable
cannot be diminished, let alone perverted into violation of an in Terrorem
clause. Disciplinary Rule 3.01.
|
Tex.
Prop. Code Sec. 112.032. ACTIVE AND
PASSIVE TRUSTS; STATUTE OF USES. (a)
Except
as provided by Subsection (b), title to real property held in trust vests
directly in the beneficiary if the trustee has neither a power nor a duty
related to the administration of the trust.
(b)
The title of a trustee in real property is not divested if the trustee's
title is not merely nominal but is subject to a power or duty in relation to
the property.
|
Mendel
showed his true colors when he filed a ranting Motion for Summary Judgement
claiming Curtis violated a no-contest clause by refusing to capitulate to their
ransom demands [Tab
76]. Mendel’s fee statement [Tab
51] does not show Anita Brunsting having ever paid Mendel a dime. See
Disciplinary Rule 1.08 (e)(h) & Note 7. Mendel by advancing credit for his
services and demanding his fees be paid from the trust, has attempted to
acquire an interest in the trust thereby acquiring a proprietary interest in
the subject matter of the litigation in which he has endlessly sought to
maximize his own return (champerty and maintenance) rather than representing
the interests of his client and performing as an officer of the legal system
and guardian of the law, Mendel has acted in the capacity of a self-interested
predator. See Disciplinary Rules 3.02, 3.03, 3.04 & 3.05. See Preamble A
para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, & 8.
Attorney
Neal Spielman made his appearance on behalf of alleged Co-Trustee Defendant Amy
Brunsting.
Nelva’s
share (The Survivors Trust) was to terminate at the passing of the last settlor
to die [Article VIII Section D] and Elmer’s share
(The Decedent’s Trust) was to terminate at the passing of the last settlor to
die [Article IX Section D] and the assets were
to be divided by five and distributed into five separate shares [Article X]. None of this was
possible without an accounting. Because Anita failed to perform the obligations
required by Article XII E of the trust $50,000 had to be spent
on a Special Master to assemble books and records of accounts.
Amy
filed an affidavit in the Southern District of Texas on March 6, 2012
claiming personal asset trusts had been “set up” for the beneficiary as is the
case for Candace. There is no evidence that the commands of Article VIII, IX
& X have been performed at all and yet, these attorneys are talking like Candace
is the problem because she will not capitulate to ransom demands and authorize
attorney looting of trust assets by contract (settlement agreement).
Lester
is a fraud and his report is a fraud! There is no estate, no representative to
administer an estate and no claims to process. Estate means a decedent’s
personal property (Tex. Est. Code § 22.012). Property, within the
meaning of the Estates Code, is defined at Texas Est. Code § 22.028 [Tab H]
Carl’s
April 9, 2013 complaint uses “Estate of Nelva Brunsting” as a mere label rather
than as a term used to describe a container object holding decedent’s personal
property. The “Estate of Nelva Brunsting” is not a party in interest to any
action in the probate court, as the tort claims listed in the inventory [Tabs 15
& 22]
are not property belonging to the decedent’s estate. Rather, they are
derivative claims belonging to the cestui que of the sole devisee, in whom
those rights vested at the passing of Nelva Brunsting that officially poured
over into the trust with the approval of the inventory and the closing
of the administration April
5, 2013. These events transpired five days before Carl’s non-probate
related tort claims were filed in the probate court as “ancillary”.
If
you read what Gregory Lester did not write you clearly see that “Estate of
Nelva Brunsting” is a vacuous label used to give the appearance that there was
a probate case but the only topic was the trust and the attorney fees.
[Tab
60] After the wiretap recordings were used to eliminate the February 20,
2015 DCO and evade dispositive motions hearings and trial, Attorney Gregory
Lester was appointed Temporary Administrator for the “estate of Nelva Brunsting” for purposes of evaluating the “claims”
in the case.
|
Tex. Est. Code § 52.002 CLAIM DOCKET
(a)
The county clerk shall maintain a record book titled "Claim
Docket" and shall record in the book each claim that is presented
against an estate for the court's approval.
|
The
Report of Temporary Administrator Gregory Lester [Tab
59]
Fraud
Lester, appointed for the sole purpose of evaluating the “claims”, never
mentioned the wills, the inventory, the sole devisee or even a single claim. Instead
Lester runs straight to the No Contest Clause in this alleged “August 25, 2010 Qualified Beneficiary
Designation and Testamentary Power of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement”.
An examination of Lester’s fee statement shows that he spent the lion’s share
of his time with Defendant Amy Brunstings attorney, Neal Spielman.
Fraudulent
“Temporary Administrator” Gregory Lester’s Report runs straight to the In
Terrorem clause in an instrument referred to as a “Qualified Beneficiary
Designation and Testamentary Power of Appointment under living Trust Agreement”
containing a no contest clause that includes corruption of blood. This
instrument is not in evidence and the defendant alleged co-trustees will not
produce the instrument and qualify it as evidence because they cannot.
See [Tab
77a] In any event it is not worth the paper it is written on.
|
“An
honest temporary administrator’s report [ROA.17-20360.611] would have pointed
these things out instead of attempting to validate the forgery called
8/25/2010 QBD. Defendants cling to this instrument in their assertions of
fact, but refuse to produce it and qualify it as evidence. They will not
because they cannot.”
|
Gregory
Lester’s bill for services [Tab
78] shows that he spent the lion’s share of his time with Attorney Neal
Spielman and his statement does not match Jill
Young’s statement for the periods each billed for meeting with the other.
Fraudulent Administrator Gregory Lester (administrator of nothing) also filed a
supplement to his report that is patently false [Tab
77].
Participant
in the Temporary Administrator scam with Gregory Lester and walked away with
Brunsting Trust money in her pocket.
Thompson/Coe
attorney representing estate planning bait and switch Grifter Candace
Kunz-Freed in Harris County District Court 164 Cause No.
2013-05455 brought by Bayless on behalf of the estates of Elmer and
Nelva Brunsting. This case was abandoned by Bayless when she filed Carl’s resignation.
Attorney Zandra Foley was simultaneously representing
Clarinda Comstock, associate Judge for Harris County Probate Court No. 4,
as a co-defendant in Willie Jo Mills. See SHERRY LYNN JOHNSON vs. DAVID DEXEL, ET AL SDTX
Case 4:16-cv-03215 while Milking the Malpractice Insurance Money Cow
representing the Brunsting estate planning bait and switch grifters in the
District Court. Can
you say conflict of interest?
Thompson/Coe
attorney representing estate planning bait and switch Grifter Candace
Kunz-Freed in Harris
County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455 brought by Bayless on behalf
of the estates of Elmer and Nelva Brunsting. This case was abandoned by Bayless
when she filed her client’s resignation. No successor has ever been appointed.
Attorney Cory S Reed and attorney Zandra Foley of Thompson Coe were
simultaneously representing
Clarinda Comstock, associate Judge for Harris County Probate Court No. 4,
as a co-defendant in SHERRY LYNN JOHNSON vs. DAVID DEXEL, ET AL SDTX
Case 4:16-cv-03215 while also Milking the Malpractice Insurance Money Cow
representing the Brunsting estate planning bait and switch grifters in the
District Court. Can
you say conflict of interest?
Clarinda
Comstock, Associate Judge of Harris County Probate Court No. 4, was a Defendant
in a wrongful death action involving Willie Jo Mills. See SHERRY
LYNN JOHNSON vs. DAVID DEXEL, ET AL SDTX Case 4:16-cv-03215 represented by
Attorney Cory S Reed and attorney Zandra Foley of Thompson Coe
County
Employee/Appointee (Associate Judge) Clarinda Comstock was represented in that
case by the same law firm and attorneys that are representing the Vacek &
Freed estate planning attorneys in the case transferred to the probate court
from the District Court with no pending estate administration and where the
case has remained before Comstock without a plaintiff since Carl Brunsting
resigned the office of independent executor February 19, 2015. Clarinda
Comstock has never had the integrity to declare her conflicts of interest in
the case.
Providing
the promiscuous forum, along with county clerks and other county employees and
appointees.
|
(JUDGE
- elected public officer)
|
|
Our
hats are off to the Honorable James Horwitz. He is not responsible for the
acts and omissions of his predecessor. His honor was handed a real assortment
of problems but was actually able to figure out a way to get it resolved
without biting the hand that feeds him (Harris County).
|
|
Candice
is a heroin without whose help we could have never come this far. They forced
me to learn probate law in Texas. How do you think they like me now?
|
DISTRIBUTIONS AND DAMAGES
This
would be a good time to take an inventory of living trust distributions since the
passing of Nelva Brunsting. The Beneficiaries have received little or no
benefit from the family trust in the past ten years while several
non-beneficiaries have enjoyed distributions from the family trust:
|
a. $5000.00
Attorney Jason Ostrom
b. $5000.00
Attorney George Vie III
c. $6500.00
Andrews Kurth L.L.P. mediation
d. $19,907.40
to attorney Gregory Lester, Temporary Administrator for the “Estate of Nelva
Brunsting”. How is the trust supposed to recover loans to an estate that does
not have a probate able corpus?
e. $10,620.73
to Jill Willard-Young, attorney for attorney Gregory Lester, Temporary
Administrator for the “Estate of Nelva Brunsting”. How is the trust supposed
to recover loans to an estate that does not have a representative or a
corpus?
f. $6500.00
Mediation with William Miller of Andrews Kurth LLP
g. $? Mediation with Judge Seymour -
unknown
h. $? Mediation with Judge Davidson –
unknown
i. $100,000
Distribution to Carole Brunsting
j. No
distributions to Carl or Candace
k. -$300,000.00+
in excess taxes due to trustee failure to distribute trust income to the
beneficiaries.
|
None
of this accounts for money spent on costs or fees already paid to attorneys by
the beneficiaries such as the
$250,000 Carl testified that he had already paid Bayless. In the face of
all this the alleged trustee defendants are demanding $537,000.00 in legal fee
allocations without evidence of a retainer agreement describing the work to be
performed, or an accounting statement describing the work actually performed
for which the beneficiaries of the trust would be liable. These figures also
fail to include Anita’s self-dealing or her non-disclosed and non-equalized
distributions made in secret before Nelva passed.
Grift
of the Brunsting’s begins with an estate planning bait and switch that includes
a trust indenture that is defective by design and implemented incrementally by
the generation of illicit instruments in the wake of each “Hurrah” or family
crisis event.
The
instrument dated August 25, 2010 called “Qualified Beneficiary Designation and
Testamentary Power of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement” is a forgery
using digital stamp signature images.
They have not produced their forged 8/25/2010 QBD/TPA’s and they will
not because they cannot and yet, they act like that’s their meal ticket! Nelva
Brunsting had no plenary power to make chanages to an irrevocable trust! All of
the change instruments allegedly signed by Nelva after Elmer Brunsting was
certified Non Compos Mentis, in June 2008, are invalid as a matter of law as
plenary power to amend successor trustee designations or any other substantive
change would require a court of competent jurisdiction to stand in for the
absent co-trustee to prevent merger. [Texas Property Code § 112.034]
Candace Curtis original federal complaint, filed February 27,
2012, contains an affidavit verified by Jurat, in which she alleges that Anita
and Amy had been wiretapping Nelva’s phone.
Case 4:12-cv-00592 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/27/12 Page 19 of 28.
Defendants
advance dispositive fact claims but do not support their claims with exhibits
or reference to the record because no support can be found in the record of the
probate court proceedings. By way of example, Defendant Jill Willard-Young
claims: [ROA.1720360.181]
|
In reality, their Complaint is a bizarre,
conspiracy-theory-laden attempt to seek revenge for being on the losing end
of trust and estate determinations that have already been fully litigated in
Texas state court
|
[ROA.1720360.193]
|
Plaintiffs’ allegations are fanciful,
fantastic, and delusional—at best.
They also appear to constitute an attempt by Plaintiffs to seek
revenge for being on the losing end of trust and estate determinations that
were already fully litigated in Texas state court.
|
The Defendant
judges also make similar affirmative claims without exhibits and without
pointing to the record. [ROA.1720360.2627]
“As
is patently obvious from Plaintiffs’62-page Complaint, they were dissatisfied
with the rulings and administration of the Brunsting probate case in Probate
Court Four.”
Defendants
did not provide exhibits of these dissatisfying “rulings” with their briefs nor
did they point to the record. They do not because they cannot. Advancing these
disingenuous claims is a violation of Rule 11 and inapposite to the facts
alleged in the RICO complaint which are supported by the record. After
Defendant Comstock colluded in sweeping away the Agreed Docket Control Order
[ROA.17-20360-1472] to hear the “Emergency Motion for Protective Order”
regarding illegal wiretap recordings, [ROA.17-20360-621] the probate court
refused to reset the hearings on dispositive motions [ROA.17-20360-1443]. In so
doing they avoided entering determinations on the merits, thus also foreclosing
any possibility of outside review.
Appellees’ “probate matter” when subjected to a
cost-benefit analysis, cannot be justified as all five of the beneficiaries of
the sole heir (“Trust”), are Defendants in Bayless’ “Estate litigation”.
Benefit from the action, if any, would pour over into the Trust to be
distributed among the same defendant beneficiaries minus attorney’s fees and
costs. Ultimately the sole heir to the Brunsting Estate, the Brunsting Trusts,
[ROA.17-20360-2372] and the final distribution of assets to the beneficiaries
are held hostage to attorney fee ransoms, in a lawsuit that no one but the
attorneys could have ever benefited from.
At the Motions Hearing December 15, 2016, Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs claims are delusional, and fantastical while waiving
Judge Kenneth Hoyt’s Order dismissing an entirely different lawsuit against
different probate court judges, claiming the allegations in this matter were
pure “zanyism”. [ROA.17-20360.3393] However, Defendants are accused of
attempting to do exactly what Judge Hoyt said was not going to happen in this
case, at the injunction hearing more than four years earlier.
[ROA.17-20360.545]
SDTX
4:12-cv-592 Doc
10-1 claiming personal asset trusts had been set up for the beneficiary “as
is the case for Candace”
Texas
Penal Code §§ 32.45,
32.53
State
Court actions filed with the intent to interfere with the jurisdiction of a
federal court and can’t buy an evidentiary hearing in probate theater No. 4.
a.
Can't
get a hearing 2016-08-03 Case 4-12-cv-00592 Doc 115 Rule 60 Motion Pages
9-10.pdf
b.
Can't
get a hearing 2016-12-15 - CA H-16-1969 Transcript Preliminary hearing RICO
Page 46.pdf
c.
Can't
get a hearing 2017-08-13 Appellants Opening Brief on Appeal_17-20360_Pages
33-34.pdf
d.
Can't
get a hearing 2017-09-26 RICO - Appellee Brief Binder Pages 20-21.pdf
e.
Can't
get a hearing 2017-12-02 - Appellants Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Page
15.pdf
f.
Can't
get a hearing 2017-12-02 - Appellants Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Pages
29-30.pdf
g.
Can't
get a hearing 2018-09-05 Responses to Defendants Motions to Dismiss Combined
Page 73.pdf
h.
Can't
get a hearing 2021-01-03 ROA 20-20566 Page 1014.pdf
i.
Can't
get a hearing 2021-04-19 Appellees Record Excerpts Page 168.pdf
j.
Can't
get a hearing 2022-01-06 412249-401 Carole Emergency Motion Hearing Transcript
Page 30.pdf
k.
Can't
get a hearing 2022-07-12 01-22-00514-cv Mandamus Record Index Page 1700.pdf
EXTORTION - MONEY LAUNDERING
Amy
and Anita’s attorneys making disinheritance threats clothed in the
confidentiality of mediation in effort to coerce a settlement agreement that would
launder their extorted ransom as “fees for legal services”.
Violation
of Preliminary
Injunction: The alleged Co-Trustees were ordered to deposit income into an
appropriate account for the beneficiary. No accounts have been “set up” for the
beneficiary as Amy’s affidavit claims and no income has been distributed. We
need to see Anita’s retainer agreement with Mendel because he seems to think he
gets his fees from the trust. The 1st thing Ostrom did in the
probate court was ask for $40,000 from the trust to pay his fees. Mendel’s
answer points out on page 1 that distributions to pay attorney fee
creditors are no authorized by the trust but in fact prohibited by the trust.
Anita
could not enter into a contract to pay Mendel from the trust without the
approval of a court of competent jurisdiction and Mendel has already received
$10,000 from the trust without permission. The trust is still in force and they
have nowhere to go for permission.
The
Agreed order to consolidate cases was removed
from the digital record shortly after Candace Curtis fired Jason
Ostrom but I
purchased a copy as soon as I saw it in the docket but I didn’t want to get
a certified copy because I did not want anyone to take particular note. You
will see that my
copy does not have a watermark saying “UNOFFICIAL”.
There
is an email thread between Comstock and Carole Brunsting where Comstock says
consolidation never happened. Then Bayless gets involved and the hard copy is
suddenly found rolling around in a drawer. Comstock has no idea how it never
made it to the digital record. I’m wondering how it was removed?