THE FILTHY LUCRE SOUP LINE

Grift of the Brunsting’s”, 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:

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 Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491, 506 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc) Arroyo v. K-Mart, Inc., 24 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D.P.R. 1998)

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 Anthony 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 Cory Shane Reed

Bar Card Number: 24076640

TX License Date: 05/06/2011

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.

The Case in Point

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 Source of the Controversy:

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.

     I.          WHAT IS A TRUST?

The Indenture

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].

Separation of Legal and Equitable Title

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.

Enforceable duties (Active vs passive Trusts)

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.

 II.          The Brunsting Trust Instrument and Event Chronology

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.

1996 Family Trust (P.8)

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)

1997  Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust

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.[1] [This trust has been settled]

1999 Family Trust 1st Amendment (P.66)

Elmer and Nelva Original Co-Trustees No change to Article IV Anita is Successor Trustee

2001 Family Trust 2nd Amendment (P.68)

Elmer and Nelva Original Co-Trustees No change to Article IV Anita is Successor Trustee

2005 Family Trust Restatement (P.75)

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.[2] [Article IV]

2007 Amendment to the Family Trust Restatement (P.195)

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

III.          Elmer Brunsting was certified Non Compos Mentis

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.

The Power to Alter or Amend

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.”

Qualified Beneficiary Designation

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[3], as successor co-trustee with Carl and issuing new certificates of trust.[4] 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 Appointment and Certificates of Trust

·       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

IV.          Elmer passed April 1, 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)

June 15, 2010 QBD

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.

July 3, 2010 Carl falls ill with encephalitis and is in coma

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.

  V.          CARL IS IN COMA JULY 30, 2010

2010-07-30 Freed Notes “Anita called change the trustAnita 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.

 

More illicit Changes

·       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

2010-10-06 Anita email to Freed working on Nelva Resignation

2010-10-13 Summer Peoples re phone conference

2010-10-25 Candy to Carole A&A will do anything they can to cut everyone else out

2010-10-25 Freed's Notes from Phone conference V&F479-483

2010-10-26 Candace Curtis and Carole emails Anita pushing Nelva to resign and everything secret

Nelva Discovers Freed’s Collusion with Anita and is subjected to competency evaluation

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.[5] 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”.

2010-11-17 Freed email re Nelva Competence

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.

·       2010-12-21 Certificate of Trust Decedent V&F 000232-234

·       2010-12-21 Certificate of trust for the NEW family trust VF 000237-239

·       2010-12-21 Certificate of Trust Survivor VF 000235-238

·       2010-12-21 P447-452 Appointment of Successor Trustees

·       2010-12-21 Resignation of Original Trustee

·       2010-12-21 Survivors trust Appointment of successor trustees V&F 000207–251

2011

2011-01-27 January 27, 2011 Anita Engagement letter with Freed.

2011-02-16 Anita Transferring securities into her own name

Anita explaining the changes to Nelva?

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!

VI.          NELVA BRUNSTING PASSED NOVEMBER 11, 2011

Nelva Brunsting passed on 11/11/2011

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.


The Backend Exploitation Chronology

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.

     I.          SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592 Candace Louise Curtis vs Amy Brunsting, Anita Brunsting and Does 1-100

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).

Vacek & Freed staff attorney Bernard Lisle Mathews III

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:

 II.          5th Circuit ROA.12-20164 (pro se appeal)

2012-06-11 Appellants Opening Brief

2012-07-16 Appellees Answer

2012-08-02 Appellants Reply Brief

5th Cir Jan 9, 2013 – Curtis v Brunsting 704 F.3d 406

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.

SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592 Candace Louise Curtis vs Amy Brunsting, Anita Brunsting and Does 1-100

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.

It is important to note a number of factors at this juncture:

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.

Parallel State Court Actions

III.          Harris County Probate Court No. 4 No. 412249

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.

IV.          Harris County District Court 180

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.

  V.          Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-401

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.

Cui Bono?

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.

Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-402

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

Enter, Attorney Jason B. Ostrom

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.

Timeline Recap

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?)

Resignation of Personal Representative

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.

Candace Curtis Termination of Ostrom as Counsel

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]

Where is Candace Curtis Lawsuit?

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.

VI.          ILLEGAL WIRETAP RECORDINGS

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.

Evasion and Obstruction in a Court Room Theater

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

Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization

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.

VII.          Curtis et al., vs. Kunz-Freed et al., SDTX No. 4:16-cv-1969

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!

Case 4-16-cv-01969 July 5, 2016 – May 16, 2017

Probate Case

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

Probate Proceeding

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

Probate Matter

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 Wednesday, June 12, 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?

Texas Estates Code Sec. 32.001

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.

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. Here, Plaintiffs make similar allegations against the parties, attorneys, and judges in Probate Court No. 4. And as in Sheshtawy, the allegations are frivolous, because they are too fanciful, fantastic, and delusional to state a valid claim for relief.

 

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. 

VIII.          Contradictions and Fatal Conflicts of Interest

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]

Lester/Ostrom /Bayless

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.

Trust beneficiary Candace Curtis couldn’t buy an evidentiary hearing in Harris County Probate Theater Number Four (4)

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

No Evidentiary Hearings

Cannot get a hearing 2016-08-03 Case 4-12-cv-00592 Doc 115 Rule 60 Motion Pages 9-10;

Cannot get a hearing 2016-12-15 - CA H-16-1969 Transcript Preliminary hearing RICO Page 46;

Cannot get a hearing 2017-08-13 Appellants Opening Brief on Appeal RICO No. 17-20360_Pages 33-34;

Cannot get a hearing 2017-09-26 RICO - Appellee Brief Binder Pages 20-21;

Cannot get a hearing 2017-12-02 - Appellants Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Page 15;

Cannot get a hearing 2017-12-02 - Appellants Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Page 29;

Cannot get a hearing 2018-09-05 Responses to Defendants Motions to Dismiss Combined Page 73;

Cannot get a hearing 2021-01-03 2nd Rule 60 Motion to vacate the remand ROA 20-20566 Page 1014;

Cannot get a hearing 2021-04-19 Appellees Record Excerpts Page 168;

Cannot get a hearing 2022-01-06 412249-401 Carole Emergency Motion Hearing Transcript Page 30;

Cannot get a hearing 2022-07-12 01-22-00514-cv Mandamus Record Index Page 1700.

Stasis by Design

1.    2016-07-05 Case 4-16-cv-01969 Doc 1 Harris County RICO_Complaint.pdf

2.    2016-05-07 Case 4-12-cv-00592 Doc 115 Petition for Rule 60(b)(6) Relief Final.pdf

3.    2016-08-03 Case 4-12-cv-00592 Rule 60 115 Filed TXSD.pdf

4.    2016-12-15 - CA H-16-1969 Transcript Preliminary hearing RICO.pdf

6.    2020-01-16 plaintiff Candace Louise Curtis answer to defendant Amy Brunsting’s and defendant Anita Brunstings original counterclaim.pdf

7.    2021-02-11 Appellants opening brief on appeal 20-20566.pdf [ROA 20-20566 (1)(2)(3)]

8.    2021-04-19 Appellees Record Excerpts.pdf

9.    2021-10-15 Plaintiff Candace Louise Curtis Answer to Defendants Counter Claims.pdf

10.2022-07-10 Curtis Petition for Writ of Mandamus.pdf

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

They have not attempted to qualify the 8/25/2010 QBD as evidence and they will not because they cannot.

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. 

IX.          Curtis et al., vs. Kunz-Freed et al., SDTX No. 4:16-cv-1969

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

5th Circuit ROA.17-20360

2018-06-28 No. 17-20360_United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

·       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

·       2014-12-01 Carole Designation of Darlene Payne-Smith as 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

·       2015-07-01 Amy expert witness Designation names Neal Spielman Expert on Attorney Fees

·       2015-07-01 Anita expert witness Designation names Stephen Anthony Mendel Expert on Attorney fees

·       One would think this was a lawsuit over attorney fees as that has been the only topic since Candace Curtis lawsuit was smuggled out of the SDTX.

Probate Case

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

Probate Proceeding

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

Probate Matter

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

2018-07-31 Bayless Notice of Hearing-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Just like every other hearing this “status conference” will not involve evidence and nothing will be ruled upon. Attorney Bayless filed this fraudlent probate case under the Declaratory Judgment Act. After twelve years there is not even a ruling on the issues I resolved in the first 20 pages of this dissertation involving what instruments define the trust indenture.

2018-08-17 Plea in Abatement

 

2018-09-05 412249-401 Transcript of Hearing Bayless MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 2018-09-05 Estate of Nelva E Brunsting Transcript of Hearing

2018-09-05 Responses to Defendants Motions to Dismiss Combined

2018-11-18 412249 Notice of Appearance Candice Schwager

2018-12-18 A. Brunsting's Mtn to Cmpl-1

 

Registration of Foreign Judgment, Submission ID: 43704956

 

2019

2019-02-01 E8_2016-12-29 Mendel email to Carole Distribution Denied - Injunction Liquidity and Incurred Debt.pdf

 

Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-403

 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

2022-07-05 Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-404

 A statutory Bill of Review constituting a direct attack on the Probate Courts Order denying Candace Curtis Plea to the Jurisdiction.

Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-405

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.

Texas First District Court of Appeal No. 01-22-00378-CV

(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.

Texas First District Court of Appeal No. 01-22-00513-cv

·       2022-07-10 Petition for Writ of Mandamus (denied with no explanation)

 

December 5, 2021 Rule 11 Agreement among the attorneys for the Original Plaintiff and original Defendants agreeing not to prosecute the Defendants alleged counter claims against Carl.

March 11, 2022 order severing the claims of Carl Brunsting from those of Candace Curtis as if there had been a consolidation of cases in the probate court when in fact there were no cases properly filed in the probate court.

Carl Brunstings’ March 18, 2022 Nonsuit of Candace Curtis and a

February 25, 2022 Order for Summary Judgement,  

 

    X.          SDTX No. 4:22-cv-1129

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.

 

XI.        Court Of Appeals for the First District of Texas Houston No. 01-23-00362-CV

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 & Freed P.L.L.C Estate Planning Attorneys

     I.          Attorney Albert Vacek Jr

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.  

 II.          Attorney Candace Kunz-Freed, Texas State Bar No. 24041282

(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

III.          Attorney Bernard Lyle Matthews III, Texas State Bar No. 13187450

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.

The Backend Exploiters

IV.          Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless, Texas State Bar No. 01940600

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.

HANNAH v. HATCHER

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.

  V.          Attorney Darlene Payne-Smith, Texas State Bar No. 18643525

Attorney Darlene Payne-Smith participated as counsel for Carole Brunsting by filing counter claims against Carl for suing her.

VI.          Attorney Jason B. Ostrom Texas State Bar No. 24027710, Fed. Id. No. 33680

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.

Breach of fiduciary has three elements.

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 question at this juncture is where is the federal plaintiff’s lawsuit?

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)

VII.          Attorney Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar No. 13930650

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[6][7] 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.

VIII.          Attorney Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678

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]

“Sec. 22.028. PERSONAL PROPERTY. "Personal property" includes

an interest in:

(1) goods;

(2) money;

(3) a chose in action;

(4) an evidence of debt; and

(5) a real chattel.”

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.

IX.          Attorney Gregory Lester Texas State Bar No. 12235700

[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].  

  X.          Attorney Jill Willard-Young Texas State Bar No. 00797670

Participant in the Temporary Administrator scam with Gregory Lester and walked away with Brunsting Trust money in her pocket.

XI.          Attorney Zandra E. Foley, State Bar No. 24032085

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?

XII.          Attorney Cory S Reed, Texas Bar No. 24076640

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?

XIII.          County Employee/Appointee (Associate Judge) Clarinda Comstock

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.

XIV.          Harris County Texas

Providing the promiscuous forum, along with county clerks and other county employees and appointees.

 

XV.          Tamorah Christine Butts (Judge) Texas State Bar No. 24004222

(JUDGE - elected public officer)

XVI.          James Horwitz (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).

XVII.          Attorney and former Texas Appellate Justice Kathy Stone (Visiting Judge)

Figuring out how to unravel this smoke and mirrors mess required greater legal minds than my own and I must admire the way it was done. Judge Horwitz and Judge Kathy Stone have earned our respect.

Hall of Fame

XVIII.          Attorney Candice Schwager

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.

Denial of Substantive and Procedural Due Process 42 U.S.C. § 1983

 

FRAUD CONSPIRACY

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.

FORGERY

The instrument dated August 25, 2010 called is a forgery using digital stamps

 WIRETAPPING AND STALKING

 

PERJURY

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”

 

MISAPPLICATION OF FIDUCIARY PROPERTY

Texas Penal Code §§ 32.45, 32.53

OBSTRUCTION

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.

EXTORTION

Amy and Anita’s attorneys making disinheritance threats in effort to coerce a settlement agreement that would launder their extorted ransom as “fees for legal services” and write their services in in perpetuity.

VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL INJUNCTION

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.

DOCKET TAMPERING

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?

2019 01 28 emails re consolidation order.pdf

2019-01-28 email Bayless Fw_ 412,249-401 Agreed Order to Consolidate Cases found rolling around in a drawer.pdf

 

MONEY LAUNDERING

Pre-settlement negotiation accounting

They have not produced their forged 8/25/2010 QBD/TPA and they will not because they cannot.

 

 

 



[1] Anita Brunsting used this instrument April 9, 2013, at the preliminary injunction hearing, mixed with portions of the family trust, in attempt to fool federal judge Kenneth Hoyt into thinking that she had always been the only trustee for the family trust. Judge Hoyt’s April 19, 2013 Memorandum of Preliminary Injunction points out the pertinent anomalies with the instruments and lack of accounting and finds that Anita failed to act in accord with the trusts requirements.

[2] Temporary Administrator Gregory Lester lied about this on his supplemental Report

[3] Violating Rule 1.06(a), (d) and (e) of the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

[4] CONFLICT: It should be noted here that when litigation was brought in effort to obtain an accounting and fiduciary disclosures, Anita Brunsting, and her new co-trustee Amy Brunsting, were represented by Vacek & Freed Attorneys Candace Kunz-Freed and Bernard Lisle Mathews III, infra. These conflicts of interest are violations of Rule 1.06(a), (d), (e) and (f) of the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and is thus conduct ultra vires the office of attorney.

[5] A HIPPA waiver in your estate planning attorneys papers should be seen as a red flag!

[6] Wire Tap Recordings

[7] Wire Tap Recording2