The color-of-law interception (theft) of family generational asset transfers is a serious organized crime industry operating out of state probate courts. The variety and number of schemes and artifice employed vary according to the case. I call the case in point “Grift of the Brunstings”. Affidavit of Witness
|
Ashkenazim
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 |
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 |
|
Bar Card Number:
24041282 9545 Katy Freeway, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77024 713-467-1060 |
State Bar of Texas ID Number: 13187450 Staff Attorney with Vacek & Freed |
|
Ashkenazim
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 |
Thompson Coe State Bar No. 24032085 4400 Post Oak Parkway Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 713-403-8213 creed@thompsoncoe.com |
|
Eligible to Practice
in Texas Bar Card Number:
12235700 Primary Practice
Location: Houston , Texas PO Box 79766 Practice Areas: Wills-Trusts-Probate |
Wannabe Family Inheritance Thief 203 Bloomingdale Circle Victoria, Texas 77904 |
|
Deceased Bar Card Number:
24027710 Primary Practice
Location: Houston , Texas Practice Areas: Litigation:
Commercial, Real Estate, Wills-Trusts-Probate Statutory Profile
Last Certified On: 01/29/2021 |
Former Judge Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Bar Card Number: 24004222 TX License Date: 12/11/1997 Primary Practice Location: Houston , Texas 8777 W Rayford Rd Spring, TX 77389-5187 |
|
Eligible to Practice in Texas dsmith@craincaton.com Bar
Card Number: 18643525 Primary
Practice Location: Houston , Texas 1401
McKinney St Ste 1700 |
Harris
County Probate Court No. Four 201 Caroline St Fl 7 Houston, TX 77002-1901 Bar Card
Number: 00790492 |
|
|
Attorney
Corey S. Reed
Anita
Brunsting
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 children 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.
Pleading Civil Racketeering
One does not have a claim for civil RICO without substantial evidence of criminal RICO. The necessary pleading elements for a racketeering claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, based on the principles stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009) • 129 S. Ct. 1937 • 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 • 73 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 837 and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) • 127 S. Ct. 1955 • 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, are as follows:
Existence of an Enterprise:
o
The
plaintiff must allege the existence of an "enterprise" engaged in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
o
The
enterprise must be distinct from the individual defendants.
Pattern of Racketeering Activity:
o
The
plaintiff must allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity, which
includes at least two predicate acts of racketeering within a 10-year period.
o
Predicate
acts must be specified and supported with factual allegations (e.g., mail
fraud, wire fraud, etc.).
Connection to the Enterprise:
o
The
plaintiff must show how the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct
of the enterprise's affairs through the pattern of racketeering activity.
Causal Nexus:
o
The
plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between the defendant's
racketeering activity and the harm suffered.
Specificity in Allegations:
Enterprise 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)
1. The enterprise complained of herein referred to as the probate mafia involves an association in fact conspiracy among attorneys and other licensed professionals with a design to intercept (steal) family generational asset transfers under the color of probate litigation even when, as here, probate is an action in rem and there is no estate to subject to in rem proceedings, no administrator and no subject matter jurisdiction in the probate court theater as a matter of law.
2. The rights at issue here are property rights in the corpus of a living trust that vested in the beneficiaries at the passing of the last trust settlor November 11, 2011. The trust contains no assets belonging to a decedent’s estate as held by the unanimous opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Curtis v. Brunsting 704 F.3d 406 (Jan. 9, 2013). Quite to the contrary, the living trust is the sole devisee of the settlors’ probate estate, the estate was under “independent administration” and none of the trust beneficiaries have standing in the probate of any estate. This action raises questions of law subject to de novo review.
3. The term "Probate Mafia" does not appear to have a formal legal definition or recognition in statutes or case law. However, it is often used colloquially to describe systemic abuse, fraud, or exploitation within the probate process or, as here, in the probate theater of operations in the absence of any pending probate proceeding or subject matter jurisdiction.
4. The term "probate mafia" refers to individuals or groups, such as unethical attorneys, guardians, or other parties, who manipulate probate proceedings for personal gain, often at the expense of vulnerable individuals or their estates.
5. However, while “probate” was used as a magic word for the purpose of undermining federal jurisdiction, there was never any subject matter jurisdiction in the probate court regarding this living trust nor has there been any probate claims litigated in the probate theater as no in rem claims were ever filed against an estate in this case.
Pattern
1. This enterprise begins with an estate planning bait and switch that creates a controversy that is followed by the exploitation of that controversy by the probate mafia acolytes thereafter.
2. The number and variety of colorable events in this case are impressive. It begins with illicit changes to irrevocable trusts insidiously implemented in the wake of each “triggering” family crisis event or “Hurrah” as these events are referred to in long con confidence games. This conflict engineering frontend is followed by attorney collusion and exploitation on the backend in a conspiracy to milk the family money cow, in this case to loot a living trust.
3. The pattern is well established as it is described in an article posted on the web in 2015 titled “How to Steal your Family Inheritance” [Ex 0-1] and even mentioned by United States Judge Kenneth Hoyt Jr. at the hearing on Plaintiff Candace Curtis request for injunction.
4. This two-part story illustrates a classic pattern as noted and the design that emerges perfectly fits the description of a long con.
|
Long Con: noun slang “An elaborate confidence game that develops in several stages over an extended period of time wherein the con man or swindler gains the victim’s trust, often bypassing small profits with the goal of reaping a much larger payout in the final maneuver: The key to pulling off a long con is giving your marks the illusion of control while you and your team manipulate their choices.” |
Predicate Acts and Common Law Torts Alleged Herein
1. In addition to alleging the existence of an "enterprise" engaged in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce that is distinct from the individual defendants, Plaintiff alleges a "pattern" of racketeering activity, which includes at least two predicate acts within a 10-year period that are specific and supported with factual allegations. The elements of the predicate act crimes alleged and listed herein will be expounded upon later and include, but may not be limited to violations of:
18 U.S.C. § 1503 Obstruction of Justice.
2. This statute addresses actions that obstruct the due administration of justice, including influencing jurors or court officers. The elements are:
a. Corrupt Act: The defendant must have engaged in a corrupt act, such as threats, coercion, or other obstructive conduct.
b. Intent: The act must be done with the intent to obstruct, influence, or impede the due administration of justice.
c. Connection to Judicial Proceedings: The obstructive act must relate to an ongoing or foreseeable judicial proceeding.
d. Materiality (if applicable): If the act involves false statements, the falsehood must be material to the proceeding.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) Violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d) Conspiracy to
Violate 18 U.S.C.
§1962 (c).
Texas Penal Code § 32.45 Misapplication of Fiduciary Property in excess of $300,000.00, a state law felony. Under Texas Penal Code § 32.45, the elements of the offense of Misapplication of Fiduciary Property are as follows:
1 Fiduciary
Relationship: The defendant must be acting in a fiduciary capacity,
which includes roles such as trustee, guardian, executor, agent under a power
of attorney, or any other fiduciary role.
2 Property
Held in Trust: The property in question must be held by the fiduciary for
the benefit of another person or entity.
3 Misapplication
of Property: The fiduciary must intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
misapply the property. Misapplication is defined as dealing with the property
contrary to:
- An agreement under which the fiduciary
holds the property, or
- A law prescribing the custody or
disposition of the property.
4 Substantial
Risk of Loss: The misapplication must involve a substantial risk of loss
to the owner of the property or the person for whose benefit the property is
held.
Texas Penal Code § 32.53 Exploitation - Misapplication of Fiduciary Property held in trust for the benefit of Elderly and Disabled Individuals, a state law felony. Under Texas Penal Code § 32.53, the offense of Exploitation of a Child, Elderly Individual, or Disabled Individual consists of the following elements:
Act of Exploitation: The defendant must intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause the exploitation of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual.
Definition of Exploitation: Exploitation is
defined as the illegal or improper use of a child, elderly individual, or
disabled individual for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain.
Protected Individuals:
o Child: A person younger than 18 years of age.
o Elderly Individual: A person aged 65 or older.
o Disabled Individual: A person with a physical or mental
condition that substantially limits their ability to provide for their own care
or protection.
Mental State: The defendant must act with one of
the following mental states:
o Intentionally,
o Knowingly, or
o Recklessly.
This offense is
classified as a third-degree felony under Texas law.
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. The backend is 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).
Affidavit of Witness Rik Munson blowintough@att.net
Keep in mind that if there
is no law there is no government. If there is no remedy there is no legitimacy
in our judicial system. In the latter case the only difference between a
private sector mafia and a court is the lack of pretense. Private Sector
Mafia’s do not pretend legitimacy.
1
Racketeering Case Statement.docx
2 Curtis Curtis Curtis
RICO_Complaint draft.docx
2019-04-12 Verified
Affidavit of Candace Curtis 4-12-cv-592.pdf
2024-08-08 Unsworn
Declaration of Witness Rik Munson.pdf
2025-04-18 Amended
NOH.Status Conference June 2 2025 2pm.pdf
3 Memorandum of Facts Parts
1-5.docx
4 Appendix A List of
Exhibits.docx
Exhibits
The Brunsting Trust
Controversy was engineered using an estate planning bait and switch.docx
The Probate Mafia and the
Brunsting Family Trust.pdf
They have not produced the
Heinous Extortion Instrument.docx
To whom it may concern.docx