NOTICE: Neither the probate exception nor the
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine bar federal review of the record of proceedings in the
state courts for denial of due process and organized crime in this case. The
victims cause was originally filed in the Southern District of Texas on
February 27, 2012. It was the 1st cause filed in any court relating to the
Brunsting trust and has already survived dismissal under the probate exception.
Comes now, Complainant Rik Wayne Munson
(hereinafter singular “I’ and/or “Complainant” and the plural “We” as a
reference to include crime victim , Candace Louise Curtis), who does hereby
swear the following to be true; seeking to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision
of felony) and to avoid a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Accessory
after the fact), who does herein and hereby report the commission of state and
federal felonies affecting interstate and foreign commerce, committed under the color of law in violation of the federal civil
rights statutes and also offending federal criminal statutes, including but not
limited to 18 U.S.C. § 241
and 18 U.S.C. § 242.
Complainant stands as witness and victim to the conduct complained of. State
law felonies include but are not limited to Misapplication of Fiduciary
Property Tex. Pen. Code § 32.45 & 32.53] held in trust for elderly and
disabled beneficiaries. We also have forgery and other frauds. It’s really a
long list and we will touch on the finer points in due course.
Like the federal
courts the state of Texas has eliminated any distinctions
between principals and accessories to crime. Everyone
who participates in any crime, in any manner, is a principal no matter how
small the act or how limited the duration of participation.
The exhibits with
Bates Numbers “V&F 207-1153” and “Brunsting000001-004922” were obtained
from Defendants on two CD ROM disks, personally delivered and received by hand
from Defendant Anita Brunsting and Co-Defendant Amy Brunsting’s counsel George
Vie III at the preliminary injunction
[P.37 ln.22] hearing in the SDTX April 9, 2013. CD’s were also received from attorney
Bobbie G. Bayless, Bates stamped V&F 000391 – 002053, P1-14988, P6133-6594
and P6780-7169 labeled “Vacek & Freed Production”
These instruments
include the trust settlement road map BRUNSTING000535,
the 2005 restatement [Received from Anita
Oct 23 2010] [P230 received from Blackburn prior to lawsuits
being filed] [P230-316 A&A
Exhibit A Nov 5, 2021 Motion for Summary Judgment] [V&F 001953 unsigned] [P317-403] [P472] [P733-767] [P731 & V-F 000252]
[P14330] [P472 -607], and
the 2007 Amendment. [P444 (Blackburn)], [P35 & P6449],
[V&F 000252], [V&F 000928-929], [V&F 001470
unsigned] [V&F P7031 & V&F 000252]
On February 25,
2022 an Order for Summary Judgment
was signed in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 in which Brunsting Family Trust
beneficiary Candace Curtis was found to have “forfeited her property”
and dismissing all claims against the alleged co-trustee Defendants. The Order
was signed by retired judge Kathleen Stone, in a surprise visit, without an evidentiary
hearing having ever been allowed in more than
nine years of being held hostage for ransom in a probate court with
nothing to probate and no jurisdiction over the subject matter at issue, the
administration of a family living trust. Judge Guy Herman, a reputed probate
mafia mob boss, even appointed Stone “nunc pro tunc” (after the fact) as if it cured the complete absence
of notice and opportunity to object.
Death penalty
sanctions, depriving the beneficiary of evidence, appear to be a standard
artifice in this color-of-law theft of family generational wealth racketeering
enterprise. In fact, the “Heinous Extortion Instrument” 2016-07-05 Case 4-16-cv-01969 Doc 1
Harris County RICO_Complaint
which Defendants refer to as a Qualified Beneficiary Designation and
Testamentary Power of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement” [see Doc 33
& Doc 35],
an instrument they use to make death penalty threats in effort to unjustly
enrich themselves by intimidating the victim into capitulating to a “settlement
agreement”. A settlement agreement is a contract that would replace the
Settlors trust agreement (contract) and launder extortion with a contract
opening a brand new can of worms for the benefit of the attorneys who rewrite
your estate plan to make themselves the trustees and beneficiary’s.
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.
·
Can't get a hearing 2016-08-03 Case
4-12-cv-00592 Doc 115 Rule 60 Motion Pages 9-10;
·
Can't get a hearing 2016-12-15 - CA H-16-1969
Transcript Preliminary hearing RICO Page 46;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-08-13 Appellants
Opening Brief on Appeal RICO No. 17-20360_Pages 33-34;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-09-26 RICO - Appellee Brief Binder
Pages 20-21;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-12-02 - Appellants
Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Page 15;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-12-02 - Appellants
Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Page 29;
·
Can't get a hearing 2018-09-05 Responses to
Defendants Motions to Dismiss Combined Page 73;
·
Can't get a hearing 2021-01-03 2nd
Rule 60 Motion to vacate the remand ROA 20-20566 Page 1014;
·
Still trying to get to a trial
2022-02-21 Candace Curtis Affidavit
·
Can't get a hearing 2021-04-19 Appellees Record Excerpts Page 168;
·
Can't get a hearing 2022-01-06 412249-401 Carole Emergency Motion Hearing Transcript
Page 30;
·
Can't get a hearing 2022-07-12 01-22-00514-cv Mandamus Record Index Page 1700.
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
5.
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
This
is only
the tip of the iceberg. It doesn’t get better from here. Evasion, obstruction, defamation,
intimidation, motions for sanctions and motions for summary judgement
by the alleged Co-Trustees against the beneficiary. Trustees are foreclosed from
such acts by the limits imposed on trustees under Article XII B.
|
Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this agreement, the Trustee shall not exercise
any power in a manner inconsistent with the beneficiaries' right to the
beneficial enjoyment of the trust property in accordance with the general
principles of the law of trusts. Brunsting trust Article XII Section B
(copy of Restatement received from Anita Brunsting October 23, 2010)
|
While completely
ignoring the affirmative obligations of the trustee imposed by the trust instrument
[Article VIII Sec. D,
Article IX Sec. D
& Article X],
the affirmative commands in a federal preliminary injunction
and the common law of trusts, the unclean, the owners of duties owed, bring
claims against the holder of rights to whom the trustee owes the fiduciary duty
of undivided loyalty and specific performance.
How to Steal Your Family Inheritance
is a three-page roadmap detailing the elements and the 5 or 6 steps to seizing
control of the family trust assets and stealing all of it.
Anita Brunsting, with the guidance, encouragement and facilitation
of her parents’ dishonest estate planning attorney, actively implemented this
roadmap and followed it from step 1 to step 6 only to discover that there are a
few things the “how to steal your family inheritance” roadmap doesn’t mention.
It would be best to
begin with a pre-litigation history:
Elmer and Nelva are
the original trustees and beneficiaries. The five Brunsting issue are successor
beneficiaries and Anita is named sole successor trustee followed by successor
Carl 2nd and Amy as the 3d alternate.
Elmer and Nelva are
the original trustees and beneficiaries. The five Brunsting issue are successor
beneficiaries. Anita is removed from the list of successor trustees (Article IV)
and replaced with Carl and Amy as successor co-trustees with Candace Curtis as
the alternate.
Candace
Kunz-Freed joined the Vacek law firm and the first
appearance is her notarization of the 2007 Amendment.
The 2007 Amendment
replaced Article IV in its entirety. The new Article IV removed Amy from the
list of successor co-trustees and replaced her with Candace Curtis as
Co-Trustee with Carl Brunsting and naming Frost
Bank as the alternate. This was the last Family Trust instrument
signed by both settlors.
Executed by Nelva
alone and merely acts as a ledger entry for an early distribution and makes no
attempt to alter “the trust”.
The
family trust becomes irrevocable:
Changes required the signature of both Settlors and once Elmer was declared
non-compos-mentis he could no longer make legal decisions.
Tex. Prop. Code §
112.051(a) A settlor may revoke the trust unless it is irrevocable by the
express terms of the instrument creating it or of an instrument modifying it.
1. 2008-07-01 Certificate of trust
VF 000391-002053
2.
2008-07-01 July 1 2008 appointment of successor
trustees
Texas
Penal Code Section 32.46 - Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution
3. 2010-02-24
Certificate of trust
4. Vacek
& Freed did not come out with certificates of trust for the Decedent and
Survivors trusts until December 21, 2010 (v., infra)
Texas
Penal Code Section 32.46 - Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution
2010-06-15 Qualified Beneficiary Designation QBD is valid as to Nelva’s
share
2010-07-30 Freed
Notes “Anita called, change the trust”
2010-10-07 Freed's Notes or
10.7.10call with Nelva.V&F676
5. August
25, 2010 QBD/TPA allegedly executed by Nelva alone
6. Signature
Above the Line
7. CAN
before signature
8. Signature
On the Line
9. 2010-08-25
3 new certificates of trust
10.2010-08-25 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
2010-10-27 Carole October 27 2010 email to Candy
2010-10-28 Exhibit Carole email overhearing Nelva on phone
with Freed
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.
2010-11-01 Nelva’s Greeting Card
Note to Candy “that’s not true”. So, the double crossing, back stabbing bait
and switch estate planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed,
after forming a conflicting confidential relationship with Anita Brunsting,
cultivating conflicting interests and fomenting controversy by generating illicit instruments
and making incremental changes in series by using labels to amend irrevocable
trusts until the settlors trust agreement had become the disloyal estate
planning attorneys new clients trust agreement.
Having failed to
get Nelva declared incompetent, The Trio of Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and
Candace Kunz-Freed converged on Nelva in her home leaving her nowhere to
retreat.
1.
2010-12-21 Certificate of Trust Decedent
V&F 000232-234
2.
2010-12-21 Certificate of trust for the NEW family
trust VF 000237-239
3.
2010-12-21 Certificate of Trust Survivor
VF 000235-238
4.
2010-12-21 P447-452 Appointment of Successor Trustees
5.
2010-12-21 Resignation of Original Trustee
6.
2010-12-21 Survivors trust Appointment of successor trustees
V&F 000207–251
Texas
Penal Code Section 32.46 - Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution
2011-01-27 January
27, 2011 Anita Engagement letter with Freed
2011-02-16 Anita Transferring securities
into her own name
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
1.
2011-11-22 Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting, Candice
Kunz-Freed created new certificates of trust
for the trusts that terminated with Nelva’s passing on 11/11/2011 (eleven days
earlier)
2.
2011-11-22 Certificate of trust Decedent
V&F 000207 – 251
3.
2011-11-22 Certificate of trust Survivor
V&F 922-927
According to Article VII
the family trust was to be divided into two separate trust shares at the
passing of the first Settlor, a decedents share (Article IX) and a survivors
share (Article VIII). Elmer passed on April 1, 2009.
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].
Instead, they put Nelva in hospice and hid her whereabouts from Carl and Candace.
Nelva passed on 11/11/2011,
and rather than create five separate shares or 5 personal asset trusts as Amy’s March 6, 2012 affidavit
claims, Anita hadn’t bothered to establish and maintain books and records and,
Anita and Amy 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!
Grift of the
Brunstings – Part 2
In 1996 Elmer and
Nelva Brunsting created a living trust with pour-over wills naming their family
trust as the sole devisee. Their intentions were to avoid probate and
guardianship and to transfer their generational assets to their five issues in
equal proportions at the passing of the 2nd Settlor to die. Elmer
passed April 1, 2009 and Nelva passed November 11, 2011.
Elmer and Nelva
Brunsting restated their trust in 2005 and amended it in 2007. The 2007
Amendment was the last instrument signed by both settlors. Therefore, the 2005 Restatement
as amended in 2007
are the instruments containing the trust indenture. Carl Henry Brunsting and
Candace Louise Curtis are the de jure trustees. Anita Brunsting and Amy
Brunsting are interlopers in wrongful possession of the office of trustee that
have never performed an affirmative fiduciary duty for the benefit of Carl or
Candace and have never intended to.
The de jure
successor Co-Trustees for the family trust are Carl Henry Brunsting and Candace
Louise Curtis. Unfortunately the Brunsting family became the victims of an
estate planning attorney bait and switch. Having identified Anita Brunsting as
the weak link in the family moral fabric estate planning attorney, Candace
Kunz-Freed, facilitated the implementation of illicit changes to Elmer and
Nelva’s trust agreement on the heels of each family crisis event.
As stated in the
original February 27, 2012 complaint, Anita planned to steal the family trust
in such a way that, if anyone objected, she would get to keep their share.
Anita’s method was passive aggressive. She simply obtained control of the
family trust by forgery and deception, and began spending money and paying
bribes as if the trust was her personal property. Anita did not even bother to
assemble books and records of accounts or report her dealing with trust
property to the other beneficiaries and, Anita and Amy made it clear from the
instant Nelva passed that anyone who questioned their theft of the family trust
would be , “disinherited
for challenging the trust”, “disinherited
for challenging the trust”, “disinherited
for challenging the trust”, I think you get the picture. Questioning the
Narcissist is “challenging the trust”.
By failing to
provide a required accounting and broadcasting her evil intentions through the
voice of rumor control (Carole Brunsting) Anita single handedly caused
litigation to be brought by Candace Curtis in order to obtain an accounting and
fiduciary disclosures. It became obvious that Drina had hired an attorney by
the questions she began to ask and, although Drina Brunsting never mentioned
that she had retained an attorney, we figured we were in a race to the
courthouse. Candace could not afford an attorney and so I made the blunder of
saying I would help her with the paper work. Because we did not want to look
reactionary and because we had few clues as to what would be involved we
included what we understood to be the case when we filed Candace original federal complaint.
That petition was filed as an affidavit with a Jurat attached and Anita’s plan
to steal the family trust was mentioned as was their stalking and wiretapping of Nelva
Brunsting as Anita implemented her plan, with the encouragement of dishonest
estate planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed. The trust has been hijacked by a
group of attorneys and held hostage for ransom in a courtroom theater with the
facilitation of county employees and the elected judge of the court.
Carl is disabled and thus, the only de jure
trustee for the Elmer H. Brunsting Decedents trust share is Candace Louise
Curtis, and the probate mafia has no claim to jurisdiction over this trust.
Please review my dissertation on the front end estate planning attorney bait and switch,
as this scenario follows a well beaten path that would be more appropriately
titled How to get your family trust looted by
attorneys. The predators in the case in point are masquerading their color of law fiduciary theft industry
under the label “Probate”.
Candace lives in
California. All of her co-beneficiary siblings live in Texas. We filed her
petition in the Southern District of Texas under diversity. Because we filed in
the federal court and not the state court the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
apply to this obscene color-of-law racketeering scenario. Candace Curtis 1st
federal lawsuit was dismissed sua sponte under the probate
exception eleven days after it was filed but was reversed and remanded
with the determination that the family living trust contained no assets
belonging to the settlors estates and that the trust was not in the possession
of the pronate court. There is no probate case, probate matter or probate
proceeding, by definition, and the probate exception
does not apply to this trust. There is no statutory probate court jurisdiction
over this trust. The trust and the pour-over wills with “independent
administration” were intended to avoid the probate mafia and these
participating attorney’s none-the-less argue probate, probate, probate to avoid
the jurisdiction of the federal courts and blind federal judges using vacuous
slogans in order to clothe the nakedness of their white collar theft
conspiracy. There is no excuse for these predators to be immune from
accountability for their obvious larceny and there is no excuse for the federal
courts to become deaf, dumb and blind at the utterance of vacuous slogans.
Did I mention that
in more than eight years there were no evidentiary hearings in the probate
court? Did I mention that trust beneficiary Candace Curtis couldn’t buy an
evidentiary hearing in the probate court? Did I mention how many times she
complained about not being able to get an evidentiary hearing in the probate
court?
All of the findings
of facts and conclusions of law entered after a hearing in this matter were
entered in the Southern District of Texas in 2013. No facts have ever been
testified to in the probate court theater as there have been no evidentiary
hearings and nothing substantive has ever been ruled upon. De jure trustee and
trust beneficiary Candace Louise Curtis has been complaining
about fraud, conversion, extortion, and being held hostage in stasis for years:
“Stasis by design”
(TOC pg.1)
|
Imbroglio
Manufacturing Probate Mafioso Bobbie G. Bayless
Bobbie G. Bayless
Attorney for Drina
Brunsting,
Bayless & Stokes
Purported Attorney in
Fact
2931 Ferndale
for Plaintiff Carl
Brunsting
Houston, Texas 77098
Independent
executor
O: 713-522-2224
F: 713-522-2218
E: bayless@baylessstokes.com
|
The Brunsting wills
are pour-over wills. None of the trust beneficiaries are heir to the settlors’
estates and none have standing in any probate anything. These wills were before
the Fifth Circuit when they uttered their unanimous opinion.
These wills [412248 & 412249] were admitted by the probate court without
challenge and the inventory for both decedents [412248 & 412249] were approved without
challenge, the pour-over was complete and the “independent administrations”
were dropped from the active docket five days before Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless
filed her non-probate related tort claims in Harris County Probate Theater No.
4 as “ancillary” to a closed estate to which none of the real parties in
interest are even heir.
It is worth noting
that Elmer passed April 1, 2009 and Bobbie G. Bayless filed her non-probate
related tort claims April 9, 2013. Thus, Bayless missed the four year statute
of limitations for bringing claims on Elmer’s estate by four days. Even by this
standard the probate court lacks jurisdiction over the “Elmer H. Brunsting
Decedent’s Trust”. Despite this fact Bayless, using a diminished capacity Carl
Brunsting as independent executor for both decedent’s estates. Independent Executor is defined at Texas Estates Code 22.017
and is governed under Texas Estates Code Chapter 401 and Chapter 402 Section 402.001, which reads:
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.
Bayless filed a
malpractice suit against Brunsting estate planning attorneys Vacek & Freed,
in the District Court, claiming Vacek & Freed aided, abetted encouraged and
facilitated Anita Brunsting’s illicit alteration and takeover of the Brunsting
family trust. Then: (2) Bayless filed non-probate tort claims (3) in a
statutory probate court (4) with an independent
executor as plaintiff (5) as ancillary to two closed pour-over estates
(6) naming all of the other beneficiaries of the sole Devisee as Defendants (7)
after no further action OF ANY NATURE” could be had in that court and thus,
segregating the estate plaining Bait and Switch Grifters from their prey and
depriving the family of the only real benefit to be obtained from the “living
trust - pour-over” arrangement; avoiding the probate mafia!
In challenging
Candace Curtis Statutory Bill of Review Bayless argued that the statutory
probate court did not need a pending estate administration to be ancillary to
but that is not the law.
Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0021
Section 25.0021 - Jurisdiction
(a)
If this section conflicts with a specific provision for a particular
statutory probate court or county, the specific provision controls, except that
this section controls over a specific provision for a particular court or
county if the specific provision attempts to create jurisdiction in a
statutory probate court other than jurisdiction over probate, guardianship,
mental
health, or eminent domain proceedings.
(b)
A statutory probate court as that term is defined in Section
22.007(c), Estates Code, has:
(1)
the general jurisdiction of a probate court
as provided by the Estates Code; and
(2)
the jurisdiction provided by law for a
county court to hear and determine actions,
cases,
matters, or proceedings instituted under:
(A)
Section 166.046, 192.027, 193.007, 552.015, 552.019, 711.004, or
714.003, Health and Safety Code;
(B)
Chapter 462, Health and Safety Code; or
(C)
Subtitle C or D, Title 7, Health and Safety Code.
When the Probate Courts’ declaration of jurisdiction
was published February 14, 2019 along with an order for “the moving party”
to pay the cost of transferring the District Court case to Probate Theater No.
4, federal plaintiff and judgment creditor Candace Curtis declined to be the
one to pick up the tab for transferring the first half of Bayless tort suit
to a non-court where Associate Judge Comstock is being represented by the same attorneys
representing Vacek & Freed,
Independent executor Carl Brunsting’s District Court Defendants.
Silence Where There Is A Duty To Speak
Is Fraud.
Testifying would
expose the alleged Co-Trustees to felony prosecution for forgery, perjury,
misapplication of fiduciary assets held in trust for the benefit of elderly and
disabled [P.15 Ln. 20 – p.21] beneficiaries. This would explain why Candace
Curtis could never get an evidentiary hearing is Harris County Probate Theater
No. 4. We accused this nest of white collar vermin
under the RICO statutes, not because of where they had been but because
of where they were obviously going and where they have now arrived. Having read
the horror stories of others, and seeing them get the Rooker-Schnooker and the
Reprobate Shake, we thought we would force these predators to assume a position
they would have to defend once they arrived at their intended destination and…
they all lied! They arrived at their intended destination on February 25, 2022
by using a “retired judge”, in a surprise visit, at a pre-trial scheduling
conference, where she signed the summary judgement
order without knowing anything about the case and without knowing there had
never been a single evidentiary hearing in 8 years, 10 months,
17 days of pretended litigation.
When asked to enter findings of fact and conclusions
of law after hearing, the probate court quickly
and conveniently ran to procedure to avoid accountability
but they never followed the rules at any other time.
Like the Forget “August 25, 2010 Qualified
Beneficiary Designation and Testamentary Power of Appointment under Living
Trust Agreement”, the court will not enter findings
of fact after hearing because it cannot. Without an evidentiary hearing there
can be no findings of fact on contested issues.
The probate mobsters only point to the
rules when it is convenient to avoid accountability. The local rules require
trial to be set for a date certain. We were held hostage to extortion threats
and ransom demands for six and one half years without a docket
control order when the local rules require “probate
matters” to be brought to trial within four years or dismissed for want of
prosecution. Thus, the only resort to the rules was to avoid placing findings
of fact and conclusions of law upon the record. [See Motion to enter findings
of fact and conclusions of law and Order denying Motion]
The only evidentiary hearing ever had in any court was had in the Southern
District of Texas and, as has been predicted and shewn, the probate mob will
avoid the public record at all cost.
The facts of this
charade are so egregious that the probate mafia had to do everything in their
power to let silence kill the argument. This is a complete denial of due
process under color of law, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This of course,
is assuming that, with no applicable abstentions the federal court will examine
the facts and rule on federal questions when confronted with the vacuous slogan
“probate” or the auto magic impunity defense that assumes there can be some
kind of litigation in a statutory probate court with no statutory probate
jurisdiction.
“Put simply,
maintenance is helping another prosecute a suit; champerty is maintaining a
suit in return for a financial interest in the outcome; and barratry is a
continuing practice of maintenance or champerty.” Historically, the doctrines
have been justified as necessary to combat the “stirring up” of frivolous or
vexatious litigation. Whatever merit this justification may have had
historically, it has been largely undermined by the advent of the modern
doctrines of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and wrongful
initiation of litigation — all of which are alleged to provide more relief
when dishonest attorneys promote frivolous or fraudulent litigation for their
own enrichment, such as the actions of the attorneys in the case in point: “Grift of the Brunstings”.
There is no
administration of the estate of Nelva Brunsting for any action to have been
filed ancillary to and yet, five days after 412249 closed, Attorney Bobbie G.
Bayless filed 412249-401, and the
attorneys got together and manufactured 412249-402, 412249-403, 412249-404 and 412249-405 in the
probate court when there is only one living trust (the sole devisee) and one
nucleus of operative facts. None of the parties interested in the trust have a
direct interest in the trust settlors “probate estate”. Keep in
mind that probate is an action in rem.
Because this story
involves deceptions within deceptions, making it very complicated and difficult
to simplify, I will use a three part presentation method, First, I’m going to
tell you what I’m going to tell you. Then I’m going to tell you about what I’m
telling you and then, I’m going to tell you what I told you. I’m looking at a
long con and like other Gift’s this one has its own particular and peculiar
variations. [see Introduction to the Probate Grift]
1. Bait
and Switch Estate Planning Fraud – Betrayal of fiduciary duty of loyalty owed
to the client, forming covert relationships and cultivating conflicting
interests to Manufacture Controversy. This is the setup for 3rd
party interception of a family generational asset transfer by thieves with
Juris Doctorates; clothed in limited liability with license to “practice” law or,
simply said, holding “Letters of Marque” upon the land.
2. Wrongful
Initiation of litigation in the probate court after filing malpractice claims
in the District Court, thus segregating the Estate Planning Bait and Switch
Grifters from their familial money cow victims. This clearly shows collusion
and an intention to protect the vulnerable asset locator by segregating them
from their victims.
3. Abuse of Process
4. Malicious
Prosecution – Bayless non-suit proves she never had any claims against Candace
Curtis and proves Carl and Candace could never have been co-plaintiffs in the
same case. Bayless motion to sever and the hearing on her motion are an
admission that there was never a legal basis for consolidation of Plaintiff
Carl Brunsting with his Defendant Candace Curtis.
5. CHAMPERTY
- Betrayal of the fiduciary duty an attorney owes to the court, to justice and
to the client; in pursuit of unjust self-enrichment in collusion with all the
others and cluttering the court system with staged litigation never to be
substantively resolved but only by settlement with the attorneys over their
self-manufactured fees.
DEFALCATION
6. Misapplication of fiduciary property
Texas Penal Code § 32.45 by act and omission to act. The Supreme Court has
interpreted the crime of "stealing" to cover all felonious takings
with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership. See U.S. v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430 (1957).
7. Texas
Penal Code 32.45 Misapplication of Fiduciary property in Excess of $300,000.00
8. Texas
Penal Code § 32.53 - Exploitation of Child, Elderly Individual, or Disabled
Individual via Misapplication of fiduciary property
held in trust for the benefit of a child/elderly or disabled individual, which would describe
Carl [P.15 ln 20] and Carl’s elder sister
Candace. Carl was subjected to a deposition February 3,
2015, where he is clearly having cognitive issues. Carl is asked (page 77)
whether or not he has paid his attorney any fees to date and Carl’s reply was
“A quarter of a million dollars”.
Carl’s attorney is Bobbie G. Bayless and at a hearing, seven years later
Bayless is admitting that the client she has exploited for more than ten years
is in desperate need of settling this dispute, in other words paying Mendel and
Spielmans ransom by settlement contract laundering that ransom under the label
of fees for services rendered. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of the sole
devisee already have a contract that Mendel and Spielman and their clients have
shown no respect for. Why would anyone be fool enough to think they would honor
a contract of their own choosing? Settlement Agreements, without exorcising the
demons of the previous grievance, have been all too often shown to open the
door to a new parade of horribles.
9. Hobbs Act Extortion 18 U.S.C. § 1951
holding the beneficiaries property hostage to ransom demands and using
disinheritance threats in effort to coerce an unholy “Settlement Agreement”
that would violate the Settlors trust and launder the ransom
by contract. Yes, it
does not provide a separate cause of action. However, it is a predicate act,
one of two felonious acts, necessary to establish a separate cause of action under
the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Statutes.
10.Obstruction of Justice
18 U.S.C. § 1503 Jason Ostrom and his Motion to Remand from a federal court
having competent jurisdiction to a probate theater that cannot compose itself a
court of competent jurisdiction without a pending estate administration.
[Estate means a decedent’s personal property (Tex. Est. Code § 22.012).
The federal case could not be returned to a court it had never been to and
where there was in fact, no court. These trust beneficiaries have all been
denied due process under color of probate.
11.Identity Theft, Conversion
& Docket Tampering
12.Transcript
of a hearing, in which an agreement to consolidate Estate of Nelva Brunsting
412249-402 into Estate of Nelva Brunsting 412249-401, is unavailable and this
would be the only reason court reporter Biamonte
would be named as a necessary party defendant in SDTX RICO case No.
4:16-cv-1969.
13.Agreed
Order to Consolidate Cases removed from electronic docket record.
See also email thread following the election
of a new probate court judge. [Consolidation Never Happened] but then
Bayless gets involved and the new clerk finds it rolling around in a drawer
and Clarinda Comstock is wondering why it was never scanned. The answer is that
it was scanned but later removed from the docket.
How it was removed from the electronic record is a little more relevant. I had
read enough to be suspicious so ordered a copy from the clerk
before Candace fired Ostrom and obtained one without the “Unofficial” water
mark. I did not ask to have it certified because I did not want to tip them off
beforehand.
14.Theft
of work product and the fruits of labor: Candace
Louise Curtis vs Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and Does
1-100 is not “estate of Nelva
Brunsting” and it is not “Carl et al.” (1st
time known to have been used in a filing was May 5, 2013 while Candace Curtis
vs. Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and Does 1-100 No. 4:12-cv-592 was in the Southern District of Texas)
15.Violation
of a federal preliminary injunction commanding specific affirmative fiduciary
acts in perpetuity to date.
16.Every
participant is a principal and equally culpable with every other actor in this,
all too obvious, criminal enterprise. Texas Penal Code §§ 7.01 & 7.02.
17.Texas Penal Code Section 32.46
- Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution & Texas Penal Code Section 32.47
- Fraudulent Destruction, Removal, or Concealment of Writing,
18.They
have not produced the August 25, 2010 QBD with corruption of blood
provisions they keep pointing to as the heart of their
in Terrorem claims. They will not because they cannot as there are three
different signature page versions and they have already affirmatively pled that
none of them have any evidence that they were present when it was allegedly
signed. It doesn’t matter how you measure it, the thing is no good on its
face and every way you look at it. BRING IT OUT IN THE OPEN!
19.Texas Penal Code Section 32.48
- Simulating Legal Process, There is no probate court as one cannot be
constituted. This sham litigation is as obvious because of what has not
happened as much as because of what has. The participation of the attorneys who
have argued jurisdiction and entitlement to fees have clearly colluded together
to hold a family hostage for ransom in a theater that cannot compose a court of
competent jurisdiction without someone filing for guardianship over Carl.
Let our story
begin:
On February 25,
2022 Trust Beneficiary Candace Curtis, having been pro se for much of the
attrition, obstruction, extortion and intimidation segment and, being unwilling
to capitulate to the exploitation attorneys EXTORTION THREATS AND RANSOM DEMANDS
and their bait and switch “Settlement offer” [$537,000.00 for the attorneys],
finally put in writing…, was AJUDGED TO HAVE FORFEITED HER PROPERTY INTERESTS, holding that none of her exhibits had been
authenticated. The simple fact is that summary judgment is only appropriate
where there are no facts in dispute and in all the time this family has been
held hostage in a theater with no lawful authority, with the exception of the wiretap hearing in the probate court
where no witness was called; there has not been even one evidentiary hearing.
No witness has testified at any hearing and they cannot assume facts over an
objection to assuming facts. Thus, without an evidentiary hearing, the
beneficiary is summarily “disinherited” without explanation but I’m sure
she was sanctioned for not
transferring Bayless plaintiff-less District Court Suit to probate theater 4
where the estate planning bait and switch grifters plaintiff-less case would be
before one of their attorneys other client’s, Associate Judge Clarinda
Comstock, a defendant and in Johnston v Dexel
et al, sanctioned for not paying sanctions and
sanctioned for refusing to be deposed by the fiduciaries (who demanded personal
appearance amidst the Covid Lockdown) more than seven years after litigation
had commenced. This of course, would be in pursuit of their disloyal counter claims filed more
than eight and one half years of absolutely refusing to honor any of the
commandments of the trust.
Neither the Counter
Claims nor any of the Motions for Sanctions against the beneficiary were brought
by trustees as trustees are foreclosed from such conduct.
“Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this agreement, the Trustee shall not exercise any
power in a manner inconsistent with the beneficiaries' right to the beneficial
enjoyment of the trust property in accordance with the general principles of
the law of trusts.” Brunsting trust Article XII Section B
(copy of Restatement received from Anita Brunsting October 23, 2010)
All of these
egregious actions were the acts of greedy dishonest beneficiaries and their
counsel and none can be honored under the law of the trust.
The argument in the
Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion,
is that Candace Curtis forfeited her property interests when she filed a
lawsuit against the alleged Co-Trustees. That theory is self-defeating and the
orders are void for want of jurisdiction in any event!
Forfeiture
Clauses (Sec. 112.038(b)). When a floor vote was
taken on revisions to this statute in the 2013 session, the author of the bill
read into the official proceedings a statement [that REPTL suggested]
recognizing that forfeiture
provisions do not apply to suits by beneficiaries to compel a fiduciary to
perform his duties, seek redress for a breach of duty, or seek a
judicial construction, and that the revisions were not meant to change that
rule. Not satisfied with legislative history, new Subsection (b) enacts this
recognition into law. (The same change was made to the Estates Code forfeiture
provision in 2015.)
Defendants
have been making this threat since before lawsuits were filed.
Anita claims to have become sole trustee on December 21,
2010. Article
XII E of the family trust requires the trustee to submit full, true and
complete accountings at least semi-annually. Anita failed to produce the
December 2011 accounting, which would have been her 2nd mandatory
minimum accounting. Already made well
aware of Anita’s plan to steal the trust, and that Amy had elected to be a
silent partner, and being unable to get satisfactory answers to her information
and accounting requests from Anita, Candace Curtis, a California resident,
filed a breach of fiduciary action into the Southern District of Texas under
diversity jurisdiction on February 27, 2012 seeking accounting and disclosure
information.
(1) A
fiduciary relationship in which one person (trustee) owes affirmative fiduciary
duties to another (beneficiary)
(2) Failure
of the fiduciary to perform the obligations owed to the beneficiary or, the
trustee committing acts not authorized by the trust or otherwise improper under
guiding principles.
(3) Injury
to the beneficiary or benefit to the trustee as a result of (1) failure to
perform or performance of acts not authorized by the trust. (act or omission)
On 2/27/2012 beneficiary Candace Louise Curtis filed a Pro
se breach of fiduciary action in the Southern District of Texas seeking
accounting a trust accounting and fiduciary disclosures. Candace
Louise Curtis vs Amy Brunsting, Anita Brunsting and Does 1-100 SDTX No.
4:12-cv-592
2012 02 27 QBD Conspiracy to steal the family trust in Curtis
Affidavit (verified by jurat)
2012-02-27-Wiretap-Recording-reference-in-Affidavit (recordings show up in the probate
court in 2015)
I should mention that Anita
had Nelva’s email password. With her phone and messaging tapped, there was
nothing Nelva could do that Anita didn’t know about. This is called STALKING! We suspected it because of the reaction
from Anita and Amy everytime Candace had a
conversation with her mother in which the trust was mentioned. I obtained
Nelva’s email password from Carole and downloaded Nelva’s entire
email record from sbcglobal.net just by setting up an email client with
Nelva’s information. I should review some communications I have not yet listed.
Over the years Nelva emailed everyone reinforcing the intention that everything
be divided equally and that they had created an estate plan for the express
purpose of avoiding the fraud committed in probate courts.
2007-04-03 Nelva
email to Anita Divided equally Thursday April 03 2007
2007-04-05 Nelva
email to Anita Divided equally Thursday April 05 2007
2007-06-24 Questions,
allegations surround Texas probate courts - Houston Chronicle
2007-06-25 email Nelva
to Carl chronicle re probate court is why we have the trust
2007-07-05 Email
Carl to Nelva Judge and Lawyers should be Horse whipped
2007-07-28 Nelva
email to Candace Amy not stable
2007-08-03 Nelva
email to Amy - Candy to be co-trustee - Divided equally
2008-03-04 Nelva
email to Candy Divided equally Tuesday March 04 2008
2010-03-08 Nelva email to
Candy Divided
equally Monday March 08 2010
|
Candace Kunz-Freed
Texas State Bar Number: 24041282
License Date: 11/06/2003
9545 Katy Fwy Ste 400 Houston, TX 77024-1417
|
Bernard Lyle Matthews III
Texas State Bar Number: 13187450
License Date: 10/30/1981
4008 Louetta Rd Ste 261 Spring, TX 77388-4405
|
Vacek & Freed P.L.L.C. associate and staff attorneys
responsible for manufacturing controversy
When Candy Curtis realized her sisters actually intended to
steal her share of the family trust, she had to file an action asking for
judicial assistance in protecting her rights and to compel fiduciary
performance from her disingenuous Co-Untrustworthy sisters. When Candace Curtis
filed her action in the Southern District of Texas [SDTX No 4:12-cv-592]
imposter Co-Trustees Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting appeared represented by
their parents’ disloyal estate planning attorney Bernard Lyle Matthews III,
using a GREEN AND MATHEWS letterhead to conceal his conflict of interest.
Mathews’ first act was to file an emergency motion to remove
a lis pendens filed among
the plaintiff’s exhibits but not registered with any county recorder. The
“emergency motion was accompanied by an affidavit
of alleged Co-Trustee Amy Brunsting, claiming that personal asset trusts
had been “set up” for each of the beneficiary’s, “as is the case for Candace”.
This was not true then and it is not true now.
Before me, the undersigned authority appeared Amy Ruth
Brunsting who after being duly sworn by me did state:
1. My name is Amy Ruth Brunsting. I am over 18 years of age,
competent to make this affidavit, and have personal knowledge of the facts
stated herein.
2. This case involves the allegations of my sister, Candace
Louise Curtis, who is disgruntled with the amount of information and accounting
I and my sister have provided to her while acting in our capacity as
Co-Successor Trustees of the Brunsting Family Living Trust.
3. The contentions of Candace are totally meritless and I
believe have more to do with the disappointment she feels in the fact that our
parents did not feel she was competent to handle her own inheritance. She began
issuing threats and demands within weeks after our mother died, and before we
have had a chance to evaluate the proper handling of assets in the estate,
including the largest asset, a farm in Iowa.
Amy’s “our parents did
not feel she was competent to handle her own inheritance” is patently false. If one recalls Part
1, (the front end bait and switch) it was noted that no illicit changes
were made to Elmer and Nelva’s trust agreement until after Elmer was no
longer able to make legal decisions, (1st triggering event) which rendered
the trust irrevocable per Article
III. None-the-less, within two weeks of the first triggering event we see a
new series of Certificates
of trust and appointments
of successor trustees.
You cannot begin the division of assets into five shares
without being able to account for what is to be divided. The preliminary
injunction and the Order appointing a Special Master established the first two
elements of breach and the Report of Special Master established the 3rd
element necessary to prove breach.
Amy’s affidavit was filed 3 months and 22
days after Nelva’s passing and only 3 months and 12 days
after she had signed new certificates of trust for the terminated family trust
and its two resulting trusts. Rather than create five separate shares,
as required by Article
X, she and Anita had created new
certificates of trust for the terminated trusts only eleven days after Nelva
passed and, that they made themselves Co-Trustees for the New
Decedents Trust, the New
Survivors Trust and the New
Family Trust, all of which terminated at the passing of Nelva Brunsting
(see Article
VIII D and Article
IX D), without creating certificates of trust for the five separate shares.
Amy knew when she signed this affidavit there were no “personal asset trusts”
and she knew that no separate shares had been established. I’m reasonably sure
she doesn’t know anything about trusts or estates and, equally certain that
neither Amy nor Anita have ever stepped foot in Probate Court No. 4 while their
hired mercenary’s played games to the injury of the other beneficiaries.
Perjury is not just testifying under oath that something is
true when the witness knows it to be untrue but it is also testifying under
oath that something is true when the witness does not know it to be true. Nelva
passed on 11/11/2011.
Elmer and Nelva’s purpose for establishing the Brunsting
trust was the avoidance
of probate and guardianship and the first thing Vacek estate planning staff
attorney Bernard Lisle Mathews III did in the Southern District of Texas
was plead the “Probate
Exception” to federal jurisdiction. (see Docket
entry 14)
2012-03-06 [Doc 10]
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF LIS PENDENS
2012-03-06 [Doc
10-1] Affidavit of Amy Brunsting
2012-03-08 Candy Curtis federal
lawsuit was dismissed under the probate exception to federal jurisdiction
and this leads us to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
I didn’t know anything about the federal courts or
litigation and now I’m confronted with a federal appeal and I don’t know the federal
rules of appellate procedure and, what
is this thing called the probate exception? In researching what I could on
the internet I found some interesting information, among which were the October
11, 2006 Texas Senate Hearings on Jurisprudence: 2006-10-11 [791067a,
791067b,
791068a,
791068b,
791069a,
791069b,
791070a,
791070b,
791071a,
791071b,
791072a,
791072b]
that included the
testimony of Robert Alpert.
I also read Professor Peter Nicholas treatise from
2002-02-21 “FIGHTING
THE PROBATE MAFIA A DISSECTION OF THE PROBATE EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL COURT
JURISDICTION” and, while I didn’t
understand why he used the expression “probate mafia” and he didn’t mention it
in the content of his treatise, I had to figure that one out on my own. I get
the picture!
One
of the few honest attorneys in this tale but not the only honest attorney:
Attorney George Vie made his initial appearance for purposes
of answering Candace Curtis appeal to the federal Fifth Circuit and continued
on after the reverse and remand. While most of the attorneys mentioned in this
factual diatribe are depraved moral bankrupts who work with the other attorneys
to rob all the litigants, one must give respect where respect is due and George
Vie was an honorable opponent that filed honest pleadings, spoke respectfully
and actually tried to resolve this controversy.
Unfortunately, Mr. Vie was unable to gain the cooperation of
his clients as their bad intentions were already dead set on stealing the trust
from their siblings using their precious 8/25/2010
QBD/TPA [a/k/a the heinous extortion instrument]. This instrument is not in
evidence. They will
not produce it and attempt to qualify it as evidence because they cannot. Three
different signature page versions were discovered after the lawsuits were filed.
We mentioned that Carl
had a medical condition resulting in coma and we also mentioned the
illicit changes implemented by Anita
Brunsting working closely with Candace Kunz-Freed following each “triggering
event”, among which was Carl’s coma.
On March 9, 2012, the day after Candy Curtis federal lawsuit
was dismissed Attorney Bobbie G.
Bayless, representing Carl Brunsting, filed a Petition
to take deposition before suit Case 212-14538 in Harris County’s 180th
Judicial District Court and demanded that Vacek file the decedents wills. The
wills were filed in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 on April 3, 2012: Copies of the filed wills were included as
exhibits (newly discovered evidence) with Candace
Curtis opening brief on appeal and were before the Fifth Circuit as part of
their deliberation. In that brief Candace Curtis made it clear that all of the
information necessary to protect her interests and enforce the trust were
uniquely in the possession of the Defendants.
Maureen
Kuzik
McCutcheon Texas state Bar No. 00784427
On December 26, 2012 Mills
Shirley Attorney Maureen Kuzik McCutcheon, board certified in
estate planning and probate law in Texas, made her appearance
in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 on behalf of Anita Kay Brunsting and Amy
Ruth Brunsting as representatives for the sole devisee, the family trust.
March 9, 2012 Bayless filed Petition to take deposition
before suit No. 212-14538, in Harris County’s 180th Judicial
District Court.
While the events were transpiring in the
federal Courts, both settlors’ wills were recorded in the state probate court [Will
of Nelva E. Brunsting filed April 3, 2012 - Will
of Elmer H. Brunsting, filed April 3, 2012].
These wills were submitted to the federal Circuit Court as newly disclosed
evidence and were before the Fifth Circuit panel when they issued their
unanimous opinion. These are Pour-Over-Wills. The sole devisee of both wills is
the Brunsting Family Trust. None of the Brunsting trust beneficiaries are heir
to their parents probate estate and thus, none are persons interested in the
estate under the “Texas
Estates Code”.
August 26, 2012 both wills were admitted to
probate unchallenged and letters testamentary were issued to Carl Brunsting for
“Independent Administration” of the estates of Elmer
and Nelva
Brunsting.
On
January 9, 2013 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, in a unanimous
decision, reversed and remanded to the Southern District Court for further
proceedings, published Curtis
v Brunsting 704 F.3d 406.
On January
29, 2013 Attorney Bobbie G.
Bayless filed a professional malpractice action against trust and estate
planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed and Vacek & Freed P.L.L.C. in the
Harris County District Court, in the name of Carl Brunsting as Executor of the
estates of Elmer and Nelva Brunsting. (Lawsuit
#2) Trust and estate planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed and Vacek &
Freed P.L.L.C. are represented by Thompson Coe attorneys Zandra E. Foley and
Cory S Reed. These
same Thompson Coe attorneys also represent Clarinda Comstock, Associate
Judge of Harris County Probate Court No. 4.
The next day, Jan 30, 2013, the remand was returned to the
Southern District of Texas and attorney Bobbie
G. Bayless, filed her first in a long series of Amended Complaints: 2013-01-30
HC Dist Ct 164 54574532 Plaintiff, Independent
Executor Carl Brunsting’s First Amended Petition.
Thompson Coe
attorney Zandra E. Foley along with Thompson
Coe attorney Cory S Reed, represented estate planning bait and switch
Grifter Candace Kunz-Freed, in Harris
County District Court No. 164. Thompson
Coe attorney Zandra E. Foley represented Harris
County employee and appointee, Probate Court Number 4 Associate Judge Clarinda
Comstock in SHERRY LYNN JOHNSON vs. DAVID DEXEL, ET AL SDTX Case
4:16-cv-03215, a wrongful death case involving the color-of-law
abduction and hospice processing of Willie Jo Mills. This conflict was going on
simultaneously for a period of more than 2 ½ years.
The Brunsting malpractice case has had no plaintiff since
independent executor Carl
Brunsting resigned February 19, 2015 due to want of capacity. Independent
administration is governed under Tex. Est. Code § 401-404. To appoint a
successor to an independent executor the court must find that continued
administration of the estate is necessary, Tex. Est. Code § 404.005(a).
No such finding has ever been entered as there is no estate
to administer. Both wills were pour-over wills requiring only the filing and
approval of an inventory to conclude probate. This was accomplished April 5,
2013, when the Court approved the inventory and closed the case by issuing a
drop order. See Drop
Order April 5, 2013.
On March 1, 2013 [2013-03-01
Case 4-12-cv-00592 Doc 29] alleged Co-Trustees Anita Brunsting and Amy
Brunsting filed their original answer to Candace federal Complaint in which
they admitted to owing Candace Curtis all of the obligations of trustees under
the trust instrument, the common law and statute. Just as alleged in Candace
Curtis original complaint, the
alleged Co-Trustees have performed none of the affirmative duties owed to the
other beneficiaries.
No June 2012 Accounting or disclosures had been received (3rd
minimum semi-annual accounting) and no December 2012 Accounting had been
received (4th minimum semi-annual accounting) and there had been no
disclosures… everything was still being kept secret. (2yrs with Anita at the
helm and no semi-annual accountings as required by Article XII E)
On March 11, 2013 Federal Court Plaintiff Candace Curtis
filed Application
for a protective order with an attached affidavit
in support. On April 9, 2013 a Hearing
on the application for a preliminary injunction was had and injunction
issued. At the hearing a number of important matters arise including:
Page
35 The Honorable Kenneth Hoyt
15 Here's what I'm suggesting. I am
suggesting
16 that this will not become a feast and famine, feast for
the
17 lawyers and famine for the beneficiaries in this Court
where
18 we are sitting around churning the time out and the
parties
19 are charging out of that lawsuit, defense of that lawsuit,
This is an exact depiction of the
object of the sham litigation in a probate theater replete with
all the props, actors and costumes but without the capacity to compose a court
of competent jurisdiction over the subject matter of the administration of the
Brunsting Family Living Trust. None of the actions in the probate court, filed
after the approval of the estate inventory and the closing of the pour-over,
have any legitimacy what-so-ever as none of the trust beneficiaries are heirs
to their parents probate estate. It is the devisee and its beneficiary’s that
are being held hostage for ransom. At least, that is the illusion the probate
participants want to create.
Page 36
4 THE COURT: And there is no reason for Ms. Curtis to
5 be concerned about spending money out of her assets for
that
6 lawsuit.
7 MR. VIE: Understand.
8 THE COURT: So, you can distribute what you got
9 whether you get some more or not. It doesn't require --
this
10 is not a probate where you got to gather everything
together
11 because everything is together.
12 MR. VIE: Okay.
13 THE COURT: The entire estate is together.
14 MR. VIE: Yes, Your Honor.
Page 37
13 THE COURT: So, what is it then that prevents these
14 parties from right now settling this
suit?
15 MR. VIE: From settling it?
16 THE COURT: Yes. All they got to do is distribute
17 the assets.
Page 38
12 MR. VIE: I understand that.
13 THE COURT: So, what is it then that prevents these
14 parties from right now settling this
suit?
15 MR. VIE: From settling it?
16 THE COURT: Yes. All they got to do is distribute
17 the assets.
18 MR. VIE: Two things, Your Honor. And it's just my
19 observation, because obviously the Court does not have to
20 agree with me.
21 THE COURT: Sure.
22 MR. VIE: I provided the underlying documents that
23 support the schedule that the plaintiff has attached to
this
24 motion for temporary relief. I have given her yesterday, in
25 response to her request for production, some 5,000 pages.
If one reviews the appellants
brief on appeal one finds that Curtis made it clear that all of the
instruments were uniquely
in the possession of Defendants Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting.
If one reviews
Defendant Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting’s “proposed
order for summary judgment”, (the order that was signed), the alleged
Co-Trustees are asking that their own disclosures be considered
unauthenticated. Without an evidentiary hearing nothing has been authenticated.
At the preliminary injunction
hearing (pg38) Mr. Vie attempts to put words in Curtis mouth saying Curtis
thinks the trust documents are forgeries. This is where Defendants Anita
Brunsting and Amy Brunsting try to accuse Candace Curtis of “challenging the
trust” which was the whole point of Anita’s Passive Aggressive strategy: Cause
litigation to be brought by failing to account and then use the precatory
language in the heinous
extortion instrument, allegedly signed by Nelva alone on August 25, 2010,
to disinherit anyone who challenged her absolute control and keeping of the
family trust.
What
Candace Curtis was calling a forgery was her own signature that Anita had
forged on a particular tax form. This tax form signature was our first
indication that Anita had no qualms about forging other people’s signatures. It
was while waiting for the Circuit Court opinion that we discovered the second
QBD signature page anomaly. Ultimately, three
signature variations turn up in the record and Nelva stated to Candace on
the phone that she did no such thing. This caused us to take a better look at
the chronological and circumstantial exhibits.
I was sick of hearing that
Candace Curtis was going to be “disinherited for challenging the trust”, after
she asked Anita for information and long before I finished drafting her
complaint. This wasn’t coming directly from Anita; it was coming from Carole
Brunsting who seemed to be in communication with everyone. I sometimes refer to
Carole as the voice of “Rumor Control”. In my inadvertent and almost
unavoidable overhearing of cell phone conversations between Candy and Carole it
was clear to me that Anita’s plans were to steal Candy and Carl’s shares. In
any event, we put everything we had in Candace Curtis original complaint, to
which she attached a Jurat. This complaint is a sworn affidavit in its
entirety. Everything we said was true.
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-10.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-11.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-12.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-13.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-2.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-3.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-4.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-5.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-6.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-7.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-8.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-9.pdf
2012-02-27 Candace Louise
Curtis v. Anita Kay Brunsting 01-main.pdf
A Memorandum
of Preliminary Injunction was published April 19, 2013.
Also on April 9, 2013, Bobbie G. Bayless filed a Petition
For Declaratory Judgment in Harris County Probate
Court No. 4 naming all of the other trust beneficiaries as defendants including
federal plaintiff Candace Curtis.
This action was filed as ancillary to the Estate of Nelva Brunsting No.
412249 which, as previously mentioned, closed with the approval of the
inventory four days earlier and to which none of the trust beneficiaries are
heir.
Let’s take a closer look at this alleged “probate case”:
April 5, 2013 the inventory appraisement and list of claims were approved for
both settlors’ estates in probate court No. 4, [Elmer’s estate inventory and Nelva’s estate invnetory] and
drop orders were issued removing both estates from the active probate docket. [Elmer’s
pour-over is closed & Nelva’s
pour-over is closed] and that is what both dockets show. [412248
Docket & 412249
Docket]
Thus, Carl Brunsting's attorney, Bobbie
G. Bayless, filed malpractice
claims in the Harris County District Court against bait and switch
estate planning Grifter Candace
Kunz-Freed and Vacek & Freed P.L.L.C. alleging conspiracies
involving Anita Brunsting, Carole Brunsting and Amy Brunsting, and then Bayless
filed suit against Anita, Carole and Amy Brunsting in the Harris County Probate
Court alleging a conspiracy involving Candace Freed. Not only did Bayless file
claims against alleged co-conspirators in separate Courts, she named federal
Plaintiff Curtis a nominal defendant in the complaint she filed in the very
court the Brunsting estate plan was intended to avoid.
Notice
of felony emailed to Texas Attorney General and DOJ – July 22, 2022.
An examination of both wills [Elmer
and Nelva]
reveals that the only heir to the estates of Elmer and Nelva Brunsting is the
family living trust. None of the trust beneficiaries have individual standing
in any probate court. Bayless filed non-probate tort claims as ancillary to a closed estate to
which none of the parties are heir.
“Estate” means a decedents property (Tex.
Est. Code § 22.012) and “Property” only includes the decedent’s personal
property:
Tex. Est. Code 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.
Although courts generally do not lose subject matter
jurisdiction once it attaches, a probate court is a specialized court that can
lose jurisdiction over matters incident to an estate if it loses jurisdiction
over the probate matters. See Goodman v. Summit at West Rim, Ltd.,
952 S.W.2d 930, 933
(Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). In other
words, once an estate closes, incident claims are pendent or ancillary to
nothing, and the probate court loses jurisdiction. Id.; see also Schuld v.
Dembrinski, 12
S.W.3d 485, 487 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.) ("the
pendency of a probate proceeding is a requisite for a court's exercise of
jurisdiction over matters related to it"); Garza v. Rodriguez, 18
S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.)
("before a matter can be regarded as incident to an estate ... a probate
proceeding must actually be pending"). Lawton v. Lawton, No.
01-12-00932-CV, at *4-5 (Tex. App.
July 10, 2014)
There
was no probate matter pending in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 when Carl
Brunsting filed his petition on April 9, 2013 [Tab 25] and both estates had closed
[Tab 16 & 23]. Carl’s tort claims were filed after the inventory was
approved in an independent administration and drop orders had issued. Carl’s
action was neither specifically nor explicitly authorized by Title II of the
Texas Estates Code, but was prohibited by Texas Estates Code § 402.001. [Tab L]
Docket
sheet in 412,248 [Tab 11] shows: April 2, 2012, the will of Elmer H. Brunsting [No. 412,248]
was filed in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 [Tab 12]. On August 28, 2012 statement of death and other
facts was recorded in estate of Elmer H. Brunsting [No. 412,248] [Tab 13], Elmer passed April 1, 2009.
August 28, 2012 is an order entered admitting the will of Elmer H. Brunsting
[No. 412,248] and issuing Letters Testamentary to Carl Henry Brunsting as
“Independent Executor” [Tab 14]. An order approving the
inventory, appraisement and list of claims was entered April 4, 2013 [Tab 15] and a Drop Order was issued
April 5, 2013 [Tab 16]
Docket
sheet in 412249 [Tab 17] shows: April 2, 2012 the will of Nelva E. Brunsting [No.
412,249] was filed in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 [Tab
18]. August 28, 2012 statement of death and other facts were
filed [Tab
19] by Drina Brunsting. August 28, 2012 an order admitting the
will of Nelva E. Brunsting and issuing Letters Testamentary [No. 412,249] was
entered [Tab
20]. The inventory, appraisement and list of claims were filed
[Tab
21] and approved April 4, 2013 [Tab
22] and a Drop Order was issued April 5, 2013 [Tab
23] closing the administration.
The
approved inventory for the “estate of
Elmer Brunsting [No. 412248] and the approved inventory for the “estate of
Nelva Brunsting” [No. 412249] very clearly establishes the absence of an estate
to probate and once the inventory has been approved the pour-over is complete.
Tex. Est. Code Sec. 22.005 Probate
“claims” only include:
(1) liabilities of a decedent that survive the
decedent's death, including taxes, regardless of whether the liabilities arise
in contract or tort or otherwise;
(2)
funeral expenses;
(3)
the expense of a tombstone;
(4)
expenses of administration;
(5)
estate and inheritance taxes; and
(6)
debts due such estates.
It
is obvious from the approved inventory of [Elmer and Nelva] that there is no “estate” and that
there are no “claims” and it is clear from the statement of death and other facts that
Bayless probate court tort suit missed the four year statute of limitations for
bringing claims on Elmer’s estate by five days and the wills, approved without
challenge, clearly establish that none of the trust beneficiaries are heirs to
the estate of Nelva Brunsting and thus,
none of the party’s in the tort suit filed by Bayless, as ancillary to the
estate of Nelva Brunsting, have individual standing in the probate court as
none are interested persons.
A Memorandum of the Preliminary
Injunction
was published April 19, 2013. The Court found the existence of a fiduciary
relationship, failure to account, failure to disclose and failure to
begin the division of assets as required by the trust.
In
reviewing the transcript of the hearing on Plaintiff
Curtis application for preliminary injunction, Defendants counsel, George Vie
III, mentions the malpractice suit against the estate planning attorneys filed
in the Harris County District Court and the next day, April 10, 2013, Mr. Vie
filed [Dkt 41] notice of the case Bayless filed
in the probate court wherein Carl names all of the other trust beneficiaries as
defendants.
Because
Anita had failed to submit a proper accounting after more than two and one half
years as trustee, on May 9, 2013 Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt Jr. appointed a
Special Master.
“the
Court finds that the issues in dispute require an accounting, that such an
accounting will be helpful to the Court’s consideration of the issues in
dispute and the resolution of the case, that the appointment of a master to
prepare such an accounting is necessary and in the best interests of all
parties”
The
Report of Special Master was filed August 8,
2013 and hearing was had on the report September 3, 2013.
The report, and the hearing that followed, established that Anita had been
treating the family trust like it was her private bankroll from the instant she
obtained control, which included paying $40,000 in personal credit card
obligations directly out of a trust bank account and “gifting” to Amy and
Carole, all without notice or
equalization to beneficiaries Carl Brunsting or Candace Brunsting-Curtis.
It should be noted that Anita has carried the stock she issued herself five days
after Nelva’ passing, as an accounts receivable, not gifts, and she did not
include the alleged trustee compensation she paid herself by virtue of paying
her personal credit card bills out of the trust account. These secreted
self-dealing actions are prohibited by the trust and the general
principles of the law of trusts. It is a breach of the fiduciary duties of
undivided loyalty, impartiality and full disclosure and a misapplication of
fiduciary property held in trust for elderly beneficiary Candace Curtis
Brunsting in violation of Texas Penal Codes §§ 32.45 & 32.53and disabled
beneficiary Carl Brunsting in violation of Texas Penal Codes §§ 32.45 &
32.53.
I
was writing and studying while Candy commuted to work and in late September and
early October 2013 I had an unfortunate experience resulting in coma. Candy was
left without any ability to be briefed and, stressed out and knowing little to
nothing of law at the time, she traveled to SDTX completely unprepared for a
scheduled hearing and was instructed to retain the assistance of counsel. This
is where it all takes a downward plunge.
Having
limited funds, but needing to avoid dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to obey the Court’s order to retain counsel, and
with great difficulty, Candace Curtis was able to obtain the assistance of
Houston attorney Jason Bradley Ostrom, (Ostrom).
The
late Attorney Jason B. Ostrom , Fed. Id. No. 33680, filed his appearance January 6, 2014. On May 9, 2014 Ostrom
presented the southern district court with a bundle of
unopposed motions
including a 1st amended complaint adding Carl
Brunsting as an involuntary plaintiff to pollute diversity and a Motion
to REMAND the case to the state probate court and obtained an unopposed
remand order asking to return the case to a court it had never been
removed from.
In
reliance upon the candor of its officers to operate efficiently the district
court summarily approved the bundle of unopposed motions on May 15, 2014 and the federal docket was
administratively closed, showing the case to have been remanded to Harris
County Probate Court Number 4. In the probate court Ostrom filed a motion to accept the improper remand order as if it was an
instate transfer.
It
is worth taking note that Bayless used a disabled Carl Brunsting to obtain letters testamentary and for independent administration and that Ostrom
used the same disabled Carl Brunsting as an “involuntary Co-Plaintiff” to
pollute diversity. This of course follows the front end where Anita used Carl’s
coma as just another triggering event to advance her scheme to steal the family
trust from her elder siblings.
It
should also be noted that Bayless named federal plaintiff Candace Curtis a
defendant when she filed her non-probate related tort claims in the
probate court, as ancillary to a closed pour-over estate, containing no tangible property of worth, and to
which none of the parties are heir.
Thus,
Carl polluted federal diversity by becoming a co-plaintiff with one of his
in-state defendants, in order to consolidate as co-plaintiffs in a statutory
probate court with no estate to administer or file ancillary to?
Carl
is a Co-Trustee with Candace under the 2007 Amendment to the living trust but
apparently unable to serve due to want of capacity. It is Candace Curtis who
holds the obligation to carry out Elmer and Nelva Brunstings intentions but the
performance of those obligations have been tortuously interfered with by the
alleged Co-Trustee Defendants with the assistance of a host of cooperating
attorneys in pursuit of their own unjust enrichment.
The
first event in Houston at that juncture was mediation where the only topic was
the attorney’s fees being paid out of the trust corpus before the
beneficiaries even saw a dime. This would violate the trust. The only fees that
should even be mentioned are those authorized by the trust but none of the
duties have ever been performed. No agreement was to be had and immediately
after the mediation the Mills Shirley attorneys filed application to withdraw due to conflict
between the law firm and their clients.
It
should be noted here that Mills Shirley Attorney George Vie III, Texas State
Bar No. 20579310, in the Southern District of Texas declined to participate in
the probate theater fraud. Mills Shirley Attorney Maurene McCutcheon
representing Anita and Amy Brunsting in probate theater No. 4 moved to withdraw citing conflicts with her
clients as she too declined to descend to the level of moral depravity required
for reprobate mafia participation.
On
June 5, 2014 Ostrom filed a Motion to enter the remand order in probate courtroom 4 as
if it was a transfer order.
A remand is not a transfer, nullum simili est idem. The case was
neither remanded (returned) nor was it transferred from another state probate
court and both orders are voidable. Judge Christine Riddle Butts, judge of
Probate Court No. 4, signed the order accepting “transfer’ on
the same day the motion was filed. For all we know the signature was a stamp
applied by county employee/appointee “associate judge Clarinda Comstock”, the unelected county
employee that runs Harris County Reprobate Theater No. 4.
On
August 27, 2014 Ostrom filed a motion for a trust distribution to pay his
fees. This was an opportunity for the other attorneys to generate bills for
fees by filing and arguing objections. On November 7, 2014, Attorney Bobbie G.
Bayless, mastermind of the probate charade, filed an objection titled: Plaintiff response to Defendant Candace Curtis Motion for
Distribution.
Thus,
Ostrom added Carl as a Co-Plaintiff to pollute diversity and then obtained a
remand of the federal plaintiff lawsuit to a court from which the case had
never been removed, with the alleged intention to consolidate the federal
plaintiff with the state court plaintiff that had named the federal plaintiff a
Defendant. Thus, in Candace Curtis lawsuit against Anita and Amy Brunsting Carl
is a Co-Plaintiff but in Carl’s lawsuit against Anita and Amy Brunsting,
Candace Curtis is a Defendant! It should be noted that Ostroms Motion uses the
pleading style of 412249-401 in which Carl Brunsting is a
plaintiff in his individual capacity and as independent executor for the
estates of Elmer Brunsting [412248] & Nelva Brunsting [412249]. We will revisit this anomaly in
due course as it presents an inherent and irreconcilable contradiction.
Bayless
also missed the four year statute of limitations for bringing claims on behalf
of Elmer’s estate by five days and that would explain why there are no matching
cases filed ancillary to the estate of Elmer Brunsting No. 412248. The fact is
that the lion’s shares of the remaining trust assets are in the name of the
irrevocable “Elmer H. Brunsting Decedents
Trust”, a trust that terminated on November 11, 2011, giving
rise to five resulting trust shares that have
never been created.
Attorney
Stephen Mendel filed Notice of appearance as counsel of record
for Defendant Anita Brunsting on December 17, 2014.
Attorney
Neal Spielman made his appearance on
behalf of Defendant Co-Trustee Amy Brunsting on December 8, 2014.
On
the 18th day of February, 2015, proceedings carne to be heard in No. 412249-401,
on Ostroms motion for distribution. Proceedings were held before the Honorable
Christine Butts, Judge of Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County, Texas. The Motion was denied and the
Court made a poignant observation February 15, 2015 Hearing Transcript
regarding distributions of income to avoid excess tax liabilities.
[beginning at line 11 on page 54]:
11
“I think distributions actually may be
12
necessary to avoid a higher income tax rate because if
13
no distributions to the beneficiaries are being made,
14
that income is being taxed at the highest possible rate
15
to the trust where as if distributions were made to the
16
beneficiaries of that income, then they would be taxed
17
the beneficiary,s rate. So, I just want to bring that
18
issue up - that I think distributions, to the extent
19
there,s income, would be more favorable as far as income
20
taxes go and would be and the trustees would be
21
abiding closely to their fiduciary duty by making such
22
distributions.”
It
should also be noted that in Candace Curtis original complaint in SDTX 4:12-cv-592
filed February 27, 2012, Candace complained that Anita had exercised all the powers of the office of trustee while
performing none of the obligations. As I write this in
December 2022, I have prepared a list of the affirmative fiduciary actions
actually performed in the past eleven years for the benefit of Carl Brunsting
and/or Candace Curtis by alleged Co-Trustees Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting.
To save you the trouble of downloading the list, it reads: “This Page
Intentionally Left Blank”. The total and complete absence
of affirmative fiduciary performance continues to this very day 1/1/2024. Last
visit: [1/2/2023].
Ostrom
continued to act as if his client Candace Curtis’ claims were pending in the
probate court. Candace Curtis has no standing in the probate court and neither
do any of the other trust beneficiaries.
February
3, 2015 Carl was subjected to a deposition where he is clearly having
cognitive issues. At page 77 Carl is asked whether or not he has paid his
attorney any fees to date and Carl’s reply was “A quarter of a million dollars” but he was unable to explain how
much was spent on each of two separate lawsuits.
February
17, 2015, incapacitated independent executor Carl Henry Brunsting tendered his
resignation and substituted his wife Drina as his attorney in fact.
There is no evidence in the record to suggest how or when Drina Brunsting
became attorney in fact for a diminished capacity Carl Brunsting and neither
have individual standing in the “Estate of Nelva Brunsting”.
Carl’s
application to resign as “independent executor” was approved February 19, 2015
[Tab 27]. The very next day, February 20,
2015, Ostrom and the participating attorneys all signed an Agreed Docket
Control Order.
This
Agreed Docket Control Order in Estate of
Nelva Brunsting 412,249-401 had an August 3, 2015 deadline for hearing
dispositive motions with trial set for September 14 through 18, 2015. However,
dispositive motions have never been heard.
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]. There is no explanation of how “Candace Louise Curtis v Anita Brunsting, Amy
Brunsting and Does -100 SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592” became “estate of Nelva Brunsting 412,249-402” but this is clearly criminal
conversion of the federal lawsuit into a probate estate that does not exist and not a
consolidation of cases. No one was representing estate of Nelva Brunsting when this agreement was made and clearly no one
was representing a client in a living trust dispute.
March 28,
2015 Candace Curtis terminated the disservices of Attorney Jason B. Ostrom and the
Agreed Order to Consolidate Cases was immediately removed from the electronic
docket record but the alleged ancillary case, No 412249-402, remained
closed to filing. Thus,
with the help of Attorney Ostrom, the federal lawsuit vanished and Bayless had
the dishonest estate planning attorneys neatly sequestered in the District
Court where their Defense Attorneys languished without a plaintiff and
continued to milk the insurance company money cow for keeping an eye on the
non-probate case in the probate court, where the victims of their clients
malpheasance are being held hostage by a cabal of attorneys pretending to
litigate, while working in cooperation to fleece the beneficiaries of the sole
devisee in a closed independent administration of a pour-over estate.
Flash
Forward: The August 3, 2015 hearings magically became a hearing on an emergency motion for a
protective order involving “illegal wiretap recordings” WireTap Recording BRUNSTING 5838.wav and WireTap Recording BRUNSTING 5839.wav that were
disseminated by the Mendel law firm in July 2015 via certified mail. There
would not be another Docket Control Order issued until June 11, 2021. Further, a February 14, 2019
Order
denying Candace Curtis plea to the jurisdiction and pleas in abatement identify
the federal case as having been “transferred” into Cause No.
412,249-402:
“Cause
No. 412,249-402, pending in Harris County Probate Court No. 4, into which the
above-referenced U.S. District Court case was transferred on February 9, 2015,
and in which Candace Curtis, by and through her counsel, signed an Agreed
Docket Control Order and the March 16, 2015 Agreed Order to Consolidate Cases;”
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.
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 had 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 allow looting
of trust assets by 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.
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 “status conference”,
it was abundantly apparent that something didn’t smell right. After the
Remand/transfer Cheshire cat 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 [1], [2]used to eliminate the “agreed docket control order; the Fraud
Lester report and the amateurish intimidation performance put on by Neal
Spielman in cooperation with the rest of the associates, and more; it was clear
we were in a hostage ransom extortion and attrition crisis. The question
confronting Candace Curtis and I this entire time was remedy.
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. You do not have an opportunity to depose opposing counsel and they
are “immune” from accountability for injuries suffered by their non-client
victims. 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.
“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… We knew where they were going and rather than being
called disgruntled litigants seeking
vengeance for being on the losing side of fully litigated state court
determinations after they arrived at their destination, (Rooker-Feldman) we
filed racketeering claims out front.
On
July 5, 2016, we filed honest services fraud allegations under the RICO
statutes and, although not well written, not yet having full proof of facts
and, dismissed for failure to state a claim, it served its purpose of forcing
the “probate” attorneys to assume a position they would then have to defend
and, in every case, they all lied!
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
Jason
Ostrom Doc 78 p.1
Gregory
Lester Doc 83 p.1
Darlene
Payne Smith Doc 84 p.9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17
Vacek
& Freed Doc 20, p.4, 6, 7
Bobbie
G. Bayless, Doc 23, p.2, 3
Neal
Spielman Doc 40, p.3
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p3, 4, 7, 15, 29
Darlene
Payne Smith Doc 84, p.8, 10
Neal
Spielman Doc39, p1, 2 - Doc 40, p.1, 2, 3
County
Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p.18 - Doc 79 p.9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17
Jill Young Doc 25, p.3
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.
At
page 12 Doc 25 Jill Young asks for sanctions
against the RICO Plaintiff’s as if the pro se manufactured all of this sham
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.
That
was filed September 15, 2016 and today is January 6, 2023. I dare you to find
anything fully litigated or even introduced into evidence in a state court with
one exception. The Injunction filed in the 151st District Court
and authenticated as a final judgement under the Uniform Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments Act.
The
RICO action was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim at that time
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.
All Jill Young did to answer this RICO was cut
and paste, right down to the “Zanyism” spiel put on by attorney Mr. Rafe A. Schaefer at the preliminary hearing. On page 3 of her reply to our answer to her Motion to Dismiss Jill Young makes the
following statement citing to her own previous experience as a defendant:
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.
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.
How did Candace Louise
Curtis vs Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and does 1-100 become “estate of Nelva
Brunsting”?
b.
Who was representing the
estate on March 9, 2016?
3.
Nothing substantive has been
resolved and nothing has been entered into evidence as there have been no
evidentiary hearings in nearly ten years.
a.
On what ground were Carl and
Candace consolidated if they have no claims in
common?
b.
Where is the transcript of
the “hearing” in which this Agreed Order to
Consolidate Cases was made? [See Docket
Tampering infra]
Ostrom’s
REMAND ruse to get out of Judge Hoyts court, where his fees would be limited,
and into the probate court where he immediately asked for $40,000 was clearly
motivated by self-interest. When we look at the history of the “Bayless and
Ostrom” tag team in cases like Lesikar v. Moon, 237
S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. 2007), we begin to see a pattern coming fully into
view. When Fraud Lester showed up as a Defendant in the RICO action
represented by Candace Curtis former attorney Jason Ostrom,
the stench of collusion became stifling.
Let’s
not overlook the fact that Cory Reed and Zandra Foley, the attorneys
representing estate planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed on behalf of the
malpractice insurance company, actually represented Probate Theater No. 4’s
Associate Judge, Clarinda Comstock, in Johnson vs. David Dexel, Et Al SDTX Case 4:16-cv-03215
simultaneous with Bayless on going probate court charade.
Let’s break for an insert:
|
2013-01-29 Thompson Coe
Attorneys Zandra Foley and Cory Reed represent Defendants Candace Kuntz-Freed
and Albert Vacek, Jr in Carl Brunsting’s “Estate of Nelva Brunsting”
malpractice suit in Harris County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455.
2015-02-17 Harris county
probate Court No. 4, Carl Brunsting’s resigned as executor February 17, 2015
leaving “Estate of Nelva Brunsting vs Candace Kuntz-Freed and Albert Vacek,
Jr” in the District Court without a plaintiff.
By this time we can clearly
see where this is headed, although we are not there yet!
2016-07-05 Zandra and Cory
represent Defendants Candace Kuntz-Freed and Albert Vacek, Jr in SDTX RICO Case 4-16-cv-01969. Judge Christine
Butts and Associate Judge Clarinda Comstock are represented by Laura Beckman
Hedge of the Harris County Attorney’s office.
2016-09-27 Zandra and Cory represent Defendant
Clarinda Comstock, in Johnston v Dexel
while Clarinda Comstock is Associate Judge of Harris County Probate Court No.
4, presiding over the “Estate of Nelva Brunsting” with the obligation to
appoint a successor to the independent executor but no statutory authority to
do so because there is no estate to administer.
2018-06-28 Zandra and Cory represent Defendants
Candace Kuntz-Freed and Albert Vacek, Jr., in RICO Case
4-16-cv-01969, terminated May 16, 2017, and on appeal that was terminated
June 28, 2018
2018-06-28 No. 17-20360_Opinion United States Court of Appeals for
the 5th Circuit
2019-03-14 Zandra and Cory are representing
Defendant Clarinda Comstock in Johnston v Dexel. The case was Terminated SDTX March 14, 2019
2019-04-04
Zandra and Cory representing Defendants Candace Kuntz-Freed and Albert
Vacek, Jr in Carl Brunsting’s “Estate
of Nelva Brunsting” malpractice suit in Harris County District Court 164
Cause No. 2013-05455, was 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 before Associate Judge Clarinda Comstock without a plaintiff.
|
2015-07-14 Case 412249-401 PBT-2015-228888 Bayless
filed a Motion to Transfer her District Court Case to Probate Court No 4
in which she says:
“COMES NOW Drina Brunsting, as attorney-in-fact for
Carl Henry Brunsting, individually, filing this Motion to Transfer Cause No.
2013-05455, styled Carl Henry Brunsting,
Independent Executor of the Estates of Elmer H. Brunsting and Nelva E.
Brunsting v. Candace L. Kunz-Freed and Vacek & Freed, PLLCflk/a
The Vacek Law Firm, PLLC, in the I 64th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas, to Harris County Probate Court Number 4.”
Bayless goes on to say:
“Tex. Estates Code §34.001 provides that a judge of a
statutory probate court may transfer a proceeding from a district court to the
probate court if it involves a cause of action related to a probate proceeding
pending in that probate court or in which the personal representative of an
estate pending in the probate court is a party.”
On March 3, 2016, with no pending probate
administration to be party to, Bayless files a MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER in
which she says:
“Plaintiff does not believe this case can properly
move forward without all of the participants before one Court. Therefore, a
motion to transfer the related District Court Case to Probate Court #4 was filed.
The allegations in the different Courts raise
differing legal theories of remedy based upon the interests involved, but there
can only be one set of facts upon which all the conclusions of law are to be
decided. Those facts are invariably one and the same in both proceedings. In
Plaintiff Curtis' view it is a simple problem to frame whether we call it
a transfer, a consolidation, or a snatching, the resulting conclusions are
inescapable.”
The pour-over completed with the approval of the inventory and the probate was dropped from the active docket
April 4, 2013, and 5 days after the pour-over was complete, when no more
actions could be taken in the probate court (Tex. Est. Code §402.001) and
Bayless filed her non-probate related tort claims in the probate theater
anyway.
There was no probate action “PENDING” in the probate
court for the incapacitated independent executor to be a party to as Carl is
not an heir to any estate pending in the probate court and neither are any of
the other Brunsting trust beneficiaries. There is nothing in the record to
suggest Drina Brunsting actually became Carl’s attorney in fact, when or how
and, like Carl, his wife Drina has no individual standing in the probate court.
(See Bayless own case law trail that developed while she had her disabled
client stuck in a non-court where no substantive remedy could ever be had. In re Hannah, 431 S.W.3d 801, 807-09 (Tex. App. 2014) Bobbie G. Bayless for Relator Julie Hannah
Hill v. State, 440 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex. App. 2012) See Bayless February 11, 2014 Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
A judicial Analysis of In re Hannah makes the law
clear and undeniable: Mortensen v. Villegas.
Bayless filed two halves of the same case in separate
courts knowingly segregating the estate planning bait and switch Grifters from
their confidence game Suckers, knowing the whole time that no substantive
remedy could ever be had. Divide and conquer is the methodology here and this
will come up again.
Bayless took a quarter of a million dollars from her
disabled client [Carl’s deposition Page 77] while guaranteeing he would be
held hostage to ransom demands [2] accompanied with threats of
“disinheritance” a/k/a extortion. The predators intention as shown, was that
the suckers would enter into a ransom laundering settlement contract that none
of the probate mobsters ever intended to honor, [1], [2], in the same way they had no intentions
of honoring the Brunsting Settlors Trust Contract. This is a pattern that has
become all too well settled in case law.
1. Carl Brunsting
Independent Executor for the Estates of Elmer and Nelva Brunsting”, Harris
County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455
2. Carl Brunsting
individually and as Independent Executor for the Estate of Nelva Brunsting (vs
all of the other living trust beneficiaries) No. 412249-401 Harris County
Probate Court No. 4.
Then, on February 17, 2015, three days after she
filed her motion to transfer, Bayless resigns her Independent Executor
leaving both of her “Carl” actions without a plaintiff.
The question that continually comes to mind is “How could Bayless possibly do everything
exactly wrong by accident?” In my
opinion she fully intended to rip her disabled client off and she confesses to
that at the hearing on her motion to sever.
Then we have the estate planning Bait and Switch
Defendants in Bayless plaintiff-less District Court 164 case represented by Thompson Coe
Attorneys Zandra Foley and Cory Reed, the same law firm and
attorneys representing Harris County Probate Court No. 4’s Associate Judge,
Clarinda Comstock, where the trust MONEY cow is held hostage to ransom demands [1] [2] placed upon the beneficiary’s and where
there is no pending estate to administer and nothing for anything to be filed
as ancillary to, but where these attorneys managed to manufacture five ancillary case numbers stacked on top
of an already closed pour-over estate.
Candace Curtis insistence that the probate mob
respect her parents’ intentions does not and cannot trigger an in Terrorem
clause. The probate racketeers point to precatory language stating the settlors
do not want any contested proceedings unless implemented by, or with the
permission of the trustee. Their in Terrorem claims not only assume the Defendants
are de jure Co-Trustees, but the notion that filing a lawsuit to compel
fiduciary performance somehow triggers in Terrorem is a false thesis for very
obvious reasons.
The first reason is statutory (Tex. Prop. Code § 112.038) and the
injunction establishing just cause is res judicata! Anita caused litigation to
be brought by failing to perform the obligations of trustee. As it can now be
seen, her intentions were to enlarge her share under the public policy
offending August 25, 2010 QBD/TPA that she has not produced in attempt to
qualify it as evidence because she cannot produce it and qualify it as
evidence. This explains the Fraudulent Gregory Lester Report as an illicit
attempt to circumvent the objection to assuming facts not in
evidence with demand to produce evidence. This conclusion is reinforced by
Lester’s fee request showing he spent most of his time writing his report with
the guidance of Defendant’s Attorney Neal Spielman.
The second reason is the same as the basis for the
first and that is, trusts are contracts to be read and interpreted according to
the law of contracts but distinguished from other private contracts by the separation
of legal and equitable titles to property. The separation of legal and
equitable title is a core component distinguishing trusts from other types of
private contracts as when legal and equitable titles merge in the same
individual the trust collapses and the beneficiary holds the property in their
individual capacity, not in trust.
However, the separation of legal and equitable titles
to the property held in trust is only two legs of a three legged stool. The
third leg is that the obligations of the trustee must be active and not merely nominal, and
those obligations must be enforceable by the beneficiary or the trust becomes
dry, or passive, and legal and equitable titles merge in the beneficiary.
Either the acting Co-Trustees have active fiduciary
obligations that are owed to the beneficiary for the beneficiary’s enjoyment of
equitable interest and those obligations are enforceable by the beneficiary or,
the acting Co-Trustees do not owe active fiduciary obligations that are
enforceable by the beneficiary and the
trust is passive. It’s an either or
proposition.
There is no evidence of any affirmative fiduciary
performance and the beneficiary filing a lawsuit to compel fiduciary
performance does not, and cannot, trigger in Terrorem.
Either the Co-Trustees have active and enforceable
fiduciary obligations or they do not. If they have enforceable fiduciary
obligations they have failed to perform those obligations and they are in
breach liable to the beneficiary’s for any losses suffered by the beneficiary
and benefit they received from their breach.
Or, the Co-Trustees do not owe active fiduciary
obligations to the beneficiaries that are unenforceable by the beneficiary and
the trust is dry or passive. If the trust is passive, both legal and equitable
titles merged in the beneficiary when the trust became passive. (See Statute of Uses
of 1535, codified at Texas Property Code § 112.032)
If the trust is passive, legal and equitable titles
merged in the beneficiary eleven years ago and the Co-Trustees are in wrongful
possession of the other beneficiary’s personal property and they are liable and
culpable, Misapplication of fiduciary property Texas
Penal Code §§ 32.45 & 32.53, and every participant is a principal, Texas
Penal Code §§ 7.01 & 7.02.
We must be careful of labels such as "void"
and "voidable" because they are terms that have specific meaning as
regards judgments. A void judgment is an absolute nullity and has no legal
force or effect, while a voidable judgment is capable of being voided or
confirmed. See In re Sensitive Care, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 35, 39 (Tex.App.-Ft.
Worth 2000, no pet.); Easterline v. Bean, 49 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex. 1932). A judgment
is void when the court had no jurisdiction to issue it. Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985). Other
defects merely render the judgment voidable. Id. Peacock v. Wave Tec Pools,
Inc., 107 S.W.3d 631, 636 (Tex. App. 2003) “The judgment of a court without
jurisdiction is a nullity, and is void. ” Elton v. State, 252 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952).
The orders issued by Harris County Probate Court Theater No. 4, regarding
the Brunsting living trust after the close of probate, are not merely voidable
for some minor defect but absolutely void for the complete absence of all
statutory probate jurisdictions and the courts’ officers lack the basic
integrity necessary to honor the rule of law and dismiss for want of
jurisdiction or they are poorly trained and improperly supervised. You can fool
some of the people some of the time.
“A judgment is not void, for example, simply because it is or may have
been erroneous. . . Similarly, a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) is
not a substitute for a timely appeal. . . . Instead, Rule 60(b)(4)
applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a
certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that
deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard”. Vecron
Exim Ltd. v. XPO Logistics, Inc., Civil Action H-18-2394, at *16 (S.D. Tex.
July 1, 2022)
A void judgment is a nullity and subject to either
direct or collateral attack. Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823, 827 (1961).
However, the Texas Supreme Court has also consistently held that:
Unless a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is void, it is not
subject to collateral attack in another court of equal jurisdiction. Austin
Independent School District v. Sierra Club, 495 S.W.2d 878, 881
(Tex. 1973). . . . . All errors other than jurisdictional deficiencies render
the judgment merely voidable, and such errors must be corrected on direct
attack. When time for direct attack by appeal has elapsed, a bill of review in
the court rendering the initial judgment is the exclusive remedy to attack the
judgment. Middleton v. Murff, 689 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1985). Cantu,
in re, 961 S.W.2d 482, 486 (Tex. App. 1998)
Under the former Probate Code, the
Texas Supreme Court held that "a cause of action is appertaining to or
incident to an estate if the Probate Code explicitly defines it as such or if
the controlling issue in the suit is the settlement, partition, or distribution
of an estate." In re SWEPI, L.P., 85 S.W.3d 800, 805 (Tex. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Kholaif, No. 14-18-00825-CV, 2018 WL 5832899, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, orig. proceeding) (applying the
"'controlling issue' test" after the codification of the Estates
Code).
“For Candace Curtis diversity suit to be subject to
the jurisdiction and venue provisions of the Texas Estates Code, it must
qualify either as a “probate proceeding” or a “matter related to a probate
proceeding” as defined by the Estates Code.” In re Hannah, 431 S.W.3d 801, 807-09 (Tex. App. 2014) Bobbie G. Bayless for Relator Julie Hannah
Hill v. State, 440 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex. App. 2012) See Bayless February 11, 2014 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
On February 3, 2015 Carl Brunsting was deposed by the
Defendants in the District Court on July 3, 2015. Carl testified that he had paid Bayless a quarter of a Million Dollars
to date on the two separate lawsuits Bayless filed and on February 19, 2015, Attorney Bobbie G.
Bayless filed Carl Brunsting’s resignation from the office of independent
executor citing lack of capacity and substituting Carl’s wife
Drina as Carl’s alleged attorney in fact. From this point forward no one is
representing the “Estate of
Nelva Brunsting”. There is also no exhibit showing that Drina
Brunsting has Carl Brunsting’s Power of Attorney, or when it would have been
acquired, but it doesn’t make any difference. Neither Carl Brunsting nor any of
the other trust beneficiaries’ are heir to the estate of Nelva Brunsting and
none have individual standing.
Yet, the next day, February 20, 2015, an Agreed Docket Control Order is signed by
all of the attorneys and approved by the Court and on March 5, 2015 an “Agreed Order to Consolidate Estate of
Nelva Brunsting -401 with Estate of Nelva Brunsting -402 and closing the -402
ancillary matter to further filing was entered.
When Curtis discovered Ostroms treachery she
discharged Ostrom and filed her own notice of appearance so there would be no
mistake that Ostrom was not representing Candace Curtis. Soon thereafter the “Agreed Order to Consolidate Cases” vanished from the docket.
Transcript of a hearing, in which an agreement to
consolidate Estate of Nelva Brunsting 412249-402 with Estate of Nelva Brunsting
412249-401, is unavailable and this would be the only reason contract court
reporter Biamonte would be named as a necessary party
defendant in RICO Case SDTX No. 4:16-cv-1969.
Welcome to Wonderland! First you see it then you
don’t! Where is the federal plaintiff’s lawsuit? Candace Louise Curtis vs Anita
Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and Does 1-100 was in the federal court but now it’s
not and Estate of Nelva Brunsting -402 was never there but it looks like it’s
there and then it’s not? Who was representing the “estate of Nelva
Brunsting 401 & 402” when this agreed docket control order and agreed order to consolidate cases were
being signed?
On June 26, 2015 Defendants new attorney’s in Probate
#4, Stephen A. Mendel and Neal Spielman filed Anita Brunsting and Amy
Brunsting’s joint No-Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
claiming that there is no evidence that their August 25, 2010 “Qualified
Beneficiary Designation and Testamentary Power of Appointment under Living
Trust Agreement” [a/k/a 8/25/2010 QBD], is invalid.
On or about July 1, 2015 Defendants, Anita Brunsting
and Amy Brunsting, disseminated a CD containing illegally obtained wiretap
recordings [1], [2] received by Plaintiff Curtis via
certified mail with signature required from Anita’s counsel, Brad
Featherston. It should be noted that
this is a violation of Texas Penal Code §16.02 and 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 2511. These
recordings were extracted from a larger master as shown in the properties of
the “Read Only” files on those CD’s. Candace Curtis made reference to Defendants wiretapping
Nelva’s phone three years earlier in her original verified complaint.
On July 9,
2015 Bayles filed Drina Brunsting’s Petition for Partial Summary Judgement (as
attorney in fact for Carl individually).
On July 13, 2015 Mendel and Spielman filed Defendant
Co-Trustee Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting’s joint Notice of Hearing on their No-evidence Motion,
setting their dispositive motions for August 3, 2015, which is the last day of
the “Agreed Docket Control Order” for hearing
dispositive motions.
Later in the day on July 13, 2015, attorney Bayless filed Notice of Hearing setting Drina’s
(Carl Brunsting’s) dispositive motion for Partial Summary Judgement for August
3, 2015.
A little later in the day on July 13, 2015 Candace
Curtis filed her answer to Defendant Co-Trustees No-evidence Motion in which
she objects to the Court assuming facts not in evidence and brings a motion and
demand for the Defendant Co-Trustees to produce evidence, demanding Defendants
produce the archetype of the alleged 8/25/2010 QBD and qualify it as evidence.
Defendants cannot produce the instrument and qualify it as evidence by their own admissions. Their No-evidence
motion at the top of page six they say “There is no evidence
that Anita and/or Amy were present when Nelva executed the 8/25/10 QBD”. It was also pointed out in Candace Curtis reply that there
was no evidence that Carole was present when Nelva allegedly signed the
8/25/2010 QBD.
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 to hear an emergency motion for protective orders
regarding the wiretap recordings. No witnesses were called at the hearing, no findings of fact, conclusions of law or order was ever
issued and it would be six and one half years before a 2nd Docket Control Order was put in place.
On July 24, 2015 attorney Gregory Lester (Fraud
Lester) was appointed Temporary Administrator for the “estate of Nelva
Brunsting” for the limited purpose of “evaluating the claims”
in the case.
Claims, in the estates code, are defined at section
22.005. Gregory Lester’s report never identifies a single “claim” but instead
runs to the alleged “Qualified Beneficiary Designation and Testamentary Power of
Appointment under Living Trust Agreement”
without ever mentioning any living trust chronology at all. Candace Curtis has
already objected to assuming facts regarding this instrument with a demand that
they produce it and qualify it as evidence. They have not produced the heinous
instrument and they will not because they cannot and yet they keep bringing it
up time after time as if it was a
given.
On January 14, 2016 Temporary Administrator Gregory
Lester filed his report. The report of Temporary Administrator for the
estate of Nelva Brunsting never mentions the decedent’s will, never mentions the inventory, never mentions the independent administration, never
identifies the sole devisee, never mentions the drop order or that the docket reads “closed” for both estates,
and the report fails to identify any property that could even be remotely
called “estate”.
"Claims" includes:
(1) liabilities of a
decedent that survive the decedent's
death, including taxes, regardless of whether the
liabilities arise
in contract or tort or otherwise;
(2) funeral expenses;
(3) the expense of a
tombstone;
(4) expenses of
administration;
(5) estate and inheritance
taxes; and
(6) debts due such estates
"Estate" means a decedent's property, as
that property:
(1) exists originally and as
the property changes in form
by sale, reinvestment, or otherwise;
(2) is augmented by any
accretions and other additions to
the property, including any property to be distributed
to the
decedent's representative by the trustee of a trust that
terminates
on the decedent's death, and substitutions for the
property; and
(3) is diminished by any
decreases in or distributions from the property.
There is no “estate” of Nelva Brunsting and there are no
“claims”. Gregory Lester’s’ report is pure unadulterated fraud and Lester’s application to the probate court for $
19,907.40 in fee’s, clearly shows that Lester spent
the lion’s share of his time writing his fraudulent report with Defendant
Co-Untrustworthy Amy Brunsting’s attorney Neal Spielman. When Lester’s fee application was approved it was to be paid
by whoever was in possession of the “estate” but was paid by Defendant
Co-Untrustworthy Anita Brunsting using misappropriated trust funds, a felony misapplication of fiduciary property.
2016-03-02 Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless, after filing two
halves of the same case in different courts, files a motion in the probate
court to transfer (or snatch) the case she filed in the District Court against the estate planning bait and
switch Grifters stating on the first line of an attached Memorandum that:
Plaintiff
does not believe this case can properly move forward without all of the
participants before one Court. Therefore, a motion to transfer the related
District Court Case to Probate Court #4 was filed.
Lester apparently needed to hold hands with another
attorney and asked to have Jill Young appointed to assist him. The same is true
for Attorney Gregory Lester’s Attorney Jill Willard Young whose fee application
for $10, 620.73 was also approved to be paid from assets of the “estate” but
was paid by Defendant Co-Trustee Anita Brunsting using living trust funds. Both
fee applications show time in communication with the other but the times and
durations are not consistent between the two statements. If one is true and
correct the other cannot be.
Unable to
get the court to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and after reading Gregory
Lester’s fraudulent report, Candace Curtis filed a motion
for summary judgment and demanded to proceed to trial.
After
managing to get a hearing scheduled for March 9, 2016, Candace and I flew to
Houston for hearings on dipositive motions, only to be met with a scripted and staged
ambush
charade called “status conference”, a charade designed to frustrate and
intimidate the pro se victim and waste her resources. The transcript of this “status conference”
with [Clarinda Comstock presiding], does
not accurately depict the sham hearing. I remember it quite vividly, the eye
contact, the furtive glances, the body language and Spielman prancing around
the courtroom floor waiving his papers in the air and walking back to his table
saying “I’m going to get my fee’s from
the trust” but you won’t read that in the transcript.
Clarinda
Comstock at page 11:
“9Now
10 that Mr. Lester has provided his report to the
Court, I
11 would like to hear from everyone about where you
think
12 we stand and how you feel this case ought to
progress.”
I think they are standing knee deep in Fraud. Gregory
Lester, was appointed for the sole purpose of
evaluating the "claims” [Tex. Est. Code §
22.005] in the case and his “report” fails to identify even a single
claim. The day after the Fraud Lester Report, January 25, 2016, Candace Curtis
filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
Candace wanted her summary judgment motion heard: Pg.12
“10 I want my summary judgment motions heard,
11 and if we can do that without bringing the
district
12 court case over here, then we should go ahead and
do it.”
This doesn’t appear in the transcript but Candace
Curtis was interrupted by Comstock saying:
“I’m sorry Ms.
Curtis, I know you came all the way from California but my time is short today
and I want to hear from Mr. Spielman.”
Attorney Neal Spielman jumps out on the floor,
waiving his papers in the air, and the first thing out of Spielman’s mouth is: pg 15
“6 the point here, Judge, is there seems
7 to be no accountability on Ms. Curtis' behalf for
the
8 amount of money that is being spent in this case.”
That would make sense as Candace is a beneficiary and,
unless the beneficiary deals improperly with trust property, beneficiaries have
rights. Trustees have obligations and accountability for performing those
duties. The point here is that there seems to be no accountability on the part
of the attorneys who fraudulently manufactured this charade for their own
unjust enrichment.
Candace wants specific performance of the fiduciary duties
owed to her by self-proclaimed Co-Trustees. What part of that do these
attorneys find so unreasonable? What part of that do these attorneys find
negotiable?
That was March 9, 2016, in a matter filed in April 2013
and as I write this, January 2023, there has still been no evidentiary hearings
in Probate Theater Number 4, and there seems to be no accountability on the
part of the attorneys that ruptured the Brunsting trust, and there seems to be
no accountability on the part of the beneficiaries that usurped the office of
trustee, performed none of the obligations of the office and, caused litigation
to be brought for the purpose of advancing a theory that, if true, would
enlarge their share.
These attorneys have no business inserting ransom
demands as a condition precedent to performance of fiduciary obligations. There
has been no Docket Control Order in place since illegal wiretap recordings were
used to eliminate the 1st DCO and the office of IDEPENDENT EXECUTOR
remains vacant.
Spielman goes on and on:
16 But, Your Honor, if you
look at what Mr.
17 Lester recommended/suggested/reported in his
report,
18 there's now the very real possibility that there
isn't
19 going to be a divide-by-five scenario because of
the
20 no-contest clauses that are recognized as being
properly
21 drawn by the Vacek & Freed Law Firm.
This is a confession that the reason Anita failed to
account was to leave the victim beneficiary no option but to seek judicial
remedy so she could claims suing her violated a no-contest clause. This façade
was identified in Candace Curtis original complaint
on February 27, 2012, used as the basis for their No-Evidence Motion, sent reeling by
Candace Curtis objection to assuming facts and demand to produce
evidence. This self-defeating ruse was put to rest by
statute, Tex. Prop. Code § 112.038 at it merely
expresses a basic tenant of trust law that somehow needed renewed statutory
clarification. If the obligations of the trustee are merely nominal or
unenforceable, legal and equitable titles merge in the beneficiary. (Statute of
Uses 1535 codified at PROPERTY CODE § 112.032)
When you read this March 9, 2016 transcript the double speak
leaps out with the blending of distinctions and the confusion of terms as if
there were no distinctions. They talk about the Estate of Nelva Brunsting and
yet, when it comes to paying for this charade they are stealing funds from a
living trust. The “Report of Gregory
Lester, Temporary Administrator for the “Estate of Nelva Brunsting”
never mentions the wills, never identifies the sole devisee and never mentions
anything that one could define as a “Decedent’s Estate” but tries to give
legitimacy to the alleged QBD/TPA instrument that is not in evidence. I have
repeatedly stated that it is not in evidence and that they will not produce it
and attempt to qualify it as evidence because they cannot.
Without an evidentiary hearing there can be no
evidence as affidavits and declarations cannot be considered evidence in a
contested matter without hearing witness testimony. This is a foundational
element of due process.
Their August 25, 2010, “Qualified Beneficiary Designation and Testamentary Power of Appointment
under Living Trust Agreement”, is invalid every way you look at it but we
do not need to address any of those issues in regard to facts not in
evidence.
From what I’ve seen mediated settlement agreements
are a Lindberg baby used to launder the extorted ransom by contract and create
ground for new arguments and more fees. These attorneys cannot show that they
have performed a single act in the interest of their clients or as a service to
the trust.
This little March 9, 2016 B-grade theatrical
performance gave birth to the RICO allegations. You do not get an
opportunity to depose opposing counsel and we didn’t want to wait until the predators
got to where they were going (like everyone else) before forcing them to assume
a position they would then have to defend. We filed RICO claims without
sufficient supporting facts and we got the bums rush just like everyone before
us. else but now
they have provided all the necessary evidence that they are thieves
masquerading their larceny behind the color of law. Where there is no
jurisdiction there is no court and where there is no court there is no
litigation.
2016-07-05 Zandra Foley and Cory
Reed represent Defendants Candace Kuntz-Freed and Albert Vacek, Jr in SDTX RICO
Case
4-16-cv-01969. Judge Christine Butts and Associate Judge Clarinda
Comstock are represented by Laura Beckman Hedge of the Harris County Attorney’s
office; dismissed May 16, 2017, appeal terminated June 28, 2018. No. 17-20360_Opinion United States Court of Appeals for the
5th Circuit
2016-09-27 Zandra Foley and Cory Reed represent Defendant Clarinda Comstock, in Johnston v Dexel
while Clarinda Comstock is Associate Judge of Harris County Probate Court No.
4, presiding over the alleged “Estate of Nelva Brunsting” 412,249-401 with the
obligation to appoint a successor to the independent executor to prosecute the
Estates claims, but no statutory authority to do so because there is no estate
to administer.
Tis would be a good time to take an inventory of
living trust distributions since the passing of Nelva Brunsting. The
Beneficiaries have received no benefit from the family trust in the past ten
years while several non-beneficiaries have enjoyed distributions from the
family trust:
$5000.00 Attorney Jason Ostrom
$5000.00 Attorney George Vie
III
$300,000.00+ in
excess taxes due to trustee failure to distribute trust income to the
beneficiaries.
$6500.00 Andrews Kurth L.L.P. mediation
$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 representative or a corpus?
$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?
$6500.00 Mediation with William Miller
of Andrews Kurth
LLP
$? Mediation with Judge Seymour - unknown
$? Mediation with Judge Davidson – unknown
$100,000 Distribution to Carole Brunsting
No distributions to Carl or
Candace
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.
This controversy among living trust beneficiaries
never had any business being dragged into a probate court and Fraud Lester was
brought in to facilitate the fraud with his bogus report, which is exactly what
he wrote while hanging out with Spielman. A competent
“report” should have stated the following facts:
The Brunsting wills are pour-over wills. None of the
trust beneficiaries are heir to the settlors’ estates and none standing in the
administration of their parents estates. The wills [412248 & 412249] were admitted by the probate court
without challenge and the inventory for both decedents [412248 & 412249] were approved without challenge, the pour-over
was complete and the “independent administrations” were dropped from the active
docket [412248] - [412249]. That was five days before
Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless filed her non-probate related tort claims in Harris
County Probate Court No. 4 as “ancillary” to a closed estate to which none of
the real parties in interest are heir. Elmer passed April 1, 2009 and Bobbie G.
Bayless filed her non-probate related tort claims in the probate court on April
9, 2013, missing the four year statute of limitations for bringing claims on
Elmer’s estate by four days.
If you read what Elmer and Nelva wrote the trust
could not be altered except with the signature of both settlors or the approval
of a court of competent jurisdiction.
At the passing
of the second Settlor the Survivors trust terminated, the Decedents trust terminated, and five individual shares were created. The
fact that the alleged Co-Trustee defendants continued the terminated Survivors trust
and continued the terminated Decedents Trust,
while refusing or otherwise failing to fund the resulting trust shares does not
mean the terminated trusts actually exist as a matter of law. They do not. The
five shares were created instantly upon the passing of Nelva Brunsting on
November 11, 2011 and vested in each of the five beneficiaries individually.
Equity regards that as done
which should have been done. Mosley v. Stratton (Tex.Civ.App.)
203 S.W. 397; Walter Connally
Co. v. Hopkins (Tex.Civ.App.) 195 S.W. 658; Chipman
v. Carroll, 53 Kan. 163, 35 P. 1109, 25 L.R.A. 308; 4 Cooley's Ins. Briefs, §
3706; Wheeler v. Insurance Co., 101 U.S. 439, 25 L.Ed. 1056; 26 C. J. p. 442, § 590. Kirkpatrick v.
Great Am. Ins. Co., 299 S.W. 943, 945 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927)
“This rule is based on the broad
principle that equity regards as having been done that which ought to have been
done."” Magnolia Pipe Line v. Sec. Union, 37 S.W.2d 1062, 1064 (Tex. Civ.
App. 1931)
“This rule is based on the broad principle that equity regards as done
that which ought to have been done." ” Askey v. Stroud, 240 S.W. 339, 341
(Tex. Civ. App. 1922)
“Equity will treat that as done which ought to
have been done. ” Pledger v. Woodmen of the World, 17
Tex. Civ. App. 18, 21 (Tex. Civ. App. 1897)
Anita was so confident in her passive aggressive theft conspiracy that
she didn’t even bother to assemble books and records of accounts and began
treated the trust as if it was her own private slush fund immediately upon
gaining control.
In failing to account Anita Brunsting knew the only remedy available to
the beneficiary was to file an action for judicial relief at which time Anita
would claim suing the trustee violated the no contest provisions, as we have
now seen, using the corruption of blood provisions in the alleged August 25,
2010 QBD that is not in evidence despite multiple demands to bring forth
evidence and objections to assuming facts.
The probate record cannot
show a single evidentiary hearing which means there have been no findings of
fact in ten years. These filthy lucre worshiping attorneys call that litigation
but I call it what it looks like… FRAUD!
2016-09-27
Zandra Foley and Cory Reed represent Defendant
Clarinda Comstock, in Johnston v Dexel
while Clarinda Comstock is Associate Judge of Harris County Probate Court No.
4, presiding over the alleged “Estate of Nelva Brunsting” 412,249-401 with the
obligation to appoint a successor to the independent executor to prosecute the
Estates claims, but no statutory authority to do so because there is no estate
to administer.
2016-12-29 Mendel email distribution denied Mendel denied Carole’s request for
distribution saying the “estate needs to maintain liquidity for incurred debt.”
Anita Paid Lester’s bill and paid Young’s bill from the
trust. The Probate Theater’s orders were that whoever
was in possession of the “estate” was to pay those claims. The “Estate” clearly owes the trust for paying Gregory Lester $19,907.40 and owes
the trust for paying Jill Young $10,620.73.
Where is the
verified accounting the court asked for?
While the RICO case was pending and on appeal,
nothing much happened in the probate court other than applications for the
probate courts approval of Gregory Lester and Jill Young fees.
Dismissal of the RICO was affirmed for lack of a sufficient
statement of supporting facts June 28, 2018. None-the-less, we have the
pleadings for our case study and as I look across the spectrum of other such
cases I see a pattern and uniformity of artifice with some variation in the
mode of application, depending on the theater of operations, the nature of the
case and its proceedings.
2018-07-31 Bayless filed Notice of Hearing for September 5th
2018 on her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Her motion was heard on September 5th 2018.
On October 17, 2018 Candace Curtis filed a plea in abatement challenging the probate
court’s jurisdiction.
2021-12-18 December 18, 2021, Mendel and Spielman file a joint motion to compel the deposition of District Court 164
Defendant Candice Kunz-Freed.
James Horwitz replaced former Judge Christine Butts[i] in
January 2019 and the first hearing was had January 24, 2019 on Defendant Co-Trustees
motion to compel the deposition of Estate Planning Bait and Switch Grifter Candace Kunz-Freed, in “estate of Nelva
Brunsting” and, like in the Chalupowski case, the Attorneys, having been accused
of racketeering and having had those claims dismissed under their immunity
doctrines, would bring the RICO claims up at every hearing in effort to taint
the court with ad hominem attacks while making an equal effort to avoid
substance. What better time to taint the court than the initial appearance of a
new judge?
Thus, eight years
eleven months after the first suit was filed in the SDTX, nearly seven years after Bayless
conducted depositions before suit and five years nine months after Bayless
filed her tort suit in the probate court, the Defendant Co-Trustees felt the
needed to take a deposition from estate planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed.
Of course, by now we were no longer willing to play
their attrition and extortion game and Candace no longer even wasted her time
and money traveling to Houston for hearings that were never evidentiary
hearings but always converted to “Status
Conference”. I can tell you the status right now. The Brunsting Estate
Planning attorney Candice Kunz-Freed is a Defendant in the Harris County
District Court, sequestered from her victims who are given
the appearance of being trapped in Harris County Probate Theater No. 4. The
Brunsting Bait and Switch Estate Planning attorney Candice Kunz-Freed is
represented by “Thompson Coe, the same law firm and attorneys that are
representing Probate Theater No. 4’s Associate Judge Clarinda Comstock in Johnston v Dexel Case
4:16-cv-03215 Filed on 11/01/16 in TXSD. The conflicts of
interest in this case are incestuous.
There has never been any litigation in Harris County
Probate Theater No. 4 as all probate matters were resolved without contest
before Bayless fraudulently filed her non-probate related tort claims as
ancillary to pour-over estates that had already been completed and closed.
Ms. Sham also had to drop the claim of representing
the Estate of Elmer Brunsting as Bayless missed the statute of limitations by
eight days and would be estopped from bringing any claims in the “estate of
Elmer Brunsting” even if there was an estate.
All Spielman and Mendel could do at the hearing was
complain about “her conduct” and “her actions” but they fail to define those terms by pointing to
anything other than the RICO action. We were not wrong; they were just not here
yet. It was already clear that the game they were playing was a money cow
hostage for ransom smoke and mirrors extortion rag with disinheritance threats
and demands to launder filthy lucre by contract called “Settlement
Agreement”.
2019-03-01 Harris County Probate Court No. 4 ordered Carl Brunsting’s Harris County
District Court 164, Cause No. 2013-05455 to be transferred to Harris County Probate Court No. 4
on March 1, 2019, where it was given Ancillary
No. 412,249-403 without a pending probate administration to be ancillary to,
and where it remains before Associate Judge Clarinda
Comstock without a plaintiff. Estate
Planning Bait and Switch Grifter Defendants Candace Kuntz-Freed and Albert
Vacek, Jr., are represented by Zandra Foley and Cory Reed who are still
representing Associate Judge Clarinda Comstock in Johnson v Dexel.
2019-03-14 Johnston v Dexel
was Terminated SDTX March 14, 2019 [Defendant
Clarinda Comstock, represented by Zandra Foley and Cory Reed]
Candace Curtis was sanctioned for her refusal to
finance that charade and we do not know how it was copied and pasted from the
District Court to the Probate Court to become “Estate of Nelva
Brunsting 412249-403” but we know that case, filed in the
name of an incapacitated independent executor, has remained without a plaintiff
since February 2015 and the probate court has no
authority to appoint a successor without finding a need for further
administration. [Tex. Est. Code § 404.005] What could possibly remain to be
administered under a closed pour-over estate?
Attorneys Zandra E. Foley and Cory
Reed have never had the integrity to declare their conflicts of interest and
neither has Harris County Employee (Associate Judge) Clarinda Comstock.
Thompson Coe attorney Cory S Reed, along
with Thompson Coe attorney Zandra E. Foley,
represent Elmer and Nelva Brunsting’s disloyal estate planning attorney; bait
and switch Grifter Candace Kunz-Freed. That case remains in
Harris County District Court No. 164, despite appearances, as the transfer
order is void for complete want of jurisdiction.
At the passing of Nelva Brunsting, [November 11,
2011] the Survivor Share and decedents trust share terminated into five separate shares. To date, [Monday, January 01,
2024] after more than eleven years there is no evidence of
division of assets or deposit of income into separate accounts for the
beneficiary, despite a federal injunction
commanding specific performance.
Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting,
aided and abetted by their attorneys Attorney Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar
No. 13930650, and Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678, have never done
anything but challenge the Settlors intentions as clearly stated in their trust
agreement.
After ignoring the affirmative commands in a preliminary injunction issued by a federal
judge, for 6 years, 1 month and 7 days, and after ignoring the affirmative
commands in the Brunsting trust for 7 years, 6 months and 5 days, Amy Brunsting
had the nerve to ask a probate court judge, without competent jurisdiction, to
issue sanctions against lawful trustee Candace Curtis for seeking remedy from a
court of competent jurisdiction and refusing to bear the economic burden of
transferring Bayless District Court suit against the estate planning attorneys
(with no plaintiff) to the probate court (where it has remained without a
plaintiff). We don’t know how Bayless District Court suit against the estate
planning attorneys became estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-403,
or who paid for it to be copied and pasted into the probate docket, but the
case has remained without a plaintiff since the resignation of Carl Brunsting February 19,
2015.
This alleged Co-Trustee motion to punish the
beneficiary for seeking remedy is a breach of the fiduciary duty of undivided
loyalty and an act that exceeds the boundaries placed upon the exercise of
trustee powers by Article XII Section B of the family trust.
Section B. Powers to Be Exercised in the Best
Interests of the Beneficiaries
The Trustee shall exercise the following administrative and investment powers without the order of any court,
as the Trustee determines in its sole and absolute discretion to be in the best interests
of the beneficiaries. –
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
agreement, the Trustee shall not exercise any power in a manner inconsistent
with the beneficiaries' right to the beneficial enjoyment of the trust property
in accordance with the general principles of the law of trusts.
The Trustee may perform every act reasonably necessary to administer each and every share or trust created under this
agreement.
This is not the motion of a trustee but of a greedy
attorney for an errant beneficiary using the word “Trustee” as a vacuous label
to give themselves the appearance of legitimacy and authority where none
exists. This is just one more effort to wrongfully extract attorney’s fees from
the other beneficiaries, having nothing to do with fiduciary performance. See 2019-05-15 Affidavit of Atty Neal
Spielman Brunstings Mtn. for Sanctions_Ex_5.
Funny thing how all discussion of the trust dispute
ended with the REMAND to probate and suddenly became an argument over paying
tribute to attorneys as a condition precedent to specific fiduciary performance
commanded by the trust Settlors.
Litigation was caused in the beginning by the
proclaimed trustee’s failure to provide a mandatory accounting for the assets,
[Article XII Section E] failing to report self-dealing transactions involving trust
assets and failing to begin the division of assets into five separate shares as
commanded by the trust instrument [Article VIII Section D, Article IX Section D and Article X Section A] and claimed to have
been “set up” in Amy’s March 6, 2012 affidavit.
Pseudo
litigation has continued because of the proclaimed trustee’s failure to perform
the affirmative duties of the office they claim to occupy even in defiance of a
federal judge that ordered the deposit the income into an “appropriate account”
for the beneficiary.
At this juncture, the Defendant Co-Trustees complete
absence of any affirmative fiduciary performance has either established breach
or it has established a dry trust and wrongful possession but in either event
the injury to the trust and its beneficiaries is substantial and it has all
been caused by low morals facilitated by attorneys. Defendant Co-Trustee’s
Motions to sanction the beneficiary for any effort to compel fiduciary
performance, and claiming bringing suit as violations of in Terrorem provisions
is the equivalent of arguing that there is no trust and these are not the acts
of honorable trustworthy fiduciaries.
Trusts are contracts to be read and interpreted
according to the law of contracts. However, trusts are distinguished from other
private contracts by the separation of legal and equitable titles to property.
The separation of legal and equitable titles to the property held in trust is
only two legs of a three legged stool. The third leg is the existence of
affirmative fiduciary duties that are enforceable by the beneficiary. If there
are no active fiduciary duties to be performed by the trustee for the benefit
of the beneficiary, or if there are no duties enforceable by the beneficiary,
the trust becomes dry and both legal and equitable titles merge in the
beneficiary. When legal and equitable titles merge the trust property is held
by the beneficiary in their individual capacity and not in trust.
Either the de facto Co-Trustees have affirmative
fiduciary obligations to be performed for the benefit of the beneficiary, that
are enforceable by the beneficiary or, the Co-Trustees do not have fiduciary
obligations that are enforceable by the beneficiary.
If the Co-Trustees have enforceable fiduciary
obligations they are in breach for failure to perform and liable to the
beneficiary’s for any injuries or losses suffered and accountable to the
beneficiary for any benefit they received from their breach of trust.
The beneficiary filing a lawsuit to compel fiduciary
performance does not and cannot trigger in Terrorem. If the obligations of the
trustee are unenforceable by the beneficiary, the trust is passive and both
legal and equitable titles merge in the beneficiary. (See Statute of Uses
of 1535, codified at Texas Property Code § 112.032)
As would be expected the probate mafia attorneys want
to skim lucre off the top and it is this interloping that has prevented this
trust from being settled as commanded by the settlors. No
action by Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting or their attorneys has been taken in
the interest of anyone but themselves. Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting have never exercised any trustee power in a manner
consistent with the beneficiaries' right to the beneficial enjoyment of the
trust property.
Candace Curtis is the real trustee for the terminated Elmer H. Brunsting trust and her fiduciary duty
to divide the assets, as commanded by the trust agreement, has been tortuously
interfered with. Bayless missed the 4 year statute on bringing claims in the
name of Elmer’s estate.
Candace Curtis could never obtain a
hearing in the Harris County Probate Theater No. 4 and the court has refused to
exercise the only lawful power it has and that is to dismiss all claims filed in that court for want of
jurisdiction. The Family Trust does not hold
assets belonging to a decedent’s estate.
Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting are
imposters who colluded with their parents’ dishonest estate planning attorneys,
with the intention of stealing the
family trust! Their theory is that the beneficiary,
by filing a lawsuit against the Co-Trustees, triggered an in Terrorem clause,
either in the 2005 Restatement or in their heinous extortion
instrument called “Qualified Beneficiary Designation and Testamentary Power of
Appointment under Living Trust Agreement”.
This instrument has not been properly
introduced into evidence and Candace Curtis has objected to assuming facts not in evidence. Defendants Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting will not produce the 8/25/2010 QBD and attempt to qualify it
as evidence because they cannot.
2019-06-28 412249-401 Hearing
Transcript Amy Motion for
Sanctions
As previously stated, the Co-Trustee Motion for
Sanctions violates the trustee’s fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty to the
beneficiary and exceeds the limits placed upon the exercise of the trustee
powers granted, as expressed in Article XII Section B.
2019-07-23 The Signed ORDER Regarding Sanctions was issued in an amount that was below the review threshold and
thus, any appeal of this sanction would be automagically denied and the obvious
intention of the Defendant attorneys efforts was to taint the beneficiary in
the eyes of the court and fraudulently manufacture a “vexatious Litigant” label
to silence the only legitimate voice in the choir.
At this juncture it was clear Candace
could not return to probate theater No. 4 without getting fraudulently branded
as vexatious. The only other honest attorney mentioned in this dissertation,
Attorney Candice L. Schwager, (Candice Leonard) was gracious enough to make an
appearance and put a stop to the fraudulent manufacture of a vexatious litigant
label. I have a novel idea, let’s look at the criteria for vexatious litigant
branding in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 11.054.
A court may find a plaintiff a vexatious litigant if
the defendant shows that there is not a reasonable probability that the
plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the defendant and that:
(1) the plaintiff, in the seven-year period immediately
preceding the date the defendant makes the motion under Section 11.051, has
commenced, prosecuted, or maintained at least five litigations as a pro se
litigant other than in a small claims court that have been: (A) finally
determined adversely to the plaintiff;(B) permitted to remain pending at
least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing; or(C)
determined by a trial or appellate court to be frivolous or groundless under
state or federal laws or rules of procedure;(2) after a litigation has
been finally determined against the plaintiff, the plaintiff repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, pro se, either: (A)
the validity of the determination against the same defendant as to whom the
litigation was finally determined; or(B) the cause of action, claim,
controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law determined or concluded by the
final determination against the same defendant as to whom the litigation was
finally determined; or(3) the plaintiff has previously been declared to be
a vexatious litigant by a state or federal court in an action or proceeding
based on the same or substantially similar facts, transition, or occurrence.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.054
It’s simple math and like everything
else out of these attorneys’ it doesn’t add up.
Article XII Section B of the family trust.
Section B. Powers to Be Exercised in the Best
Interests of the Beneficiaries
The Trustee shall exercise the following
administrative and investment powers without the order of any court, as the
Trustee determines in its sole and absolute discretion to be in the best
interests of the beneficiaries. –
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
agreement, the Trustee shall not exercise any power in a manner inconsistent
with the beneficiaries' right to the beneficial enjoyment of the trust property
in accordance with the general principles of the law of trusts.
These motions for sanctions are not brought by
trustees as the trustee is foreclosed from any such act by Article XII Section
B. These are merely the acts of greedy beneficiaries and dishonest attorneys
using the label “Co-Trustees” without actually performing any of the duties of
the office.
According to Article VII, the family trust was to be
divided into two separate trust shares at the passing of the first Settlor, a
decedents share and a survivor’s share. Elmer Brunsting passed on April 1, 2009.
And this division was apparently completed in 2010.
At the passing of the second Settlor the survivor’s
trust share was to terminate [Article VIII Section D] and the decedents
trust 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]. Instead, they put Nelva in
hospice and hid her whereabouts from Carl and Candace and, rather than create
five separate shares as required by Article X, eleven days after Nelva passed
Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting created new certificates of trust for the
terminated trusts, making themselves Co-Trustees for the New Decedents Trust, the New Survivors Trust and the New Family Trust, all of which terminated
at the passing of Nelva Brunsting (see Article VIII D and Article IX D). Amy Brunsting knew she had
signed these certificates of trust, she knew there were no certificates of
trust for any “personal asset trusts” and she knew that no separate shares had
been established.
Seven years,
eight months, nine days after the federal lawsuit was filed in effort to get an
accounting and fiduciary disclosures; 6 years, 8 months, 4 days after filing their original answer in SDTX, and six
years, six months, twenty seven days after Bayless filed her civil tort claims
in the probate court, Defendant Co-Trustee/Beneficiaries Anita Brunsting and
Amy Brunsting file Original Counter Claims against
beneficiary’s Candace and Carl claiming filing suit against the trustees
triggered forfeiture by the beneficiary.
This is clearly in preparation for Bayless Non-suit ruse. In other
words, Bayless has made a deal with the Defendants predatory attorneys that
would leave Candace holding the bag in a case she was never even in. None of
the trust beneficiaries are heir to the Settlors estates and none have standing
in the probate court.
Defendant
Co-Trustee/Beneficiaries Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting waived any counterclaims
when they did not include compulsory counter claims in their original answer, which in fact admits
to owing Candace Fiduciary obligations.
Let’s look at the program again without
discussing the remand that wasn’t a remand or the transfer that wasn’t a
transfer. The pollution of
diversity (2) the conversion called consolidation, without evidence of the hearing in which the
agreement was made (3) severance of not exactly consolidated plaintiffs and (4)
Carl’s non-suit of Nominal Defendant/formerly consolidated
co-plaintiff Candace Curtis leaving Candace as the only co-plaintiff against
whom Defendants fraudulent counter claims remain pending. We know this because
that’s where we began our dissertation, February 25,
2022.
1.
How does a cross
plaintiff pollute diversity?
2.
How does a plaintiff
consolidate his claims with those of his defendant?
a.
How did Candace
Louise Curtis vs Anita Brunsting, Amy Brunsting and does 1-100 become “estate
of Nelva Brunsting”?
b.
Who was representing
the estate on March 9, 2016?
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 also
Docket Tampering supra]
c.
How do we explain
the Agreed order to consolidate cases being deleted from the electronic docket
record?
2019-12-12 response to sanctions motion.pdf
Mendel Communications with Janet Mason and Michael Wakshull
·
2020-01-12 Communication with M. Wakshull
·
1/12 & 1/13/2020 Prepared
correspondence to Janet Masson
·
2020-06-01 Communication with M. Wakshull
·
2020-08-29 Communication with M. Wakshull
·
2020-10-04 Reviewed answer from M. Wakshull
2020-08-19
Forensic Message from Meridian Discovery Website
Email from Arman Gungor fwd to Bayless
Seeing reference to numerous communications with forensic
document examiners is curious. It would appear they were trying to find a way
around having to produce their alleged QBD/TPA and trying to find out if there
was any way we could prove the digital documents had been forged. As usual,
they are attempting to shift the burden of bringing forth evidence and
forgetting what they have already pled. “There is no evidence
that Anita and/or Amy were present when Nelva executed the 8/25/10 QBD.” They said the same thing about Carole but all of
Defendant’s no-evidence ground assumes Nelva signed the thing. They have far more than just a chain of custody problem. Apparently blending the “Qualified Beneficiary
Designation” with a “Testamentary Power of Appointment” was meant to enlarge
and confuse but the instrument fails to contain the signature of two witnesses
as required of testamentary instruments by Texas Law and there are no
distinctions between the exercise of one power and the exercise of the other. I
could go on but that would beat a dead horse and let the cat out of the bag.
They will not
produce their “August 25, 2010 Qualified Beneficiary Designation
and Testamentary Power of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement”
and qualify it as evidence because they
cannot!
There is no question that the signatures on the three
different signature versions of the 8/25/2010 QBD are those of Nelva Brunsting.
The question is where did those signatures come from and how did they get
copied and pasted onto this digital document.
Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images
Digital images are easy to manipulate and edit due to
availability of powerful image processing and editing software. Nowadays, it is
possible to add or remove important features from an image without leaving any
obvious traces of tampering.
Let’s
take pause to look at their expert witness designations:
2014-03-03 HC Dist Ct 164 Carl- Plaintiff expert designation
2014-12-01 Carole Designation of Experts
2014-12-01 Case 412249-401 PBT-2014-387708 Carl expert Witness designation
2014-12-02 Darlene self-designation as expert on fees
This is a simile of the previous filing. Ms. Darlene Payne Smith & Ms. Lori A. Walsh
2014-12-10 HC Dist Ct 164 63461278 Expert
Witness designation
Carl Named Judith Lennox and Bobbie
G. Bayless in the District Court on March 3, 2014 and is naming Judith Lennox
and Bobbie G. Bayless all over again on December 2, 2014. Then on December 10,
2014 Bayless names all four of her previous experts Bobbie G. Bayless, Judith W. Lenox, Charles Gerhardt, CPA, and Charles G. Kevorkian, M.D.
2015-07-01 Case 412249-401 Amy's Expert Designation
Samuel S. Griffin, III
Neal E. Spielman
Griffin & Matthews
1155 Dairy Ashford, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77079
281.870.1124- Telephone
281.870.1647- Facsimile
Mr. Griffin and Mr. Spielman may provide factual and
opinion testimony as to the attorney's fees incurred by Amy Brunsting.
2015-07-01 Case 412249-401 Anita Expert Designation
Stephen A. Mendel
Bradley E. Featherston
The Mendel Law Firm, L.P.
1155 Dairy Ashford, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77079
Tel: 281-759-3213
Fax: 281-759-3214
Stephen Mendel or Bradley Featherston may testify
about the amount, reasonableness, and necessity of attorneys' fees sought by
any party in this case.
2021-11-04 Carl Brunsting's 2nd
Amended Designation of Experts and Supplement
to Responses to Disclosures-1
|
Bobbie G. Bayless
Bayless & Stokes
2931 Ferndale
Houston, Texas 77098
713.522.2224 - Telephone
713.522.2218 - Telecopier
bayless@baylessstokes.com
Ms. Bayless may testify concerning attorney’s fees
relevant to or at issue in this case.
|
Alan D. Westheimer, CPA/CFF, CFE
4544 Post Oak Place Dr., Suite 320
Houston, Texas 77027
713.623.8911
Mr. Westheimer may testify
concerning damages suffered by Carl as a result of Defendants’ actions.
|
|
Shonna Piegari,
M.D.
808 Travis Street, Suite 915
Houston, Texas 77002
713.471.3959
Dr. Piegari’s
opinions will address the impact encephalitis had on Carl, Carl’s care and
recovery from encephalitis, and Carl’s capacity.
|
Charles G. Kevorkian, M.D.
Vice Chair and Associate Professor
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
O'Quinn Medical Tower at St. Luke's
6624 Fannin St., Suite 2330
Houston, Texas 77030
713.798.4061
Dr. Kevorkian's opinions will
address the impact encephalitis had on Plaintiff and will be based on this
expert's knowledge of those issues.
|
|
Jonathan Anthony Garza, M.D.
Chief of Neurology
Kelsey-Seybold Clinic
2727 West Holcomb Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77025
713.442.0000
Dr. Garza’s opinions will address
the impact encephalitis had on Carl, Carl’s continuing issues relating to the
encephalitis, and Carl’s needs resulting from his illness.
|
Respectfully submitted,
BAYLESS & STOKES
By: /s/ Bobbie G. Bayless
Bobbie G. Bayless
State Bar No. 01940600
2931 Ferndale
Houston, Texas 77098
Telephone: (713) 522-2224
Telecopier: (713) 522-2218
bayless@baylessstokes.com
Attorneys for Drina Brunsting as attorney-in-fact
for Carl Henry Brunsting
|
2020-08-02 Mtn to Compel - Curtis Depo - Vexatious
On October 19,
2021 Cory S. Reed, Attorney for the Estate Planning Attorney Defendant’s, filed
Notice of “Status
Conference” in Estate of Nelva Brunsting 412,249-403, to be held on
November 4, 2021. However, the status of the -403 was never even mentioned at
the November 4, 2021 “Status
Conference”. The status of
the -403 is that it had no plaintiff since before it was improperly snatched
out of the District Court, by a statutory probate court without a pending
probate administration to be ancillary to, and where and now sits in Probate
Court 4, where the associate judge is a former client of the attorneys
representing the estate planning Grifters in the case in point.
2021-06-10 2nd Docket Control Order is
issued. When compared to the previous DCO it is clear that the only
thing accomplished was a feast for the lawyers and famine for the beneficiaries
where the real parties are held hostage while the attorneys are sitting around
churning the time out and thinking they are conspiring to charge “the trust”
for their poser advocacy and attempting to extort an agreement from the victim
beneficiaries.
|
DCO issued June 10, 2021
|
DCO issued February 20, 2015
|
|
8/6/2021 Rule 166a(i) Motions may not be
filed before this date
|
6/1/2015 Rule 166a(i) Motions may not be
filed before this date (6 yrs. 2 mo’s)
|
|
|
2021-07-19 Bill
of Review Submission
|
|
Pending as per Agreed DCO Feb. 27, 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
2015-03-12 Case 412249 Amy's Application to Be
Appointed Executrix
Amy filed an Application to be appointed
representative of Nelva's Estate with her Response to Carl’s Resignation and
Ostrom’s Application to appoint Candace.
|
|
|
2015-06-26 Defendant Amy Brunsting and Defendant Anita
Brunsting “No Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”
|
|
|
2015-07-08, Case 412249-401 Carl Brunsting Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment
|
|
|
2015-07-13, Case 412249-401, Candace Curtis Response to
No-evidence Motion with Demand to Produce Evidence PBT-2015-227757.
|
|
|
2015-07-20 Case 412249-401 Drina Brunsting individual Motion
For Protective Order – re Wiretap Recordings
|
|
|
Hearing was had August 3, 2015 on Drina Brunstings
individual Motion For Protective Order – re Wiretap Recordings. No finding of
fact, conclusions of law and order after hearing has yet been issued.
This motion remains pending after hearing. This
charade was apparently intended to produce nothing which is exactly what it
appears to have produced. Once having been used to dissolve the only docket
control order ever entered in the case the “emergency” was no longer useful.
|
|
|
2015-07-20 HC Dist Ct 164
Def estate planning attorneys file Response to Vacancy of Party with Motion
to Abate & Sanctions. Case is now in Harris county probate Court No. 4
No. 412249-403 with no plaintiff.
|
|
|
2016-01-25 Candace Curtis’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. Candace Curtis unwillingly participated in the mock dispositive
motions parade with her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
|
|
|
2020-08-04
Drina's Reply to Defendants' Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
|
|
|
2019-06-2019 412249, 412249-401 Candace Curtis
Petition for declaratory Judgement. RESPONSE TO THE FIDUCIARY’S APPLICATION
FOR THE BENEFICIARY TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE
INJUNCTION COMMANDING THE TRUSTEE TO PERFORM A FIDUCIARY DUTY OWED TO THE BENEFICIARY
WITH PETITION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
|
|
|
2015-05-27 Vacek & Freed Defendants Motion for
Summary Judgment
Case 65561098 HC District Ct 164 the Vacek &
Freed Defendants Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment.
Filed in District Court with no Plaintiff to answer as independent executor
Carl Brunsting resigned Feb. 19, 2015 and no replacement has been appointed.
|
|
|
District Court Case dragged and dropped to create
probate case No. 412249-403
2019-01-25 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT
OF PROSECUTION
|
|
|
2019-07-07 Memorandum re Appointment of
Administrator
2019-10-16 Kunz-Freed's M' Appoint Personal Rep.
2019-10-18 Kunz-Freed files NOH on Motion to
Appoint
2019-11-04 Response to Mtn. to Appoint
|
|
|
2019-11-22 412249-404 Statutory Bill of Review.
Jurisdiction is a fundamental question that must be settled at the onset.
There is no estate, there is no probate, there is no executor, and there are
no pleadings invoking the jurisdiction of a statutory probate court. Gov’t
Code 25.0021
|
|
|
2020-07-02 Freed files NOH – re Mtn
to Appoint Personal Rep or Admin.
2020-08-04 Response to Freed's Motion to Appoint
Personal Representative.
|
|
10/15/2021 PLEADINGS: All amendments and supplements must be filed by
this date
|
8/4/2015 PLEADINGS: All amendments and supplements must be filed by
this date
|
|
11/4/2021 Status Conference in 412249-403
|
|
|
11/5/2021 Experts for parties seeking affirmative relief
|
7/1/2015 Experts for parties seeking affirmative relief
|
|
11/19/2021 All other experts
|
8/1/2015 All other experts
|
|
12/31/2021 Dispositive Motions or Pleas subject to interlocutory appeal
must be heard by this date
|
8/3/2015 Dispositive Motions or Pleas subject to interlocutory appeal
must be heard by this date
|
|
1/14/2022 Challenges to Expert Testimony
|
9/1/2015
|
|
02/07/2022 Summary Judgment motions not subject to an interlocutory
appeal must be heard by this date
|
8/3/2015 Challenges to Expert Testimony
|
|
2/14/2022 Discovery Period Ends
|
8/4/2015 Discovery Period Ends
|
|
2/21/2022 by Noon JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER. Parties shall provide to the
Court, by fax, email, or delivery to our offices, a copy of the signed Agreed
Joint Pretrial Order by this date. Parties shall bring the original Agreed
Joint Pretrial Order to the Pretrial Conference.
|
9/4/2015 by Noon JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER.
Parties shall provide to the Court, by fax, email, or delivery to our
offices, a copy of the signed Agreed Joint Pretrial Order by this date.
Parties shall bring the original Agreed Joint Pretrial Order to the Pretrial
Conference.
|
|
02/24/2022, at 10 a.m. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.
|
9/11/2015
|
|
04/04/2022 at 9:00 a.m. TRIAL
|
9/14-18/2015
|
2021-10-15 Plaintiff Candace Louise Curtis Answer to Defendants Counter
Claims
The Usurper Co-Trustees do not have the authority to
take any action that is inconsistent with the beneficiary’s right to the full
enjoyment of their trust property. (Article XII B)
2021-10-15 Plaintiff Candace Louise Curtis Answer to the Trustees counter claims.
The trustees claim filing a lawsuit to compel fiduciary performance triggers
forfeiture. These are not the claims of loyal trustees but of treacherous
beneficiaries and their dishonest attorneys.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this agreement,
the Trustee shall not exercise any power in a manner inconsistent with the
beneficiaries' right to the beneficial enjoyment of the trust property in
accordance with the general principles of the law of trusts. Brunsting Trust Article XII Section B
(copy of Restatement received from Anita Brunsting October 23, 2010 and from
Carl’s attorney Blackburn after Nelva passed) This is also the exhibit used by
Anita and Amy Brunsting in the Summary Judgment Motion filed November 5, 2021.
2021-10-15 Plaintiff Candace Louise Curtis Addendum
2021-11-05
Candace Curtis
Expert Witness Designation
Plaintiff and Nominal Defendant Candace Louise Curtis
hereby reserves the right to call any expert not retained by her who may be
designated as an expert by any party, whether called by that party to testify
or not.
Candace Louise Curtis also adopts the November 4,
2021 reservations contained in co-plaintiff Carl Brunsting’s “Second Amended
Expert Witness Designation”.
2021-11-05 Co-Trustees' Motion for Summary Judgment - Vexatious
Exhibit A the family trust Article XII Section B.
Section B. Powers to Be Exercised in the Best
Interests of the Beneficiaries
The Trustee shall exercise the following
administrative and investment powers without the order of any court, as the
Trustee determines in its sole and absolute discretion to be in the best
interests of the beneficiaries. –
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
agreement, the Trustee shall not exercise any power in a manner inconsistent
with the beneficiaries' right to the beneficial enjoyment of the trust property
in accordance with the general principles of the law of trusts.
Defendants cannot show a single affirmative act
performed for the benefit of Carl or Candace despite the law of the trust and
Carl’s incapacity.
2022-01-06 Plaintiff Carl
Brunsting & Defendant Co-Trustees’ Motion to Sever from
Candace Curtis.
2022-02-25
412249-401 Hearing
Transcript re sanctions
2022-03-18 Carl's Notice of non-suit of Candace
Curtis.
This series leads to the question of what happened to
the Agreed Order to Consolidate?
Carl was joined as an “involuntary plaintiff” to
pollute federal diversity in order to get a remand to a court from which it was
never removed and where Carl had named the federal plaintiff a defendant. It
was accepted by the probate court as a transfer when it had never been in a
state court and after nearly nine years of holding the sole devisee hostage in
probate theater No. 4 and, while resolving nothing by findings of fact and
conclusions of law after hearing, Bayless wants to sever Carl from Candace and
states on the record that Carl and Candace have no claims in common and that
Carl's health is declining while Candy Curtis refuses to capitulate to the
Defendants extortion demands.
2022-03-31 Hearing transcript Brunsting 412249-401
This series leads to the question of what happened to
the Agreed Order to Consolidate?
Carl was joined as an “involuntary plaintiff” to
pollute federal diversity in order to get a remand to a court from which the
case had never been removed and where Carl had named the federal plaintiff a
defendant. It was accepted by the probate court as a transfer when it had never
been in a state court and after nearly nine years of holding the sole devisee
hostage in probate theater No. 4 and, while resolving nothing by findings or fact and conclusions of law after hearing, Bayless wants
to sever Carl from Candace and states on the record that Carl and Candace have
no claims in common and that Carl's health is declining [February 11, 2022
Transcript Page13] while Candy Curtis ignored
extortion threats and refuses to capitulate to the Defendants unholy ransom
demands.
Grift is a game played by Grifters. The game has a variety
of forms or scenarios. It can adopt different strategies depending on the way
each phase develops. But no matter the variations certain characteristics can
be identified in all of them.
Probate Grift is of special interest because it happens to
be unique in clothing itself with color-of-law legitimacy and authority. In the
USA Probate Grift has all the features of Admiralty Maritime Law brought onto
the land and its practitioners are protected by Letters of Marque issued and
authenticated by officials holding positions of public trust. If this resembles
the description of Piracy in days gone by, that’s because it is simply a modern
version of the same thing. Any honest survey of Probate Grift will have to admit
that in the end it is simply another form of Human Trafficking.
Bouvier’s 1883 Law Dictionary describes LETTERS of MARQUE and
REPRISAL as a commission granted by Governmental authority to Privateers to
take the property of a foreign state or its citizens, the Prizes captured to be
divided between the Privateer owners, Captain and Crew. All that is needed to
understand how this translates to contemporary Law or Policy can be summarized
by pointing out that a ‘Person” is considered a Vessel on the high seas of
Commerce, laden with valuable Cargo. And because the State, now the Corporate
State, prefers to arrogate to itself the lion’s share of credit for the
developments of the Political-Economy, said Cargo is considered property held
in Trust for its benefit. Venture too far into the wrong waters and your
valuables risk becoming Prize for Privateer Adventurers.
Today’s Privateers are most commonly known as Attorneys
who’s Letters of Marque are shown by their Bar Cards, which provide protections
under the specious doctrine of immunity. Is this an unfair or exaggerated
claim? Surely there are plenty of legitimate and honest attorneys. Yes, of
course there are, but having an abundance of vegetables in the garden hardly
justifies dismissing the weeds as unworthy of concern.
What about Private property? This subject often gets
involved with questions of Legal Title as against Equitable Title spanning
several ‘forms’ of law and one that has been systematically deconstructed and
minced into a muddle. In the end it is those holding positions of ‘public
Trust’ that are deemed to be Trustees with Fiduciary obligations and the poor
Beneficiary will not be heard with respect to the management of said Trust
obligations, the only exceptions being the Rights of the Beneficiary. Good luck
enforcing those Rights in the Courts of today’s America.
Take money as an example. Got dollars? Originally
defined by the Coinage Act 1792 “to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar
and to contain 371-1/4 grains (Troy) of pure Silver”. Two Hundred thirty
years later the Dollar is now a Federal Reserve Note, an “Obligation of the
United States”, issued by a private organization. So whose money is it? This is
a question that opens a huge can of worms. How did we get here from there?
In summarizing his 1400 page “Pieces of Eight”, a history
of Money and Banking in the United States, Edwin Vieira quotes from Treasure
Island. “Long John Silver reckoned that, “if anybody’s seen more wickedness
than Cap’n Flint”, [his parrot] “it must be the Devil
himself”. “Had the one-legged pirateer lived through
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, though, he might have concluded that
the constitutional “dollar” had been the prey of political and economic
freebooters whose appetites for power and loot exceeded those of any buccaneer
who ever plundered the Spanish Main.” We can’t say for sure who the “Owner
Privateers” may be, but we can identify their Captains and their Crews.
Probate is defined as a “procedure in rem”, which is to
say probate deals with ‘Things’. So the Grift often manipulates a conversion.
First a living soul is converted to a ‘Person’, (a fiction of Law), and then in
the case of guardianship, converts the legal fiction ‘Person” into a Thing,
which triggers the practices of Bottomry and Salvage. The poor elder victim now
has fewer Rights than a convicted murderer on Death Row.
Let’s look at “the Hearing”, a supposed pre-trial
conference. What we have seen thus far is where others have filed complaints
with the federal court and where all the filthy lucre acolytes plead immunity
and call their victims “disgruntled litigants seeking
vengeance for being on the losing end of fully litigated state court
proceedings”. (Rooker-Feldman)
It’s difficult to interpret
this absurdity when stacked on top of a pile of absurdities as anything but
absurd but since the best evidence is generally indirect or from conclusions
necessarily flowing from established circumstance, we should probably examine
what we have in contrast with what we do not.
1.
We have a visiting judge who appears
without prior notice and signs a summary judgment order without rendering a
decision but on the basis of hearsay “that another judge was going to sign it”.
2.
We have an appointment for the
visiting judge, issued and filed nunc pro tunc, after an objection by the aggrieved party, the trust
beneficiary that refuses to rupture her parents trust for the benefit of
attorneys that have no more intention to alter a settlement contract that have
for honoring the settlors trust.
3.
We do not have a probate, guardianship, mental health, or eminent domain proceeding
for any claims to be ancillary to. However, if the family money cow is held
hostage long enough, they will have a probate, guardianship, mental health, or
eminent domain proceeding for their trust hostage racket to be claimed as
ancillary to as illness and death are all part of living and from what I’ve
seen, these attorneys are predators that belong in orange jump suits.
4.
We have findings of fact and
conclusions of law after an evidentiary hearing in the Southern District of
Texas with a preliminary injunction rendered in open court and published in a
memorandum.
5.
The injunction found a fiduciary relationship
existed between federal Plaintiff Candace Curtis; that the Defendant
Co-Trustees Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting owed beneficiary Candace Curtis
fiduciary duties; that Anita Brunsting, as sole trustee as of December 21m 2010
had failed to perform her fiduciary duties and was unable to account for the trusts assets. The court also found anomalies with the
instruments Anita offered to the federal court as representative of “the
Trust”.
6.
The injunction enjoins Defendant
Co-Trustees Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting from SPENDING trust money without
the court’s permission but does not otherwise interfere with their ability to
administer the trust according to its terms. The injunction that found that the
co-Trustees had failed to establish five separate accounts as required and
commands that income be deposited into an appropriate account for the
beneficiary.
7.
We have an Accounting prepared by a
Special Master appointed in the SDTX that shows questionable distributions that
Anita performed unequally and without notice or benefit to beneficiaries Carl
or Candace.
8.
We have evidence that the two
separate trust shares that terminated at the passing of the last Settlor to
pass on November 11, 2011 have not been terminated and distributed into five
shares as commanded by the trust.
9.
We do not have evidence that five
separate accounts have been funded at all.
10.We do not have an accounting that includes a balance sheet.
11.We have evidence that excess taxes have been paid as a direct result of
the Defendant Co-Trustees failure to distribute trust income, as required by
the trust and as commanded by the injunction.
12.We have a written settlement offer that would have the attorneys skimming
off the top by inserting their own demands as prerequisite to the Co-Trustees
performing their fiduciary duties under the trust, when the proper order of
things would be to produce a balance sheet, terminate the two shares as
required by the trust and begin the division of assets into five separate
shares. This is when we can talk about injury to the beneficiary and benefit to
the trustee caused by the Co-Trustees failure to perform any affirmative
fiduciary duties for the benefit of Carl of Candace.
13.We do not have findings of fact or conclusions of law after an
evidentiary hearing in the probate court because there have been no evidentiary
hearings.
14.We do not have a declaratory judgement defining what instruments we are
talking about when we say “the trust” except for those filed in the Southern
District of Texas.
15.We do not have evidence of any specific performance by the Defendant
Co-Trustee Fiduciaries.
16.We have evidence of demands for payment of attorney fees but no evidence
of the administration of a trust or an estate that would support the fees
(ransom) demanded.
17.We have attorneys that seek to alter the Settlor’s trust agreement by
extracting a “settlement agreement” under duress, using a myriad of schemes and
artifice amounting to Honest Services Fraud, and this list just keeps growing
the longer you look at it.
There was no probate matter
pending in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 when Carl Brunsting filed his tort
petition on April 9, 2013 [Tab 25] as both estates had closed [Tab 16 & 23]. Carl’s tort claims were filed after
the inventory was approved in an independent administration and drop orders had
issued. Carl’s action was neither specifically nor explicitly authorized by Title
II of the Texas Estates Code and, was specifically prohibited by the wills as provided in Texas Estates Code §
402.001. [Tab L]
The
record reflects that both Settlors’ wills provide for independent
administration. [Tab 12 p.2] [Tab 18 p.2] [Tab 50 p.13]
“I direct that no action be required in the county or
probate court in relation to the settlement of my estate other than the probate
and recording of my Will and the return of an inventory, appraisement and list
of claims as required by law.”
Former INDEPENDENT
ADMINISTRATOR Carl Brunsting has no individual standing in the probate court
and there is no evidence that his substitute, Drina Brunsting, has ever been
lawfully appointed Carl’s Attorney in Fact. We do have evidence that
intimidation via petition for guardianship over Carl may have a part to play in
Drina’s failure to reign in her mad dog mercenary and if one were to predict,
one would suggest the probate mob already has Carole sized up for the same.
2022-03-02 Order Denying Statutory Bill of Review
412249-404
Harris County Probate Court No. 4 is a statutory
probate court that clearly fails to understand the significance of a
legislative delegation of limited authority and complete absence of statutory
probate court jurisdiction.
2021-06-29 412249-404 Carl's Original Answer to Candace Statutory Bill of Review:
Bayless says the probate court does not need a pending estate administration to
take jurisdiction over a living trust. This is after manufacturing five
separate cause numbers -401, -402, -403, -404 and -505, as ANCILLARY to the
Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412,249.
“A
statutory probate court may exercise only that jurisdiction accorded it by
statute.” Goodman v.
Summit at W. Rim, Ltd., 952 S.W.2d 930, 933-34 (Tex.App.-Austin
1997, no pet.); City of Beaumont v.
West, 484 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont
1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Statutory courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction. Statutory courts are created by statute and the
jurisdiction of a statutory court is delegated by statute. In Texas, Title 2 of
the Government Code defines the various courts. The limited jurisdiction
granted to statutory courts is found in Government Code Chapter 25. Government
Code Section 25.0003 defines the boundaries to
statutory county court jurisdiction and Government Code Section 25.0021 defines the limits on statutory
probate court jurisdiction. Government Code Section 25.0021 reads as follows:
Section 25.0021 - Jurisdiction
(a) If this section conflicts with a specific
provision for a particular statutory probate court or county, the specific
provision controls, except that this section
controls over a specific provision for a particular court or county if the
specific provision attempts to create jurisdiction in a statutory probate court
other than jurisdiction over probate, guardianship, mental health, or eminent
domain proceedings.
(b) A statutory probate court as that term is defined
in Section 22.007(c), Estates Code, has:
(1) the general jurisdiction
of a probate court as provided by the Estates Code; and
(2) the jurisdiction
provided by law for a county court to hear and determine actions, cases,
matters, or proceedings instituted under:
(A) Section 166.046, 192.027, 193.007, 552.015,
552.019, 711.004, or 714.003, Health and Safety Code;
(B) Chapter 462, Health and Safety Code; or
(C) Subtitle C or D, Title 7, Health and Safety Code.
Bayless, Mendel and Spielman’s
arguments that Estates Code Sections 32.006 and 32.007 expand statutory probate
jurisdiction to trusts without the need for probate, guardianship, mental
health, or eminent domain proceedings to be ancillary to is a false thesis as
clearly stated in Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0021.
In asking ourselves what part of this elementary aspect of
jurisdiction the attorneys and the probate court judge fail to get, we must
first assume they are burdening themselves with the law and respecting the boundaries
of order. Given that they have all acquired juris doctorates and have become
learned in law by their own declarations, I don’t think we can make assumptions
when a foundational principle of law is that every individual is presumed to
intend the consequences of their acts.
2022-03-04 Demand for Jury Trial
2022-03-10 Mendel re exparte
communications on Brunsting _ Case Transfer
2022-03-11 Order Granting Motion to Sever
Thus, without ever having held an evidentiary
hearing, Carl and Candace, after never having been consolidated in the probate theater in the
first instance, are separated because they have no claims in
common.
2022-03-27 motion to vacate set aside
rehear reconsider Curtis cc 5
2022-03-31 Co-Trustees' Supp. Mtn to
Exclude (03.31.22)
2022-03-31 Hearing Transcript
Brunsting 412249-401
2022-05-03 Order for Remand
4-22-cv-1129
2022-07-10 file
stamped Petition for writ of Mandamus Curtis
2022-07-21 Agd
Mtn re Iowa Cnsl (flmrkd)
2022-07-21 Agd
Mtn re Survey (flmrkd)
2022-07-29 Prop Agreed Ord to
Approve Appraisal
2022-08-05 Court of Appeals
Notice of Withdrawal
2022-08-05 FFCL Motion to enter
findings of fact
2022-08-26 Order on Motion for
findings of fact (example of when and how they use the rules after completely
ignoring all statutes and rules.)
2022-09-08
01-22-00514-CV_OPINION ISSD (DIST LTR)_FILECOPY
2022-09-08 Letter from 1st Dist
Court of appeals
2022-09-08 2nd Letter from 1st Dist
Court of appeals
2022-12-02 Prop Ord to Approve $27k & Cnsldtn
|
2/27/2012 SDTX No.
4:12-cv-592 Candace
Louise Curtis vs Amy Brunsting, Anita Brunsting and Does 1-100, a breach
of fiduciary action seeking accounting and disclosures filed 2/27/2012. Filed
Pro se!
5th Circuit
ROA.12-20164 – (pro
se appeal)
1/09/2013 Curtis v Brunsting 704 F.3d 406 Reversed
and remanded for further proceedings.
1/29/2013 Harris County
District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455, a malpractice
action against the estate planning attorneys filed by Carl Brunsting as “independent executor” of his Parents estate,
filed January 29, 2013. The estate planning attorney Defendants are
represented by Thompson Coe attorney Zandra E. Foley with Thompson Coe attorney Cory S Reed. Carl
resigned the office of “independent executor” February 19, 2015. There has
been no plaintiff in this case since.
4/09/2013 Harris County
Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-401, a civil tort
action exclusively related to the Brunsting trust filed on April 9, 2013 by Carl Brunsting, the same day as the
injunction hearing in SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592 [Dkt 79 transcript] &
memorandum of injunction [Dkt 45].
Harris County
Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-402 – it remains
unclear how Curtis v Brunsting 704 F.3d 406 became Estate of Nelva Brunsting
412249-402 and how it is alleged to be the federal case after it was remanded to Harris County Probate
Court No. 4 (May 14, 2014), a court from which it had not been removed. This
was the disingenuous act of an attorney in
direct conflict with his clients expressed directions and achievements. The “remand order” was accepted in Probate Court No. 4 as a
“transfer order” on May 22, 2014; 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.
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.
5th Circuit
ROA.17-20360 affirmed for lack of a sufficient
statement of supporting facts June 28, 2018. All of those deficiencies can be
put to rest with this dissertation.
Registration
of Foreign Judgment, Submission ID: 43704956, 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.
412249-403
– This is case #3 supra, Harris County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-0545
Carl Brunsting individually and as independent executor for the estates of
Elmer and Nelva Brunsting vs Vacek & Freed et al.
412249-404
– A statutory Bill of Review constituting a direct attack on the Probate
Courts Order denying Candace Curtis Plea to the Jurisdiction but made into a
separate ancillary case by the insistence of the Clerk. Look at how these “ancillary cases” are described by the
clerk! Lawsuit regarding fees? This is a direct attack on
the order denying a plea to the jurisdiction in 412249-401. It is not a
separate action and it has nothing to do with fees.
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 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.
2022-04-07 SDTX Case 4:22-cv-01129 Notice of Removal and
exhibits. After ten years in stasis, being vilified by the Defendant
Co-Trustees for wanting them to perform their obligations according to the
trust and not according to any “settlement contract” written by attorneys,
Bayless moves to sever Carl and Candace as alleged Co-Plaintiff’s, arguing
that Carl and Candace have no claims in common. Nothing of substance had been
resolved and if Carl and Candace have no claims in common they never did. The
gist was an effort to leave Candace as the only plaintiff in Carl’s
412249-401 action and subject to the Defendant Co-Trustees alleged Original Counter Claims filed November 4, 2019.
These claims, and each of their motions to sanction the beneficiary, are a
breach of the duty of undivided loyalty and in excess of the authority
granted to trustees as clearly stated in Article XII Section B.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this agreement, the Trustee
shall not exercise any power in a manner inconsistent with the beneficiaries'
right to the beneficial enjoyment of the trust property in accordance with
the general principles of the law of trusts.
Brunsting trust Article XII Section B
(copy of Restatement received from Anita Brunsting October 23, 2010)
In Case 4:22-cv-01129 Document 2-12 Filed on 04/08/22 by
Stephen Mendel’s Exhibit Q Mr. Mendel provides a statement of his bill,
something he never filed in a state court. On Page 1 of 56 he attributes 412249 & 412249-401 to Candace and this is
obviously fraud as these were both filed by Carl while Candace was in the federal court. One
should also note that he refers to the –402, (allegedly the remanded federal
case) as a “plea in abatement”.
Anita K. Brunsting
801 Bassington Court
Pflugerville, TX 78660
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).
C.A. No. 412249 & 412249-404; Candace Curtis v. Anita
Brunsting, Et Al - Bill of Review; In Probate Court No. 4,
Harris County, Texas.
Then Mendel goes on to list his fees as if
his fees were ever a part of the controversy among the real parties in
interest. The controversy among the real parties in interest hadn’t even
progressed to stage one… What
instruments are we talking about when we say “the trust”? Mendel was
accused of racketeering and, while nothing happened in the probate court and
his state court defendant was allegedly pro se in the RICO, Mendel has 15
pages of billing entries he thinks he can recover from the Brunsting trust
beneficiaries as a prerequisite to distributing the assets as commanded by
the trust instrument that he himself used as “exhibit A” in support of his November 5, 2021 Motion for Summary Judgement.
Mendel’s client, Trustee
Anita Brunsting, caused litigation to be brought by
failing to perform the obligation to account commanded by Article XII Section E and since having
caused litigation to compel her to perform the obligations of trustee, Anita
has consistently refused to act in any interest but her own. Thinking first
to satisfy her own personal avarice only to discover herself seeking to get
the funds to pay her attorney from the shares of trust she intended to steal
for herself. All but the most ministerial of Anita’s actions have been taken
under the label of “trustee” but are acts prohibited of the trustee under Article XII Section B.
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, one family
trust, two pour-over wills and one common set of facts.
1.
Docket in closed base case
412249
2.
Docket in 412249-401.pdf
3.
Docket in 412249-402.pdf
4.
Docket in 412249-403.pdf
5.
Docket in 412249-404.pdf
6.
Docket in 412249-405.pdf
I.
Texas First District Court of Appeal No. 01-22-00513-cv
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (denied with no explanation) apparently
the dirt flowing up steam in Texas is a mirror of the Chalupowski fleecing in Massachusetts.
II.
SDTX No.
4:22-cv-1129 April 7, 2022 created by removal
of the alleged Co-Trustees’ counterclaims to the Southern District of Texas.
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. This is color-of-law
organized crime and this is only one case history but it rings a lot of bells
and blows a lot of whistles that form a pattern of racketeering activity
devoted to the interception (theft) of family generational asset transfers.
A December 5, 2021 Rule 11
Agreement among Bayless, Mendel and Spielman; March 11, 2022 order severing
the claims of diversity polluting “involuntary Co-Plaintiff” Carl Brunsting
from those of “Co-Plaintiff” Candace Curtis, Carl Brunstings’ March 18, 2022 Nonsuit of Defendant Candace
Curtis and a February 25, 2022 Order for Summary Judgement
uncover the veil of fraudulent joinder and mal intent.
·
Can't get a hearing 2016-08-03 Case 4-12-cv-00592 Doc 115
Rule 60 Motion Pages 9-10;
·
Can't get a hearing 2016-12-15 - CA
H-16-1969 Transcript Preliminary hearing RICO Page 46;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-08-13
Appellants Opening Brief on Appeal RICO No. 17-20360_Pages 33-34;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-09-26 RICO - Appellee Brief Binder Pages
20-21;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-12-02 -
Appellants Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Page 15;
·
Can't get a hearing 2017-12-02 -
Appellants Reply Brief on Appeal_17-20360 Page 29;
·
Can't get a hearing 2018-09-05 Responses to Defendants Motions to Dismiss
Combined Page 73;
·
Can't get a hearing 2021-01-03 2nd
Rule 60 Motion to vacate the remand ROA 20-20566 Page 1014;
·
Still trying to get to a trial
2022-02-21 Candace Curtis Affidavit
·
Can't get a hearing 2021-04-19 Appellees Record Excerpts Page 168;
·
Can't get a hearing 2022-01-06
412249-401 Carole Emergency Motion Hearing Transcript Page 30;
·
Can't get a hearing 2022-07-12
01-22-00514-cv Mandamus Record Index Page 1700.
(a) A person
is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is
committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally
responsible, or by both.(b) Each party
to an offense may be charged with commission of the offense.(c) All
traditional distinctions between accomplices and principals are abolished by
this section, and each party to an offense may be charged and convicted
without alleging that he acted as a principal or accomplice.
“(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense
committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of
culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or
nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of
the offense;(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission
of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid
the other person to commit the offense; or(3) having a legal duty to
prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist
its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of
the offense.(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit
one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all
conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no
intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the
unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of
the carrying out of the conspiracy.”
“(a) For purposes of this section:(1)
"Fiduciary" includes: (A) a trustee, guardian,
administrator, executor, conservator, and receiver;(B) an attorney in
fact or agent appointed under a durable power of attorney as provided by
Subtitle P, Title 2, Estates Code;(C) any other person acting in a
fiduciary capacity, but not a commercial bailee
unless the commercial bailee is a party in a motor
fuel sales agreement with a distributor or supplier, as those terms are
defined by Section 162.001, Tax Code; and(D) an officer, manager,
employee, or agent carrying on fiduciary functions on behalf of a fiduciary.(2)
"Misapply" means deal with property contrary to: (A) an agreement
under which the fiduciary holds the property; or(B) a law prescribing
the custody or disposition of the property.(b) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misapplies property he
holds as a fiduciary or property of a financial institution in a manner that
involves substantial risk of loss to the owner of the property or to a person
for whose benefit the property is held.(c) An offense under this
section is:(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the property
misapplied is less than $100;(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of
the property misapplied is $100 or more but less than $750;(3) a Class
A misdemeanor if the value of the property misapplied is $750 or more but
less than $2,500;(4) a state jail felony if the value of the property
misapplied is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000;(5) a felony of the
third degree if the value of the property misapplied is $30,000 or more but
less than $150,000;(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of
the property misapplied is $150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or(7)
a felony of the first degree if the value of the property misapplied is
$300,000 or more.(d) An offense described for purposes of punishment
by Subsections (c)(1)-(6) is increased to the next higher category of offense
if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the offense was committed
against an elderly individual as defined by Section 22.04.(e) With the
consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney
general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to
prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid
program.”
|
List of Participating Harris County Attorneys
Table of
Contents
The
Interception of a Family Generational Asset Transfer 1
Grift of the Brunsting’s – A Case in Point 1
Let’s start at the agenda’s predisposed point of
arrival: 2
Trust beneficiary Candace Curtis couldn’t buy an
evidentiary hearing in Harris County Probate Theater Number Four (4) 3
No Evidentiary Hearings. 4
Stasis by Design. 5
How to Steal Your Family Inheritance. 6
List of Valid Trust Instruments. 6
1996 trust 6
1999-04-30 First Amendment 6
2001-06-05 Second Amendment 7
2005 Restatement 7
2007 Amendment 7
2010 June 15, 2010 QBD.. 7
The Hurrah’s and the illicit changes following each. 8
2008-06-09 Elmer declared Non-Compos mentis. 8
The illicit Changes. 8
2009-04-01 Elmer passes. 8
The illicit Changes. 8
2010-07-03 Carl is in coma. 9
The illicit Changes. 9
Nelva is subjected to competency evaluation. 10
2010-11-17 Freed email re Nelva
Competence. 11
2011-11-11 Nelva Brunsting passes. 12
The illicit Changes. 12
The Probate Mafia Color of Law Back End Exploitation
of the Estate Planning Setup. 13
Summary with Review of Grift of the Brunstings – Part
1. 13
The Reprobate Exception and the Rooker-Schnooker 15
Denial of Due Process under Color of Law Title 42
U.S.C. §1983. 16
Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless Texas State Bar No.
01940600. 16
Silence Where There Is A Duty To Speak Is Fraud. 19
Champerty, Maintenance, and Barratry. 21
Grand Larceny. 26
Denial of Substantive and Procedural Due Process 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 26
2012. 28
The Lawsuits. 28
Failure to Account 28
Elements of Breach of Trust (breach of fiduciary) 28
SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592. 29
Attorney Bernard Lyle Matthews III Texas State Bar
Number: 13187450. 30
2012-03-06 Affidavit of Amy Brunsting [Doc 10-1] 31
PERJURY.. 33
Vacek & Freed et al, Continuing the Swindle. 33
2012-03-06 [ 33
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal No. 12-20164. 33
George Vie III, Texas State Bar No. 20579310. 34
Pending the 5th Circuit Appeal 35
Maureen Kuzik McCutcheon Texas state Bar No. 00784427. 35
Harris County Probate Court 4 No. 412248 & 412249. 36
BAYLESS USES A DISABLED CARL BRUNSTING TO OBTAIN
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY.. 36
2013. 36
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal 36
The Brunsting Frankensuits. 37
i. Harris County 164th District Court No.
2013-05455. 37
Attorney Zandra E. Foley, State Bar No. 24032085. 37
Southern District of Texas No. 4:12-cv-592. 38
Application for Preliminary Injunction. 39
Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No.
412249-401. 42
Barratry, Champerty and Maintenance. 43
Loss of Jurisdiction. 44
Estate of Elmer H. Brunsting [No. 412,248] 45
Estate of Nelva E. Brunsting [No. 412,249] 45
SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592 Preliminary Injunction. 46
Appointment of a Special Master [Dkt 55]. 47
2014. 48
Attorney Jason B. Ostrom Texas State Bar No. 24027710. 48
Contradictions and Want of Standing. 49
MEDIATION.. 50
Attorney Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar No.
13930650. 52
Attorney Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678. 52
2015. 53
CRIMINAL CONVERSION.. 54
Attorney Gregory Lester Texas State Bar No. 12235700. 56
Attorney Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678. 56
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization. 58
Curtis et al., vs. Kunz-Freed et al., SDTX No.
4:16-cv-1969. 59
Case 4-16-cv-01969 July 5, 2016 – May 16, 2017. 59
Probate Case. 59
Probate Proceeding. 60
Probate Matter 60
If there is a decedent’s estate to administer, what’s
in it?. 60
Texas Estates Code Sec. 32.001. 60
Contradictions and Fatal Conflicts of Interest 62
Lester/Ostrom /Bayless. 63
Comstock/Reed/Kunz-Freed. 63
DEFALCATION.. 67
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. 68
Trusts are Contracts. 69
Breach of Trust or Wrongful Possession: It Has To Be
One, the Other or both 70
Void versus voidable. 71
i. The Controlling Issue Test 72
Docket Tampering. 73
Vacancy in the Office of Executor & Agreed Order
to Consolidate. 73
Cheshire cat Law.. 74
Attorney Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar No.
13930650. 74
Attorney Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678. 74
Defendants No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgement 74
2016. 77
Violating in Terrorem.. 86
2017. 87
i. 5th Circuit ROA.17-20360. 87
2018. 87
2019. 88
The Honorable James Horwitz. 88
Attorney Cory S Reed, Texas State Bar No. 24076640. 91
i. 2019-05-15 Amy Brunstings 1st Motion for Sanctions. 91
Breach of the fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty and
exceeding the boundaries of the authority granted by the trust 91
Unclean Hands. 93
Passive or Active Trust 94
Breach or Wrongful Possession?. 95
2019-06-28
412249-401 Hearing Transcript 97
Attorney Candice Schwager Leonard Texas Bar No. Bar
No. 24005603. 97
2019-11-04 A Brunsting's 2nd Motion for
Sanctions. 98
Let’s Talk Predicate Acts. 99
Misapplication of Fiduciary Property in Excess of
$300,000.00 Held In Trust For The Benefit of Elderly and Disabled
Beneficiaries. 99
2019-11-04 Amy & Anita Brunsting Orig.
Counterclaim.pdf 100
2020. 102
2021. 107
2022. 113
2022-01-06. 113
2022-02-25 412249-401. 113
GRIFT OF THE PROBATE VARIETY.. 114
2022-02-25 Order for Summary Judgment 117
Want of Standing. 120
Want of Jurisdiction. 121
Statutory Delegation of Authority. 121
Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0021. 121
2023. 124
CASES RELATED BY OPERATIVE FACTS AND PARTICIPANTS. 124
More Mendel Lies. 126
Remember where we started?. 128
Tex. Pen. Code § 7.01 - Parties to Offenses. 129
Tex. Pen. Code § 7.02. 129
Tex. Pen. Code § 32.45. 129
