|
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) |
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. 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.
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. In this way, Probate Court Judge James Horwitz thought to wash his hands of any accountability for this sham summary judgment order.
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.[1] 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
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)
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 10.7.10 call 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
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.[2]
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.[3]
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
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, |
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.
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,[4]
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!
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.
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.[5] 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. Est. Code Sec. 22.005 Probate “claims” only include:
(3) the expense of a tombstone;
(4) expenses of administration;
(5) estate and inheritance taxes; and
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.
[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
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 5/6/2023. 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.
“Sec. 22.028. PERSONAL PROPERTY. "Personal property" includes
Amy Brunsting Doc 35, p.1 (Ghost written)
County Attorneys for Judges Butts & Comstock Doc 53, p2, 16, 30
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
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
GENERAL PROBATE COURT JURISDICTION; APPEALS.
(c) A final order issued by a probate court is appealable to the court of appeals.
1. How does a cross plaintiff pollute diversity?
2. How does a plaintiff consolidate his claims with
those of his defendant?
b. Who was representing the estate on March 9, 2016?
a. On what ground were Carl and Candace consolidated if
they have no claims in
common?
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.
|
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) |
At the passing of Nelva Brunsting, [November
11, 2011] the Survivor
Share
and decedents
trust share
terminated into five
separate shares. To date, [Saturday, May 06, 2023] 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)
|
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) |
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[7] 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.
|
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) |
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
|
Judith W. Lenox Dinkins Kelly Lenox
Lamb & Walker, L.L.P. 2500 East T.C. Jester
Blvd., Suite 675 Houston, Texas 77008 713.259.7029 Standards of Professional Care |
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. |
|
CHARLIE GERHARDT, CPA 5615 KIRBY, SUITE 640, HOUSTON,
TEXAS 77005 TEL: 713-520-5592 FAX:
713-520-9968 charlie@gerhardtcpa.com www.gerhardtcpa.com |
Charles was not named as an expert on March 3, 2014 |
2014-12-01 Carole Designation of Experts
|
Ms. Darlene Payne Smith Ms. Lori A. Walsh Crain, Caton
& James 1401 McKinney, Suite 1700 Houston, Texas 77010-4035 713.658.2323 713.658.1921 (Facsimile) Ms. Smith and Ms. Walsh will
testify as to the reasonableness and necessity of attorney’s fees in this case. |
LORI A.
WALSH CRAIN, CATON & JAMES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1401 McKinney, 17•h Floor Houston, Texas 77010-4035 lwalsh@craincaton.com |
2014-12-01 Case
412249-401 PBT-2014-387708 Carl expert Witness designation
|
Bobbie G. Bayless Bayless & Stokes 2931 Ferndale Houston, Texas 77098 713.522.2224- Telephone 713.522.2218- Telecopier bayless@baylessstokes.com |
Charles Gerhardt, CPA 5615 Kirby Drive, Suite 640 Houston, Texas 77005 713.520.5592 -Telephone 713.520.9968- Telecopier charlie@gerhardtcpa.com |
|
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. |
|
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
CASES RELATED BY OPERATIVE FACTS AND PARTICIPANTS
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) More Mendel LiesIn 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 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. Remember where we started?· 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. Tex. Pen. Code § 7.01 - Parties to Offenses(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. Tex. Pen. Code § 7.02“(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.” Tex. Pen. Code § 32.45
“(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 Family Generational Asset Transfers
Grift of the
Brunsting’s – A Case in Point
Let’s start
at the agenda’s predisposed point of arrival:
How to Steal
Your Family Inheritance
List of
Valid Trust Instruments
The Hurrah’s
and the illicit changes following each
2008-06-09 Elmer declared Non-Compos mentis
Nelva is
subjected to competency evaluation
2010-11-17 Freed email re Nelva Competence
2011-11-11 Nelva Brunsting passes
The Probate
Mafia Color of Law Back End Exploitation of the Estate Planning Setup
Summary with
Review of Grift of the Brunstings – Part 1
The Reprobate
Exception and the Rooker-Schnooker
Denial of
Due Process under Color of Law Title 42 U.S.C. §1983
Attorney
Bobbie G. Bayless Texas State Bar No. 01940600
Silence
Where There Is A Duty To Speak Is Fraud
Champerty, Maintenance,
and Barratry
Denial of
Substantive and Procedural Due Process 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Elements of
Breach of Trust (breach of fiduciary)
Attorney
Bernard Lyle Matthews III Texas State Bar Number: 13187450
2012-03-06
Affidavit of Amy Brunsting [Doc 10-1]
Vacek &
Freed et al, Continuing the Swindle
Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeal No. 12-20164
George Vie
III, Texas State Bar No. 20579310
Pending the
5th Circuit Appeal
Maureen Kuzik McCutcheon
Texas state Bar No. 00784427
Harris
County Probate Court 4 No. 412248 & 412249
BAYLESS USES
A DISABLED CARL BRUNSTING TO OBTAIN LETTERS TESTAMENTARY
i. Harris County 164th District Court No.
2013-05455
Attorney
Zandra E. Foley, State Bar No. 24032085
Southern
District of Texas No. 4:12-cv-592
Application
for Preliminary Injunction
Harris
County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-401
Barratry,
Champerty and Maintenance
Estate of
Elmer H. Brunsting [No. 412,248]
Estate of
Nelva E. Brunsting [No. 412,249]
SDTX No.
4:12-cv-592 Preliminary Injunction
Appointment
of a Special Master [Dkt 55].
Attorney
Jason B. Ostrom Texas State Bar No. 24027710
Contradictions
and Want of Standing
Attorney
Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar No. 13930650
Attorney
Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678
Attorney
Gregory Lester Texas State Bar No. 12235700
Attorney
Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678
Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization
Curtis et
al., vs. Kunz-Freed et al., SDTX No. 4:16-cv-1969
Case
4-16-cv-01969 July 5, 2016 – May 16, 2017
If there is
a decedent’s estate to administer, what’s in it?
Texas
Estates Code Sec. 32.001
Contradictions
and Fatal Conflicts of Interest
Breach of
Trust or Wrongful Possession: It Has To Be One, the Other or both
Vacancy in
the Office of Executor & Agreed Order to Consolidate
Attorney
Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar No. 13930650
Attorney
Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678
Defendants
No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgement
Attorney
Cory S Reed, Texas State Bar No. 24076640
i. 2019-05-15 Amy Brunstings 1st Motion for Sanctions
Breach or
Wrongful Possession?
2019-06-28 412249-401 Hearing Transcript
Attorney
Candice Schwager Leonard Texas Bar No. Bar No. 24005603
2019-11-04 A
Brunsting's 2nd Motion for Sanctions
2019-11-04
Amy & Anita Brunsting Orig. Counterclaim.pdf
2022-02-25
Order for Summary Judgment
Statutory
Delegation of Authority
CASES
RELATED BY OPERATIVE FACTS AND PARTICIPANTS
Tex. Pen.
Code § 7.01 - Parties to Offenses
[1] There is no such thing as a neutral 3rd party. The insertion of a 3rd party interloper should be recognized as either a red flag or a strong indication that the settlors did not want any of the other beneficiaries to be trustees other than those named therein!
[2] A HIPPA waiver in your estate planning attorneys papers should be seen as a red flag!
[3] The New Decedents Trust, New Survivors Trust, New Family Trust, all dated November 22, 2011, eleven days after Nelva’s passing. Nelva’s passing was an event that triggered the termination of the survivors and decedents trusts by creating the 5 resulting trusts that never manifest due to a want of funding by the alleged co-Trustees.
[4] or 5 personal asset trusts as their alleged 8/25/2010 QBD/TPA and Amy’s affidavit claims. This instrument is not in evidence and they will not produce it and attempt to qualify it as evidence because they cannot.
[5] Filing two halves of the same lawsuit in two separate courts is a red flag. It’s obvious at this juncture that remedy for her client, Carl Brunsting, is not what attorney Bobbie G. Bayless was after.
[7] or 5 personal asset trusts as their alleged 8/25/2010 QBD/TPA and Amy’s affidavit claims
