“Our government… teaches the whole people by its example. If the government
becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to
become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Justice Louis Brandeis dissenting opinion in the 1927 case of Olmstead
v. United States involving government wiretap recordings obtained without
warrant and used as evidence to convict a police lieutenant for bootlegging.
The following individuals, attorneys, judges and their “clerks”
- Attorney Candace Kunz-Freed, Texas State Bar No. 24041282
- Attorney Bernard Lyle Matthews III, Texas State Bar No.
13187450
- Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless, Texas State Bar No.
01940600
- Attorney Jason B. Ostrom Texas State Bar No. 24027710,
Fed. Id. No. 33680
- Attorney Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar No. 13930650
- Attorney Gregory Lester Texas State Bar No. 12235700
- Attorney Neal Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678
- Attorney Jill Willard-Young Texas State Bar No.
00797670
- Attorney Zandra E. Foley, State Bar No. 24032085
- Attorney Cory S Reed, Texas Bar No. 24076640
- County Employee/Appointee (Associate Judge) Clarinda
Comstock
- Former Probate Judge Christine Riddle Butts
- Harris County Texas
|
Before
we discuss the probate mafia process, we should point out that not everyone
named in this dissertation is a bad guy. There are also good guys but among
the bad (named supra), there are no distinctions to
be made between principal and accessory. Everyone that participated is a
felon that belongs caged and wearing an orange jump suit for the protection
of society. They only remain where they are because of the amount of money
that passes through the probate mobs clutches. Because money is power and influence,
the legal system has been perverted into a system of
organized theft through collusion, coercion and cronyism.
Texas Penal Code §§7.01, 7.02, 7.03
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER
SUBCHAPTER A. COMPLICITY
Sec. 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.
Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF
ANOTHER.
(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.
Texas Penal Code §31.02 Consolidation of Theft Offenses
Sec. 31.02 Theft as defined in Section 31.03 constitutes a single offense
superseding the separate offenses previously known as theft, theft by false
pretext, conversion by a bailee, theft from the
person, shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling, swindling
by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving or concealing
embezzled property, and receiving or concealing stolen property.
TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.12(a) (West 2016).
Section
38.12(b) provides that a person commits an offense if the person
“knowingly finances the commission of an offense under Subsection (a),”
“invests funds the person knows or believes are intended to further the
commission of an offense under Subsection (a),” or “is a professional who
knowingly accepts employment within the scope of the person’s license,
registration, or certification that results from the solicitation of
employment in violation of Subsection (a).” Id. § 38.12(b).
Southwest Texas Pathology Associates v. Roosth,
27 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex. App. 2000) (“ A third party
who knowingly aids and assists in the breach of a fiduciary duty may also be
liable. See Kinzbach Tool Co. v.
Corbett-Wallace Corp., 160
S.W.2d 509, 514 (Tex. 1942); Connell, 889 S.W.2d at 541”)
Omohundro v. Matthews, 341
S.W.2d 401, 407 (Tex. 1960)
The abuse of the confidential relation in these cases consists merely in his
failure to perform his promise.” 1 Scott on Trusts 253, § 44.2
The opinion also quotes 54 American Jurisprudence 178, § 233:
“A constructive trust arises where a conveyance is induced on the
agreement of a fiduciary or confidant to hold in trust for a reconveyance or other purpose, where the fiduciary or
confidential relationship is one upon which the grantor justifiably can and
does rely and where the agreement is breached,
since the breach of the agreement is an abuse of the confidence, and it is
not necessary to establish such a trust to show fraud or intent not to
perform the agreement when it was made. The tendency of the courts is to
construe the term ‘confidence’ or ‘confidential relationship’ liberally in
favor of the confider and against the confidant, for the purpose of raising a
constructive trust on a violation or betrayal thereof.”
The opinion quotes also § 44 of the Restatement of Trusts which is to the
same effect.
The following from § 194, Comment d., of the Restatement of Restitution is
particularly pertinent:
“Where one person orally undertakes to purchase land on behalf of
another, it may be urged that the other cannot enforce a constructive trust
because the undertaking is oral and there is no compliance with the
provisions of the Statute of Frauds. The answer to this objection is that the
other is not enforcing an oral contract, but is enforcing a constructive
trust based upon the violation of fiduciary duty.
* * * * * * Omohundro v. Matthews, 341 S.W.2d
401, 407 (Tex. 1960)
|
|
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.”
Texas
Penal Code §32.45 Misapplication of Fiduciary Property in Excess Of
$300,000
This is the objective of the probate mob from the onset.
Texas
Penal Code Section 32.46 – Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution
This is related to the convergence on Nelva in her home leaving her nowhere
to retreat, after having had her subjected to a competency evaluation,
knowing that guardianship was Nelva’s worst fear, they forced her to sign
resignation and appointment instruments under duress.
Texas
Penal Code Section 32.47 – Fraudulent Destruction, Removal, Or
Concealment of Writing
Where is this heinous August 25, 2010 Qualified Beneficiary Designation and
testamentary Power of Appointment under Living Trust Agreement they have been
using to threaten the disenfranchised beneficiaries in effort to extort a
“settlement agreement contract” (the next leg in the bait and switch sting).
Texas
Penal Code Section 32.48 – Simulating Legal Process
The Brunsting trust controversy is not a probate matter, a probate case or a probate proceeding,
as those terms are defined by the Texas Estates Code and there is no “estate”
to administer as that term is defined by the Texas Estates Code.
Texas
Penal Code 32.53 – Exploitation of Child, Elderly Individual, Or Disabled
Individual
|
A Few Distinctions
Probate is an action in rem. A will is a testamentary instrument and a trust
created under a will is a testamentary trust. An estate is a container object formed
by operation of law, that is used to hold the
decedent’s personal property while claims of rights to the property are
resolved. People either have a will or they die intestate. In theory, if you
have a will your worldly assets would be distributed according to your wishes
and if you pass without a will your worldly assets would be distributed
according the laws of intestate succession.
Testamentary trusts are to be distinguished from living trusts which are not
testamentary instruments but contracts among the living that either continue
until an event or date certain or terminate by the occurrence of an event or
upon a date certain. Actions against trustees are actions in personam.
A living trust is a contract that is distinguishable from other forms of contract
by the separation of legal and equitable titles to property. A trust is a
special relationship wherein legal title to assets are given to one (trustee)
by the Settlor/Founder or Grantor, to be held in trust for the benefit of
another (beneficiary) who holds equitable title to the property and the right
to enjoy the property. The beneficiary is considered the true owner of the
property. The trustee position is fiduciary and obligatory and cannot be
compelled but must be accepted voluntarily.
However, separation of legal and equitable titles are
only two legs of a proverbial three-legged stool. The third leg involves active
and passive trusts and the Statute of Uses. The obligations of the
trustee must be affirmative and not merely nominal and enforceable against the
trustee by the beneficiary or the trust becomes passive and both legal and
equitable titles merge in the beneficiary.
For a trust to exist (1) legal and (2) equitable titles
must remain separate AND (3) the trustee’s obligations to the beneficiary must
be affirmative and enforceable by the beneficiary. If the obligations of
the trustee are not active or enforceable against the trustee the trust
collapses and both legal and equitable titles merge in the beneficiary. It
necessarily follows that (1) Either the trustee has affirmative duties to
perform for the benefit of the beneficiary and they are in breach of those
obligations or, (2) they do not have affirmative fiduciary duties to perform
for the benefit of the beneficiary and they are in wrongful possession of the
beneficiary’s property if they do not transfer it to or as directed by the
beneficiary. In either event the beneficiary does not forfeit their property
interests by bringing judicial action to protect beneficial interests in
property and compel specific fiduciary performance but that would none-the-less
be the passive aggressive thesis here.
Elmer and Nelva Brunsting had a son and four daughters they
wanted to benefit from their lifetime of inherited and acquired wealth. Their
concerns were quite simply to transfer their assets to their five adult
children in equal proportions at their passing and, to minimize taxes while avoiding guardianship and probate. In order to accomplish
this purpose they retained the assistance of estate planning attorney Albert Vacek Jr.
who gave specific assurances that his products and services would accomplish these purposes. With the assistance of Albert Vacek Jr. The Brunsting’s
created an estate plan that included pour-over-wills [1], [2] and a living trust. Vacek also had other attorneys working for
his firm and at some point he added attorney Candace Kunz-Freed and changed the
name of the firm to Vacek & Freed.
Elmer
Brunsting passed April 1, 2009 and Nelva Brunsting passed November 11, 2011. In theory, Elmer
and Nelva did everything correctly as, under the law, all right, title and
interest in their bounty vested equally in their five progeny, via the family
trust, at the passing of Nelva Brunsting on November 11, 2011. Nevertheless,
ten years after the passing of the second settlor, when property rights vested
in the five-successor beneficiary’s, not one dime from the Brunsting Trust had
been transferred to any of the trust beneficiaries with one only exception when
Carole Brunsting received $100,000.00. Her January 24, 2022 argument for enjoying her beneficial
interests is heart warming.
Can’t buy a Thrill
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 ention how many times she complained bout
not being able to get an evidentiary hearing in the probate court?
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; 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.
Order for Summary
Judgment?
On February
25, 2022 an Order for Summary Judgment adjudging Brunsting family trust
beneficiary Candace Curtis to have “forfeited her property interests”
and dismissing all claims against the alleged co-trustees was signed by
surprise visiting judge Kathleen Stone without an evidentiary hearing
being allowed in more than nine years of being held hostage for ransom
in a probate court with nothing to probate.
Here is the kind of “hearings” you get in probate. May 24, 2021 “scheduling
conference” then there is the November 4, 2021 status conference; and then there
is the February 11, 2022 Hearing on Bayless motion to Sever Carl from Candace
and a February 25, 2022 Hearing Transcript re sanctions where the “summary
Judgment” order was signed by Kathy Stone, a judge the case had never seen
before and then there is a March 31, 2022 Pretiral
conference where Judge Horwitz acts conveniently ignorant of the sham
“disinheritance” proceeding from February 25, 2022 where Judge Stone says she
was going to sign the order because Judge Horwitz said he was going to sign the
order. That’s a hell of an excuse for a stranger to enter summary judgement
when there have been no evidentiary hearings and thus, there is nothing in
evidence but the sham litigation record itself and summary judgment is only
appropriate where there are no facts in dispute and the moving p[arty is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Good luck find
the law here. This was a death penalty sanctions hearing based upon the August
25, 2010 QBD with the corruption of blood provisions, that
is not in evidence, or as a sanction for refusing to treat the probate court
like the court it pretends to be, but more likely Candace refusal to capitulate
to ransom demands and insistence upon a public trial. The jury trial she asked
for ten years earlier when she filed her lawsuit on February 27, 2012.
A trust is a mechanism used to transfer property.
Bradley v. Shaffer, 535 S.W.3d 242, 247 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2017, no pet.);
Hallmark v. Port/Cooper-T. Smith Stevedoring Co., 907 S.W.2d
586, 589 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, no writ).
If a trust is a mechanism used to transfer property, it should be more than
obvious that Elmer and Nelva intended to convey their property and, in
examining the
trust agreement, it becomes apparent that Elmer and Nelva intended to
convey property to their five issues in equal proportions (Art X Section A) at the passing of the last Settlor to die,
Articles VIII D & IX D respectively
That was 11 years ago. There is no evidence that the alleged
co-trustees ever intended to distribute the trust assets among the siblings.
They thought they would be the beneficiary’s of their
parents estate planning attorney’s betrayal only to
discover themselves hostage to their own attorneys fee ransom demands.
The pivotal
question here is obvious.
If Elmer and Nelva did everything correctly, as advertised by their
estate planning attorneys, why, after nearly ten years, have the income
beneficiaries (the true property owners) received nothing from the corpus or
income of the family trust as the Settlors intended?
The answer is Color of law Organized Crime a/k/a the probate mafia, thieves
with PhD’s, tomb raiders, grave robbers.
ALL OF THE MONEY IN
THE WORLD
Everyone dies sometime and when they do, they abandon all of their stuff. If
all of the money in the world passes through probate and gets stolen by the
probate mob (shielding their organized larceny under their own judicial
doctrines of immunity), how do people protect their family generational asset
transfers from being hijacked? That really is the question as a legitimate
legal system is supposed to provide remedy. Where does remedy lie?
According to history and as documented here, there is no remedy to be found
in the court system and all of your estate plan instruments should be drafted
in plain language and absolutely must exclude any meddling interference or fee
demands by attorneys, probate judges or other third parties. Where money is
concerned there is no such thing as a neutral 3rd party.
The Marks
Elmer H. Brunsting, trust Settlor/Beneficiary and Original Co-trustee, and
Nelva E Brunsting, trust Settlor/Beneficiary and Original Co-trustee, had a son
and four daughters.
Candace Curtis successor
beneficiary
Carole
Brunsting successor beneficiary
Carl Brunsting
successor beneficiary
Amy Brunsting
successor beneficiary
Anita Brunsting
successor beneficiary
This is a two part sting, otherwise known as a long con. It begins on the
front end with an estate planning attorney bait and switch that follows a
general script titled “How to steal your family inheritance“.
We have the aging parents, the trust, the weak links in the family moral
fabric, the disloyal estate planning attorneys and the family crisis events
that provide the opportunity to implement the “How to steal your family inheritance” plan.
What the disloyal estate planning attorneys do not tell the inheritance
thief is what happens after their efforts culminate in controversy on the front
end and that it will be followed on the back end by an exploitation, attrition,
money cow hostage ransom and extortion extravaganza run entirely by and for
attorneys. If you listen to the attorneys they are entitled to feast from the
money cow before anyone else. I didn’t see that in “the trust” but I did see mention that fees could be paid
for specific purposes, none of which have been performed by these attorneys or
their clients.
Judge Kenneth Hoyt Jr. – United States District
Court Southern District of Texas
Participants –
Good, Bad, Ugly, & Caught in the Middle
The Good
In discussing the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, one must give credit where
credit is due and that includes accolades for opposing counsel
that exhibit integrity by their actions. Mr. George Vie III meets that
description.
Mr. George Vie III
Feldman & Feldman
3355 W Alabama St #1220, Houston, TX 77098
george.vie@feldman.law
p 713-820-6902 f 713-986-9472
George Vie is an appellate litigation attorney with three decades of
experience. He has been Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the
Texas Board of Legal Specialization for more than 27 years. George focuses
his practice on appellate work, federal civil law, and governmental litigation.
Mr Vie made his initial appearance for purposes of
answering Candace Curtis appeal to the federal Fifth Circuit. That appeal was decided in Candace Curtis favor and the unanimous
opinion is published, Curtis
v Brunsting 704. F.3d 406.
After the
case was returned to the Southern District of Texas Mr. Vie continued to
represent imposter Co-Trustees Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting. Mr. Vie filed
honest and truthful pleadings and made a genuine effort at resolving and
settling the trust but was unable to obtain the cooperation of his clients.
IF THIS STORY
HAS A HEROINE IT WOULD BE:
Honest Attorney Fighting Against a Deck Stacked with
Corruption
Candice
Leonard Schwager
Texas Bar No. 24005603
The Schwager Law Firm
2210 Village Dale Ave
Houston, Texas 77059
(Tel): 832-315-8489
candiceschwager@icloud.com
http://www.schwagerfirm.com
We mentioned
earlier that no evidentiary hearings could be obtained in the probate court but
we never mentioned how this family trust came to be held hostage in a probate
court, after already having been held to contain no property belonging to a decedents estate in the federal 5th Circuit. The Brunsting
trust controversy is not a probate matter, a probate case or a probate proceeding,
as those terms are defined by the Texas Estates Code and there is no “estate”
to administer as that term is defined by the Texas Estates Code.
It’s difficult to explain why this Attorney should be considered a
heroine without the context in which that conclusion would arise. It was well
understood where this group of moral bankrupts were headed as this is an old
tired story that has been told repeatedly by endless victims. We filed
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization allegations in 2016, long before they
got to where they thought they were headed. (Which is where
they are now).
The probate mafia line of defense under RICO has traditionally been
judicial and attorney immunity, and two other
judicially created doctrines: Rooker-Feldman and the probate exception. First
by filing our claims in the federal court and not the state court we eliminated
the Rooker-Schnooker and after visiting the federal Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeal at the onset. It should also be noted that judicial and attorney
immunity are doctrines applicable to legitimate
petitioning and judicial activities. They are not doctrines applicable to crime
unless vacuous labels have replaced substance and indeed they have.
Attorney Candace Kunz-Freed
9545 Katy Fwy Ste 400
Houston, TX 77024
(7130 467-1060
Bar Card Number: 24041282
TX License Date: 11/06/2003
Freedlawyer.com
Attorney Candace Kunz-Freed – Estate Planning Bait
and switch Grifter
Candice Kunz-Freed was a named Defendant
in the professional malpractice case filed in Harris County District Court [No
2013-05455/164] by attorney Bobbie G. Bayless representing a
diminished capacity Carl Brunsting as Independent Executor for the estates of
Elmer and Nelva Brunsting without standing as Ad Litem, which would be required
to represent an incapacitated client but even then an individual with
diminished capacity could not serve as a fiduciary.
Carl resigned the office of independent executor on February
19, 2015 due to want of capacity, leaving this professional
negligence lawsuit without a plaintiff. No successor “independent executor” has
ever been appointed and after more than seven years the alleged lawsuit remains
without a plaintiff.
This case was “snatched” out of the district court and
transferred to probate where it was assigned case number 412249-403 and where
it has remained without a plaintiff ever since. The most important thing Freed
testified to at her deposition was that she couldn’t pass the State Board
Certification exam for estate planning and probate law if she tried. Page 141. This racketeering criminal continues to advertise
“the Pursuit of Excellence”
The Mathews
Law Firm
Texas state Bar No. 13187450
TX License Date: 10/30/1981
Primary Practice Location: Houston , Texas
4008 Louetta Rd PMB 261
Spring, TX 77388-4405
When Candy
Curtis realized her sisters Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting 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 compelling fiduciary
performance. 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.
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 was plead the “Probate Exception” to federal
jurisdiction. (see Docket entry 14). This of course, was long
after disloyal estate planning attorney Candace Kunz-Freed had Nelva Brunsting subjected to a
competency evaluation in effort to aid and abet her new
client, Anita Brunsting” in seizing control of the family trust. Remember Step
4 in “How to steal your family inheritance“?
Freed had her associate “Summer Peoples” set up a phone conference with “Nelva and her
children”. However, Neither Nelva nor Carl were on
that phone conference. Candy called Nelva after that conference and when Candy
told Nelva about the heinous 8/25/2010 Q.B.D. putting Anita in charge of Candace
and Carl’s shares Nelva stated that she did no such thing. Nelva followed that
conversation with a hand written note saying “that’s not true“. The next thing we hear
is an email from Carole overhearing Nelva on the phone telling Kunz-Freed to “Change it back“. Anita, Amy and Candace Kunz-Freed’s response was to have
Nelva subjected to a competency evaluation.
Attorney Jason Bradley Ostrom
Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless
Attorney Zandra Foley
Attorney Cory Reed
Attorney Christine Riddle Butts Judge – Harris County Probate Court No. 4
– elected
Clarinda Comstock – Associate Judge Probate Court No. 4 – County Employee
– Appointee
Attorney Gregory Lester
Attorney Jill Willard Young
Alfred H. Bennett – Judge, United States District Court Southern District
of Texas
Attorney STEPHEN A. MENDEL Texas State Bar No. 13930650
Attorney NEAL E. SPIELMAN Texas State Bar No. 00794678
Attorney James Horwitz – Judge for Probate Court No. 4 – elected
Attorney John Bruster Loyd
Assistant Attorney General of Texas Leslie J. Friedlander
Estate Planning bait and switch
Fraud, everything it implies as a general category of scienter tainting
the entire affair.
Breach of fiduciary
Duty of Loyalty /
Conflicts of Interest
Duty of
Impartiality
Duty to carry out
the obligations defined by the trust instrument
Duty to distribute
income to, or for the benefit of, the beneficiaries to avoid excess taxes
Misapplication of Fiduciary Property by both act and omission Texas Penal
Code § 32.45
Misapplication of Fiduciary Property held for the benefit of an elderly
person by both act and omission – Texas Penal Code § 32.53
Forgery
Fraudulent Destruction, Removal, Or Concealment
of Writing – Texas Penal Code § 32.47 –
Wiretap– telephone wiretap referred to in Candace Curtis
original federal complaint and proven by her attorneys when they
released copies of those recordings [Brunsting5838.wav] and [Brunsting5839.wav] via certified mail and used as an excuse to avoid dispositive motions hearings. Another docket control order would not
be entered for another 6 ½ years and even then the case would never see a trial
or even an evidentiary hearing.
Stalking eavesdropping on Nelva’s emails. We suspected
this by the reactions from Houston every time Candace asked her mother about
the trust on the phone or in an email.
Extortion/Intimidation
(front end) Texas Penal Code § 32.46 – Fraudulent Securing of Document
Execution
Extortion/Intimidation
(Hostage Ransom demands coupled with disinheritance threats)
Conversion
Theft of
Personage
Obstruction
of Justice
Denial of Due
Process