Monday, November 27, 2017

Jason Halle v. Peter Halle; Judge David French claims that Trust Documents are NOT important and Judge David French Awards attorneys HUGE legal fees though it seems clear that Judge French knows they all lied to him about MATERIAL FACTS.

" More than 9 years ago Peter Halle a powerful and wealthy retired Washington attorney and his wife Carolyn Lamm, a former President of the American Bar Association (2009-2010), began stonewalling the disbursement of Jason Halle’s inheritance. They were well aware of Jason’s HIV+ status, his multiple heart attacks and his many bouts of three different types of cancer.

As attorneys licensed to practice in Florida, they knew that according to the four corners of the Edward Halle Trust document, Peter Halle was violating at least a dozen Florida laws and committing alleged felonies including Grand Theft and Perjury which are being investigated.

Judge French of the Palm Beach Probate court ruled against the qualified beneficiary that had never been challenged and he ruled in favor of Peter Halle from Washington, DC, who is part of the judicial establishment and has deep pockets.

Judge French stated in court that the Trust document was not important and that the Trustee (Peter Halle) could do whatever he wanted with the Trust.

Judge French then awarded the ten attorneys that had lied to him about material facts that influenced his decision and awarded $183,811.48 in legal fees to the predator attorneys at Richman Greer.


As a result of the malicious actions of his brother and his sister-in-law Jason has already lost his home. His father had left him money with the wish that he would be able to stay in his home as long as possible and so that he could have sufficient funds to obtain good medical treatment and a high quality of life including stress free living while he was battling so many life threatening condition as a senior citizen.

Jason continues to seek justice from the Florida Courts.

Most recently he filed a personal injury suit against Peter Halle, Carolyn Lamm, Charles H. Johnson, John G. White III, Michael J. Napoleone and the Richman Greer Professional Association in the Broward County Civil Court to recover damages for the harm and financial ruin they have caused him.

The defendants gave the Court false information to get the case dismissed. Judge Michael Gates dismissed the case after the predator attorneys involved committed alleged perjury which is being investigated. "


Saturday, May 24, 2014

Ted Bernstein, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski and the case of Florida estate fraud, forgery and fraudulent documents. Ted Bernstein is HOPPING mad and wants access to EVERYTHING, Everywhere or ELSE you all are FIRED. See, if you will not aid and abet Ted Bernstein of Life Insurance Concepts, well then what's the use in him paying ya???

Ted Bernstein, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski ~ John J. Pankauski - Pankauski Law Firm PLLC sure seem to be up to NO GOOD.

Ted BernsteinLife Insurance Concepts, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski ~ John J. Pankauski - Pankauski Law Firm PLLC sure seem to be up to NO GOOD.

Ted Bernstein, Alan B. Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose and John Pankauski like to operate in the dark. The thing is God / Goddess, the Great Spirit has a way of bringing the dark to the light, in support of the "good guy" and of doing the right thing.

Poor Baby TEDDY does not want to spend another dime on attorneys who will not cover up his corruption, aid and abet him or defend his rights to break the law.

Below is an eMails that seems to suggest "Foul Play" and lawless, over the top aggressive, you be the judge. And also read this entire blog, and I would say that FLORIDA is not the best place to actually have your wishes carried out when you die. Especially not with this gang of seemingly corrupt THUGS.

oH and Ted Bernstein accusing Crystal Cox, me, of Extortion, but no BALLS to file a police report, what? If I have extorted your whiny, corrupt ASS then file a police report, ya spineless coward.

God / Goddess works in mysterious ways and this eMail is one of those ways in which the LIGHT is coming in and God is working for the Greater Good.

Thank You God  <takes a bow>  <hands firmly pressed>


"Alan - I want Eliot's deposition scheduled as soon as you can notice him.  We can discuss the strategy once he is served. I want to go through each claim with you and/or John to determine the legal necessity to respond.  If any reply is necessary, the record must be straight with respect to each.

This is a rambling, filled with contradictions that need to be exposed for what they are.  If John does not want to tangle with Eliot, remove John immediately. I am sorry to be this blunt, but I do not want to address the John issue again.

If he is not 100% in support of me as trustee, including how I have protected myself with trust assets and will continue doing so as necessary, and being aggressive and forceful, if need be, with eliot, remove him as counsel.  

I do not want to spend another unnecessary dollar with counsel that is not going to zealously defend me as trustee and protect trust assets.

I cannot be more decisive re this and I say this with no animosity - simply for efficiency sake and my best interest.

Eliot is in default of production.  Let's serve notice on him that he is in default.

I want Eliot to produce everything he has with respect to these cases, including:

Documents he refers to having that provide trusts for him and/or his children.

Agreements he has signed with my father and mother, together or separately.

All correspondence between him and my parents, together or separately concerning anything he has referenced in his ramblings through this one.

Anything and everything pertaining to iviewit, including his harassment of Jerry Lewin, Al Gortz of Proskauer and their firms.

I want court proceedings, lawsuits, all correspondence to him and from him including paper and electronic, including video tapes and electronic interviews.

History of incidents at st. Andrews school.

All correspondence with bill Stansbury. Everything related to Feaman / Stansbury

All bank accounts, credit cards, sources of income, loans and gifts.

All correspondence with anyone he has shared estate details.

All correspondence of every type with: walker, puzzio, SAHM, Diana banks, Scott banks, NACLERIO, Dietz, Gefen and every person on his email distribution list. If he doesn't comply, I want all of them deposed.

Everything in which he has mentioned my name including emails, phone calls, letters, complaints to whatever agencies he has made complaints including police, federal, state, regulatory.

Everything and anything he is doing that we are not yet aware of such as online web site attacks.

Everything connected to crystal cox concerning me and anyone else he is extorting and harassing together with her.

Manceri filed production requests. If it is possible to hand eliot a subpoena for his deposition at tomorrows hearing, that would be great. 

I also want feamans deposition taken in connection with this case and what he is doing with Eliot. 

If mediation is scheduled and you feel this is better done after the mediation, I am okay with that. If it is not, let's take his depo.

How much is in Feaman trust account that has been stolen from us? 

I want an accounting. 

Has any money been used for Stansbury defense thus far?

If we are scheduled for mediation, will this be revealed? If we are not, I want to know ASAP what is in account, I want all statements and any expenditures.

I'm sure I will think of more.

Ted Bernstein"

More information at

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Wow, the Fraud Sure Seems to be Piling Up. Is Ted Bernstein REALLY the TRUE and Lawful Trustee of the Simon Bernstein Trust? Really?

Wow, the Fraud Sure Seems to be Piling Up. Is Ted Bernstein REALLY the TRUE and Lawful Trustee of the Simon Bernstein Trust? Really?

"Plaintiffs assert that Ted Bernstein is the trustee of the Bernstein Trust and that the Bernstein Trust was a beneficiary of Simon Bernstein’s life insurance policy."


SO where is the Trust Documents anyway. Can you Imagine how much Tescher & Spallina was paid and they loose the Trust, they are involved in forgery and yet expected to still be trusted to handle estates, WOW.

"In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the beneficiaries to the Bernstein Trust are all of
Simon Bernstein’s children, including Eliot, although Eliot did not consent to being a Plaintiff in
this lawsuit. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) According to Plaintiffs, at the time of his death, Simon Bernstein was
the owner of the life insurance policy and the Bernstein Trust was the sole surviving beneficiary
under the policy. (Id. ¶ 20.) Following Simon Bernstein’s death on September 13, 2012, the
Bernstein Trust, by and through its counsel in Palm Beach County, Florida, submitted a death
claim to Heritage under the life insurance policy at issue."

"On June 26, 2013, Jackson filed a Third-Party Complaint and Counter-Claim for
Interpleader pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 seeking a
declaration of rights under the life insurance policy for which it is responsible to administer. In
its Counter-Claim and Third-Party Complaint for Interpleader, Jackson alleges that it did not
originate or administer the life insurance policy at issue, but inherited the policy from its
predecessors. (R. 17, Counter ¶ 2.) Meanwhile, it is undisputed that no one has been able to
locate a fully executed copy of the Bernstein Trust. (Id. ¶ 19.)"

"On September 22, 2013, Eliot filed pro se Cross-Claims against Ted Bernstein and
Plaintiffs’ counsel Adam Simon, among others. (R. 35, Cross-Claim.) Construing his pro se
allegations liberally, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013),
Eliot alleges claims of fraudulent conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, abuse of the legal process, common law conversion, civil conspiracy, and negligence in connection with the administration of Simon Bernstein’s Estate in the Probate Court of Palm Beach County, Florida."

The Full Document Below

Full Docket Of Heritage Union Life Insurance Case Connected to Tescher & Spallina and the Florida Frauda and Forgery Case Click Below

Is Adam Simon a Liar Liar pants on fire? Is Adam Simon lying to the courts? Does Adam Simon TRULY have massive conflicts of Interest? Gee I hope not, I hope Adam is a good guy and don't end up in PRISON with the rest of the "gang".


by Ted S. Bernstein, its Trustee, Ted S. 
Bernstein, an individual, 
Pamela B. Simon, an individual, 
Jill Iantoni, an individual and Lisa S. 
Friedstein, an individual.




"What makes ELIOT’s motion even more difficult is that the motion contains reference what may be kernels of truth regarding certain alleged misconduct that appears to have occurred in the Probate proceedings in Palm Beach County, FL. The alleged misconduct appears to involve staff and/or attorneys at law the firm Tescher & SpallinaDonald Tescher and Robert Spallina were attorneys for Simon and Shirley Bernstein while they were living, and after their deaths, they were counsel for the Estates of Simon and Shirley Bernstein (the “Estate” or “Estates”."


Kernals of TRUTH, WoW. Massive Fraud, Forgery, and putting the Eliot Bernstein Family under extreme and unnecessary duress. Oh and BREAKING THE LAW. I would say it's more than a "kernal" of truth. 

Shirley Bernstein Estate Case Docket

Simon Bernstein Estate Case Docket

"Plaintiffs and I, as their counsel, verily believe that the claims they are asserting for the 
Policy proceeds are being brought in good faith, and are well grounded in fact and law. One of 
the most important facts being that the Simon Bernstein Irrevocable Insurance Trust Dtd 
6/21/1995 was actually named a beneficiary of the Policy proceeds pursuant to the Policy. (See 
Beneficiary Designation attached to Adam Simon’s affidavit as Exhibit “A”, bates #BT000029-
030). ELIOT’s purported claims made either on his own behalf or that of his children fail to 
include reference to any document recorded with the Insurer naming ELIOT, ELIOT’s children, 
or any of Simon Bernstein’s grandchildren as beneficiaries of the Policy. 

 Most importantly, however, I shall demonstrate in this memorandum that ELIOT has 
failed to assert any facts showing that a conflict exists with regard to my representation of my 
clients in this case. Neither has ELIOT provided any factual record showing the existence of a 
conflict or any misconduct on my part."


Wow, really? Insurance Fraud, Trust Document Fraud, Real Estate SOLD by the collusion with a title company and Ted Bernstein, forged documents swearing they were signed by a dead guy and Adam Simon is rambling this ? Looks to me like Adam Simon may be spending some time in jail with Ted Bernstein and the Tescher & Spallina Gang.

You can read the whole document here and root for Adam Simon, as, well it sure looks like a pack of lies that will be biting him in the ASS soon. Oh, in my OPINION.

The Full Docket for the HERITAGE UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Lawsuit, Click Below

"The Document in Question Changes the Inheritance and Personal Property in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein" The Only Criminal Activity is the Fraudulent Notarized Documents, that's All.

WOW and none of these Guys are in Jail. Guess Forgery, Estate Fraud, Real Estate Theft And possible murder are legal in Florida as long as Tescher and Spallina "got ya covered".

Folks, what if you hired Tescher & Spallina to carry out your wishes after you die and instead they forge documents having their office gal swear that you were there and signed AFTER you DIED?

Why is the Palm County Sheriff not doing anything? Or is He? I sure know they KNOW, as they spend tons of time on my blog and I can prove that they KNOW but what my statcounter shows they have clicked on. So now what? Stall, Payoffs, more forgery, set ups??? Hmmm..

Here is the Kimberly Moran Sheriff Report

Monday, January 13, 2014

Judge Martin Colin RULES to NOT Disqualify Himself. I Believe this violates 28 U.S.C. § 455, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and 28 U.S.C. 455.

Folks, this is against the Law right? A Judge Cannot RULE to NOT remove himself.
Below we see that Judge Martin Colin, ya know the one that claimed to "maybe" read Miranda Rights to the clear forgery and fraud on the courts of those involved in the Simon Bernstein Estate, well he has RULED it's just not a good idea to REMOVE him ya see..

A Bit on the importance of an IMPARTIAL Judge

"According to, Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Second Edition,
Charles Gardner Geyh, Associate Dean of Research, John F. Kimberling Professor of
Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, a Federal Judicial Center Publication;

"For centuries, impartiality has been a defining feature of the Anglo-American judge’s role in the
administration of justice

The reason is clear: in a constitutional order grounded in the rule of law, it is imperative that judges make decisions according to law, unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest.

Accordingly, upon ascending the bench, every federal judge takes an oath to
“faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” of judicial office; and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been
construed to guarantee litigants the right to a “neutral and detached,” or impartial, judge.

Moreover, in a democratic republic in which the legitimacy of government depends on the
consent and approval of the governed, public confidence in the administration of justice is

It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges therefore admonishes judges to “act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”
and to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities"

"When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge
from hearing further proceedings in the matter.

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., a case concerning disqualification of a state supreme court justice, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that litigants have a due process right to an impartial judge, and that under circumstances in which judicial bias was probable, due process required disqualification. The Court noted, however, that disqualification rules may be and often are more rigorous than the Due Process Clause requires.

So it is with disqualification requirements for federal judges, which require disqualification when a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned."

Disqualification Under 28 U.S.C. § 455

A. Overview

1. The text of § 455 The primary source of disqualification law in the federal judicial system is 28
U.S.C. § 455. It provides, in its entirety, as follows:

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served
during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or
such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning
the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his
household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the
spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee
of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome
of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in
the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a
reasonable effort to inform himself about the
personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in
his household. 10 Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases
shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other
stages of litigation;

(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law

(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a
relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that
holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the
judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a
“financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a
mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the
organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the

(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest”
in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to
the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in
subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under
subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full
disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate
judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after
substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or
discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a
fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial
interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome),
disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or
minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the
grounds for the disqualification.
Sections (a) and (b) occupy the core of § 455 and should be read
together. The two sections divide the universe of disqualification into
two halves: the general, catch-all category of § 455(a), which requires
disqualification from any proceeding in which a judge’s “impartiality
might reasonably be questioned”; and a list of more specific grounds
for disqualification in § (b).
The remainder of § 455 is directed at implementing §§ (a) and (b):
• Section (c) admonishes judges to keep abreast of their financial
interests to ensure that they know when to disqualify themselves under § 455(b)(4).
• Section (d) defines terms employed in §§ (a) and (b).
• Section (e) provides parties with a limited opportunity to waive
disqualification otherwise required by the catch-all § (a)—
typically where the judge is poised to disqualify himself or herself sua sponte—but does not
permit the parties to waive disqualification required by the more specific provisions of § (b).
• Section (f) provides a limited opportunity for judges to avoid
the need to disqualify themselves for financial interest under
§ (b)(4) through divestiture.
2. Interpretive ground rules
a. Interpreting § 455(a) in relation to § 455(b)

As embodied in § 455, §§ (a) and (b) are conceptually separate.
Section (a) compels disqualification for the appearance of partiality, while
§ (b) “also” compels disqualification for bias, financial interest, and
other specific grounds. In contrast, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct—after which § 455 was
originally modeled—and the current Code of Conduct for United States Judges unify the two
halves conceptually by characterizing the specific grounds for disqualification as a nonexclusive
subset of circumstances in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
 For the most part, this may be a distinction without a difference—disqualification is required if
the specific or general provisions are triggered, regardless of whether the specific provisions are
characterized as a subset of or separate from the general.

On the other hand, by onceptualizing them separately, § 455 can require disqualification under specific circumstances enumerated in § (b) that might not reasonably be characterized as calling a judge’s impartiality into question under § (a). For example, § (b)(4) requires judges to disqualify themselves for financial interest
“however small,” which necessarily includes an interest so small that it could not reasonably call the judge’s impartiality into question.

Any circumstance in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under §
(a) requires disqualification, even if the circumstance is not enumerated in § 455(b).
 At the same time, when § 455(b) identifies a particular situation requiring disqualification, it will
tend to control any § 455

(a) analysis with respect to that specific situation. For example, §455(b)(5) requires disqualification when one of the parties is within the third degree of relationship to the judge. Consequently, a fourth-degree relationship to a party does not by itself create an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification under § 455(a)— although disqualification under § 455(a) might still be appropriate if, for example, the judge’s
personal relationship with the fourth-degree relative was so close as to call the judge’s impartiality into question. As the Supreme Court explained, “[s]ection 455(b)(5), which addresses
the matter of relationship specifically, ends the disability at the thirddegree of relationship, and
that should obviously govern for purposes of § 455(a) as well.”
The 1974 amendments to § 455, however, shifted the balance by requiring disqualification whenever a judge’s impartiality “might” reasonably be questioned, and the legislative history made clear that in revising the statute, Congress sought to end the “duty to sit".

“When Congress amended § 455(a), it made clear that judges should apply an objective
standard in determining whether to disqualify. A judge contemplating disqualification under §
455(a), then, should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially
presiding over the case.

 Rather, the question is whether a judge’s impartiality might be questioned from the perspective of a reasonable person,and every circuit has adopted some version of the “reasonable person” standard to answer this question.

 In the context of denying a motion for his disqualification from Cheney v. United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, Justice Scalia noted that this reasonable person is aware “of
all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” The Second Circuit has characterized the
reasonable person as an “objective, disinterested observer” who is privy to full knowledge of the
surrounding circumstances.”
“The question has sometimes arisen as to whether the standard for disqualification differs in a
bench trial where the judge’s role is even more pivotal than in a jury trial. In Alexander v.
Primerica Holdings, Inc., the court of appeals said: “We cannot overlook the fact that this is a
non-jury case, and that [the judge] will be deciding each and every substantive issue at trial . . . .
When the judge is the actual trier of fact, the need to presserve the appearance of impartiality is
especially pronounced”

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, and upon examination of the record, I, Personally believe that Judge Martin Colin is NOT impartial and is violating the constitutional and lawful rights of the victims in this case.

Judge Martin Colin SHOULD NOT, as a matter of law and the duties of his Judicial Office, be RULING on a Motion to NOT exclude HIMSELF. This is unethical, unconstitutional and sure seems to me to be Illegal.