Wednesday, December 16, 2009

RICO in the New York State Unified Court System

The judges and their colleagues in the New York State Unified Court System are operating under the umbrella of "absolute immunity" in order to rob and harass you and convert your property to their ownership. Dont fool yourself into thinking that anyone in the State legislature doesn't know this is happening, and wants to do anything about it. You just have to outsmart them all by documenting everything, like I did. I may not win my lawsuit against them in Federal Court, but I now have the intervenors/conspirators online for the public to see how it all works. Please share this information. Betsy Combier

RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them. Part I

People are being victimized by the courts of America's "justice system" every day, often without knowing anything until it is too late, and you are left without your property, family member and/or child. Judges threaten lawyers - the people who are being paid by you to defend you and protect your interests - and make the Attorneys facing the Court do what "they" - the judges and their political partners - want, and work with the "fixer" to steal property, take children, and plunder estates for personal gain. I know what 'they' do, because when my church - Madison Avenue Presbyterian, ("MAPC") in New York City - came after me in 1998 after my mom's death, I was an innocent victim of a collusion so powerful, I almost died in the hospital on July 21 2006. However, I did survive, and I am now helping any person who is harassed/victimized/harmed by this conspiracy of harm in our nation's courts.
Fred Anderson
When my mother died during the night March 15-16 1998, I had no idea that my church, the New York City Presbytery, and the Judges and courts of New York State would collaborate on an eleven-year campaign to defame and harass me for researching their organized conspiracy to commit extortion and coercion and for being named, in my mom's Will, the beneficiary of my mother's apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York City. The Surrogate's Court in New York City is located at 31 Chambers Street. The Public Administrator's office is on the fourth floor, while the Surrogate Judges - Interim Acting Judge Troy Webber and Judge Kristen Glen - are on the fifth floor of this building. Their jobs are to convert property from your ownership to theirs, and take whatever cash is available through altering Wills and/or outright theft of property. I call this a form of Court-supported eminent domain policy. Since 1998 I have been subjected to this gang, all of whom are now named in my Federal Lawsuit, and I have documented all of their actions and conversations. In New York State it is the law that anyone can tape anyone else without telling the person who is being taped, if you are in the conversation. When Mary Santamarina, the senior Attorney for the Surrogate Judge (Renee R. Roth) in the law department at 31 Chambers Street, started calling me up with lawyer Kenneth Wasserman, the man who has made all the errors for the past eleven years while carrying the burden of making the RICO work, I turned on my tape recorder. I guess you could say that the intervenors picked the wrong person to make into a victim. I may die before getting any relief, but I wont die a victim.

Santamarina and Wasserman threatened me, screamed at me, and tried their very best to alter my reality. I didnt fall for it. A man named "Bill Jorgenson" from Eliot Spitzer's office called me and did the same thing. I wouldn't fall for that either. But it wasnt easy, and when Judge Roth ordered my mother's last Will out of existence on July 21, 2006, my heart failed and I spent three days in the hospital as the doctors tried to get my heart back on track. Fortunately for me and you, the general public, they were successful, so that I can bring this story to the internet and, if something does happen to me, the people involved can be held accountable for setting up the RICO of the New York State Unified Court System.


MAPC was unionized when my mom and I started helping the building staff in 1994. However, the Pastor, Dr. Fred Anderson, was harassing the building staff in order to bust the Union, Local 32 B&J and remove the union from the church. Additionally, the Trustees of MAPC were engaged in using the church property to finance real estate deals for "political friends" (both members and non-members of the church) with Mr. Gregory Moundas of the law firm Proskauer Rose. A Partner at Proskauer, the late Stephen Rachow Kaye, was the husband of the Chief Judge of New York State, Judith Kaye, arguably the single most powerful person in the State of New York. This really is the perfect crime. Due to the Establishment Clause in our Constitution, there is a separation of church and state in America that works for some, but not others, in putting religious institutions above and outside of the law (whenever it suits "them"). My mom, Julia Taschereau, understood that the Church that she donated her life to was the perpetrator of theft, false claims, and crimes against the public, so she kept her volunteer job at MAPC for more than 49 years, telling me everything that was going on at 921 Madison Avenue, 7th floor.

Fred Anderson knew that I was hearing about what he and the Trustees were doing, and admitted at his deposition in 2001 that they decided to get rid of me as soon as my mother died or was incapacitated. In 1996 Fred and the Associate Pastor Charles ("Chuck") Amstein joined up with my twin sister Julia Danger ("Jill") to destroy the relationship that my mom and I had, which was a close mother-daughter loving friendship. Fred, Chuck, and Jill started writing my mom and calling her up to say that I was a terrorist, I was "crazy", and other such things. Instead of pulling my mom away from me and my four daughters these attacks made her angry. She silently despised Fred Anderson for his treatment of the staff at the Church and then of me.

You cannot understand this story unless you get to know the person my mother was. She was born on Valentine's Day February 14, 1914, in New York City, to newspaperman/journalist Samuel Strauss and Broadway theater angel Irene Rosenfield, both of whom were of German descent and they married in Des Moines, Iowa in 1903. Julia Strauss was their only child, and they raised her in New York City, Katonah New York, Paris and London. My mom was a people magnet. All her life she drew people to her with a genuine interest in this person's life and hopes for the future, and her caring nature. She had the lightest and biggest blue eyes I have ever seen. She gave parties at her apartment every couple of weeks for the church choir or for someone's birthday, and her apartment was always packed with people because everyone and anyone was always welcome, until the beatings from my sister Jill became extreme, and there were no parties when Jill arrived for her summer visits. My mom had a lawyer write a Will in November 1997 and she arranged for the signing ceremony to be at her apartment, after Jill threw her to the floor on July 25, 1997 and put her into the hospital emergency room.

When my mom died in her sleep after working at the Church all day (the night of March 15, 1998), Chuck told Fred that I had received my mother's apartment in the Will. They immediately contacted Guide One Insurance Company and an Attorney called "Kenneth Wasserman". They gave Mr. Wasserman the job of torturing me into giving up the apartment, and silencing me from talking - or writing - about Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church. Luckily for me, Wasserman turned out to be incompetent at implementing the corruption and fraud that the Church management, Presbytery, and their colleagues in the New York State Court System wanted to set up. On June 8, 2009, I filed a lawsuit in Federal court that was the end result of their 11-year scheme to rob me and harm me and my family. See below.

Kenneth T. Wasserman

Second Amended Complaint
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13

Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian

The bench trial (trial without jury) on the issues of the capacity of Julia Taschereau and undue influence began on August 4, 2009 after 11 years of fraud on the Surrogate Court by Julia Danger and her alleged Attorney Kenneth T. Wasserman, who was, in 1999, fraudulently designated the real person of interest in these proceedings by this Court. The judge, Troy K. Webber, was already being sued by me for locking me in her courtroom on April 1, 2009, and threatening me that I could not put the tape of the meeting on my website. I brought a sound engineer to the personnel office of the court on April 10, 2009, and we copied the two-hour proceedings, and then I made a transcript of the meeting. Troy Webber was appointed to the Interim position after Nora Anderson won the election for Manhattan Surrogate to replace Renee R. Roth, but then Anderson was indicted for fraud along with Attorney Seth Rubenstein (who, by the way, I saw in court with Troy Webber on June 9, 2009).

From 1998 to 2006 I was not fully aware of the conspiracy that was working to harm me, but in November 2005 I ("Proponent") found a handwritten note in the Surrogate's Court case file showing that Law Dept Attorney Mary Santamarina told Mr. Wasserman to remain in the Court of Judge Renee Roth, and she gave him the Roth calendar for 1999.

But Mary Santamarina and former Judge Renee Roth knew that these proceedings, the Probate Proceedings of the Will of Julia Taschereau, could not stay in the courtroom of Judge Renee Roth due to the conflict of interest with Proponent’s witness Henry “Hank” Sheinkopf, who knew my mother. My mom liked Hank a lot because she thought he was very smart and he was on TV, which made him a TV star in her eyes.

In Wasserman’s case of undue influence, he cited the collusion of Proponent with Henry Sheinkopf to obtain the services of an employee in his office who also happens to be an Attorney, Mr. Kenneth Brown.
I did not do this, and this was part of the fairytale that Wasserman has made up and the conspirators have followed and used against me since 1998. In 1999 Wasserman filed a lawsuit against me in New York State Supreme Court, saying that I converted money from the Samuel Strauss Trust (created in 1953 by my grandfather, for me and my sister Jill) that my mom lived on, to my own use. Only Jill and I had already closed the Trust at Banker's Trust, and signed a contract that there would be no liability for either me or Bankers Trust (and, I never had access to the Trust funds, anyway). Yet Wasserman was allowed to harass me from 1999 until October 1, 2009, when the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the case on my papers.

Starting in or around 2003 until 2006, as I explained to the Surrogate court on several occasions during the trial, Mr. Wasserman and Ms. Santamarina called her at home approximately once or twice a month, and they both yelled at her that she would win the Will contest but not the Banker's Trust case, made up by Wasserman, and she must immediately give her sister $375,000. Then the amount became $300,000, then $200,000. The threats were abusive. I knew that there was no Trust case, so I was able to withstand these attacks and say no. I knew that the only case over which the Surrogate Court had any jurisdiction was over the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau, just as Judge Roth admitted in July 2006, five days after she ordered my mom's Will out of existence.

This Court handed Proponent and Wasserman alleged “certified” copies of the proceedings of April 1, 2009, during this trial just ending, and in these proceedings Judge Webber tells Proponent that she cannot tape Mr. Wasserman nor Mary Santamarina. New York State law allows a party to a conversation to tape another party if he/she is part of the conversation, without the other party knowing about it. On April 1, 2009 Interim Acting Surrogate Troy Webber locked Proponent Combier inside the Courtroom #509, and prevented Proponent’s two colleagues with her, from entering. Both colleagues were there simply to sit in the room and make sure that Proponent Combier did not have heart failure like she did in 2006 when Judge Roth ordered the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau out of existence for about five days. A complaint was filed against this court and Court Officer Randy Dash with badge number 4689 with this court.

For this act and others Proponent sued Surrogate Webber and Mary Santamarina on June 8, 2009 in United States District Court, Southern District, and filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 24, 2009. Proponent alleged every day of trial that the trial forced upon her by Surrogate Webber without a jury was a fraud and was scheduled because Judge Webber wanted to retaliate against Proponent for suing her. Every day of trial Judge Webber insulted Proponent, complained about her being the “problem”, and explained all the reasons for Ms. Combier being a problem for the court. Herein is evidence of prejudice against Proponent by this Court and by Mr. Wasserman, an “Attorney of the Court” as a visitor described him. Every ruling and every insult by the Court to the character and actions of Proponent during the trial must be viewed through the prism of bias and prejudice against her, by the Manhattan Surrogate Court and Defendants Webber, Santamarina, Levitan, Wasserman and Danger. The appearance of impropriety and prejudice to harm Proponent and damage her reputation as a person of outstanding character and integrity is a constant fact in this case, and it was for this reason that Proponent reminded this court of the prejudice on a daily basis during trial.

The Surrogate's Court never showed any concern for the constant belittling of proponent, including an order from the bench never to say “thank you” to the Court for anything. The Court characterized the Temporary Letters of Testamentary issued by Roth on July 19, 2006, that gave the position of administrator of the estate to Public Administrator Ethel Griffin, saying that Julia Taschereau died “intestate” as “only a piece of paper”. The remaining estate, which Mr. Wasserman never wanted appraised and that he removed from the apartment in 1999 and took to Croton, could never have been given to the Public Administrator. The Will should have been probated in 2001. Additionally, we found out during the testimony of Kenneth Brown that he had never heard from Mr. Wasserman since his deposition in 1999, although he was the designated Successor Trustee. Mr. Wasserman insisted that he “could not find him”. Mr. Wasserman was allowed by this Court to prevent a trial and/or closure of these proceedings for at least nine years, in violation of Proponent’s Constitutional due process rights, rule of law, laches, estoppel, and her First, fifth, seventh, and 14th, amendment rights as stated in the Constitution. In this effort Proponent states, Surrogate's Court and Mr. Wasserman have failed to overcome the errors which have made this proceeding a fraud on the Unified Court System of New York State as well as on the people of New York State.

This Court frivolously stated from the bench and in the July 17 order that brought the trial to the calendar in this court, that the “brief delay” by Charles Amstein at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church in returning Proponent’s mother’s ashes to her was just that, simply a brief delay, all the while knowing this is an actionable tort and a crime. Charles Amstein was sued in New York State Supreme Court in July 1999 for withholding Proponent’s ashes from her for eight days, and was found liable at two trials. This is a misdemeanor and also a violation of Public Health Law. Mr. Kenneth Wasserman told Mr. Amstein to withhold the ashes from Combier, and he gave the Appellate Division a secret memo about me that I found in the case file on March 15, 2005. I took a picture of the caption in Wasserman's document, where he described himself as "APPOINTMENT-RESPONDENT-PRO SE"

On August 4, 2009, the proceedings designed to invalidate the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau, begun in 1998, climaxed with the filing of a Verification signed and notarized by Julia Danger on July 30, 2009. This Verification stated that the two-page document filed on February 16, 2000 with the title “Objections To Probate” was indeed truthful, and that objection No. FIRST (number one) had been withdrawn. Surrogate's court has no power to decide on the validity or falsehood of the “Objections To Probate” due to lack of jurisdiction, laches, and testimony of Julia Danger that nothing in her “Objections” is true or known by her, and everything was conveyed to her by third parties who spoke with her attorney, Kenneth T. Wasserman (“Wasserman”). Therefore, there can be no objections recognized by this Court, and the 1997 Will must be probated. The Objections are simply hearsay, made up by Wasserman, who has no personal knowledge of any facts concerning Julia Taschereau. Julia Danger, or "Jill", admitted she knew nothing about the Objections, 7 months after these had been filed in the Surrogate's Court.

This trial was not about Julia Taschereau, but about something reprehensible to decent minds: the crushing of truth, sabotage of evidence, and denial of due process rights. This issue that needs to be addressed by the legal system of this state and. Perhaps, of this country, is how the Rule of Law was pushed aside for eleven years to punish me for whistleblowing union busting, construction sabotage and fraud at my church, and fraud on the public by a large and powerful insurance company.

I filed the following in Surrogate's Court after the bench trial before Judge Webber was over:



Proponent objected to the acceptance of the Verification notarized by Kenneth T. Wasserman and signed by Julia Danger on July 30, 2009, as invalid due to its’ untimely validation and the admission of fraud by Julia Danger at her deposition in 2000 as well at trial. This Court’s acceptance of the “Objections To Probate” on the first day of trial is prejudicial to the rights of the Proponent and cannot be valid nor can the trial be seen as equitable due to laches. The “Doctrine of laches” is based upon the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights. It is defined as neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken together with a lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity. Wooded Shores Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v Matthews, 37 Ill.App.3d 334, 345 N.E.2d 186, 189. Laches also applies here as the neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time under the circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. Lake Development Enterprises, Inc. v Kojetinsky, Mo.App. 410 S.W.2d 361, 367.
This Court has failed to address or remedy the unreasonable and unexplained delay of nine years in asserting rights which work to disadvantage Proponent. Kennedy v Denny, 237 Ky. 649, 36 S.W.2d 41, 42.
The conduct of this Court in collusion with Mr. Kenneth T. Wasserman (“Wasserman”) has placed Proponent in a situation where her rights are imperiled and her defenses embarrassed. This is the basis of laches. State v Abernathy, 159 Tenn. 175, 17 S.W.2d 17, 19.

Laches requires an element of estoppel or neglect which has operated to prejudice a party, and this is the case in this proceeding. Estoppel by laches is a failure to do something which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time. Hutchinson v Kenney, C.C.A.N.C. 27 F2d 254, 256; namely, that Danger needed to file a Verification in 2000, not 2009.

In the proceedings pursuant to validating the 1997 Will of Julia Taschereau (“proceedings”) which has remained before this Court for eleven years, probate of the Will should have been considered in 2001 when all the 1404 depositions as well as the depositions of draftsman Kenneth Brown, Julia Danger, and Elizabeth Combier were completed. Proponent attempted to get the necessary relief at that time, but was prevented from enforcing her rights to the property left to her by her mother by Wasserman and this Court. Croyle v Croyle, 184 Md. 126, 40 A.2d 375, 379.

Estoppel in pais (equitable estoppel) rests upon the principle that when a person by his/her acts causes another to change his/her condition to his detriment, the person performing such acts is precluded from asserting her right which she otherwise might have had. Peplinski v Campbell, 37 Wash.2d 857, 226 P.2d 211, 213. Estoppel by laches is presented here and Julia Danger, the party estopped, had knowledge of the transaction to deny Proponent her property rights, yet mislead Proponent to her prejudice. Wisdom’s Adm’r v Sims, 284 Ky. 258, 144 S.W.2d 232, 235, 236.


The Surrogate Court Procedure Act (SCPA) grants full and complete general jurisdiction in law and in equity to administer justice in all matters relating to estates and the affairs of decedents, and upon the return of any process to try and determine all questions, legal or equitable, arising between any or all of the parties to any action or proceeding, or between any party and any other person having any claim or interest therein, over whom jurisdiction has been obtained as to any and all matters necessary to be determined in order to make a full, equitable and complete disposition of the matter by such order or decree as justice requires. SCPA §201, Const. Art. VI §12.

SCPA §203: The jurisdiction of the court is exercised by the commencement of a proceeding in the court. All proceedings are special proceedings and are commenced by filing a petition.

SCPA §303: All pleadings shall be verified.
The fact that Danger’s “Objections To Probate” were filed on or about February 16, 2000 in Surrogate’s Court and not verified until the first day of the trial, August 4, 2009 is a jurisdictional defect which required dismissal of the Objections. Danger never made a motion to correct this error, and therefore this Court never took jurisdiction over the objections nor Objectant, and this is a basis for rejecting the “Objections To Probate”. Red Roof Inn Inc. v Penninpede, SP 5454/07; District Court, Nassau County, 2007; this court has had no subject matter or individual jurisdiction over Danger to be given any power to rule on the proceedings cited herein. Pinner v Pinner, 33 N.C.App. 204, 234 S. E.2d 633
Proponent Combier made consistent references to the unverified “Objections To Probate” as fatally defective, but this Court took no notice. Thus this Court had no power to verify any “Objections To Probate” because the conditions essential to the exercise of jurisdiction have not been complied with. This court never took subject matter or personal jurisdiction over Julia Danger and her “Objections”.

The Surrogate Court lacks the power to determine the rights of persons not parties to a proceeding and over whom there is no jurisdiction. In re Crighton’s Estate, 20 NY2d 124, 281 NYS 2d 811, 228 N.E. 2d 799 (1967).

These proceedings should have been closed in or about 2001, and Mr. Wasserman should be sanctioned for neglecting his duties to this court by withholding the 1404 testimony as well as the deposition of Kenneth Brown for nine years.


The “Objections to Probate” were defective as there was no verification, and this was not corrected until August 4, 2009, however by then Danger had denied the truth of her objections.

Julia Danger told the Court that her mother was “fine”, “”competent” at all times, denying the truth of her own Objections. The statement from her deposition was read into the record: “My mother seemed capable of – she was herself. ..She was – her mind was fine". And, Jill added, there must have been undue influence, but I knew nothing about it.

Julia Danger refused to answer any questions about her evidence of “undue influence” because her lawyer told her about the evidence, she had no personal knowledge of anything. She testified that she found out about the threats of Proponent from her lawyer, who was told by Maryanne Weaver. This is hearsay. Maryanne Weaver is also the wife of John Weaver, the designated executor of the 1989 Will of Julia Taschereau. The testimony that neither Maryanne Weaver nor John Weaver knew this fact before the death of Julia Taschereau is not credible, and is not true.

After the deposition of Maryanne Weaver Proponent testified that she was concerned about the health of Mrs. Weaver, and called her up. Mrs. Weaver told her during this call that Mr. Wasserman had told her to make up the lie about how Proponent was going to sue her mother, and that was why she started shaking at her deposition. She knew, she told Proponent, that this was not true testimony. Mr. Wasserman was creating a fraud.

The Objections To Probate are, therefore, hearsay and must be stricken from the record. The only part of Danger’s testimony that is believable is that she never heard anything about undue influence nor did she ever believe that her mother was not of sound mind. She “knew” about Proponent’s threats about moving to New Jersey and leaving Julia Taschereau alone, from her lawyer, Mr. Wasserman, who spoke to Maryanne Weaver about it.


(A)All the witnesses at trial testified in court to the alertness, and full capacity of Julia Taschereau at all times. Virginia De Bono remembers seeing her the day she died, and had conversations with her at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church the day that Julia Taschereau died, March 15, 1998. Mrs. De Bono gave Julia Taschereau the money for the concert that day, showing that she was capable of handling money and that the church and the 300+ people who attended that concert saw her handle the admission fees as well.

(B) Ann Connor said that Julia Taschereau was always “chipper as a cracker”, meaning that she never observed any change in the way Julia Taschereau acted on her job or with her friends. Mrs. Connor and all the other witnesses stated that Julia Taschereau was always at her volunteer position at the church, “every day”.

(C) Priscilla McOstrich testified that she never saw Julia confused about anyone’s name, or any information. Scott Vanos, Mary Hanley, Hank Sheinkopf, Kenneth Brown, and Charles Amstein never saw Julia act strangely or with any confusion about who she was or where she was. Mrs. De Bono said that Julia Taschereau was a strong person mentally and knew what she wanted.

(D) Diane Stennett, Julia Taschereau’s home care aide from November 4, 1997 until the end of December 1997 saw Julia Taschereau doing her work and never saw any lack of capacity. In fact, her testimony is that Julia Taschereau didn’t just ask her to be a witness to the signing of the Will on November 21, 1997, but demanded it:

Page 19 of the July 29, 1998 deposition of Ms. Stennett was read into the record and here it is:

Q: Did Mrs. Taschereau ever speak with you about a Will?
A: Yes
Q: When was the first time that she spoke to you about a will?
A: I think it was about three or four days prior. I know it was like this week, and the other week was signing. She said to me that – she’s asking me if I could be a witness on her Will, and I jokingly said to her, “No”, to see her reaction, and she said, “Why? And I said, “Because I’m too young”, and she said, “Oh no you’re not, and I want you to be a witness on the Will. “ I said, “No”. She said, “Yes, If you cant do it, then I’ll have to make you do it” So I said, “Okay, I guess you win this one”. We were just joking about it.

Ms. Stennett testified that she observed Julia Taschereau during these moths always understanding what was going on and that Julia Taschereau was always alet. (p. 37, deposition 1404)

(E) the hospital records submitted to this court from Lenox Hill Hospital and De Witt nursing Care show that Julia Taschereau was always “alert”, conversing with people, and mentally sound.

Proponent has met her burden proving sound mind and capacity on the part of Julia Taschereau throughout the years 1995-1998.


(A)Julia Taschereau was never of “unsound mind”. The law states that unsound mind exists when there is an essential deprivation of the reasoning faculties, or where a person is incapable of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life.

Undue influence is that persuasion that overpowers the dominated party’s free will or judgment that he or she cannot act intelligently and voluntarily, but acts, instead, subject to the Will or purposes of the dominating party.

There is no evidence whatsoever by any witness at trial to any domination over Julia Taschereau by Proponent. In fact, this would have been impossible, according to all the testimony.

Priscilla McOstrich, a person who was personal friends with Julia Taschereau for more than 40 years at the time of Julia’s death in 1998, observed Julia at parties at Julia Taschereau’s apartment in 1997, especially November 2, 1997. Julia spoke to Priscilla about her apartment and how she did not want Jill Danger to come and stay. Julia told Priscilla that Jill was stealing items from her apartment, and that she was afraid of her daughter Jill, not Betsy. These types of conversations took place three weeks before she signed her will in front of three witnesses and her draftsman, Kenneth Brown.

Julia Danger “knew” that there “must have been” some undue influence over her mother. But Julia Danger never verified her Objections until the first day of trial on August 4, 2009, and even after she verified her objections and the Court fraudulently accepted them, she still never gave any instance of undue influence over the Will and her mother by Proponent.


(A)So, why was Jill Danger removed from the 1997 Will, deliberately, by Julia Taschereau?

Robert Siegel was asked by Julia Taschereau to become the successor Trustee of a Trust in name only as a “legal shield” against Julia Danger’s constant attacks against Julia Taschereau. Mr. Siegel’s testimony is so powerful and credible that Mr. Wasserman interrupted him and made him an interested witness after he started his testimony at trial. Then Mr. Wasserman lied about the Trust set up with Julia Taschereau, Elizabeth Combier and Robert Siegel and stated that it was still open! Proponent objected and asked for proof, which Mr. Wasserman could not produce. The trust ended at the death of Julia Taschereau in 1998. It was a revocable Trust, and Julia Taschereau knew this and could have revoked it at any time. Julia Taschereau also had the telephone number of Kenneth Brown, and could have changed her Will signed on Nov. 21, 1997 if she had wanted to.

On February 14, 1996, Robert Siegel was told by General Elm Properties that Julia Taschereau’s maintenance was in arrears. Mr. Siegal spoke with Julia Taschereau at a meeting in her apartment, at which Julia Taschereau asked for help with her finances as well as with Jill Danger’s abuse. As a friend, Mr. Siegel agreed, and never received any money at all.

Soon after that Julia Taschereau asked proponent to help her with her checks and her money, and told her that she had signed a Power of Attorney and wanted Proponent to assist her. Proponent did not want to take on this responsibility, as she has four children and a Thheater company for disabled children, but Julia Taschereau insisted. The testimony of Charles Amstein and Maryanne Weaver support the fact that Julia Taschereau wanted her daughter Betsy Combier to take the Power of Attorney so that she could get her finances in order. Starting in 1996 Proponent kept records of every check signed by her in a log that remained at Julia Taschereau’s apartment. All notations were made contemporaneously, and Julia Taschereau approved every entry.

Maryanne Weaver also stated that Julia Danger was demanding money from Julia Taschereau. But Julia Taschereau called Julia Danger’s financial representative in 1996, Dee Osborne, and asked her how much money Julia Danger had at that time. Ms. Osborne said “more that $200,000.”

In 1996 Julia Danger wrote a letter to her mother Julia Taschereau describing how “Chuck, Tita, Gary, everyone…thought Betsy needed to be in a mental institution” On July 14, 1996, Chuck Amstein called up Proponent and told her that she disgusted him. This call and Julia Danger’s letter were the two events which started Julia Taschereau not wanting Julia Danger near her. Julia Taschereau’s fear of Julia Danger had nothing to do with Proponent, but this was a reaction to Julia Danger’s increasingly hostile and abusive behavior in 1996 and in 1997 towards her mother.

In July 1997 Julia Taschereau was harmed while Julia Danger and her children were staying with Julia Taschereau. But Julia Danger flew to California on July 26, 1997 anyway, leaving Julia Taschereau on the sofa in pain. Anne Connor called Proponent who took Julia Taschereau to Lenox Hill Hospital. Upon information and belief, the hospital records on that day, which Lenox Hill never submitted to this court, show that Julia Taschereau had an accident at the hands of her daughter and/or her grandchildren.

After this injury, Julia Taschereau called people to do a Will for her and made the Will happen according to her wishes, not those of proponent.

The fraud on this court made up by Mr. Wasserman that there was undue influence over Julia Taschereau by her daughter Elizabeth Combier has failed, there is no evidence or testimony to these alleged acts. The deceit of nine years on this court by Kenneth Wasserman must stop.

A request from Betsy Combier:

A current update of this story occurred on Sunday, August 16, 2009, when a friend of a friend called me at approximately 2:10PM, a Mr. John Libecci. Mr. Libecci is, I understand, a private investigator who knows a friend of mine socially. I asked whether he could help me find out some information involving my federal court case filed in United States District court on June 8, 2009 involving the Surrogate Court and my mother's Will. After I told him about the property being taken by the court, he told me that the court never takes property without a reason; after I told him that the Will was not probated for eleven years, Mr. Libecci told me that "obviously the Will was not done right", and said that he worked for the Courts and the Judges, would not tell me what he did for the Court and the judges, then hung up. If anyone has information about Mr. John Libecci please email me at

You may send me any information anonymously.

No comments:

Post a Comment