Saturday, 24 February 2018

Alan Rose of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, ROSE, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss knew that that Judge John Philips, at his request and the request of attorney Steve Lessne of Gunster, put a Guardianship on Adults with NO Competency Hearing. This among what I believe to be a whole lot of liability caused to quite a few third parties in the Estate of Simon Bernstein and the Estate of Shirley Bernstein. I would say that ALL Lawyers involved and former Judges have HUGE Liability.

 Julian Bivins v. Curtis Rogers. Bivins v. Rogers Case:

"Will a Guardianship Judge’s orders approving your client’s actions shield you from third-party Malpractice Liability?"

"Bivins v. Rogers, 2017 WL 5526874 (S.D. Fla., June 01, 2017)

The general trend in Florida is that a third-party beneficiary of your legal services can sue you for malpractice — and it doesn’t matter that the third party was never your client, had zero privity of contract with you, and may have even been adverse to your actual client in related litigation.
This risk is especially acute in contested probate and guardianship proceedings.
Past examples include cases in which the beneficiaries of a deceased ward’s estate had standing to sue the guardian’s lawyers for malpractice (see here), estate beneficiaries had standing to sue a decedent’s estate planning attorneys for malpractice (see here), a ward had standing to sue the attorney for his former court-appointed guardian for malpractice (see here), and a successor personal representative had standing to sue his predecessor’s attorney for malpractice (see here).
Risk management:
The way most probate and guardianship attorneys manage this kind of risk is to obtain court orders approving the actions of their fiduciary clients (preferably in advance). Surely you can’t get sued for actions a judge has previously ruled are OK, right? 
That’s the question addressed in this U.S. District Court order entered in the Bivins case (which has already been the subject of some commentary on this blog; see here for my take on the court’s ruling regarding Florida’s attorney-client privilege statute as applied to fiduciaries).
Will a guardianship judge’s orders approving your client’s actions shield you from third-party malpractice liability? NO
This case involves a contested guardianship proceeding involving millions of dollars in assets that bled over into a probate proceeding. 
After the ward died his son (who had been locked in ugly litigation against his father’s court-appointed guardians for years prior to his father’s death) was appointed personal representative of his father’s estate. And guess what he did next? He sued the same lawyers he’d been litigating against for malpractice.
The guardian’s lawyers cried foul, arguing that the claims against them were barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel because the wrongful actions they were being accused of had all previously been approved of by the guardianship judge.
In what will probably come as a shock to most practitioners — the federal judge ruled against the lawyers despite the prior approving orders. Why?

Because the lawyers weren’t actually parties to the underlying guardianship litigation; they were just counsel for one of the parties (the guardian). And because they weren’t parties, they don’t get the defensive benefits of those great orders the guardianship judge had entered saying they and their client had done a great job.

Here’s how the court explained its ruling:
These claims are not barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel for the simple reason that the Defendant attorneys were not parties or in privity with any party before the guardianship court. In Keramati v. Schackow, the court held that res judicata did not bar bringing a legal malpractice case against attorneys who had represented the plaintiffs in an earlier case even though the earlier case was settled and the clients certified that the settlement was “fair and just.” Keramati v. Schackow, 553 So.2d 741 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989). 
The court observed that, in the first case, “the adequacy of the amount settled for was not litigated.” Id. at 744. Here, Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to bring its legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties against the Defendant attorneys before the guardianship court.
In so finding, the Court rejects the Defendant attorneys’ argument that they are “joint tortfeasors” with the guardians and that there is no way to distinguish the alleged harm by the Defendant attorneys from the alleged harm by the guardians. 
To the contrary, the Defendant attorneys owe duty of care to the ward as well as to the guardian. Fla. AGO 96–94, 1996 WL 680981 (Fla. A.G. Nov. 20, 1996); see Saadeh v. Connors, 166 So. 3d 959, 964 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (finding that the ward is an intended third-party beneficiary of the attorney for the guardian and that therefore the attorney owed the ward a duty of care).
Next, in arguing that summary judgment should be granted on the claims against the Defendant attorneys for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, Defendants contend that the guardianship court already determined that all the actions being complained of were made in the best interest of the ward. The Court rejects this argument. 
As discussed supra, the guardianship court never considered whether the Defendant attorneys engaged in malpractice or breached their fiduciary duties. As such, the Court will not grant summary judgment on these claims on the basis of the guardianship court’s rulings.
Jury hits lawyers with $16.4M verdict:
So what do you think happened next?

Here’s where your natural instincts as a practicing attorney used to thinking un-appealed court orders actually mean something, might be your undoing.

If a judge has previously approved every transaction you’re currently being sued over, surely a jury of your peers isn’t going to slam you for that same conduct, right? Wrong!
When the case went to trial things went very, very badly for the defendant attorneys, as reported by the Palm Beach Post in Jury hits lawyers with $16.4M for doing senior wrong in guardianship.

Here’s an excerpt:
Advocates for guardianship reform clamored in vain for years that Florida’s system failed to properly protect incapacitated seniors, that its primary purpose had been perverted to line the pockets of greedy attorneys and professional guardians with the hard-earned life savings of the elderly.
Now they can point to a new federal verdict awarding a whopping $16.4 million in a lawsuit claiming that two West Palm Beach attorneys breached their fiduciary duties while running up “unnecessary and excessive fees” of $1 million
The jury found on July 28 that attorneys Brian M. O’Connell and Ashley N. Crispin of the Ciklin, Lubitz & O’Connell firm not only breached their fiduciary duty but committed professional negligence.
The lawsuit claimed they failed to get appraisals on two high-end New York City properties being divided among family. They were not of equal value and as a result, Julian Bivins ended up with one that was worth millions less than other.
The jury’s decision to award $16.4 million makes up the difference.
So what’s the takeaway?
Shortly after the trial the primary parties settled, which means there likely won’t be any appeals of the trial court’s pre-trial orders. So for now, the last word we’ll have on whether a res judicata or collateral estoppel defense works in this kind of third-party malpractice litigation is the Bivins case, which I predict is going to give a lot of probate and guardianship lawyers heartburn."

Source of Post and Full Article

Also Check Out the Following Articles

"5th DCA: Can estate beneficiaries sue the guardian’s lawyers for estate planning malpractice?"

"4th DCA: Do the beneficiaries of an estate have standing to sue the decedent’s estate planning attorneys for malpractice?"

"1st DCA: In case of first impression Appellate Court rules successor PR has standing to sue prior PR’s attorney for malpractice"

"4th DCA: Can a ward sue the attorney for his former court-appointed guardian for malpractice?"

"Does the common-law “fiduciary exception” to the attorney-client privilege still matter in Florida?"

Julian Bivins Case Filings, Motions and Information

 third-party malpractice litigation, res judicata or collateral estoppel defense, Judge John Philips, Guardian Diana Lewis, Judge Martin Colin, Ted Bernstein Boca Raton, Donald Tescher, Robert Spallina, Mark Manceri, John Pankauski, Alan Rose, Brian O'Connell, Ashley Crispin, Judge Howard Coates, Judge Corey Ciklin, Pam Simon STP, David Simon, West Palm Beach Probate and Estate Courts, Florida Estate Case, Florida Predatory Guardianship, Estate of Simon Bernstein, Mitch Huhem Death, Real Estate Fraud, Larry Pino, Deborah Huhem, Sotheby's, John Poletto, Gregg Geffen. 

Sunday, 3 December 2017

I Wonder if Judge Diana Lewis knew more about "incapacitation" and "court-sanctioned guardian" and the Florida Statutes of LAW that apply to Guardianship than Guardian Diana Lewis seems to NOT know?

Palm Beach Post Article: "Circuit Court Judge Diana Lewis ruled in a closed-door hearing April 11 that Eric Gilbertson suffers from “limited” cognitive incapacitation and needs a court-sanctioned guardian to ensure his “welfare and safety."

Guardian Diana Lewis, on the stand as a Guardian over adults in Palm Beach County, seems to have FORGOT the actual Florida Laws Governing "Court Sanctioned Guardians".

check out this transcript linked below

Hey Guardian Diana Lewis, what would Judge Diana Lewis say about there being no adjudication of your wards as "incapable of making decisions regarding legal contracts and lawsuits"?

Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave.

"Man in settled code case declared ‘incapacitated’

"A judge has appointed Simone Witkin as a “limited guardian” to make legal and other decisions for Palm Beacher Eric Nordin Gilbertson Jr., 89, who last month settled a longstanding battle with the town by selling his Midtown home and paying $500,000 in code-violation fines from the proceeds.

The guardianship appointment came a day before Gilbertson’s 91-year-old sister, Charlotte Gilbertson, who had co-owned the 1918 house at 151 Chilean Ave., died at the VA Medical Center in Riviera Beach, where she was under hospice care. Neither she nor her brother has children, although they have two brothers who live out of state.

Circuit Court Judge Diana Lewis ruled in a closed-door hearing April 11 that Eric Gilbertson suffers from “limited” cognitive incapacitation and needs a court-sanctioned guardian to ensure his “welfare and safety.” Gilbertson, a retired U.S. Marine and sailing instructor, was adjudged incapable of making decisions regarding legal contracts and lawsuits, among other actions.

Lewis also deemed him unable to make a decision to marry, which he did March 10 — the day before his first court hearing — when he wed Elogene C. Hughes, 71. Her role and influence in his life over the past year have been a focus of the hearings.

A mental and physical evaluation of Gilbertson supported the incapacitation ruling

Lewis ordered the evaluation last month at an emergency guardianship hearing initiated by West Palm Beach attorney Bennett S. Cohn.

At that hearing, Cohn said that he first feared Gilbertson was vulnerable to exploitation after Gilbertson briefly hired him in early March to help handle a $1.575 million purchase of a house at 444 Chilean Ave. in Palm Beach, for which a contract had been signed.

In an amended petition to the court, Cohn wrote that Gilbertson had issued Hughes a power of attorney, before their marriage, to act on his behalf in purchasing what Cohn called “an unnecessary home.”

Cohn was concerned “that those exercising or attempting to exercise control over Mr. Gilbertson will deplete his assets, to the obvious detriment of him and to the possible financial advantage to themselves.”

Wife responds

None of the orders issued after the closed-door hearing specifically mentioned whether Gilbertson had been exploited by anyone. 

But in the amended petition, Cohn wrote that Gilbertson has been “under the ‘Rasputinlike’ control” of his new wife.

Elogene Hughes Gilbertson did not mention the marriage during testimony at the initial court hearing last month, nor did her husband or anyone else. She instead told the judge that she and Gilbertson had been “friends” for about a year.

She was not called to testify at the April 11 hearing and spent the duration of the proceeding outside the hearing room.

Last week, she told the Daily News that she believed attorneys and others involved in the case had colluded against her and her husband in a scam “to gain monetarily through legal fees, greed and exploitation” and that she had intended to ask the court to appoint her as his guardian. 

She has filed several objections to Lewis’ rulings.

“Eric hasn’t had his day in court, and I have not had a day in court,” she said.

In a phone interview with the Daily News last week, Cohn dismissed her objections and said the guardianship appointment has left her with no legal standing to act on her husband’s behalf.

Eric Gilbertson, who lives with his wife at her condominium in West Palm Beach, told the Daily News on Tuesday that he would prefer to have his wife serve as guardian.

“If I have to have a guardian, I want it to be my wife,” he said.

In court last month, his wife described herself as an “educator and academic” who holds a law degree but is not a practicing attorney. She also told the court that she runs an Alabama- and Florida-based foundation that helps “at-risk” children, college students and seniors, among others.

Home purchase scuttled

At this month’s hearing, Lewis authorized the cancellation of Gilbertson’s purchase of the house at 444 Chilean Ave. and ordered a related $157,000 deposit returned. The refund won’t be made until the end of a 30-day appeals period following the April 11 ruling. But the house is again being marketed for sale, said listing agent Jeff Cloninger of Sotheby’s International Realty.

Following the April 11 hearing, Cohn said that he was pleased with the judge’s decision to appoint, as guardian, Witkin, of Witkin Family Services, who has been serving in that role in a temporary capacity since the initial hearing. Witkin declined to comment about the case.

Cohn’s petition had questioned the appropriateness of the amount Gilbertson paid Fort Pierce attorney Chet Weinbaum, who in February had negotiated with the town to reduce several years’ worth of code-violation fines from $1.15 million to $500,000 — contingent on sale of the longtime Gilbertson house at 151 Chilean Ave.

Under the terms of his contract, Weinbaum earned $174,000 from the $3.1 million sale, according to court testimony. Weinbaum could not be reached last week for comment. But he told the Daily News last month that his fee was appropriate and commensurate with the work he did on the case.

John C. Randolph, the town’s attorney, said early last week that he had heard nothing to suggest that the house sale or the settlement of the code-violation fines would be called into question."

Source and Full Circuit Court Judge Diana Lewis Article

I sure hope that Judge Diana Lewis knew what Guardian Diana Lewis claims to not know.

Grinch Judge Diana Lewis said the guy cannot marry and he cannot have his wife as a Guardian. You see that would not be in the CRIMINALS best interest. 

Why not contact the out of state siblings? It is not another planet? 

Why does/did Judge Diana Lewis seem to know, and presumably uphold the laws of Florida Guardianship, yet Guardian Diana Lewis don't seem to have a CLUE?

Guardian Diana Lewis, I allege, is in VERY BIG trouble indeed. She seems to think there is no issue with taking control of the lives of healthy, strong, clear headed, NON-Incapacitated adults simply for the BLATANT and Obvious reason of making sure that attorney Alan B. Rose for Ted Bernstein Boca Raton, and attorney Brian O'Connell and his enabler Ashley Crispin get PAID. 

Seemingly with total disregard for the laws she once knew or abused. Or should have known as she saved this old guy from love, marriage, his siblings all so that the COURT, the County, the Attorneys could STEAL his ASSETS or so it seems to me.  

Anyway, I recommend that Guardian Diana Lewis look in the mirror and ask Judge Diana Lewis if it is lawful to have GUARDIANSHIP over Adults who are NOT incapacitated? Would love to witness that conflicting conversation. Hope she is sober for it, it should be a serious moment indeed.

Might be a Good Time for Guardian Diana Lewis to Confess to Judge Diana Lewis before the Ship Sinks.
"Circuit Court Judge Diana Lewis ruled in a closed-door hearing April 11 that Eric Gilbertson suffers from “limited” cognitive incapacitation and needs a court-sanctioned guardian to ensure his “welfare and safety.” Gilbertson, a retired U.S. Marine and sailing instructor, was adjudged incapable of making decisions regarding legal contracts and lawsuits, among other actions."

Hey Guardian Diana Lewis, not to be confused with Judge Diana Lewis, was your wards in the Estate of Simon Bernstein "adjudged incapable"? Did they "needs a court-sanctioned guardian to ensure their “welfare and safety.”?

"A mental and physical evaluation of Gilbertson supported the incapacitation ruling". Say Judge Diana Lewis, what do you think of Guardian Diana Lewis NOT having "A mental and physical evaluation" to support "the incapacitation ruling" of which she took Predatory Guardianship over fully capable adults in the Estate of Simon Bernstein?

As in the Article above, Judge Diana "Lewis ordered the evaluation" but Guardian Diana Lewis in the Estate of Simon Bernstein does not seem to even remember any laws that may suggest there has to be any sort of "evaluation" to simply take unconstitutional control over the lives of FULLY capable ADULTS.

Were the adults that Guardian Diana Lewis took over for "vulnerable to exploitation"? As seen in the article above?

Judge Diana Lewis would rather guardians, attorneys and courts get the guys money instead of his friend, a wife, or siblings. See its ALL to protect these poor "vulnerable to exploitation" yet VERY RICH people. More like to Rob them, ruin their lives, deprive them of love and comfort of those around them, deny their civil and constitutional rights and SEIZE unconstitutional control over their life and assets via a Predatory Guardianship.

"Vulnerable to exploitation" are the code words for attorney Alan B. Rose, Brian O'Connell, Donald Tescher, former attorney Robert Spallina and for Judge Martin Colin and Judge John Philips to gear up the Judicial greed machine to take the VICTIMS life work and make it their PAYCHECK. 

Those darn “unnecessary homes” that the wealthy own and think they can do what they want with, well heck with that. Nurses, Senior Centers, Catholic Charities, Attorneys and more "helpful people" are always on the watch for someone to TAKE Predatory GUARDIANSHIP over so they can enjoy the Riches of the "vulnerable to exploitation".

Those “unnecessary homes” MUST be SOLD so that the Predatory Guardianship Gang can get a Paycheck. Hurry call the Unethical Real Estate Broker, get a "friendly carrier" for insurance, get a PR, get our friendly nurse and doctor on board, call the attorneys, line up our friendly Judge and the cycle begins again. 

"Cohn was concerned “that those exercising or attempting to exercise control over Mr. Gilbertson will deplete his assets, to the obvious detriment of him and to the possible financial advantage to themselves.”  WOW, we would not one someone that the guy actually knew and liked to have his money or home. WE don't want to actually do the right thing and contact those out of state siblings, so we will just take guardianship of the guy and the money will come to us instead, ya that sounds like the right thing to do.


The Wife in the Story Above "believed attorneys and others involved in the case had colluded against her and her husband in a scam “to gain monetarily through legal fees, greed and exploitation” and that she had intended to ask the court to appoint her as his guardian. "

AND I Believe She was RIGHT. 

And Judge Diana Lewis was surely in on it, I say.

This Predatory Guardianship Scam, involving her and her predatory buddies such as Brian O'Connell, has been going on for decades and the victims have suffered in the dark with no voice. NO MORE DIANA LEWIS. No More.  Time to go to Confession. 

This Predatory Guardianship Program has been in place a long time. It is a well oiled machine of cruel, heartless, malicious greed ran by Officers of the Court, in YOUR BEST INTEREST. Ya know to protect you and keep you safe.

Having all their bases covered per say they were above the law and victims suffered and suffer in mass. Then along comes the Internet, and the VICTIMS united and well Transparency and Accountability is coming soon to a Court NEAR YOU.

Guardian Diana Lewis, Have you ever met the Capable Adults you took ILLEGAL Predatory Guardianship over? Do you even care about the Law? Justice? Civil Rights?

I Say You are an Evil ICE QUEEN dancing on the bow of the ship with the Devils Alan B. Rose and Brian O'Connell and the TRUTH will soon set your dark heart free.
Any Information, Documents or Tips on the Case in this Post or any other Guardian Case that Judge Diana Lewis oversaw, please eMail me at

Also Check Out "Niece suing for late aunt’s share of house sale"; Carla Gilbertson

I, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox will be reporting a whole lot of Judge Diana Lewis' cases and her past protection of Brian O'Connell and her long time family connection, oh and those Catholic Charities too. No STONE will go Unturned on my Watch. Stay Tuned.

Now may be a Good Time for Y'all to start rolling over and begging for a plea deal. Ya know start ratting each other out before you all go down.

Last I Saw Diana Lewis she could barely stumble out of the restroom at the court house. Surely she is "capable" of making clear headed decisions for able bodied young intelligent adults. Decisions that are right, and informed and would actually be in the best interest of her victims.

I Say Guardian Diana Lewis has broke the law willfully and maliciously and with FULL expert knowledge of the law, and this WILL NOT GO AWAY QUIETLY IN THE DARK. No Way.

Now Would SO be a Good Time to rat out that attorney that called you, (Alan Rose or Brian O'Connell) And maybe confess your sins. Just Sayin'

email Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

Friday, 1 December 2017

Julian Bivins Landmark Florida Guardianship Case exposing Florida Predatory Guardianship Program and the Attorneys, Guardians and Judges involved. Judge Martin Colin, Keith B. Stein, Alan B. Rose, Brian O'Connell, Ashley Crispin.

"Alleged Elder Negligence in Florida Leads to Multimillion-Dollar Jury Award

Case shows just how easy it is for seniors to lose control of their lives and finances.

Oliver Bivins was allegedly living in a dirty and uncared for condo in Palm Beach, Florida, when his son Julian wanted to relocate him back to  Amarillo, Texas, where the Bivins family had made their fortune in oil and gas.

“I thought it would be a no-brainer to transfer Oliver home,” said attorney J. Ronald Denman, litigator with the Bleakley Bavol Law, whom the younger Bivins had hired in 2011.

Instead, the case dragged on for six years. Denman had unwittingly signed on to an elder guardianship case in which a diagnosis of incapacitation had turned Oliver Bivins into a ward of the state of Florida along with his tens of millions of assets.

“Once Oliver was in that system, my client Julian couldn’t get his dad or assets out of it,” said Mr. Denman.

In his doting age, Bivins had reportedly fallen prey to a care manager’s emergency application for court-appointed guardianship on a weekend trip to Florida.

Court-appointed guardians Curtis Rogers and Stephen Kelly allegedly filed a motion to prevent Mr. Bivin’s son from living with his grandfather and when a judge approved it, he was ordered to move out and leave Oliver to fend for himself.

“The lawyers hired by the court-appointed guardian began attacking Julian, making him out to be a bad guy when the truth is that Julian loved his dad and wanted to take care of him,” Mr. Denman said.

About 21.6% of 1.4 million Palm Beach County residents are aged 65 years or older, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and according to the Clerk & Comptroller of Palm Beach County’s chief communications officer, Nannette Rodriguez, the number of guardianship cases has fluctuated from 2,700 to 3,000 since 2014 but Ms. Rodriguez stopped short of commenting on any specific case and declined to confirm or deny whether complaints had been filed with the Clerk & Comptroller’s office about any of the defendants.

When an individual, such as Oliver Bivins, is deemed a ward of any state of the U.S., he is stripped of his constitutional rights, civil rights and ability or right to enter an attorney/client relationship. As a result, Mr. Bivins was forced to rely upon a court-appointed guardian to do so on his behalf.

“In Oliver’s case, he was still quite aware of what was occurring but was helpless to do anything to change the direction of the guardians or the attorneys they hired,” Mr. Denman said.

It was not until Denman filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida West Palm Beach Division against the guardians, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rogers, and their attorneys Brian O’Connell and Ashley Crispin that the devoted son found relief.

The September 2015 Bivins v Rogers lawsuit alleged that Mr. O’Connell and Ms. Crispin in their role as lawyers for Mr. Rogers, while he was acting as guardian for Oliver Sr., owed similar duties to Oliver Sr. and were fully aware that the work they were doing for Mr. Rogers was for the benefit of Oliver Sr. but that Mr. Rogers and his attorney s were negligent and reckless in the exercise of their fiduciary duties to Oliver Sr., resulting in damages.

Attorney Brandon J. Hechtman, who was part of the defendant’s legal team, stated in an email that he could not provide PacerMonitor News with specific commentary.

According to court records, defendant’s counsel argued that they were representing the guardian directly as opposed to the ward and therefore should not be held responsible for the condition of Oliver Bivins or his estate because they had no direct attorney-client relationship with the ward.

“In reality, the attorneys are supposed to act in the best interest of the ward, who in this case was Oliver Bivins, because they get paid by the ward’s money,” said Mr. Denman.

For years, watchdog groups like Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship (AAAPG) have advocated for federal and state authorities to outlaw elder guardianship not only in Palm Beach County but in all 50 states.

Under guardianship, seniors are often starved, overmedicated, abused, robbed and isolated, and family members are banned from visiting, according to Dr. Sugar, who founded AAAPG in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

“Judges, lawyers and guardians are not medical professionals and should get out of the business of caring for the elderly,” said Dr. Sugar whose AAAPG acts as a clearinghouse of cases nationwide. “Victims like Julian and Oliver Bivins are among the families who have the financial means to pay for justice. Others are not so fortunate. I get new phone calls every day from family members who are concerned for the welfare of their aging family members who have been involuntarily or unknowingly placed under guardianship.”

Attorneys for Ms. Crispin and Mr. O’Connell have not responded to Pacer Monitor’s requests for comment.

To win the Bivins case, Denman based his argument on Saadeh v. Connorsin which a 1996 opinion of former Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth stated services performed by an attorney who is compensated from the ward’s estate are performed on behalf of the ward even though the services are technically provided to the guardian.  
After emigrating from Jordan with his wife, Karim Saadeh raised a family of three children and became a very successful businessman.
 After his wife’s death in 2007, Mr. Saadeh met a younger woman and allegedly began loaning her money, which his adult children objected to by contacting an attorney named Colette Meyer.  

An incapacitation petition was filed and after a hearing, the court-appointed a guardian.Butterworth further wrote, “Under the state’s guardianship statutes, it is clear that the ward is the intended beneficiary of the proceedings. Section 744.108, Florida Statutes, authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to an attorney who has rendered services to the ward or to the guardian on the ward’s behalf.”

According to the Bivins’s federal complaint, the Palm Beach County court-appointed guardians had not only allowed several of Bivins’s properties to deteriorate but also reversed the transfers of money the older Bivins initiated for Mr. Bivins, his beneficiary son.

A federal jury sympathized with Mr. Bivins plight, ruling that Ms. Crispin and Mr. O’Connell, the attorneys appointed to oversee the estate of Oliver Bivins, were deemed liable for professional negligence and for breaching their fiduciary duty to the elderly Bivins who died in 2015 at 98 years old.

In July 2017, Julian Bivins walked away with a jury verdict and award of $16.4 million


This same method and same players is happening in other Florida Cases such as the Estate of Simon Bernstein, Click Here for more on that Case and the forced Guardianship over adults.

Friday, 10 November 2017

Why is Judge Rosemarie Scher, Palm Beach County Florida seemingly perpetuating Fraud in the Estate of Simon Bernstein Case? Why Does Judge Scher continue to claim that her court has Jurisdiction to hear Trust cases, that, as a Matter of Law should be in a Civil Court?

Judge Martin Colin, Judge Scher, Judge Philips; NONE of them had jurisdiction in the Estate of Simon Bernstein Trusts. The trust cases should have been in Civil Court and instead it has been fraudulently held in a State Probate Court. This is regarding Living Trusts, Trust Law and should not be heard in the probate and family court it has been in for years.



TED BERNSTEIN, as Trustee Probate Division
of the Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement Case No.: 502014CP003698XXXXNBIH
dated May 20, 2008, as amended,

Officers of the Court have Admitted to Fraud and Forgery in this Courtroom. Officers of the court cannot prove who a Trustee is or Provide Proof of it's existence, Unlawful Guardianship OVER ADULTS, deceased closing estates,  a 2 million dollar life insurance policy paid with NO Policy (YEP now all of you can do the same, just tell Heritage Life Insurance or Jackson National you had a Policy and Magically they will pay you 2 million dollars), All this and yet Palm Beach County Florida continues to sweep all the admitted, documented crimes under the rug and continues to violate the civil and constitutional rights of the victims in the case and continues to impede due process rights for the heirs.

DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION, Judge John Robert Blakey, Case No. 1:13-cv-3643.

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), 60(b)(3) and FED R. CIV. P. 60(a)

Cross Plaintiff Eliot Ivan Bernstein (“ELIOT”), Pro Se, respectfully moves, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) for relief from this Court’s Order of January 30,
HERITAGE UNION LIFE INSURANCE CO., Civ No. 1:13-cv-3643, (Dkt. #273),
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER” issued by the most Honorable Judge John Robert
Blakey. There was a prior Round 1 Summary Judgment Order issued in this case by Judge
Blakey for the Court’s reference, (Dkt. #220).”

“1.   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment
for (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void;..or..(6) any other reason that justifies relief. F.R.C.P. 60(b). Rule 60 motions should be granted where there is a showing that justice demands it, as in this case. F.R.C.P. 60(b).

2.   Eliot Bernstein is entitled to relief from the Court’s Order issued against him on January 30, 2017 (“ORDER”), (Dkt #273), denying him standing and removing him from the
proceedings based upon Intervenor Brian M. O’Connell and his counsel and Ted Bernstein and his counsel, Adam Simon and Co-Counsel Alan B. Rose, knowingly making fraudulent representations to this Court and the Florida probate court--that Eliot was not a beneficiary of the estate of Simon Bernstein and as such did not have standing to participate in proceedings.

3.   O’Connell and Ted alleged to have secured a knowingly inaccurate order in the Florida probate court and misrepresented such order to this Court stating to this Court that it was ruled that Eliot Bernstein was not a beneficiary of his father’s estate and an alleged “testamentary” trust in order to then use such claims to deceive this Honorable Judge into granting their Motions for Summary Judgment using Collateral Estoppel against Eliot Bernstein on the same basis, knowing this Honorable Judge would defer to claims made by counsel about the Florida probate judge’s wholly erroneous and misrepresented findings on the issue.

4. The ORDER made several notable claims relying on the false and misleading “Statement
of Undisputed Facts” put forth by Plaintiffs in their Motion for Summary Judgment, including
but not limited to the following statements,

“Judge John L. Phillips presided over a joint trial of the Probate
Actions in December of 2015. A full recitation of Judge Phillips’
findings is unnecessary here, but relevant portions of his finals
orders include:...

• The beneficiaries of the testamentary trust identified in the Will
of Simon Bernstein are “Simon Bernstein’s then living
grandchildren,” while “Simon’s children – including Eliot
Bernstein – are not beneficiaries.”
(ORDER Page 5 of 21 PageID #:13274)


“First, Eliot cannot sustain cognizable damages related to the
disposition of the Estate or the testamentary trust in light of the
Probate Court’s rulings. The Probate Court found, inter alia, that
Simon Bernstein’s “children – including Eliot – are not
beneficiaries” of the Will of Simon Bernstein or the related
testamentary trust. [240] at 11. Instead, Simon Bernstein’s
grandchildren (including Eliot’s children) are the testamentary
trust’s beneficiaries.”


“These findings [of the FL probate court] have preclusive effect in
this case,4 such that Eliot cannot demonstrate cognizable damages
relative to the disposition of the Estate or the testamentary trust.”


5. O’Connell and Ted’s Motions for Summary Judgment were filed May 25, 2016 (Dkt. #’s
245-249) and May 21, 2016 respectively (Dkt. #’s 239-243). Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law
submitted with their Summary Judgment Motion falsely stated (Dkt. #241 Page 3 of 17 PageID

“To the contrary, Eliot has lost standing to participate in the
Probate Actions on his own behalf after it was determined that
the testamentary documents at issue in the Probate Actions are
in fact valid, genuine and enforceable. Judge John L. Philips also
determined that Simon Bernstein’s grandchildren are the
beneficiaries of his Estate, and none of his children are
beneficiaries, including Eliot.” [emphasis added]1

6. Based upon Plaintiffs’ misconduct and fraud, this court issued its Memorandum Opinion
and Order (“ORDER”) on January 30, 2017 (Dkt #273), granting summary judgment against
Eliot on the basis primarily that he was not a beneficiary of his father’s estate and an alleged
“testamentary” trust in the Estate of Simon and therefore did not have standing to participate. At
no time have Plaintiffs legitimately believed this knowingly false statement of fact, but instead propagated fraud in at least two courts of law in order to tortiously interfere with Eliot’s inheritance and the rights of Eliot’s three children, as well by removing his due process rights by removing his standing.

7.   Page 10 of 17 of the same document (Dkt. #241, PageID #:4262) falsely states the

“Eliot’s Claims make reference to the fact that the Estate of Simon
Bernstein may be entitled to the Policy Proceeds. But as
determined by the Probate Court, Eliot is not a beneficiary and has
no standing to act on behalf of the Estate or participate at all in the
Probate litigation in Florida. (SoF, ¶33-¶34). The Estate is already
adequately represented in the instant litigation by its personal
representative and local counsel. (SoF, ¶25). Also, the interests of
Eliot’s children in the Estate are now being represented solely by
the guardian ad litem. (SoF, ¶33-¶34).”

This Court should note that the Simon Trust at Issue in the Florida Courts exhibited further herein is not a “testamentary trust” as the Court states in its ORDER as illustrated above but in fact it is an "Inter‐vivos” living trust funded prior to death.

This Court’s ORDER reflects this wrong language and this is factually incorrect as it relied upon statements made by opposing counsel in their Summary Judgment pleading.

The Court should note that the Florida Probate Court also wrongly claims this Simon Trust as “testamentary” as it has no subject matter jurisdiction over inter‐vivos trusts, which are civil court cases and thus the Probate Court in FL acted outside its jurisdiction in hearing this Simon Trust case in the Probate court.

8.   Page 11 of 17 of the same document (Dkt. #241, PageID #:4263) restates the same
fraudulent facts to ensure that Eliot’s claims were dismissed and he was denied standing in the Florida probate court and this Court.

“Despite Eliot’s pending appeals, the doctrine of collateral
estoppel applies, and acts to settle material issues in the instant
litigation. The Probate Orders entered after trial include findings
that (i) Eliot is not beneficiary of the Estate of Simon Bernstein;
(ii) appoint a guardian ad litem for Eliot’s children; and (iii) Eliot
has no standing in the Probate Actions on behalf of himself, the
Estate or his children.”

9.  In Movant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support of their Motion for
Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs state that Judge Phillips in the Florida Probate Court, ruled that
Eliot was not an heir after a December 15, 2015 validity hearing, but failed to attach a copy of an Order stating such and instead attached an Order issued December 16, 2015 determining only that the documents were valid and enforceable by their terms, (Dkt. #240-11, Exhibit #10,
PageID #:4191-PageID #:4196.)

10.   Plaintiffs knew that the Order they attached from the validity hearing did not address any beneficiary or standing related issues in the construction of the Wills or Trusts of Simon and Shirley Bernstein, nor could it have done so as the hearing was limited to “validity” only and no “construction” was done of any of the documents to determine the terms of the dispositive
documents being validated.

11.  Further, it was alleged to this Court that Eliot was determined after the “validity” hearing
to not be a beneficiary with standing of his parents Trusts as well as their Wills and where the trusts were misrepresented to this Court and the Florida probate court further misrepresented them to be “testamentary” trusts, however given that they were executed and funded prior to death as illustrated further herein they are factually Inter-vivos trusts and are not within the Probate court’s jurisdiction under Florida law, as only testamentary trusts are. Section 736.0203 of the Florida Trust Code defines subject matter jurisdiction as follows: “[t]he circuit court has original jurisdiction in this state of all proceedings arising under this code.” Section 736.0201 defines more specifically the role of the courts in trust proceedings. It provides that judicial proceedings concerning trusts be governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, clarifying that “[a] proceeding for the construction of a testamentary trust may be filed in the probate proceeding for the testator’s estate” [emphasis added] subjecting it to the Florida Probate Rules should the case be filed there. Fla. Stat. 736.0201 (1)(5).

12.   Ted Bernstein and his counsel Adam Simon and co-counsel Alan Rose’s misconduct is
outrageous and merits severe sanctions given the two years of chaotic court proceedings and hundreds of thousands in attorneys’ fees spent to deny Eliot the right to participate in hearings in the Florida courts through abuse of process with the goal of violating 42 U.S.C. 1983 through the deprivation of the right to due process and equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as they illegally and tortiously interfered with Eliot and his children’s inheritance rights through this scheme and artifice to defraud.

13. This intentional deception upon the Florida Probate court was not rectified until Judge Phillips retired and Judge Rosemarie Scher took the bench, leading to Judge Scher’s finding that Eliot was in fact a named beneficiary of the estate of Simon Bernstein and had standing to participate, after evidentiary hearings which occurred February 16, 2017, March 02, 2017 and March 16, 2017, in 15th Judicial Circuit Probate Court Case #502012CP004391XXXXNB and subsequent Orders issued confirming such.

14. Intervenor Brian O’Connell inexplicably stated on the record under oath, as personal
representative of the estate, that Eliot was, in fact, a beneficiary with standing in the estate of Simon Bernstein and Alan Rose similarly recanted his prior claims to the Probate court that were then mimicked in this Court by Ted and Adam Simon. See, (Exhibit 1 - Transcript of Feb 16, 2017 Hearing), (Exhibit 2 – Transcript of March 02 2017 Hearing) and [Exhibit 3 - Transcript of March 16, 2017 Hearing.)

15. Four documents were consistently relied upon in Alan Rose, Adam Simon, Ted and
O’Connell’s efforts to defraud Eliot Bernstein and the courts, including: The four documents
that were part of the Final Order of Count II (Dkt. #240-11, Exhibit #10, PageID #:4191-PageID
#:4196) issued by Judge Phillips on December 16, 2015 after the sham “validity” hearing on
December 15, 2105 that Plaintiffs and their counsel relied on in their Summary Judgment to
make claims that Eliot was not a beneficiary with standing of his father’s estate and are as

a. The Will of Shirley Bernstein dated May 20, 2008. See (Exhibit 4 – “Will of Shirley
Bernstein” dated May 20, 2008) that expressly states that ELIOT and his siblings are

b. The Inter-Vivos Trust of Shirley Bernstein funded prior to her death, See, (Exhibit 5 -
“Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement dated May 20, 2008) that has ELIOT as one of three
of five children as a beneficiary. When Shirley passed away on December 08, 2010 this
Inter-vivos trust became IRREVOCABLE with Eliot and two of his three sisters,
Plaintiffs Lisa Friedstein and Jill Iantoni, as the ONLY PERMISSIBLE CLASS OF

Ted and Plaintiff Pamela Simon and their lineal descendants were considered predeceased for all purposes of disposition of Shirley’s trust at the time it became IRREVOCABLE.

Each beneficiary of Shirley’s trust had a separate trust created and funded on May 20,
2008, namely the “Eliot Bernstein Family Trust,” the “Jill Iantoni Family Trust” and the
“Lisa Friedstein Family Trust” all of which were suppressed at the “validity hearing”
despite being a part of the Simon and Shirley Inter-vivos trusts being validated and in
violation of Fl. trust code.

The Eliot Bernstein Family Trust is exhibited herein as (Exhibit 6 – “Eliot Bernstein Family Trust” dated May 20, 2008).

c.  The 2012 Will of Simon Bernstein (Exhibit 7 – “Will of Simon L. Bernstein” dated July
25, 2012), which allegedly replaced the 2008 Will of Simon Bernstein done with Shirley
Bernstein that was not part of the “validity” hearing.

The 2012 Will allegedly was signed weeks before Simon’s passing on September 13, 2012. Both Wills have the five children of Simon as Beneficiaries despite Ted and his counsels claims to this Court in their Summary Judgment papers, already exhibited herein, that the 10 grandchildren of Simon are the beneficiaries of Simon and Shirley’s Estates, which this Court then relied upon in making its ORDER and dismissing Eliot from this lawsuit on claims he was not a beneficiary and did not have standing in his father’s estate.

d. The Inter-vivos trust of Simon Bernstein funded prior to his death, see (Exhibit 8 -
“Simon L. Bernstein Trust Agreement” dated May 20, 2008) that has Eliot as one of three
of five children listed as a beneficiary. This Inter-vivos trust was not made part of the
“validity hearing” and instead only the below alleged Amendment and Restatement was
submitted, again in violation of statutes to have all parts of the trusts present at any
validity hearing.
That it was determined at the hearing that none of the parties, fiduciaries or their counsel knew where the Original Simon and Shirley Trust and Will documents are and they were not present for examination at the hearing, only alleged copies, see Exhibit 24 ‐ December 15, 2015 Hearing.

Similar to Shirley’s trust, each beneficiary of this Simon Inter-vivos trust had a separate
trust created held thereunder and funded on May 20, 2008, again the “Eliot Bernstein
Family Trust,” the “Jill Iantoni Family Trust” and the “Lisa Friedstein Family Trust” all
of which were suppressed at the sham “validity hearing” despite being a part of the 2008
Simon Bernstein Trust Agreement and in violation of Fl. trust code.

The Eliot Bernstein Family Trust is already exhibited herein as (Exhibit 6), and,
i. The 2012 Amendment and Restatement of the “Simon L. Bernstein Trust
Agreement” dated May 20, 2008 was the only part of the trust made available at the
“validity” hearing and not the controlling 2008 Simon L. Bernstein Trust
Agreement. See, (Exhibit 9 - “Simon L. Bernstein Amended and Restated Trust
Agreement” dated July 25, 2012”) which amended the 2008 trust agreement and
was allegedly executed several weeks prior to Simon’s passing on September 13,

The amended trust excludes Eliot and ALL of his siblings as beneficiaries
leaving only the then living grandchildren who have trusts held thereunder as
beneficiaries, namely the grandchildren who are part of the Eliot Family Trust, Jill
Iantoni Family Trust and Lisa Friedstein Family Trust established and held
thereunder as part of the controlling 2008 Simon trust.

There has been no construction hearing of this Amendment to the 2008 Simon
Bernstein Trust Agreement dated May 20, 2008 but it appears that only 6 of the 10
grandchildren (Eliot’s three children and his two siblings Jill and Lisa’s children)
will ultimately be found to be beneficiaries of the Amended 2008 Simon Trust
document if it is upheld after a proper and legal validity and construction hearing in
the proper venue to determine the terms of the trust and who the beneficiaries are
and if it was induced under great duress placed upon by Ted and sister Pamela when
they were informed they were wholly disinherited with their lineal descendants in
the 2008 Simon Trust and the 2008 Shirley Trust.

Again the Probate court had no jurisdiction to hear the validity or any alleged construction of this and the other Inter-vivos trusts rendering any/all judgments void.

16.   After two years of this fraud on the court, fraud on certain of the beneficiaries and
interested parties that removed Eliot from the proceedings, derailed the entire proceedings in the Florida probate court and ultimately led to the issuance by this Court of an ORDER granting
summary judgment against Eliot Bernstein on the mistaken belief that he was not a beneficiary
and had no standing in his father’s estate, this Court appropriately deferring to the FL state
probate court’s alleged determination of the issues, Intervenor Brian O’Connell and Alan Rose inexplicably had a sudden about face and admitted in hearings before the new Judge Scher that Eliot is a beneficiary and has standing--a fact they clearly knew all along.

Ted, Intervenor O’Connell and their counsel however have all failed to notify this Court of their change of story.

17. The February 16, 2017 hearing transcript before Judge Scher already exhibited herein
(Exhibit 1) includes O’Connell’s change of heart as Attorney Peter Feaman (“Feaman”)
representing the creditor William Stansbury in the Simon Estate case cross examined him
concerning the issue,

3 Q. Correct? And Mr. Bernstein is not a
4 monetary beneficiary of the estate, is he?

5 A. As a trustee he is a beneficiary,
6 residuary beneficiary of the estate. And then he
7 would be a beneficiary as to tangible personal
8 property.

(Exhibit 1 - Feb 16, 2107 Hearing, Page 17 of the Transcript)

Case: 1:13-cv-03643 Document #: 297 Filed: 11/09/17 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:14583

Page 12 of 31

18. Cornered, O’Connell confirmed what Eliot fought for two years to establish that was
wasting judicial resources and deceiving the Probate court that Eliot was in fact a beneficiary
with standing and Eliot further had O’Connell confirm this during his cross examination:
19 Q. Okay, so beneficiary?
20 A. Right.
21 Thank you. Which will go to the
22 bigger point of the fraud going on here, by the
23 way.”
(Exhibit 1 - Feb 16, 2017 Hearing, Page 35 of the Transcript)

19. Attorney Alan Rose contradicted prior representations to the Florida Probate court in
numerous pleadings and hearings claiming Eliot was not a beneficiary and did not have standing in his father’s estate, agreeing now with O’Connell that Eliot is and was, in fact, a beneficiary with standing in Simon Bernstein’s estate.

Rose admits on record in the March 02, 2017 hearing that contrary to his prior statements to the Probate court over the course of two years that were then mimicked to this Court by Ted and Adam Simon, that Eliot does have standing, as a beneficiary. Rose stated in the hearing,

3 MR. ROSE: Just for the record, I conceded
4 at the last hearing that he had limited
13:52:35 5 standing. I did not say that he did not have
6 standing.” [emphasis added]
(Exhibit 2 - March 02, 2017 Hearing Page 139 of the Transcript)
“8 MR. ROSE: That's the end of the story.
9 He is clearly a beneficiary. We have never
10 denied he is a beneficiary for a very narrow
11 purpose. But based on the rulings it is
12 exactly that which is a very narrow purpose.”

(Exhibit 2 - March 02, 2017 Hearing Page 143 of the Transcript)

20. Attorney Feaman while questioning witness O’Connell in the same March 02, 2017
hearing handed him a pleading filed in September of 2015 entitled “Trustee’s Omnibus Status
Report and Request for Case Management Conference” filed by Ted and authored by Rose and Rose stated on the record the following in response:

8 Q. You were here when Mr. O'Connell said that
9 Mr. Eliot is a beneficiary of the Simon Bernstein
10 estate, correct?

11 A. I was here when he said it. I have said
12 it. I don't dispute it. I have told the judge
13 that. I don't understand. For tangible personal
14 property.

15 Q. Okay.

16 THE COURT: What am I being handed?
18 Q. I am handing you a pleading that you filed
19 in September 2015 entitled Trustee's Omnibus Status
20 Report and Request for Case Management Conference.
21 And the very first page you said, relating to
22 Mr. Eliot, he is not a named -- he is not named as
23 a beneficiary of anything. And it's in the Estate
24 of Simon Bernstein. So my question is when did you
25 suddenly become aware that he is a beneficiary of
(Exhibit - 2 March 02, 2017 Hearing Page 212 of the Transcript)
1 the estate?
2 A. That sentence is -- I now see that
3 sentence is technically wrong. It's not -- I am
4 talking about where the money is and the money is
15:12:37 5 in the trust. He is not a beneficiary of the
6 trust. I may have made a misstatement.
7 THE COURT: Are you asking me to take this
8 into evidence?

9 MR. FEAMAN: Yes.

15:12:45 10 THE COURT: Objection?
11 MR. ROSE: No. It's in the court file.
12 THE COURT: I know. Let me just mark it.

13 MR. FEAMAN: No further questions.” [emphasis added]
(Exhibit 2 - March 02, 2017 Hearing Page 213 of the Transcript)

21. Alan Rose committed fraud on the court in Filing #32030300 to the 15th Judicial Judge
JOHN L. PHILLIPS, dated September 14, 2015, in the “TRUSTEE'S OMNIBUS STATUS
Omnibus Status Report] accusing Eliot of the very misconduct he was engaged in when he

“Introduction - The overarching issue in these cases is Eliot
Bernstein. He is not named as a beneficiary of anything; yet he
alone has derailed these proceedings for more than two years and
has harassed and attacked the prior judges, fiduciaries and their
counsel.” [emphasis added]

22. On January 4, 2016, Rose repeated in a filing titled “SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE'S
for Appointment of GAL3

], the affirmative statement of Ted Bernstein, his client, that

Eliot Bernstein, Individually, is not a beneficiary of either
Simon’s or Shirley’s Trusts or Estates. Instead, his three sons are
among the beneficiaries of both Simon and Shirley’s Trusts, in
amounts to be determined by further proceedings. Eliot lacks
standing to continue his individual involvement in this case.”
[emphasis added]

The Guardian was not appointed randomly but instead a long term family friend of PR Brian O’Connell and a former judge in the Palm Beach courts (not re‐elected by the People of the State of Florida) Diana Lewis. Lewis was inserted as GAL over ELIOT’S children to preclude ELIOT from protecting and representing his minor children as their natural guardian and thereby the minor children’s rights and the adult child’s rights were usurped illegally
through this legal process abuse that has obstructed justice and denied due process.

Outrageously despite two of ELIOT’S children who are both adults now notifying Diana Lewis that her predatory guardianship over them is over and to cease and desist any further actions on their behalf, she continues to kidnap their legal rights and enter into settlements, on their behalf, destroy trusts and LLC’s with Oppenheimer Trust Company that were set up by their grandparents while they were alive for them and destroying companies set up to protect their home and more.

23.   After two years of derailing multiple judicial proceedings O’Connell, Ted, and Rose
suddenly agree that Eliot is a beneficiary with standing and after three evidentiary hearings Judge Rosemarie Scher ruled that Eliot is a beneficiary with standing to participate in his father’s estate proceedings and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law to eliminate further dispute.

From an Order issued by Judge Scher, See (Exhibit 12- March 03, 2017 Scher Order)
Hon. Judge Rosemarie Scher states,

“Present before the Court were Peter Feaman, Esquire on behalf of
William Stansbury; Alan Rose, Esquire on behalf of Ted
Bernstein, Trustee, Brian O’Connell as Personal Representative,
Eliot Bernstein as interested party.” [emphasis added].

24. On March 2, 2017, the Hon. Judge Rosemarie Scher overruled the erroneous alleged
order to reflect that for all purposes going forward, ELIOT BERNSTEIN is a beneficiary with
standing to participate when she confirmed in the hearing before her that she “overruled” any
prior claims by that court or its court appointed officers and fiduciaries that Eliot did in fact have
standing in his father’s estate in the following exchange:

9 forthcoming. And I think we'll be able to show
10 that there's been fraud on this Court. The
11 other date in that hearing if you look at the
12 transcript Mr. Rose claimed that I had no
13 standing, and you overruled that, or whatever
14 you call it, you did.
15 THE COURT: I did.”

(Exhibit 2 - March 02, 2017 Hearing Page 127 of the Transcript)

25. Hon. Judge Rosemarie Scher issued further findings of fact, conclusions of law in an
Order dated April 2017, see (Exhibit 13 - April 27, 2017 Scher Order) after hearings held on
February 16, 2017, March 02, 2017 and March 16, 2017 further enforcing that Eliot Bernstein is
a beneficiary of the Simon Bernstein Estate and further giving him standing, which wholly
contradicts Plaintiffs unsupported claim in the Summary Judgment that Eliot is not a beneficiary and had no standing that this Court then relied upon in dismissing Eliot from this lawsuit citing Collateral Estoppel based on an alleged Florida Court ruling and statements by officers of this Court (Attorneys and Fiduciaries) stating Eliot was not a beneficiary and did not have standing.

Hon. Judge Rosemarie Scher states in her April 27, 2017 Order on Page 7 Paragraph 17,

“17. Elliot Bernstein joins Stansbury's opposition to the
appointment of Mrachek Firm. Elliot is a residuary beneficiary of
any tangible property of the Estate.”

This Order established Eliot as a beneficiary.

26. Standing is a foundational issue that should never have taken over three years to
determine as Ted, Rose and the fiduciaries in charge of the trusts and estates depleted the assets through fraud and intentional deception. In order to now rectify the injustices wrought upon Eliot and his family by the frauds of these fiduciaries, Eliot re-affirmed in a June 2, 2017 hearing that Judge Scher expressly overruled the prior finding that deprived him of standing as a beneficiary and that this fraud discovered had to be brought to the attention of this Court by those parties responsible and those parties aware of the frauds. As such, this Honorable Judge is asked to reinstate Eliot Bernstein in the case to participate in full and avoid the further deprivation of rights Rose, Ted and O’Connell conspired to accomplish. From a hearing held in the Florida Probate Court on June 02, 2017 before Judge Scher, see (Exhibit 14 - June 02, 2017 Hearing Transcript) the following exchange was made by Eliot to the court,

15 MR. ELIOT BERNSTEIN: Oh, okay. So I was
16 thrown out of the Illinois litigation because
17 they told that court that I was not a
18 beneficiary of my father's estate and I had no
19 standing. And Judge Blakey relied on this
20 Court's statement that I was not a beneficiary
21 and had no standing in my father's estate to
22 throw me out on a summary judgment, saying I
23 had no standing and therefore in Florida res
24 judicata and yada yada yada.
25 The bottom line is that was all
(Exhibit 14 - Page 36)
1 orchestrated. This whole Florida court is
2 being manipulated to create another fraud on a
3 federal court. And everybody who is aware that
4 I am a beneficiary with standing should have
5 already notified federal Judge Blakey that
6 Mr. Rose misled this Court to gain those orders
7 by Judge Phillips. And that's where I will
8 close it up.
9 THE COURT: And that's good.
(Exhibit 14 - Page 37)

27. This entire outrageous deception upon the state and federal court did not even slow the co-conspirators down in their scheme to defraud Eliot of his inheritance rights. Instead, Ted, Adam Simon, O’Connell and Rose ignored the ruling and proceeded full steam ahead into settlement negotiations and executed settlements in both the Florida court and this Court, omitting Eliot to steal what is rightfully his inheritance by maintaining the fraudulent narrative that he was not a beneficiary with standing and therefore not a necessary party to the settlement discussions or the executed settlements.

The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, see (Exhibit 15 - July 17, 2017 Signed Illinois Settlement Excluding Eliot from Settlement Discussions and Execution) with no notice to Eliot to settle this Federal lawsuit before this Court and regardless of his status as a beneficiary and submitted the fraudulent executed Settlement Agreement not to this Court for approval but to Judge Scher for her approval and to further defraud this court yet again into acknowledging a Settlement Agreement that was void for failing to include a necessary party, Eliot Bernstein and fraud. See (Exhibit 16 - Oct 19, 2017 Scher Order on Illinois Federal Lawsuit Settlement) and (Exhibit 17 - October 19, 2017 Hearing Transcript.)

28.  If the foregoing deception failed to shock the conscience of the Judge, the fact that the
Florida probate court assumed subject matter jurisdiction over INTER-VIVOS TRUSTS in
violation of the Florida Trust Code should exasperate the Court.

The Code is unambiguous in mandating LIVING TRUSTS be heard in civil court and merely permitting testamentary trusts to be considered in pending probate matters. The Court should take Judicial Notice of the following Inter-vivos trust case dockets and make them in whole part of this Court’s record which were erroneously heard and considered and allegedly validated in the Florida Probate court in absence of subject matter jurisdiction and then further misrepresented to this Court as “testamentary” trusts, leading to a host of void orders:

a. Case # 502014CP003698XXXXNB – “Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement” dated May
20, 2008, a living Inter-vivos trust - (Exhibit 18 - Shirley Trust Docket)
b. Case # 502015CP001162XXXXNB – “Simon L. Bernstein Amended and Restated Trust
Agreement” dated July 25, 2012, a living Inter-vivos trust (Exhibit 19 - Simon Trust

29.  The Estate cases that had these Inter-vivos trusts of Simon and Shirley Bernstein heard by
a Probate court under the estate cases as alleged “testamentary” trusts in addition to the separate Probate actions listed above are as follows and the Court should take Judicial Notice of the following estate case dockets and make them in whole part of this Court’s record:

a. Case # 502012CP004391XXXXSB – Simon Bernstein Estate (Exhibit 20 - Simon
Estate Docket)

b. Case # 502011CP000653XXXXSB – Shirley Bernstein Estate (Exhibit 21 - Shirley
Estate Docket)

30. The Florida probate proceedings were so wrought with fraud as to vitiate the entire
proceedings, leaving this Court broad discretion to determine the rights and liabilities of the
parties--particularly with respect to the INTER-VIVOS TRUSTS settled by Simon and Shirley
Bernstein for the benefit of their “children,” which included Eliot Bernstein. For purposes of
illustration, Simon L. Bernstein’s Codicil to his Will, dated July 25, 2012 already exhibited
herein specifically defines his “children” to include:

[emphasis added]

31. This Court was also intentionally misinformed by its Court appointed officers (Attorneys
and Fiduciaries) in their Motion for Summary Judgment that ELIOT was not a beneficiary of his
mother’s Estate when her Will expressly include Eliot as a beneficiary.

Dated May 20, 2008

I, SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, of Palm Beach County, Florida, hereby
revoke all my prior Wills and Codicils and make this Will. My
spouse is SIMON L. BERNSTEIN ("SIMON''). My children are

32.   This false statement of fact to the Florida Probate court created another Order that was
based upon intentional deception and fraud on the court that is not accurate either regarding Eliot not being a beneficiary and not having standing in his mother’s estate. Thus, this Order was clearly erroneous too and Eliot is again having to pursue legal remedies to overturn the Order procured by the same co-conspirators’ frauds.

Ted had received upon his mother’s death in addition to a copy of the Will, a Petition for Administration in the Shirley Estate that was filed in Feb. 10, 2011 (Exhibit 22 – Shirley Petition for Administration) filed in the Florida Probate Court, which clearly shows all five children of Shirley, including Ted as a beneficiary of the Estate of Shirley.

33.  To establish to this Court that Ted and co-conspirator counselors Alan Rose and Adam
Simon knew that Eliot was a beneficiary in Simon’s Estate with standing prior to misleading thisCourt with scienter that he was not to disable his due process rights, Ted received upon his father’s death in addition to a copy of the Will showing all five children as beneficiaries, a Petition for Administration (Exhibit 23 - Simon Petition for Administration) filed in the Florida Probate Court on October 02, 2012, which clearly shows all five children of Simon, including Ted as a beneficiary of the Estate of Simon. Yet, Tet and his counsel claim in their Summary Judgment that,

“To the contrary, Eliot has lost standing to participate in the
Probate Actions on his own behalf after it was determined that the
testamentary documents at issue in the Probate Actions are in fact
valid, genuine and enforceable. Judge John L. Philips also
determined that Simon Bernstein’s grandchildren are the
beneficiaries of his Estate, and none of his children are
beneficiaries, including Eliot.” [emphasis added]

34. Alan Rose, Ted Bernstein, Brian O’Connell, and their co-conspirators and agents /
representatives cannot be trusted to tell the truth to this Honorable Judge, as evidenced by their
repeated, undeterred fraud on federal and state courts to steal Eliot and his children’s inheritance.

35.  The fraud is all encompassing to the outrageous extent of Florida court appointed officers
(Attorneys and Fiduciaries and Guardian,) including but not limited to, Ted Bernstein, Adam
Simon, Alan Rose, Robert Spallina, Donald Tescher and their agents and representatives filing
this Federal lawsuit over a non-existent trust, entitled “Simon L. Bernstein Irrevocable Insurance
Trust dtd 6/95” that no executed copy has ever been produced to affirm the terms of or if Ted is
in fact a Successor Trustee as he claims. The Court in its Round 1 Summary Judgment Order
denying Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs eloquently pointed to the fact that the initial claim for
the proceeds was made by former Co-Personal Representative in the Estate of Simon Bernstein, Robert Spallina, who claimed to be Successor Trustee of the legally non-existent trust and then when this lawsuit was filed it was filed by Ted acting as the alleged Trustee instead.

These schemes and artifices to defraud Eliot of insurance benefits was the motivation to manufacture a lawsuit concerning a trust that never even existed, involving an insurance policy that has not ever been produced to this Court, despite funds being interpled to the Court based on the “Policy” terms.

36. Proof of the schemes lies in the fact that despite funds of the alleged “Policy” being
interpled into this court, none of these co-conspirators have produced an actual “Policy” or an actual trust to date--revealing the entire production was a sham--to cover up fiduciary theft and using the Court to attempt to facilitate a crime.

Attorneys, Tescher and Spallina, the former Co-Personal Representatives and Co-Trustees of Simon’s Estate and Simon’s Trusts have admitted their law firm forged dispositive documents and deposited them in the Florida probate proceedings, acknowledging fraudulently notarized and forged documents being filed with the Florida probate court, including Post Mortem forgeries of Simon Bernstein’s signature used to fraudulently close his deceased wife’s estate that when the fraud was proven led to the Estate being reopened, which it remains open to this date.

37.  In this Court’s ORDER the Court also mistakenly defines that a “Policy” exists and
“Policy Proceeds” are at stake when factually the Court is not in possession of any bona fide policy issued by the insurance carrier and is only in possession of parole evidence that a policy exists and the terms of it, such as, who the beneficiaries are, what the face amount is, who the owner is and other information that is contractually defined in the legally binding policy issued. No party to this lawsuit has produced a policy to the Court, including the carrier.
38. Spallina has further admitted ironically in the December 15, 2015 ”validity” hearing
(Exhibit 24 – December 15, 2015 Hearing Transcript, Page 95 - Lines 12-25, Page 96 – Lines 8-
19 ) that while acting as Ted’s counsel for Ted as Fiduciary of the Shirley Bernstein Trust
Agreement dated May 20, 2008 that Spallina forged a copy of this Shirley Bernstein trust
document, which altered the beneficiaries of the Shirley trust that he had drafted years earlier while acting as Simon and Shirley’s Estate planner, two years after the decedent passed in January of 2013 and sent this forged trust to Eliot Bernstein and his children’s counsel, Christine C. Yates, Esq. of Tripp Scott Law Firm in Ft. Lauderdale, FL to deceive them of who the true and proper beneficiaries of Shirley’s trust were.

39. This fraud was in effort to benefit Ted and Pamela Simon’s families, who were omitted
from the Shirley’s Trust the date it became irrevocable upon her death as being considered
TESCHER and SPALLINA after resigning from all Bernstein family matters after their law firm committed fraud were subsequently arrested by the SEC in a non‐related Insider Trading Scheme and and subsequently surrendered their law licenses. (Exhibit 34 – TESCHER and SPALLINA SEC Consents) predeceased for all purposes of dispositions as stated in the express terms of that trust.

Ted Bernstein and his attorneys’ actions have been nothing but fraud since the start and he even attempted with his close personal friends and counsel, Spallina and Tescher, to reinsert his lineal descendants post-mortem when the Shirley trust was no longer subject to revocation through this fraudulent trust Spallina created and disseminated.

40. Further, Spallina at the “validity” hearing claimed that the fraudulent trust did not alter
the beneficiaries of the Shirley trust when in fact it did through a fraudulent and forged
amendment, this false statement to the court also violates the terms of his consent with the SEC
and is yet another example of these reprobates in the probate court willingness to lie and deceive the court and the beneficiaries and interested parties, see (Exhibit 25 - Fraudulently Altered Amendment Shirley Trust) and (Exhibit 26 - Alleged Original Amendment that was Fraudulently Altered.)

41. The forged version omits the intentional exclusion of Ted and Pamela Simon and their
lineal descendants. Where the actual alleged language of the 2008 “Shirley Bernstein Trust
Agreement” reads,

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, as I have adequately provided for
them during my lifetime, for purposes of the dispositions made
under this Trust, my children, TED S. BERNSTEIN ("TED") and
PAMELA B. SIMON ("PAM"), and their respective lineal
descendants [emphasis added] shall be deemed to have
predeceased the survivor of my spouse and me...”

42. The language that was fraudulently inserted in the Forged 2008 “Shirley Bernstein Trust
Agreement” removes the language excluding Ted and Pamela Simon’s lineal descendants from
inheritancy in the IRREVOCABLE trust of Shirley giving them a possible 40% stake in the
Shirley Trust if it were determined through the frauds that the grandchildren are beneficiaries
instead of Eliot, Jill and Lisa who are the only permissible class of beneficiaries as of the date of Shirley’s death on December 08, 2010 when the trust became IRREVOCABLE. From the fraudulent and forged 2008 “Shirley Bernstein Trust Agreement” it is clear that Spallina altered language to change the possible beneficiaries of her trust:

“NOW THEREFORE, by executing this instrument, I hereby
amend the Trust Agreement as follows:

1. I hereby delete Paragraph B. of Article II. in its entirety.
2. I hereby amend the last sentence of Paragraph E. of Article III.
to read as follows:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, as my spouse and I have
adequately provided for them during our lifetimes, for purposes of
the dispositions made under this Trust, my children, Ted S.
BERNSTEIN ("Ted") and PAMELA B. SIMON ("PAM'), shall be
deemed to have predeceased the survivor of my spouse and me...”

43. The fraud continues to completely permeate all court proceedings in which Ted
Bernstein, Alan Rose, Adam Simon, Pamela Simon, and their co-conspirators discussed herein
are involved. Undeterred by being caught red handed by Hon. Rosemarie Scher, Rose and Ted still continue to use a fraudulent appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem for Eliot’s ADULT CHILDREN, knowing they are over the age of 18 and competent to act on their own behalf but still using her to gain consent for settlements and more, despite knowing that they are adults and all having received Cease and Desist letters from the children notifying them to cease the illegal acts being done in their names.

44.  A predatory guardianship was placed on Joshua Bernstein by Judge Phillips as a minor
when he in fact at the time of the initiation of the Guardian Ad Litem Joshua was factually an
adult and no adult guardianship proceedings were ever held for him, thereby kidnapping his legal rights as an adult by claiming him to be a minor. For a detailed analysis of how this fraud was committed, see (Exhibit 27 - July 11, 2017 Joshua Bernstein Cease and Desist Letter to Diana Lewis.) Despite receiving the Cease and Desist Letter from Joshua, Lewis continues to act on oshua’s behalf with no legal authority including acting to give his consent in the proposed
Settlement of this lawsuit.

45.   Jacob Bernstein had to issue a Cease and Desist Letter to Diana Lewis, see (Exhibit 28 -
July 11, 2017 Jacob Bernstein Cease and Desist Letter to GAL Diana Lewis) after he turned 18
years old on January 01, 2017 to attempt to have her cease acting on his behalf and Lewis has
refused to terminate the “minor” guardianship when he was no longer a minor as required by law and instead continues to act on his behalf including in the proposed Settlement of this lawsuit.
46.  Diana Lewis, the fraudulently appointed Guardian Ad Litem appointed in an evidentiary hearing in the Probate court and not through a formal GAL hearing in that division, continues to appear in Court as a Guardian Ad Litem for Eliot’s adult sons, consenting to the destruction of trusts created in their names, mismanaging the assets intended solely for them, billing ludicrous and fraudulent amounts for services rendered and entering them into sham settlement agreements without any notice to Eliot’s adult sons, who are the only persons legally authorized to act on their behalf in any of these matters.

47.  The fraudulent scheme and artifices to defraud of these criminal fiduciaries, attorneys and
guardian have created a nightmare for Eliot Bernstein and his entire family that will not end as
he is forced to endure the continual egregious deprivation of his rights to property, watching
thieves steal his inheritance without recourse because these attorneys have managed to deceive the Florida probate court, civil court, appeals court and Supreme Court if that is possible--to intentionally harm Eliot and his family. After more than four years of fighting for minimal due process rights in terms of mere notice and the opportunity to be heard in a proceeding not tainted with fraud, the deception continues, prompting Eliot Bernstein to pray this Court makes the insanity stop as more fully described in Eliot’s “All Writs Injunction” (Dkts #214-216) that even predicated that this fraud to remove Eliot from the proceedings through fraudulent claims of collateral estoppel and more were in progress and that this Court can now plainly see were executed and worked.

48. Eliot’s rights have been so categorically denied due to the corruption of these fiduciaries, he is now being precluded from filing appeals of adverse rulings pro se, violating the Open Courts provision of the Florida Constitution and guarantee of redress for wrongs in the United States Constitution.

Eliot is indigent and cannot afford counsel but has been barred from filing in the Florida appeals court to vacate the fraudulently obtained orders and expose further the fraud on the Probate court without a Florida attorney, the perfect catch 22. See, (Exhibit 29 - August
23, 2017 4th DCA Order Prohibiting Eliot Filing Pro Se). The 4th DCA stated in its Order:

“The Clerk of this Court is directed to no longer accept any paper
filed by Eliot Ivan Bernstein unless the document has been
reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of the Florida
Bar who certifies that a good faith basis exists for each claim

49. The 4th DCA then issued an Order dismissing an appeal filed by Eliot for failure to
prosecute it when the reason for this failure was due to the fact that Eliot cannot find nor afford
an attorney to prosecute the case for him and the court refuses to allow him to do so pro se. This violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983. See, (Exhibit 30 - Nov. 01 2017 4th DCA Order Dismissing Appeal Lack of Prosecution.)
50.   Eliot is similarly prohibited from entering evidence or speaking for any length of time
and prohibited from questioning a witness for more than four minutes in the same probate
proceedings with Judge Scher who has witnessed the fraud that has kept Eliot out of proceedings based on false claims to that court and who recently determined he is a beneficiary with standing, yet she continues to move forward despite the frauds as if nothing has happened, see (Exhibit 31- Oct 19, 2017 Hearing Transcript Regarding Settlement of Illinois Federal Lawsuit.)

51. Judge Rosemarie Scher had no jurisdiction to approve the settlements involving Simon and Shirley Bernstein’s Inter vivos Trusts, including the alleged Plaintiff in this case, the non-existent and Inter-vivos “Simon Bernstein Irrevocable Insurance Trust dtd 6/95” in the Probate court but did so anyway, rendering the ORDERS void; yet they are treated as if valid and enforceable, which excluded Eliot and his children from all right and benefit to their rightful inheritance.

52. In her Order dated April 27, 2017, see (Exhibit 13 - April 27, 2017 Order), Page 11
Paragraph #32), Judge Scher found “Mr. O'Connell to be credible.” But nonetheless, stated that it “cannot ignore the fact that the Estate and Ted are adverse in the Illinois lawsuit” declining to appoint Ted Bernstein as Administrator Ad Litem while the Illinois action is still pending.

53. Remarkably, after learning of the fraud upon her court, Judge Scher accepted retaliatory
pleadings by Ted and Alan Rose to hold Eliot in contempt of court and to hold it over Eliot’s
head as a weapon issued an Order on September 15, 2017, see (Exhibit 32 – Scher September 15, 2017 Order) and scheduled the hearing for Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. The contempt charge is centered upon the fact that Eliot sent the Cease and Desist letters of his Adult children to the Guardian Ad Litem on their behalf to keep confidential their private email addresses and gnoring the substance of the fraud disclosed in the Cease and Desist letters sent that were submitted by Ted and Rose in their pleading.

54. Dkt. #289 is hereby incorporated by reference with all exhibits and all arguments in
support of this Motion and all relief sought.

55. Dkts. #214-215 are hereby incorporated by reference with all exhibits and all arguments
in support of this Motion and all relief sought.

56. Eliot can hardly conceive of a case in which justice mandates that the court vacate the
ORDER dismissing his claims based on findings of the Florida Court that have since been
overruled and overturned, such that the ORDER granting summary judgment against Eliot
Bernstein is no longer valid. The circumstances here satisfy the prerequisites for relief under
Rule 60(b).

57. Fiduciaries and Counsels misrepresentations have warranted Rule 60(b)(3) relief,
particularly because it “completely sabotaged the federal trial machinery” by fraudulently
defeating Eliot Bernstein’s right to a federal forum. See, e.g., Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d
1332, 1346 (5th Cir. 1978) reversing denial of Rule 60(b)(3) motion because defendant
suppressed information called for upon discovery and prevented plaintiff from fully and fairly
presenting her case); see also Boddicker v. Esurance, Inc., 770 F.Supp.2d 1016 (D.S.D. 2011)
(the district court vacated, under Rule 60(b)(3), its summary judgment order that relied on
defendant’s misrepresentation).

58. Fiduciary and Attorney fraud is hardly something unique or isolated, but widespread and
the subject of almost every news publication but the metastasis of this cancer continues to spread unabated. Unless this Honorable Judge intervenes and issues appropriate rulings based upon evidence and legitimate estate planning documents and trusts, rather than forged instruments by a cottage group of fiduciaries and attorneys that might as well be deemed the Probate mafia, Eliot Bernstein and his children, the intended beneficiaries of Shirley and Simon Bernstein’s generous provision for their futures, will be robbed of everything they are rightfully entitled to under federal and state law, denied any semblance of due process and denied equal protection of the law.

59.   Given fraud vitiates everything it touches, this Court can easily render judgment that the
proferred orders of Ted Bernstein, Alan Rose, Adam Simon, Pamela Simon and the corrupt
fiduciaries engaging in flagrant theft--are void ab initio.

60.   Eliot has written this Motion under great physical duress and medical malady that is “life
threatening” as is more fully explained in (Exhibit 33 – “MOTION TO POSTPONE AND
AND RESCHEDULE NOVEMBER 15, 2017 HEARING”) and prays that this Court
understands this has affected his ability to file in a healthy state of mind and if the Court finds
any procedural errors, etc. allows Eliot to refile an amended motion.

61. That only this week on November 06, 2017 or thereabout after conversation with this
Court’s clerks lasting approximately 15 minutes, Eliot Bernstein was reinstated by Clerk Nadine
as a filer in ECF system as no one could determine how or why he was removed as no order was issued to remove him and no reason existed. Eliot being Pro Se did not initially know that he was improperly removed and believed he was prohibited from filing with the Court when he was dismissed on Summary Judgment despite the need to file appeals and motions such as this 60(a) and 60(b). Further, even after reinstatement in the ECF filing system Eliot is not being served process by the ECF system or opposing parties as of 11/08/2017 when filings were filed by opposing parties and this is severely interfering with his rights to be noticed, respond and file necessary pleadings.

Wherefore, ELIOT BERNSTEIN respectfully prays for this Court to retain jurisdiction
over the inter vivos trusts, given the “res” of these trusts is not within the subject matter
jurisdiction of any court for a determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties. Eliot
Bernstein respectfully prays for this Rule 60b Motion to be granted and for the ORDER granting
summary judgment against him (primarily on the basis of him not being a beneficiary of the
Simon Bernstein Estate and claim that he lacked standing--now proven herein to be a fraudulent
and misleading claim to this Court that has been proven false by new orders of the Probate court) be vacated and set aside.

Eliot prays that this Court seeing the fraud that has denied Eliot due process and
procedure for almost a year in this Court and almost two in the Florida probate court and other
Florida courts, review and consider Eliot’s “All Writs Injunction” (Dkts #214-216) and the
reliefs sought therein as these fraudulent acts further support his claims therein and entitle him to the reliefs sought thereunder.

Eliot Bernstein further prays for appointment of pro bono counsel to protect his rights as
he is physically incapable of protecting himself due to severe physical and stress related health
problems he has experienced that have almost ended his life multiple time in the past few years.
(See Exhibit 33 – EXHIBIT 1 - Affidavit of Candice Bernstein). Eliot seeks the Court to
approve his In Forma Pauperis Indigent Application submitted to this Court already as he is
indigent and qualifies for such appointment and thanks the Court for the same.

DATED: November 09, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Eliot Ivan Bernstein”

Source of Quotes above and Full 60(b) Motion Filing

For More on the Florida Probate Case, Florida Predatory Guardian Case, Florida Fraud and Forgery Case, Palm County Probate Courts

Posted Here by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox
Questions or Tips? eMail me at

Judge Rosemarie Scher, Judge Martin Colin, Judge Cory Ciklin, Ted Bernstein - Life Cycle Financial Planners, Pam Simon of STP Enterprises Illinois, Florida Attorney Alan Rose, Florida Attorney Brian O’Connell, Ashley Crispin. Predatory Guardianship. Estate Fraud. Estate Forgery.