- Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
- P.O. Box 13287
- Austin, Texas 78711
To whom it may concern,
Elmer and Nelva Brunsting had five Issues they wanted to benefit from their lifetime of inherited and acquired wealth. Their concerns were quite simply to transfer their assets to their five progeny in equal proportions at their passing, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] minimizing taxes and avoiding the much publicized corruption in the state probate courts [7, 8, 9]. In order to accomplish this purpose they retained the assistance of estate planning attorney Albert Vacek Jr. who gave specific assurances that his products and services would accomplish these purposes.
Elmer Brunsting passed April 1, 2009 and Nelva Brunsting passed November 11, 2011. In theory, Elmer and Nelva did everything correctly as, under the law, all right, title and interest in their bounty vested equally in their five progeny, via the family trust, at the passing of Nelva Brunsting on November 11, 2011. Nevertheless, today is 9/29/2021 and in nearly ten years, not one dime from the Brunsting Trust has been transferred to any of the trust beneficiaries.
The pivotal question here is more than obvious:
If Elmer and Nelva did everything correctly, as advertised by their estate planning attorneys, why, after nearly ten years, have the income beneficiaries received nothing from the corpus or income of the family trust as the settlors intended?
My answer, which I will give out front, is color of law organized crime and the principal participants in this particular are as follows:
Harris County Texas, the municipal corporation providing the promiscuous forum.
Harris County Probate Court No. 4, the promiscuous forum. [412248, 412249, 412249-401, 412249-402, 412249-403 and 412249-404]
Attorney Candace Kunz-Freed, Texas State Bar No. 24041282, Vacek & Freed P.L.L.C. This estate planning bait and switch Grifter advertises “A Pursuit of excellence” on her website while, at a deposition in March 2020 (page 141-142) Kunz-Freed testified that she had taken the state Board Certification exam for estate planning and probate law and that she failed to pass. She further testified that she had no immediate plans to retake the exam. Here’s what Candace Kunz-Freed advertises on her web site:
“The law firm is devoted to providing professional and compassionate service to meet the Client’s Estate Planning and Administration needs. A well designed estate plan can provide peace of mind that the Client’s wishes are known and can be carried out efficiently. The law office is conveniently located in West Houston, between Bunker Hill and Echo Lane on the south side of I-10/ Katy Freeway.“Https://www.freedlawyer.com
The family of Kunz-Freed’s former clients, Elmer and Nelva Brunsting, and their Vacek & Freed designed trust, have been held hostage to ransom demands in Harris County Probate Court No. 4 for more than eight years and not one dime from the Brunsting Trust has been transferred to any of the trust beneficiaries. The problem appears to be a complete absence of respect for the rule of law and the rights of the common citizen by a group of predators bound by a compact of association.
Attorney Bernard Lyle Matthews III, Texas State Bar No. 13187450, a Vacek & Freed P.L.L.C. staff attorney working in concert with Kunz-Freed in producing the outcome described.
Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless, Texas State Bar No. 01940600.
Attorney Darlene Payne-Smith, Texas State Bar No. 18643525
Attorney Jason B. Ostrom Texas State Bar No. 24027710, Fed. Id. No. 33680 Ostrom Morris PLLC 6363 Woodway, Ste 300 Houston, TX 77057
email@example.com. I wouldn’t trust this scum bag to walk my dog and I will explain that at my earliest convenience.
Attorney Stephen A Mendel, Texas State Bar No. 13930650. The Mendel Law Firm, L.P. 1155 Dairy Ashford, Ste. 104 Houston, TX 77079 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. Attorney Steve Mendel has a penchant for suing his former clients for unpaid fees his clients seem to have a penchant for not paying. I will list Mr. Mendel’s lawsuits against his former clients as time permits.
Attorney Neal E. Spielman, Texas State Bar No. 00794678
Attorney Clarinda Comstock, Texas State Bar No. 00790492 Harris County Employee/Appointee Associate Judge [unelected]
Attorney Gregory Lester Texas State Bar No. 12235700
Attorney Jill Willard-Young Texas State Bar No. 00797670
Attorney Zandra E. Foley, State Bar No. 24032085
Attorney Cory S Reed, Texas Bar No. 24076640
Probate Judge – Attorney Tamorah Christine Butts Texas State Bar No. 24004222
There is no excuse for the conduct of these members of the Texas Bar Association. Whether by act, or omission to act, each has participated in this probate court sham litigation charade.
REMEDY AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Let’s start with the first question that needs to be resolved in order to affect judicial remedy. While it is not an intellectually challenging question by any measure, it has yet to be judicially answered in a Texas state court.
- What instruments are we talking about when we say “the trust”?
The question remains unanswered even though attorneys filed claims in Harris County District Court in January 2013 and Harris County Probate Court No. 4 in April 2013. What legitimate explanation can there possibly be for the total and complete complete absence of any semblance of remedy after almost nine years in Harris County Texas courts? I already answered that. The legitimate explanation is color of law organized crime. Oh but let us not simply jump to conclusions based upon the complete absence of remedy.
Relevant History of the Brunsting Trust
In 1996 Elmer Brunsting and his wife Nelva created the “Brunsting Family Living Trust” for their benefit and for the benefit of their five adult progeny. Elmer and Nelva were the original co-trustees and Anita Brunsting was named as the sole successor trustee.
Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust
In 1999 Elmer and Nelva also created an irrevocable Life Insurance Trust for the benefit of their five issues, naming Anita Brunsting as the sole trustee.
In 2005 Elmer and Nelva restated their trust, replacing the original 1996 trust agreement in its entirety. The 2005 Restatement removed Anita from becoming a successor trustee and replaced her with Carl and Amy as successor co-trustees with Candace Curtis as the alternate.
In 2007 Elmer and Nelva jointly amended Article IV of the 2005 Restatement. With the 2007 Amendment, Elmer and Nelva replaced Amy with Candace, leaving Carl and Candace as successor co-trustees and naming Frost Bank as the alternate.
Article III of the 2005 Restatement provides an “either/or” for making changes to the trust agreement. Either (1) the signature of both Settlors or (2) a court of competent jurisdiction, neither of which accompanied any instrument dated after June 9, 2008, when Elmer was certified non compos mentis.
It necessarily follows that the administration and disposition provisions for Elmer’ trust share could not be changed after June 9, 2008 without the approval of a court of competent jurisdiction. The September 6, 2007 Amendment was the last family trust instrument signed by both Settlors and none of the instruments to follow conform to either requirement.
Texas Property Code Sec. 112.051. REVOCATION, MODIFICATION, OR AMENDMENT BY SETTLOR. (a) A settlor may revoke the trust unless it is irrevocable by the express terms of the instrument creating it or of an instrument modifying it.
Our Right to Amend or Revoke This Trust
Section A. We May Revoke Our Trust
While we are both living, either of us may revoke our trust. However, this trust will become irrevocable upon the death of either of us. Any Trustee, who is serving in such capacity, may document the non-revocation of the trust with an affidavit setting forth that the trust remains in full force and effect. Tile affidavit may, at the Trustee’s discretion, be filed in the deed records in each county in which real property held in trust is located or in the county in which the principal assets and records of the trust are located. The public and all persons interested in and dealing with the trust and the Trustee may rely upon a certified copy of the recorded affidavit as conclusive evidence that the trust remains in full force and effect.
Section B. We May Amend Our Trust
This trust declaration may be amended by us in whole or in part in a writing signed by both of us for so long as we both shall live. Except as to a change of trust situs, when one of us dies, this trust shall not be subject to amendment, except by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Each of us may provide for a different disposition of our· share in the trust by using a qualified beneficiary designation, as we define that term in this agreement, and the qualified beneficiary designation will be considered an amendment to this trust as to that Founder’s share or interest alone.”
When we say “the trust” we are talking about the 2005 Restatement as amended in 2007
One dispositive fact that should be noted from the onset is that family trust beneficiary Anita Brunsting claims to have become sole trustee on December 21, 2010 and is the only individual with the trust check book and exclusive control of the trust’s assets. It should also be noted that Anita Brunsting’s Attorney is Stephen A Mendel, (mendellawfirm.com) Texas State Bar No. 13930650.
The Frankensuit Litigation
After Nelva’s passing, the procedural catalyst for commencing litigation was Anita Brunsting’s failure to provide a full, true and complete accounting within 90 days of a request by current trust income beneficiary Candace Curtis. On February 27, 2012 Candace Curtis filed a breach of fiduciary action in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking fiduciary disclosures and a trust accounting. It should be noted that Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting were represented by Vacek & Freed staff attorney Bernard Mathews using a Green and Mathews letterhead to conceal his obvious conflict while at the same time, Anita and Amy had a retainer agreement with Vacek attorneys Bernard Mathews and Candace Kunz-Freed. These kinds of conflicts appear throughout and once the lines are drawn they look something like this:
The federal case was dismissed under the probate exception march 8, 2013 and Plaintiff Curtis filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
Curtis v Brunsting 704 F. 3d 406 (Jan 9, 2013)
Harris County Texas Judicial District Court 164
On January 29, 2013 while the federal tort suit was in transit back to the Southern District of Texas, Appellants brother Carl Brunsting, represented by attorney Bobbie G. Bayless, filed legal malpractice claims against his parents’ estate planning attorneys in Harris County Texas Judicial District Court 164 No. 2013-05455 as “Executor for the estates of Elmer and Nelva Brunsting” [ROA.20-20566 pages 2205-2208]
Southern District of Texas April 9, 2013
Preliminary Injunction: On April 9, 2013 hearing was had on a renewed application for preliminary injunction. The court issued the injunction at the hearing. Then, also on April 9, 2013, Attorney Bobbie G. Bayless filed a separate state court suit, this time naming all of the trust beneficiaries as defendants in Harris County Probate Court No. 4. Thus segregating the disloyal estate planning bait and switch Grifters from their client’s family member victims.
On May 9, 2013 the federal trial judge appointed a Special Master to perform a limited accounting, in effort to get a handle on the trusts assets. The preliminary injunction had established the fiduciary relationship and that Anita Brunsting and Amy Brunsting, as co-trustees, owed fiduciary duties to Candace and also found that Anita, as sole trustee for more than 2 1/5 years, had failed to provide a required accounting and had failed to make required disclosures. The court also found anomalies with the instruments Anita produced as representing “the trust”.
The Report of Special Master and the hearing on the Report of Special Master established that Anita had filed to establish proper books and records of accounts and had made distributions to herself and co-beneficiaries Anita and Carole, without notice to co-beneficiaries Carl and Candace and without equalizing those unauthorized distributions among all of the successor co-beneficiaries with whom Anita was equally stationed in regard to rights in trust property.
Enter: Attorney Jason B. Ostrom Texas State Bar No. 24027710, Fed. Id. No. 33680
Federal Plaintiff Candace Curtis was ordered to retain counsel.
Having limited funds but needing to avoid sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to obey the Court’s order, and with great difficulty, Appellant was finally able to obtain the assistance of Houston attorney Jason Bradley Ostrom, (Ostrom). Docket entries 88-96 involve motions for leave to make a distribution from the trust to pay attorney’s retainer fees. Ostrom filed his appearance January 6, 2014, [Dkt 95] the same day the agreed order approving trust disbursements was approved. [Dkt 96]
On May 9, 2014 Ostrom presented the court with a bundle of unopposed motions, [Dkt 107] Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Petition [Dkt 108] First AMENDED Complaint [Dkt 109] Unopposed MOTION to Remand [Dkt 110] Unopposed PROPOSED ORDER Granting Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition re: 107 [Dkt 111] ORDER granting 107 unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition [Dkt 112] ORDER granting 109 unopposed Motion to Remand to Harris County Probate Court No.4. [ROA.17-20360.1148]
The money details will be more succinctly detailed infra but for now, suffice it to say that the ultimate injuries to date, are more than 4 times the initial corpus, which has remained almost unchanged while suffering more than $300,000.00 in excess taxes as a direct result of the failure of Anita Brunsting to distribute trust income to the trust beneficiaries as intended by the trust settlors. [1, 2, 3]
In fact, after all these years of verbal extortion threats the imposter trustees make a “settlement counter offer” in which they propose laundering an extorted ransom of $537,000 by contract, [a.k.a. settlement agreement] a contract they have no more intentions of respecting than the one that formed “the trust”. The “settlement agreement” is a standard fraud artifice used only to change the argument and start all over again.
- Did I mention Pour-Over-Wills?
- Did I mention “Independent Administration?”
- Did I mention Living Trust?
What is this family and their living trust doing in a probate court at all? The answer is color of law racketeering. Government actors are engaged in Color of law Human Trafficking and the theft of generational assets and we should call it what it is: sedition and treason.
If we are paying attention we will recall the mention of pour-over-wills
Injury and Damages