Black v. Wrigley et al

Filing 437

MOTION by Plaintiff Katherine Black for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under F.R.C.P. 50(A) (Exhibits) (bg, )

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 1 of 145 PageID #:13578

/

FIL ED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
sEP
KATHERINE BLACK,

'

3

2019

..E#?Kffi,ffiIBU,*,

Plaintiff,

CaseNo. 1:17-cv-00101

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

CHERIE WRIGLEY ANd PAMELA KERR,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
UNDER F.R.C.P. sO(A)

Plaintiff, Katherine Black ("Katherine"), acting pro se, hereby moves this Court, under
Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 50(a), for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). A

judgment should be entered in Katherine's favor on the Claims Two (Defamation Per Se, against
Kerr), Three (Aiding and Abetting Defamation, against Wrigley), and Four (Conspiracy, against

Wrigley and Kerr) because no reasonable jury could have found as it did based upon the evidence
and the instructions the

jury was given. The evidence proved each element of those claims,

and

that it was umeasonable for the jury to find otherwise.

1. Claim

I.

Two: Defamation Per

Se (asainst

Kerr)

The Jury Instructions Given
In her second claim, Ms. Black alleges that Ms. Kerr committed defamation per se against

her. Under the instructions given to the jury, Ms. Black was required to prove each of the following
propositions by a preponderance ofthe evidence:

L Ms. Kerr caused a statement of fact about Ms. Black to be made to Northwestern
Law School.
2. Ms. Kerr's statement was false.
1

trc

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 2 of 145 PageID #:13578

.

3. Ms. Kerr knew the statement was false, or she believed the statement was true
but lacked reasonable grounds for this belief.
4. It was apparent from the words of the statement that it prejudiced Ms. Black in
her profession.

The jury was further instructed that

if it found that Ms. Black had proven each of these

propositions by a preponderance of the evidence, it:
must go on to consider Ms. Kerr's defense that the statement was substantially true.
This does not require every detail of the statement to be accurate. To succeed on
this defense, Ms. Kerr must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the "gist"
or the "sting" of her statement about Ms. Black was true.

II.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Kerr Did Not Cause a Statement of Fact
about Ms. Black to be Made to Northwestern Law School.

A. "statement of Fact" -

Indisputably Met

Under this Court's decision on the motion to dismiss, the "statement of fact" in question
here is the following:
Page 15 of Ms. Litvak's letter states:

"...and the Colorado Judge Found those Allegations credible Enough to Authorize an
Investigation of Pinto's Conduct by a Forensic Accountant. "
Not only is this a l00Yo false statement... I would not have disclosed this information if
Ms. Litvak had not filed this document with the New York Court with this completely false
statement included.

The relevant statements, which this Court already held to be statements of fact, not opinion,
are

Kerr's assertions that Katherine's quoted phrase is a "100oZ false statement" and a "completely

false statement." These statements are the basis for the claim of defamation per se.

B. "Made to Northwestern Law School" -

Indisputably Met

It is undisputed that Kerr's signed letter, containing this statement

was made to

Northwestern Law School. Kerr emailed her letter to Defendant Cherie Wrigley, who submitted

it through the Northwestem EthicsPoint system.

C. But-For

Causation in Making this Statement

-

Indisputably Met

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 3 of 145 PageID #:13578

These Jury Instructions require the

jury to determine whether Kerr's actions were a but-

for cause for the submission of Kerr's statements to Northwestem. Not the sole

cause, only a but-

for cause. No reasonable jury could find that it was not. If Kerr had not written her letter, or had
not made the defamatory statement of fact in her letter, or had not sent this letter to Wrigley, or
had taken precautions to ensure this letter would not be forwarded to Northwestern, this statement

would never have been made to Northwestern.

Kerr's defense attempted to confuse the jury by claiming that Kerr did not intend for her
letter to be forwarded to Northwestern. However, the Jury Instructions contain no mental state
requirement here. Kerr's intent is irrelevant. The defense further attempted to confuse the jury by

claiming that Wrigley uploaded Kerr's letter to Northwestern by mistake. But Wrigley's intent is
also irrelevant. The only thing that the jury could legally consider is whether but-for Kerr's
actions, the statement of fact would have been made to Northwestern. The answer is clearly no.

In sum, all elements of point

I of the instructions are clearly

met, and no reasonable jury

could have found otherwise.

III.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Kerr's Statement to Northwestern Law
School Was Not False.

Kerr's statement of fact

-

*l00yo
that the language she quoted from Katherine's letter is

false" and o'completely false", it unquestionably false.

A.

Court Authorized a Forensic Accountant to Investigate Pinto's Conduct

-

Undisputable

In the proceedings referenced in Ms. Black's letter, the Colorado court issued the following

order: [Pl. Exh. 30; Mot. Exh. 4] (emphasis added)
The parties have stipulated to a forensic accounting of the Conservatorship estate... - in
short, a complete review of all funds and assets related to Joanne Black both before
and after the disclaimer, by Pamela Kerr, CPA...

8. Mr. Pinto shall provide a complete

accounting with documentation of all funds

that were held under his control to Ms. Kerr...

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 4 of 145 PageID #:13578

If Pinto was ordered by the court to turn over "a complete accounting with documentation
of all funds that were held under his control to Ms. Kerr", then, Kerr was at least "authorized" to
inspect them. There is no other purpose to order someone to turn over all documentation to a

forensic accountant than

to at least

authorize said forensic accountant

to

investigate this

documentation and the conduct that it reflects.
Further, Kerr was required to perform
Joanne
task

-

o'a

complete review of all funds and assets related to

Black." This included the "funds that were held under [Pinto's] control." Kerr's

a complete review

-

assigned

thus included those funds. Once again, Kerr was at least "authorized"

to investigate Pinto's handling of those funds.

Kerr's defense attempted to confuse the jury by claiming that:
(1) the investigation of Pinto was not the only, or even the main, purpose of the Colorado
court order (irrelevant);

(2) that Kerr was originally engaged by the Guardian-ad-Litem, and only later appointed
by the court (irrelevant);

(3) that Kerr spent limited time investigating Pinto (irrelevant);
(4) that Ken did not submit any reports or recommendations regarding Pinto (inelevant).
None of this is relevant to the question of whether Kerr was authorized to investigate Pinto's
conduct, as part ofher assigned tasks.

B.

Kerr in Fact Performed Extensive Investigation of Pinto's Conduct and Reported Her
Preliminary Findings - Undisputable

The

jury saw in evidence the letter from Kerr to

several parties, including Bernard Black

and Cherie Wrigley, Guardian-ad-Litem and several attorneys. In that letter, Kerr summarized the

results of her extensive investigation of Pinto's conduct, requested more documents from several

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 5 of 145 PageID #:13578

parties, and concluded that Pinto diverted at least $41,000 to himself. [Pl. Exh. 44,Mot. Exh. 11]
The excerpts below give the flavor for how detailed Kerr's investigation of Pinto was:

. I absolutely need receipts

for all of the Flight, Hotel/\zlotel, Rental Car, Gas, Motel,
Storage, etc. etc. Since Joanne is a Protected Person and her funds are under jurisdiction
of the Court, every expense has to be properly documented. I need receipts for all of
these expenses in columns G through P. I have not included the column for tolls, but
what are those for? Did Esaun actually go to see Joanne? The charges just say $39/week
or along those lines. I realize that Column G is Esaun's time but we need to know

.
.
.
.
.
.

exactly what service he was performing for Joanne.
When exactly did Esaun get back to New York with Joanne? I see an ATM withdrawal
in Ohio on 411812013. However, he is charging 24 hours a day all the way through
s17l20r3.
Where was she living when she got back to New York?
What was Esaun doing for her from that time until she was picked up by the New Jersey

on

If

61312013?

Esaun was charging $5000 a week for Joanne at this point (5/20-613),I would want

to see a daily log of when she was with him.
If you look at lines 14 and 15 it looks like Esaun switched to a "Flat Rate of $5,000."
It appears that he is charging her $5,000 a week.
Did either of you know he was charging $5,000.00 a week?

In the same letter, Kerr stated that she will be seeking more information not only from
Bernard Black and Cherie Wrigley, but also from Joanne's Guardian-ad-Litehm, Gayle Young,
and from Joanne's New York counsel, Ira Salzman.

This constitutes undisputed evidence that Kerr did investigate Pinto. Obviously, Kerr
would not have been investigating Pinto

if

she were not at least "authorized" to do so. And Kerr

would not have been demanding more documentation from Bernard Black, Cherie Wrigley, Pinto
himself, Gayle Young, and Ira Salzman, if she were not at least "authorized" to do so.
No reasonable jury could conclude that Kerr would engage in such extensive investigation

if

she were not authorized to do so, and

if

she did not

think she was authorized to do so, and that

other parties would be sharing confidential financial information related to Pinto's conduct with

Kerr if they did not think she was authorizedto do so.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 6 of 145 PageID #:13578

C.

Summar.y

All

elements of this prong of the test are clearly met, and no reasonable jury could have

found otherwise.

IV.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Kerr Did Know that Her Statement Was
False, or that She Did Not Lack Reasonable Grounds for this Belief.

Kerr did not assert that she did not see the April 2015 order authorizing her to investigate
several parties in the case, including Pinto. This order was the basis of her entire investigatory
operation. At trial, Kerr did not dispute that she did conduct an investigation of Pinto and issued
her preliminary findings, as reflected in Plaintiff Exhibit 44.

Obviously, when Kerr was doing all this investigatory work, she thought she was at least
o'authorized" to do so. Therefore, when Kerr told Northwestern that it is "100%o false" that she was

"authorized" by the court to investigate Pinto, she knew that her statement was false, or she lacked
reasonable grounds for believing

All

it was true.

elements of this prong of the test are clearly met, and no reasonable jury could have

found otherwise.

V.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that It Was not Apparent from Kerr's Words of
the Statement that It Prejudiced Ms. Black in Her Profession.

This Court already held that an accusation that a law professor lied to the court is per

se

defamatory because it is understood that it prejudices a person in her profession. Defendants did
not dispute this fact at trial.

VI.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Kerr's Statement was Substantially True.

Finally, the Jury Instructions say:

If you find that Ms. Black has proven each of these propositions by a preponderance of
the evidence, you must go on to consider Ms. Kerr's defense that the statement was
substantially true. This does not require every detail of the statement to be accurate. To
succeed on this defense, Ms. Kerr must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the "gist" or the "sting" of her statement about Ms. Black was true.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 7 of 145 PageID #:13578

For the reasons discussed in Part 1.III, no reasonable jury could find that Kerr's statement

(claiming that Plaintiffs cited passage was "10002 false") was "substantially true". Kerr's
statement was absolutely false.

No element of Kerr's defense is met. No reasonable jury could have found otherwise.

VII.

Conclusion: No Reasonable Jury Could Find the Defamation Claim for the
Defendant

Plaintiff has fully satisfied all prongs of the test as listed in the Jury Instructions. No
reasonable

jury could have found otherwise. Therefore, this Court should rule for Plaintiff

notwithstanding the jury verdict.

2,

I.

Claim Three: Aidine and Abettins Defamation (Aeainst Wriglev)

The Jury Instructions Given in this Case.

In her third claim, Ms. Black alleges that Ms. Wrigley aided and abetted Ms. Kerr in
committing defamation against her. To succeed on this claim against Ms. Wrigley, Ms.
Black must succeed on her first claim against Ms. Kerr and must also prove each of the
following propositions by

a preponderance

of the evidence:

1. Ms. Wrigley knowingly and substantially assisted Ms. Kerr in her commission of
defamation against Ms. Black.
2. Ms. Wrigley was aware of her role when she provided the assistance.

II.

Reasonable Jury Could Find that Wrigley did not Knowingly and
Substantially Assist Kerr in Her Commission of Defamation against Ms. Black.

No

Undisputed evidence showed that Wrigley's assistance to Kerr's writing of her defamatory
Ietter was broad and multi-faceted.

It included:

(a) Wrigley's pre-submission conduct (transmitting Katherine's letter to Kerr; encouraging

Kerr to write her own letter; providing information for Kerr's letter; discussing strategies);

(b) Wrigley's submission of Kerr's letter to Northwestern; and

(c) Wrigley's post-submission conduct (refusal to retract Kerr Letter after Northwestern
issued notice that

it was submitted; filing a subsequent complaint to Northwestern against

Katherine, claiming that Wrigley's complaint containing Kerr Letter was not properly resolved).

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 8 of 145 PageID #:13578

At trial, Wrigley did not dispute that

she engaged

in all of the above-listed conduct. As

shown below, all ofthis conduct indisputably constituted "substantial" assistance to Kerr, and most

of it was indisputably "knowing".

Wrigley's only defense was that she submitted Kerr's letter by accident. This claim itself
is not credible, but, assuming, arguendo, that a reasonable

jury could find it credible, it is irrelevant.

Wrigley's aiding and abetting Kerr's defamation was not a single act of submission of Kerr's letter.
Instead,

it

was an ongoing conduct, which included both pre- and post-submission actions.

Wrigley's pre- and post-submission conduct aiding to Kerr's defamation was unquestionably
intentional, constituted substantial assistance, and the facts of this conduct are not disputed.

A.

Wrigley's Actions Were "Substantial Assistance" to Kerr

1.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find Wrigley's Pre-Submission Assistance to Kerr Not
to Be "Substantial"

Wrigley's pre-submission actions were a but-for cause of Kerr's drafting and sending (to
Wrigley) her letter. As such, they constituted substantial assistance to Kerr.
First, Wrigley (through her counsel) was the one who transmitted Katherine Letter to Kerr.
[Pl Exh. 66; Mot. Exh. 12]. But for that transmission Kerr would have never received Katherine

Letter (since Kerr was not a party to those proceedings and did not represent anyone in those
proceedings]. Therefore but for Wrigley's actions, Kerr would not have been able to write her
defamatory statement to Northwestern.

The transmission of Katherine Letter to Kerr cannot be blamed on Wrigley's counsel
because

it is undisputed that Wrigley fully

endorsed the transmission.

If Wrigley

had informed

Kerr that her attorney's transmission of Katherine Letter to Kerr was improper and unauthorized,
Kerr would not have been able to proceed with her defamatory actions. But Wrigley did not do so.
Second, Wrigley actively solicited Kerr's defamatory statement through a string of emails

on January 7th and 8th. [Pl. Exh. 66] After Kerr received Katherine Letter, Kerr immediately
responded:

Unreal. I wonder
she is

if

someone should contact Northwestem and let them know that

writing this letter (which I haven't read yet) on Northwestem letterhead as if

Northwestern is supporting her position.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 9 of 145 PageID #:13578

Wrigley replied:

Totally agree!! ... Melissa has contacted Northwestern and is doing all she can. I
thank everyone for their feedback. This just makes me sick!!

In the emails that followed, Wrigley encouraged Kerr to contact Northwestern, provided
details on how she (Wrigley) contacted various university officials, what exactly she said, and how

Wrigley's prior complaints might be useful for Kerr's current complaint. In return, Kerr discussed

with Wrigley how she (Kerr) called Northwestern; her plans for writing her defamatory letter;
suggested her own ideas on how to make their

joint defamatory actions more effective; encouraged

everyone to write and call Northwestern, and even emailed everyone phone numbers and street
addresses

of senior administrators at Northwestern Law School, whom Kerr thought

everyone

should contact. [Pl. Exh. 66]

Wrigley's active encouragement culminated in Kerr's writing her defamatory letter on
January 8th and sending it to Wrigley. The email string between Wrigley and Kerr had a telling
subject line "lnfo for letter to dean & lnvestigational opening to ETHICS DEPT". [Pl. Exh. 66]

At trial, Wrigley did not dispute the evidence above and did not introduce any contrary
evidence on these issues. No reasonable jury could find that Wrigley did not provide substantial
assistance to Kerr in the pre-submission stage.

2. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Wrigley's Submission

Assistance to Kerr Not

Substantial

Wrigley submitted Kerr's letter to Northwestern. But for Wrigley's submission, Kerr's
letter would not have ended up at Northwestem. Plainly this assistance is substantial.

3. No Reasonable

Jury Could Find Wrigley's Post-Submission Assistance to Keru Not

Substantial
Both Wrigley and Kerr testified that when Northwestem notified everyone that Kerr Letter
was uploaded to Northwestern, they both chose not to retract it. Wrigley testified that her decision

not to retract the letter was deliberate, explaining that she did not retract it because "There was
nothing wrong with the letter." [Trial transcript 3.8-22-19, p. 161:7]. When asked "Is there any

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 10 of 145 PageID #:13578

reason why you would have retracted the letter?", Wrigley responded:

"No." [Trial transcript

3.8-

22-19, p.166:2-4)

Undisputed evidence showed that after Northwestern notified everyone of the receipt of
Kerr Letter, it continued to investigate Wrigley's complaint and Kerr Letter for several months,

until the case was closed on July 26,2016. [Pl. Exh. 71; Mot. Exh. 13].

If, upon receiving Northwestern's announcement in March of 2016 that Kerr Letter had
been uploaded, Wrigley immediately retracted

it, this would have eliminated significant amount

of harm that Katherine suffered from it. Instead, Wrigley chose to not only keep Kerr Letter
submitted, but also keep Wrigley's own complaints against Katherine active at Northwestern, and

use those complaints to direct the attention

of numerous Northwestern employees to Kerr's

defamatory statements against Ms. Black.

Further, undisputed evidence showed that in 2017, Wrigley filed yet another complaint
against Katherine with Northwestern. [included in Plaintiff Exh. 122; Mot. Exh. 8]. In that2017

complaint, Wrigley named as wrongdoers not only Katherine, but also Northwestern's Chief
Compliance Officer, the Dean

of

Northwestern Law School, and the Associate Dean of

Northwestern Law School. In her 2017 complaint, Wrigley claimed, among other things, that her

prior complaints were not handled properly. Wrigley's 2017 complaint triggered a

renewed

investigation of Katherine at Northwestern, and again brought attention to Kerr's defamatory
statements, causing still more harm to Katherine.

At trial, Wrigley did not dispute the evidence listed above and did not introduce

any

contrary evidence on these issues. No reasonable jury could find that Wrigley did not provide
substantial assistance to Kerr in the post-submission stage.

B.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find Wrigley's Actions not to be Knowing

L

Summary

Wrigley's only defense on the knowledge requirement was that she submitted Kerr's letter
to Northwestern by accident. This claim is absurd on its face, and no reasonable

jury could believe

it. But, assuming, arguendo, that Wrigtey's submission of Kerr's letter was not knowing, this still
leaves Wrigley's pre-submission and post-submission conduct. That conduct was indisputably

knowing. Since that conduct was also substantial, that satisfies both parts of this prong.

10

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 11 of 145 PageID #:13578

2.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find LYrigley's Pre-Submission Assistance to Kerr Not

Knowing

It is undisputed that Wrigley knowingly (through counsel) transmitted Ms. Black's letter

to Kerr. After learning about that transmission, Wrigley knowingly chose not to retract

the

transmission of Ms. Black's letter to Kerr and not to instruct Kerr that the transmission was not

authorized and that Kerr was not allowed to read Ms. Black's letter or act on it. Instead,

it

is

undisputed that Wrigley sent numerous emails to Kerr encouraging her to contact Northwestern
and write her letter to Northwestern. No reasonable

jury could find that Wrigley did not provide

knowing assistance to Kerr in the pre-submission stage.

3. No Reasonable Jury Could Find

Wrigley's Submission Assistance to Kerr Not

Knowing

At trial, Wrigley's only defense was that

she did not know that she submitted

Kerr's letter

to Northwestern. That assertion was patently not credible in light of other evidence of Wrigley's
deliberate attacks on Ms. Black; no reasonable jury could believe it.

The evidence presented at trial showed that when Wrigley uploaded Kerr's letter to
Northwestem, Wrigley wrote to Northwestern: "I have just uploaded another letter/complaint that
was sent to your school regarding this matter." The file that Wrigley submitted to Northwestern
o'Letter
to Northwestern Law School.pdf'- that was the file that Kerr sent to Wrigley.
was named

At trial, Wrigley testified that she submitted no letters other than Kerr Letter. At trial,
Wrigley presented no evidence of any other 'oletters" that she thought she could be uploading
instead of Kerr Letter. The evidence is undisputed that the only "letter" that Wrigley could have
been uploading to Northwestem was Kerr Letter. Wrigley wrote to Northwestern that she was
uploading "a letter", and she simultaneously uploaded a letter

-

from Kerr.

Wrigley's only evidence that she did not mean to upload Kerr Letter was a single selfserving email that she sent to Kerr. [Pl. Exh. 108; Mot. Exh. 14]. When Northwestern notified two
courts that Kerr submitted a letter along with a sealed court document, Kerr sent an angry email to

Wrigley and others, threatening to quit their team if she finds out that one of them submitted Kerr
Letter to Northwestern without clearing the details with Kerr.l
Kerr wrote: "Please tell me who forwarded my letter to Northwestern. This will have a severe impact on
my testimony next week."
Shortly thereafter, Kerr sends another email, explaining why she is so upset:"It did not come from me!
That's a problem because now it looks like I sent them the letter from Kate."
1

T7

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 12 of 145 PageID #:13578

Only after Kerr's persistent threats to quit Wrigley's litigation group and withdraw her
testimony in an upcoming hearing, Wrigley comes up with an excuse

- she claimed that she did

not mean to submit Kerr Letter to Northwestern.

And yet, all evidence presented at trial showed that Wrigley lied. Wrigley submitted Kerr's
letter to Northwestern with a written comment that she was submitting "a letter", and Wrigley
presented no evidence of any other "letter" in existence that she thought she was submitting instead

of Kerr Letter. No reasonable jury could find that Wrigley did not know she was submitting Kerr
Letter to Northwestern.

4. No Reasonable

Jury Could Find ltrigley's Post-Submission Assistance to Kerr to

Be Not Knowing

It is undisputed that when Wrigley found out that Kerr's defamatory letter was sitting

at

Northwestem, she chose not to retract it. At trial, Wrigley testified that she did not see any reasons
to retract Kerr's letter after learning it was submitted. [Trial transcript 3.8-22-19, p.166:2-4] It is
also undisputed that Wrigley was the one who submitted yet another complaint against Katherine,

in2017, where she again drew attention to her prior complaints and to Kerr's defamatory letter.
At the moment when Wrigley learned that Kerr Letter was sitting at Northwestern and did
not take an action to retract it, Wrigley's allegedly "not knowing" conduct turned into indisputably

o'knowing". No reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise.

C. Summary: No Reasonable Jury Could Find Wrigley's Actions Not to Be

both

"Substantial" and "Knowing" Assistance to Kerr.

Wrigley's broad set of actions

-

transmitting Katherine Letter to Kerr, encouraging Kerr

to write her own letter, receiving Kerr Letter, submitting Kerr Letter to Northwestern, demanding
that Northwestern takes actions to investigate the accusations in Kerr Letter, and then, refusing to

retract Kerr Letter when Northwestern notified everyone about having received

it -

clearly

constitute "substantial assistance" to Kerr. But for Wrigley's assistance, Kerr would not have
submitted her defamatory statement to Northwestern.

Wrigley presented no evidence for why her pre- and post-submission conduct was either
not substantial or not knowing. Even if, arguendo, Wrigley's submission of Kerr Letter was not

Soon after that, Kerr writes yet another email:

"I am seriously reconsidering testifuing next week."
L2

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 13 of 145 PageID #:13578

knowing, the rest of her assisting conduct unquestionably was. Thus, no reasonable jury could find
that this prong of the test is not met.

ilI.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Wrigley Was not Aware of Her Role when
She Provided the Assistance to Kerr.
For the reasons discussed in Part 2.1I.8' no reasonable jury could find that Wrigley was

not aware of her role when she provided the assistance to Kerr.

IV.

Conclusion: No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Plaintiff Did Not Meet Her
Burden Proving Aiding and Abetting Defamation Against Wrigley.

Since no reasonable
reasonable

3.

jury could find that either prong of the test

not

jury could find that the claim of aiding and abetting defamation is not proven.

Claim Four: Conspiracy (Against Wrislev and Kerr)
The Jury Instructions Given in this Case

In her fourth claim, Ms. Black alleges that Ms. Kerr and Ms. Wrigley participated in a civil
conspiracy to commit defamation against her. To succeed on this claim, Ms. Black must prove
each of the following propositions by a preponderance of the evidence:

Kerr and Ms. Wrigley reached an agreement to accomplish, by concerted action,
an unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Ms. Black must prove that the
participants shared this common purpose. She does not have to prove there was a formal
agreement or plan in which all involved met together and worked out the details. She also does
not have to prove that each participant knew all of the details of the agreement.
1. Ms.

2. In fuitherance of the agreement,

either Ms. Kerr or Ms. Wrigley committed an act

that was defamatory of Ms. Black.

3. As a result, Ms. Black

II.

was harmed.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Kerr and Wrigley Did not Reach an
Agreement to Accomplish, by Concerted Action, an Unlawful Purpose.
Undisputed evidence showed that Kerr and Wrigley engaged

in

extensive, detailed

discussions on how to act in concert to attack Katherine at Northwestern. [Pl. Exhs. 66, 108]. They
exchanged documents, drafts, strategies, information about each other's actions, and encouraged
each other

to act, passed phone numbers, names, and addresses of Northwestern employees to

13

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 14 of 145 PageID #:13578

contact, etc. No reasonable jury could f,rnd that their actions were not "concerted action", an
ooagreement",

or that they did not share a common purpose. Undisputed evidence (several long

email threads) plainly show that their actions were concerted and had a common purpose, and that

Kerr, Wrigley, and the other participants in the email exchange agreed on that purpose. The
unla,*fi.rIpurpose of their actions was to retaliate against a witness in an ongoing legal proceeding
and to commit defamation. As discussed above, no reasonable

jury could find that Kerr Letter

was

not defamatory, and no reasonable jury could find that Katherine was not a witness, or that
Wrigley's and Kerr's actions were not in direct response to Katherine's offer to testify, because
undisputed evidence plainly showed so.

III.

No Reasonable Jury Could Fail to Find that, in Furtherance of their Agreement,
either Kerr or Wrigley Committed an Act that Was Defamatory of Ms. Black.

For the reasons discussed in Claim Two, no reasonable jury could find that Kerr Letter was
not defamatory of Katherine. That is already sufficient to meet this prong of the Instructions. But

this claim is even stronger because Wrigley also committed her own defamatory act, not merely
aided and abetted Kerr. Even though this Court erroneously removed from Jury Instructions the
defamation per se claim against Wrigley,2 the Instruction for Conspiracy plainly requires the jury
to treat Wrigley's direct defamatory act (uploading Kerr Letter) a basis for the conspiracy claim.

Wrigley committed her own independent defamatory act: Wrigley submitted Kerr's letter
to Northwestern; that submission constituted "publication" under the law of defamation. Wrigley
is therefore the "publisher" of defamatory content (of Kerr's claim that Ms. Black's statement to
the judge was "10002 false").

Wrigley knew that Kerr's statement was false, or lacked reasonable

grounds for believing otherwise, for the reasons discussed above. The fact that Kerr's letter was

2

See Plaintiff s Motion for New Trial on the discussion for why it was an error not to allow the claim for
defamation against Wrigley to be included into Jury Instructions.
14

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 15 of 145 PageID #:13578

written by Kerr, not by Wrigley, is irrelevant; Wrigley is the one who published it to Northwestem;

it is immaterial who authored the contents. Wrigley's defense was that she submitted Kerr's letter
by accident. But Wrigley's mental state is irrelevant for publication of defamatory conduct, since
the claim for defamation has no mental state requirement for the act of publication.

Moreover, as discussed above, Kerr's and Wrigley's joint defamatory conduct included

pre-, post-, and during-submission conduct. Both Kerr and Wrigley admitted that when they
leamed that Northwestern had Kerr's letter, neither of them sought to retract it (In March20l6).

It is undisputed that Northwestern continued to investigate Wrigley's complaint, and Kerr's letter,

until July 26,2016. [Pl. Exh. 71] Therefore, it is undisputed that Northwestern's investigatory
activity between March and July 2016 was due to Kerr's and Wrigley's intentional choice, and
their mutual agreement not to retract Wrigley's complaint and Kerr Letter.

IV.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find that Ms. Black Was not Harmed as a Result of
Defamatory Actions by Either Kerr or Wrigley.

This Court already held that an accusation that a law professor lied to the court
defamatory per se, as it obviously harmful to the career and reputation of such professional.

Dated: September 23, 2019
Respectfully submitted,

KATHERINE,ry\CK
2829 Sheridan Place
Evanston lL 6020I
kate. [e-mail]
Katherine L. Black

15

is

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 16 of 145 PageID #:13578

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
KATHERINE BLACK,
Plaintiff,
CaseNo. 1:17-cv-00101

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

CHERIE WRIGLEY And PAMELA KERR,
Defendants.

Joint Exhibits to Katherine Black Motions for New Trial and Motion for
Judgment Nothwithstanding Verdict
(September 23,2019)

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 17 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exh ibit

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 18 of 145 PageID #:13578

Katherine Letter (fu11)

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 19 of 145 PageID #:13578

NORTI'INTE,STERN UNiV]]RSIT'Y SCHOOL Otr LAW
Pro fes sor I(atherine Liwak
357 East Chicago Avenue ' Chicago, Illinois 60671'-3069
k-litvak@northwestern. edu
http / /www. Iaw.northwestem. edu/ facul ty / pr oftles/ K*heinelj;w ak /
:

Via Email to: Ricsupc2@nycourts. gov
Hon. Thomas P. Aliotta
Supreme Court, Richmond Counfy
l8 Richmond Terrace
Staten Island, NY 10301

RE: Guardianship of Joanne Black, Index No 80253/14
7 January 2016

Dear Justice Aliotta:

A. Introduction.
Joanne Black's sister in law, the wife of Bernard Black. For years, I took an active
part in Joanne's care, together with Joanne's mother, and without dny participation from Wrigley,
Dain, or any other member of their family. I was also an active participant in the process leading

I am

up to the guardianship hearing on October

l,

2015, including regular contact with the Court

Evaluator, Bartholomew Russo.

I write to correct some of the many outrageous lies and misleading statements

made in
which compound earlier lies to this
recent submissions by Anthony Dain and Ira Salzman, Esq.,
Court made under oath by Cherie Wrigley. The lies and misleading statements that Wrigley and
Dain have made to this Court are pervasive and severe. I, and other members of the Black family,
seek a hearing, at which we can appear without threat of financial sanctions, to present evidence
that Wrigley and Dain lied to this Court on material, relevant questions, to obtain a favorable result.

In addition to these lies, Wrigley and Dain have repeatedly employed illegal coercive
tactics to prevent the Black family members from appearing in this Court and challenging their
stories with evidence. Dain, acting as a trustee of the Black family trusts, repeatedly violated his
fiduciary duties as trustee to prevent the Black family from hiring legal representation. Wrigley
and Dain have been illegally withholding from the Black family information about the proceedings
in this Court, for the specific purpose of covering up their perjuries and misleading statements, and
their efforts to obtain illegal relief. Wrigley sent a formal certified letter to the Black family, falsely

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 20 of 145 PageID #:13578

claiming to have obtained, from this Court, legal rights with regard to unrepresented third parties
(Bernard Black personally, and the Black family trusts) that she not only did not obtain, but never
even sought. Wrigley also made threats and demanded asset transfers without having any legal
right to make such demands.
The pattern of Wrigley's and Dain's misconduct includes perjury, suborning of perjury,
witness tampering, blackmail, threats to counter-parties, threats to an attorney of the counterparties, illegal withholding of documents, failure to comply with discovery requests in the related
proceedings in Colorado; repeated efforts to obtain relief without proper notice or, as in the case
in this Court, without any notice at all; repeated false and misleading statements made by an officer
of the court (Dain); repeated efforts to persuade courts to act, not only without proper notice but
without jurisdiction; bringing Dain and Wrigley as surprise witnesses after Dain repeatedly said
they would not testify, and much more. We have seen this pattern in the Colorado proceedings,
and they are repeating it here.
Their misconduct is severe and rises to the level of fraud on the court.

I am asking for an opportunity to present evidence of this misconduct. I ask the Court to
take these allegations seriously and hold a hearing to evaluate them. I ask this Court not to make
any determinations as to the appointment of Wrigley as guardian until such evidence is heard.
Please notice how passionately Dain and Wrigley are arguing against legally mandated
disclosure and a hearing, and how they've been threatening us with sanctions if we dare to show
up at a hearing, cross-examine their witnesses, and present our own. You Honor, please ask, why?
Why is their sworn testimony, or their Proposed Orders, or their communications with Mr. Russo
such a big secret? Why are they so afraid that the Black family members will testify, or that
Wrigley and Dain will be subject to cross-examination? Because they know that their perjuries
and other misconduct cannot withstand scrutiny, that's why. I am confident that, when we present

evidence of Wrigley's and Dain's misconduct that they so fervently are trying to stop us from
presenting, this Court will agree that Wrigley is not fit to be Joanne's guardian.

I also request to be recognized as an interested person in this matter, so that I will receive
notice and have an opportunity to respond to their past and expected further lies and misstatements.
My relationship with Joanne spans over a decade. During this decade, I have been more involved
in Joanne's care than Wrigley has in her lifetime. For years, I personally assisted Joanne's mother
with a multitude of everyday decisions and long-term plans for Joanne. In contrast, Wrigley's
lifelong contact with Joanne was limited to an occasional phone call and a rare dinner during the
limited periods when Wrigley was on good terms with Joanne's mother.

I specifically request to receive, as an interested person: (i) notice of any orders or

proposed orders submitted, or to be submitted, in this matter, by any party; (ii) a copy of the
transcript of the hearing held on October 1,2015; (iii) all documents submitted to Mr. Russo by
any party (many of these should have been turned over in discovery in Colorado but they were
not) ; (iv) all documents submitted by Mr. Russo to this court, and (v) everything issued by this
Court, including orders. Only then can I be in a position to fully respond to the repeated and

outrageous lies perpetrated by Cherie Wrigley, Anthony Dain, and Esaun Pinto, and the
misstatements by their respective counsel. As of now, because of Wrigley's and Dain's secrecy, I
can only respond to the information I have, surely a small portion of the misstatements that they
submitted.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 21 of 145 PageID #:13578

I also request the right to participate in all formal and informal proceedings, representing
myself, the same way as Dain has been doing. I have a JD and am a tenured, full Professor of Law
at the Northwestern University School of Law. I have the same ability to appear at all proceedings,
including lawyer-only conference calls and status conferences, as Anthony Dain has claimed, and
this Court has approved for him.
The co-trustees of two trusts for the benefit of Joanne Black - Bernard Black (my husband)
and Samuel Black (his son and my stepson) - should also be recognized as interested persons. As
trustees, they have the same right to be recognized as interested persons as does Anthony Dain.
Dain claimed interested person status based on being a co-trustee of these trusts, and was accepted
as such by this Court. Samuel and Bernard Black should be granted the same rights.

This letter proceeds as follows. In Part B, I address some elements of Wrigley's and Dain's
fraud on the Court. I show that they not only lied and misled this Court, but also impeded the
Blacks' access to legal representation, threatened litigants and attorneys, tampered with witnesses,
illegally concealed information, and otherwise undermined the integrity of these proceedings. In
addition, Dain was acting as counsel and attended counsel-only conferences; as such, he should be
considered an officer of the court. He repeatedly lied to this Court, made highly misleading
statements, and wrongfully omitted material information. Such conduct by an officer of the court
constitutes fraud on the court and requires a thorough investigation and hearing.

In Part C, I explain why the supposed urgency for this Court to act, which Dain and
Salzman are now claiming, is a fabrication, and rests entirely on their failure to disclose material
information to this Court. I show that Dain's attempt to advance this theory is yet another example
of his effort to mislead this Court.
In Part D, I discuss the real issues at stake in this litigation, the ones that Wrigley and Dain
are trying to hide from the Court by denying the Black family a hearing. I show how (1) following
l5 years of family fighting over inheritance, Wrigley and Dain have concocted a scheme to strip
the Black family trusts of assets and funnel those assets to the personal control of Wrigley; (2) how
Dain breached many fiduciary duties and violated the law to pursue this scheme; (3) how Wrigley's
guardianship over Joanne is a critical piece of that scheme, allowing her to take control of the
assets that Dain is trying to strip from the Black family trusts. I also show how Wrigley and Dain
have been sabotaging all family efforts to settle this ruinous litigation because such solutions, while
highly beneficial for Joanne and the rest of the Black family, would not give Dain and Wrigley
their desired outcome - personal control over the Black family assets.

In Part E, I show that Wrigley has many significant conflicts that disqualifu her from
serving as Joanne's guardian. In particular, Joanne's guardian would need to sue on Joanne's
behalf, or at least dispassionately evaluate the need for suing, the following parties: (1) Wrigley
herself and her associate Esaun Pinto for embezzlement and fraud; (2) Dain as a trustee of Joanne's
trusts for breach of fiduciary duties, and Wrigley for aiding and abetting those breaches; and (3)
Wrigley's litigation partners Gayle Young and Lisa DiPonio for legal malpractice. As I show
below, these claims are very strong. If Wrigley is given guardianship over Joanne, she would
sabotage all such efforts.

In Part F,

I

list several examples of Wrigley's perjuries, lies, and highly misleading

statements to this Court. Those include outright falsehoods about: (1) Pinto's criminal history; (2)
known facts and accusations of Pinto's embezzlement and fraud; (3) the legal ownership of assets

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 22 of 145 PageID #:13578

that Wrigley is seeking in this Court; (4) Wrigley's concealment of material information from this
Court to obtain an illegal order, and so on.

Finally, in Part G, I address Wrigley's and Dain's reprehensible ongoing quest for secrecy,
aimed at covering up their lies and other misbehavior in these proceedings.

B. Dain and Wrisley Committed Fraud on the Court.
1. Dain and Wrigley Committed Fraud on the Court though Threats to
Witnesses and Counsel, Impeding Access to Legal Representation, Illegal
Withholding of Material Information, and Other Misconduct.
In his recent letters to this Court, Dain is claiming that this Court should not hear evidence
that he and Wrigley lied to the Court because the Black family should have presented this evidence
earlier. His effort to cover-up his misdeeds must be rebuffed. The Black family had no chance to
reveal Dain's and Wrigley's falsehoods earlier because Dain himself illegally concealed most of
these falsehoods from the Black family, fervently fought against having to disclose them, and has
only recently disclosed a portion of one relevant document, apparently under pressure from this
Court.

Wrigley's and Dain's current position can only be described as chutzpah - illegally hide
information from the opponent, and then, point to the fact that the opponent did not respond to the
concealed information earlier as the grounds not to allow them to respond today. We again request
that Wrigley and Dain disclose all communications that they submitted to this Court, including all
proposed orders, the hearing transcript, and all communications with Mr. Russo.
In Section F below, I list some of the known lies that Wrigley and Dain submitted to this
Court. We will present more at the hearing if we are allowed to have one. I am sure there are still
more in the documents that Wrigley and Dain are so passionately fighting to conceal from us.
Among their known lies are: (1) false claim that Esaun Pinto, who is currently Wrigley's core
person to control and manipulate Joanne, is not a convicted felon; (2) false claim that Esaun Pinto
has not been accused of wrongdoing with respect to Joanne; (3) false claim that the assets that
Wrigley is seeking in her Proposed Order are Joanne's personal property; (4) deceitful failure to
inform this Court that the assets that Wrigley is seeking in her Proposed Order are frozen by the
Colorado court, and thus cannot be transferred to anyone; (5) deceitful failure to inform this Court
that the assets that Wrigley is seeking for urgent transfer in her Proposed Order, ostensibly for
Joanne, are the same assets that Wrigley has been long claiming to belong to Wrigley personally;
(6) false claim that Joanne is in desperate need of money, which can only be fixed by the urgent
appointment of Wrigley as a guardian; (7) false claim that Joanne's Colorado conservator has been
refusing to pay Joanne's bills, necessitating the urgent appointment of Wrigley as a guardian. There
is more. We will present more evidence at a hearing if we are allowed to have one.

The lies that Wrigley and Dain submitted to this Court are supplemented by their
continuous coercive efforts to stop the Black family members from participating in these
proceedings and in related proceedings in Colorado. Dain's coercive tactics are severe and rise to
the level of witness tampering, To coerce the Black family members not to participate in the
proceedings before this Court, and in related proceedings in Colorado, Dain repeatedly threatened
to seek financial sanctions if they dare to appear, and to instigate frivolous actions for criminal
contempt. Wrigley openly engaged in blackmail, threatening to reveal personally damaging

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 23 of 145 PageID #:13578

information about Bernard Black, threatening other members of the Black family, threatening
Bernard Black's Colorado attorney, and so on. ln a separate incident, Dain personally threatened
Bernard Black's New York attorney as well. We request a hearing to present evidence of Wrigley's
and Dain's efforts to tamper with witnesses in these proceedings.
To make Dain's and Wrigley's coercive tactics more effective, Dain took a series of illegal
steps to foreclose the Black family members' access to legal representation. Dain, while acting as
a trustee for the Black family trusts, vetoed all legal-defense spending by the trusts, explicitly
stating that he was doing so to ensure that no trust assets are used to hire afforneys for the Black
family. Later, Dain petitioned this Court and the Colorado court to freeze all Black family trust
assets, again openly stating that the purpose of the asset freeze is to ensure that the Black family
does not use any trust money for legal expenses. All of this violates Dain's fiduciary duties to the
trust beneficiaries.

Dain's misconduct continues and impedes the Blacks' ability to participate in proceedings
in this Court. Due to Dain's actions, we still have no access to our own trust funds to hire sufficient
legal representation in this Court. When a trustee uses his trustee powers to deprive the
beneficiaries of the opportunity to hire legal representation, in the proceedings against the trustee
himself, this no doubt counts as "egregious and purposeful conduct designed to... impede a party's
efforts to purse a claim or defense", and as such constifutes fraud on the court. CDR Creances
S.A.S. v. Cohen, 23 NY3d 307 (2014).

But it gets worse. Dain, acting as a trustee for the Black family trusts, brought numerous
legal actions, in two states, to defund the Black family trusts - in which he was a trustee! He
breached numerous fiduciary duties while he was at it, including the duty of loyalty, duty of
impartiality, duty to defend the trusts in litigation, duty to provide information, duty of
confidentiality, and so on. Dain's goal? If the Black family trusts are defunded, the assets would
flow directly into the control of Dain's sister Wrigley, acting as an ostensible guardian for the
mentally ill Joanne Black. Wrigley already announced her plans to spend these assets lavishly on
herself and her associates. To accomplish this asset-stripping goal, Dain obtained the freeze on the
trusts' assets and deprived the Black family of funding for legal representation.

Dain's temporary success in Colorado was obtained through his own gross legal violations,
combined with his and Wrigley's threats, blackmail, coercion, and outright perjury, in proceedings
where neither the trusts nor beneficiaries individually were represented due to Dain's breaches of
fiduciary duties. Dain's conduct was calculated to benefit himself and his sister Wrigley, who
stood on the receiving end of asset removal.
Dain is now using this temporary success in Colorado to convince this Court to ignore all
evidence of his and Wrigley's misconduct that the Black family is seeking to provide. These efforts
must be rebuffed. The evidence of Wrigley's and Dain's fraud on the court and other misdeeds is
critical for the Court's determination of Wrigley's fitness as a guardian.

Dain's efforts to deprive the Black family of legal representation continue in this Court.
Despite Dain-instigated asset freeze, the Black family scrambled some money to hire a new
attorney (Piper Hoffman, Esq.).As soon as Dain learned about it, he stalked Ms. Hoffrnan online,
cited information from her personal website in his formal letter to her as a counsel, made personal
threats against her, and pressured her to abandon her representation of the Black family in these
proceedings.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 24 of 145 PageID #:13578

Dain's and Wrigley's coercive tactics, taken together with the lies and misleading
statements that they submitted to this Court, and with their continuous efforts to deprive the Black

family of legal representation, constitute "egregious and purposeful conduct designed to
undermine the truth-seeking function of the courts, and impede a party's efforts to pursue a claim
or defense." CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 23 NY3d 307 (2014).

As such, they constitute fraud on the Court. We seek full disclosure of information and a
hearing to present this evidence to the Court.
2. Dain Committed Fraud on the Court by Engaging in Gross Misconduct as

an Officer of the Court.
Dain lied to this Court, concealed material information from this Court, and made many
highly misleading statements. Such actions by an officer of the court constitute fraud on the court.
Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968).
Among Dain's known falsehoods are the following. Dain made false and highly misleading
statements as to the contents ofthe disclosures that Bemard Black submitted to the Colorado court.
Dain falsely claimed, or intimated, that a detailed disclosure that Bernard Black provided to the
Colorado court (his plans for a disclaimer by Joanne Black of payable-on-death assets, so that they
would flow into Renata Black's estate), and then copied from his filed Proposed Order to the
Colorado court into his letter to this Court, somehow never existed. Dain falsely intimated that
Bernard Black failed to submit that same detailed disclosure to all participants in the Colorado
disclaimer proceeding. Dain made false and highly misleading suggestion that the Colorado judge
never saw the detailed disclosure that Bernard Black submitted, even though the Colorado judge
stated, in an open court where Dain was present, that she received, read, and understood Bernard
Black's submitted language, and so on.

This letter is already too long. Exposing Dain's numerous misleading statements would
take significant space because I would need to provide context and supporting documentary
evidence. If we are allowed a hearing, we will present specific, step-by-step demonstrations that
many statements that Dain made to this Court were highly misleading and some were outright lies.
In addition to a long list of highly misleading statements, Dain openly lied to this Court.
For example, Dain lied as to the legal ownership of the assets (ewelry and savings bonds) that
Wrigley is seeking to transfer into her hands. Upon the information and belief, Dain told this Court
that the assets were Joanne's personal property. In reality, they were property of the Black family
trusts, and Dain knew it. The lie was material and calculated - if this Court knew that the assets
were not Joanne's personal property, it would not have directed their transfer to Wrigley.
When the Blacks caught Dain lying about the ownership of these assets it, Dain again
affempted to mislead this Court by claiming that the distinction between trust assets and personal
assets, which is fundamental to the relief he was seeking, is "semantic obfuscation" and
ttnonsense."

Further, Dain concealed from this Court the critical fact that he was seeking an order from
this Court that would violate an existing order from the Colorado court. Dain and Wrigley ask this
Court to order an immediate transfer of assets, knowing that those assets have been frozen by the
Colorado court, by the order that Dain himself obtained. Dain did not inform either this Court or
the Colorado court that he is seeking conflicting orders in two courts. Dain did, however, threaten

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 25 of 145 PageID #:13578

Bernard Black with contempt proceedings if Black violates either the two conflicting orders! Thus,
Dain's failure to disclose material information to this Court is intentional, aimed at advancement
of his litigation position, and aimed at threatening the opposing party with frivolous civil and

criminal penalties.
fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not
perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases" constitutes fraud on the court.
Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed, p. 512,n 60.23.
"[F]abrication of evidence by a party in which an affomey is implicated will constitute a fraud on
the court." Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 552-53 (lOth Cir. 1996). Dain is an officer of the
court. He lied to this Court on material matters. He misled this Court, materially and repeatedly.
We seek full disclosure and a hearing to demonstrate the full extent of Dain's fraud on the court.

"[A]

Dain might claim that he is formally not an "officer of the court" in this case. If he does, it
would be yet another case of chutzpah on his part. Dain has demanded to be treated as an officer
of the court by this Court, and has been granted such privileges. Dain participated in a counselonly telephone conference in September 2015, where no other litigants were admitted. Dain earlier

attended another status conference held for counsel, where he made motions and sought
substantive decisions. He submitted multiple letters and motions. He is using his law firm
letterhead to add credibility to his submissions. Dain is, by every measure, the lead counsel for the
Dain-Wrigley litigation team, both in New York and in Colorado. In Colorado, Dain personally
ran the trial, examined and cross-examined witnesses, defended depositions, and so on.
acts like an officer of the court, and is granted the privileges of an officer of the
court, he must be held to the standards of an officer of the court. Dain's lies and deliberate attempts
to mislead this Court constitute fraud on the court per se. They require investigation, full disclosure
of all submissions, a hearing, and, depending on the determination at the hearing, sanctions.

If Dain

C. Wriglev and Dain Have Manufactured a Crisis where None Exists. and Are Now
Pointins to that 56Crisis" to Avoid Investisation of Their Periurv and Other
Misconduct.

Dain and Salzman are asking this Court to move in an extreme rush, without hearing
evidence of the many false statements that Wrigley and Dain made to this Court in their quest for
guardianship, and their other misdeeds. They justify this mad rush with a newly-discovered crisis
- Joanne's alleged need for money. This "crisis" is a manufactured falsehood.
Dain and Salzman claim that Joanne is "penniless"; that Wrigley is Joanne's only source
of money, and that Wrigley is running out of money, necessitating an urgent appointment of
Wrigley as a guardian. The implication is that Wrigley's appointment as a guardian would solve
Joanne's money problems. This is completely false and highly misleading'
Far from being "penniless", Joanne has tax free income of $68,000 per year, from her
workers' compensation and Social Security Disability Insurance payments. Joanne's Colorado
conservator has the power to use these funds to pay Joanne's documented expenses. In his letter
to this Court, Saltzman confusingly tells this Court that he recalls some open-court conversation
indicating that Joanne's Colorado conservator would not provide spending money to Joanne. After
receiving Salzman's letter, we asked the Colorado conservator whether she has paid any of

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 26 of 145 PageID #:13578

Joanne's expenses and if not, why. She responded that she is authorized
documented expenses, and is happy to do so, but nobody has sent her any bills!

to pay

Joanne's

Meanwhile, the Colorado court did not refuse to authorize payments directly to Joanne.
Instead the court simply wanted Joanne's expenses and request for spending money to be
documented. The Court responded to Mr. Salzman, said at a hearing on June 77,2015:

[M]y charge to you right now is to go to sit down and work through it [Joanne's need to
pay bills and have spending money] and clarify what your perimeters of authority are, what
can be paid, what you have an issue with paying, and then I'll deal with it.
15th and advise me if you want a further
payments for Joanne] by phone.

I've already advised, you know, come back by July
status conference, we can do

it [authorize

Dain and Wrigley never came back to request that bills be paid, or that Joanne receive spending
money. Meanwhile, Bernard Black, as Joanne's conservator, received a number of medical bills
for Joanne, forwarded them to Joanne's conservator, and the bills were paid in the normal course.

This is one of many examples of Wrigley's and Dain's chutzpah in these proceedings:
deliberately create a problem, and then, point to that problem as grounds for relief. Here, Wrigley,
Dain, and Salzman never came back to Joanne's Colorado conservator or to the court with bills to
be paid or a request for spending money. Dain and Wrigley are now pointing to the fact that
Joanne's conservator has not paid the bills that they did not submit as grounds for a mad rush in
appointing Wrigley as a guardian.

In short, Wrigley's appointment as a guardian is not necessary to provide Joanne with
funds. All they have to do is to send the bills to the Colorado conservator for payment. At most,
they might need to seek court approval for spending money, which the court has indicated it is
willing to provide.
There is an even more outrageous reason why Wrigley's appointment will not provide
Joanne with more funds. In addition to her annual income, Joanne has two trust funds, from which
she can request funds. Two of the trustees (Bernard and Samuel Black) have repeatedly offered to

provide money to Joanne from the trusts. They did so without even receiving any bills. For
Joanne's housing expense, the Blacks directly contacted Salzman, Joanne's landlord, and Joanne
herself, and offered to pay Joanne's rent directly. In all instances, they were rebuffed by Wrigley
and Salzman. Bernard Black also provided Joanne with $500 weekly in spending money, until
Dain and Wrigley froze the Black family trusts and prevented further payments.
The Blacks are still huppy, as trustees, to approve all legitimate spending on Joanne's living
expenses and pocket money. But they cannot - because Wrigley and Dain personally sought and
obtained the freeze on Joanne's trusts! All that Dain and Wrigley need to do is to petition the
Colorado court to lift their own freeze on the trusts' assets. Until that happens, the vast bulk of
Joanne's money is not accessible to anyone, whether Wrigley is appointed guardian or not.

Actions speak louder than words. If Dain and Wrigley were interested in Joanne's access
to money, they could have asked her conservator to pay bills and provide spending money, and
could have petitioned the Colorado court to lift the freeze from Joanne's trusts. If the freeze is
lifted, Bernard and Samuel Black are ready to again use trust funds to pay Joanne's legitimate
expenses and provide her with spending money, as they did before the freeze. Instead, Wrigley
and Dain point to their own asset-freezing scheme and failure to ask Joanne's conservator to pay
bills as a crisis that can only be solved by Wrigley's urgent appointment as a guardian.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 27 of 145 PageID #:13578

The phony need for urgent action that Dain and Salzman manufactured in their recent
letters is yet another example of the many falsehoods that they have unleashed on this Court. It
underscores the need for fulI disclosure of their submissions to this Court, the need for a hearing,
and Wrigley's unfitness to be a guardian.

D. Wrigley's and Dain's Real Purpose in these Proceedings Is to Funnel the Black
Family Assets to Themselves: Hearinq Is Necessarv to Present Evidence.

1.

Wrigley Stole Significant Assets from the Black Family, Was Estranged
from the Blacks, and Has Fought with the Blacks Over Inheritance for
Decades.

Wrigley's current quest for guardianship is a continuation of a decades-long family fight
in which Wrigley has repeatedly stolen, or tried to steal, family assets that are not hers.
In the late 1990s, Wrigley's mother (Joanne's aunt) died. Wrigley's mother ran a real estate
business in California, in which Joanne's mother and Joanne's and Wrigley's grandmother made
large investments. After the death of Wrigley's mother, Wrigley took over the business and
wrongfully refused to acknowledge the interests of the Black family, including her own elderly
grandmother. A multi-year fight ensued. As part of that fight, I personally researched and drafted
a fraud complaint on behalf of Joanne's mother and grandmother against Wrigley. That complaint
detailed the specifrcs of the Black's investment and Wrigley's misappropriation thereof. Joanne's
mother was planning to file a lawsuit, but wanted to talk to Wrigley first, hoping that she would
settle. Wrigley told Joanne's mother that if she files a suit, Wrigley would bring in her litigator
brother Dain, counter-claim against the Blacks on some bogus grounds, and ruin Joanne's mother

financially.
Joanne's mother and grandmother had to abandon their plan to sue Wrigley. In retaliation

for Wrigley's theft, the grandmother wrote a new will, in which she entirely disinherited Wrigley
and her siblings, including Dain. All of grandmother's assets were bequeathed to the Black family.
That includes valuable family jewelry. If you look at Wrigley's Proposed Order, on page 7,you
will see the demand that Bernard Black transfers some jewelry to Wrigley. That's the jewelry that
the grandmother left to the Black family after Wrigley stole the Black family's real estate
investment. Wrigley has been trying to get that jewelry ever since. As discussed below, she is now
using these guardianship proceedings to try again.
2004, Joanne's grandmother died; Wrigley appeared again, challenging the will and
demanding the jewelry. The Blacks rebuffed this effort. Another multi-year fight ensued.

In

In 2012, Joanne's mother died; Wrigley appeared yet again, with the same demands. One
day after the death of Joanne's mother (!), Wrigley wrote to Bernard Black, demanding the jewelry
and claiming that it rightfully belongs to Wrigley. Wrigley made many more demands for that
jewelry since then, as did her siblings. At the funeral itself, she insisted on talking about the
jewelry and how it really belongs to her. It does not. Since then, Wrigley has repeatedly threatened
that she would get "her" jewelry sooner and later.
If we are allowed a hearing, we will present significant evidence showing that Wrigley and
Dain are using these guardianship proceedings to strip assets from the Black family and funnel

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 28 of 145 PageID #:13578

them to themselves. We will show that Wrigley has been trying to do this for decades. We will
present evidence showing the many attempts that Wrigley has made at expropriating the Black
family's assets, on many different occasions. This is exactly why Wrigley has been estranged from
our family - because she is a greedy, manipulative thief and a liar. And this is exactly why Wrigley
and Dain have been fighting so hard against giving us notice and hearing in this Court. At the

hearing, we will present evidence showing that Wrigley and Dain have been using these
guardianship proceedings to funnel assets from the Black family trusts into the hands of Wrigley,
and that their current asset-stripping efforts are completely consistent with their pattem of prior
malicious conduct.

The only thing that changed after Joanne's mother died is Wrigley's gall. In the past,
Wrigley was careful in fighting with the Blacks because she would have to pay her own litigation
expenses if a fuIl-scale war broke out. But now, Wrigley is using Joanne as a pawn - she has
manipulated Joanne into suing Joanne's own family, at Joanne's expense, to obtain a supposed
"recovery" - to transfer all of the Black family's assets from family trusts into the hands of
Wrigley, acting as Joanne's guardian. The perverse feature of Wrigley's litigation ploy is that, by
using Joanne as a proxy, Wrigley is using the Black family assets to sue the Black family itself.
We are paying litigation expenses on both ends of this scheme because, so long as Wrigley is
acting ostensibly on Joanne's behalf, she is expecting to be paid from Black family assets. As such,
this is a great free gamble for Wrigley. But it is financially ruinous for the Blacks.

2.

Wrigley and Dain Use Joanne as a Proxy to Continue Decades-Long Effort
to Strip Assets from the Blacks and Funnel Them to Wrigley.

Wrigley and Dain have represented to this Court that their only interest in these proceedings
is Joanne Black, and that they, or at least Wrigley, had a lifelong close relationship with Joanne.
This is completely false. Neither Wrigley nor Dain had any meaningful relationship with Joanne
while Joanne's mother was alive. Nor could they, while they were fighting with Joanne's mother
and the rest of the Black family over the inheritance that they stole or tried to steal. Wrigley
suddenly developed an "interest" in Joanne only when Joanne's mother died, leaving Joanne a
wealthy heir, and providing Wrigley with an opportunity to use Joanne and Joanne's money to
instigate litigation with the Black family and funnel the Black family's assets to Wrigley herself.
Dain remained completely disengaged with Joanne's care for two and a half years after
Joanne's mother's death. He totally ignored his fiduciary duties as a trustee of her trusts. He
became interested and engaged when, and only when, his sister Wrigley began her active fight for
control of the Black family assets, in the fall of 2014.
Immediately after Joanne's mother's death, Wrigley convinced Bernard Black to work with
her for Joanne's benefit, and Bernard Black agreed. Wrigley and Bernard Black together conceived
a plan to disclaim assets in Renata Black's accounts at Vanguard, which Renata Black had
supposedly left directly to Joanne, so that they would flow through Renata Black's estate, with
two-thirds of the assets going to Joanne's Supplemental Needs Trust, and one-third to an Issue
Trust, principally for Renata Black's grandchildren. This disclaimer is the ostensible subject of the
entire controversy. I say "ostensible" because it is merely a pretext for Wrigley's and Dain's assetstripping efforts, as we will show at a hearing if we can have one.

10

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 29 of 145 PageID #:13578

Wrigley and Bernard Black both knew that the disclaimer and related actions were far more
beneficial to Joanne than any alternative course of action. In a hearing, we will explain to this
Court why this is so. Wrigley and Dain passionately oppose the hearing because they are afraid
that the Court will learn that the disclaimer was not only beneficial to Joanne, but also actively
supported by Wrigley. Indeed Wrigley's assistance was instrumental in obtaining the disclaimer.

Wrigley and Bernard Black continued to work together for Joanne's benefit until 2014,
when Bernard Black discovered that Wrigley, to whom Bernard Black had entrusted some aspects
associate, convicted federal felon Esaun Pinto, have been
embezzling money from Joanne's bank accounts and defrauded the Estate of Renata Black of
hundreds of thousands of dollars through fraudulent billing.

of Joanne's care, and Wrigley's

When Bernard Black demanded that they retum the money, Wrigley responded by
blackmailing him. Wrigley told Bernard Black that she possessed some compromising information
related to the disclaimer and his mother's will, and that Wrigley would release that information if
Bernard Black did not start diverting significant Black family assets to Wrigley personally, and
does not stop his investigation of Wrigley's theft of the Black family assets. When Bernard Black
again refused, Wrigley contacted his afforney who performed the disclaimer, Carl Glatstein, and
sought to threaten and blackmail him too, again demanding more money and to stop the
investigation of hers and Pinto's theft.
Because Bernard Black did not acquiesce to Wrigley's blackmail, she developed a new
scheme. In2}l4,with the help of her litigator brother Dain, Wrigley devised a scheme to strip the
Black family of their interests in their family trusts, take control over the Black family money, and
spend a significant portion of it on herself, and convince Joanne to bequeath to Wrigley and Dain
whatever Wrigley failed to spend. For this purpose, Dain and Wrigley proceeded in two directions

simultaneously.
First, in late2014 and early 2015,Dain, while serving as a trustee of all Black family trusts,
initiated legal actions in courts in New York and Colorado, seeking to defund both trusts. Dain
used his trustee status to claim that he was an "interested person" with respect to Joanne Black,
and then used his interested person status to launch (and be the lead lawyer in) litigation seeking
to defund the trusts.

In Dain's own words to this Court, "that issue trust needs to be - the money in it needs to
be defunded." Transcript of New York hearing (Feb. 19,2015, at22). Dain was a co-trustee of
the Issue Trust that he sought to defund! In fact, the remedy Dain sought would have defunded
both family trusts set up by Joanne's mother (the family's Issue Trust and the Joanne's
Supplemental Needs Trust, both of which have Dain as a co-trustee). If the two trusts were
defunded, the money in these trusts would have flown directly to the mentally ill Joanne Black,
who has no capacity to manage it.

At the same time that Dain was seeking to defund the Black Family trusts, Wrigley
to secure guardianship over Joanne's person and assets in this Court. In her

petitioned

guardianship petition, Wrigley specifically requested the powers to manage all of Joanne's funds,
dispose of Joanne's property, and make gifts. In sum, while Dain was using his trustee status to
allow him to sue in multiple courts to defund the Black family trusts, and cause the assets from
both trusts to flow directly to the mentally ill Joanne Black, Wrigley was petitioning to take control
over Joanne Black's finances, and thus over these funds.

11

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 30 of 145 PageID #:13578

That is, Dain, while serving as a trustee, and using his trustee status to gain personal entry
into litigation, worked to funnelthe Black family assets into the hands of his sister Wrigley'
Even more egregiously, Dain used his position as a trustee to make it impossible for the
beneficiaries of the Black family trusts to hire their own counsel to represent them during the assetstripping proceedings that Dain initiated. While Dain was suing to move assets from the Black
family trusts into the hands of his sister Wrigley, he sought court orders to freeze the trusts' assets,
openly acknowledging that his goal was to ensure that trust assets are not used to pay the
beneficiaries' legal defense fees. Dain succeeded in obtaining afreeze from the Colorado court on
all trusts, plus the Estate of Renata Black. As a result of the freeze, neither the trusts themselves,
nor the beneficiaries of the trusts were legally represented in the proceedings Dain brought to strip
them of their assets.

Colorado, nominally acting as an "interested person" representing himself, Dain
completely ran the litigation to defund the Black family trusts in which he was a trustee. He fully
controlled litigation strategies, directed the work of other members of what was ostensiblyJoanne's litigation team, defended depositions, conducted examinations and cross-examinations
in open court, submitted documents, and so forth.

In

Dain's effort to defund the Black family trusts in Colorado failed. The disclaimer, which
Wrigley actively solicited and then, perjuriously, claimed not to have understood, is final and
irrevocable under the Colorado law, and thus the trusts cannot be defunded.
Undeterred, Dain and Wrigley are now seeking to defund the Black family trusts both in
Coloiado (on unclear grounds) and in New York. For one of the trusts, Dain recently stated, "The
Issue Trust, of course, still holds funds that rightly belong to Joanne Black, and unless Bemard
[Black] agrees to arrange for the return of those funds with interest, this will have to be the subject
of separate litigation." Emails from Anthony Dain to Bernard Black's Colorado counsel, Bernard
Poskus (Dec. 2 and Dec. 10, 2015).

For Joanne's Supplemental Needs Trust, which her mother created, Dain is advancing a
different and bizarre approach to extracting assets, with no shred of a legal basis. He has
announced his plans to seek a court order that would transfer the power to make distributions from
Joanne's trust's trustees to Joanne Black's guardian, who, if this Court falls into his trap, would
conveniently be his own sister Wrigley!
In this Court, Dain and Wrigley are also seeking an order directing turnover of assets held
by two Black family trusts to Wrigley, while - amazingly - concealing from the trustees and
beneficiaries of these trusts the text of their secret proposed order. To pressure the Black family
into acquieseing to her demands, Wrigley wrote a formal demand letter to Bernard Black, falsely
claiming that this Court had appointed her a trustee of Black family trusts as well.
After failing in his defunding efforts, Dain is now seeking in both states to persuade courts
to simply ignore the trusts' existence and transfer trust assets to Wrigley's control. Dain is
intentionally ignoring the fundamental legal distinction between trust assets and personal assets.
He claimed to this Court that this significant distinction is "semantic obfuscation."
Dain's and Wrigley's efforts harmed, and were intended to harm, at least eight beneficiaries
of the Black family trusts. Dain's and Wrigley's efforts harmed, and were intended to harm, the
three trusts, to which Dain owed fiduciary duties. Dain and Wrigley claim to be acting in the
interests of Joanne Black, but their efforts have harmed Joanne Black as well, as we will explain
12

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 31 of 145 PageID #:13578

in a hearing if we are allowed to have one. In particular, Dain and Wrigley have imposed massive
litigation costs on Joanne Black, which have already substantially depleted her assets, and plan
further litigation, which will further deplete her remaining assets. Dain and Wrigley also
intentionally froze Joanne's access to her own money, leaving her at mercy of Wrigley and her
felon associate Pinto. The only persons who stood to gain from Dain's and Wrigley's litigation
were Dain and Wrigley.

Dain and Wrigley are pursuing multiple, increasingly strained litigation efforts, in two
of increasing litigation costs. Early on, Dain threatened to make
litigation "wildly expensive," to deter Bernard Black from investigating Wrigley's theft of the
Black family assets. Dain continues to carry out that threat, in an effort to exhaust the financial
resources ofthe trustees and beneficiaries to defend against his efforts to extract assets from the
Black family trusts. Perversely, Dain and Wrigley are purposefully multiplying litigation costs to
the Black family at no cost to themselves - so long as their asset-stripping scheme is conducted
ostensibly on behalf of the mentally ill Joanne Black, they are demanding to have their own
litigation expenses paid from the Black family assets.
states, for the express purpose

3.

Wrigtey and Dain Rejected the Largest Settlement Offer that Joanne
Could Possibly Collect Because the Offer Did Not Give Them Control over
the Black Family Assets.

The litigation that Dain and Wrigley instigated has one critical perverse feature - Dain and
Wrigley are using the Black family money (by using Joanne as an ostensible plaintiff) to sue the
Black family itsell seeking to defund the Black family trusts and funnel all family assets into the
hands of Wrigley. This litigation is free entertainment for Dain and Wrigley, who demand to be
fully paid from the Black family funds for all outlays. This litigation is a financial disaster for the
Black family, even if they beat Dain and Wrigley, because the Blacks will have wasted hundreds
ofthousands ofdollars on legal expenses ofboth sides.

To stop the waste of family assets on litigation, in September 2015, the Black family
offered to transfer the entire amount in the Issue Trust - the only amount in controversy - to Joanne
Black's trust. We would rather have this money spent by Joanne than waste it on lawyers. We
further offered to relinquish control over Joanne's trusts to a professional trustee.
This is the absolute best that Joanne can possibly do in any litigation. The Black family has
no other significant assets that Joanne could realistically collect. The Blacks have only one
collectible asset - the family trust fund, which was offered for the settlement.
This settlement would also save hundreds ofthousands, perhaps millions, of dollars of legal
expenses and delay. This is the absolutely most that the Black family could possibly offer to
Joanne, and significantly more than Joanne can realistically collect.

But this offer gives nothing to Wrigley and Dain. Control over the assets would go to an
independent trustee. That would undermine the whole point of this litigation for Wrigley and Dain.
Consequently, Wrigley and Dain rejected this offer. As best we understand, they did not even
present it to Joanne's Colorado conservator.

Actions speak louder than words. Wrigley and Dain would rather spend additional
hundreds of thousands of dollars of Joanne's money, with very little realistic chance of recovery,
on a highly speculative gamble to remove the assets from the Black family trusts - instead of
13

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 32 of 145 PageID #:13578

accepting an offer to transfer those same assets to Joanne's trust without further litigation. Their
actions make clear that they are not seeking more money for Joanne. They seek control over
whatever money Joanne has left, when the fighting stops.

E.

Wrigley must not be appointed Joanne's guardian because she has many significant
conflicts that make it impossible for her to perform her duties as a guardian'
First, as mentioned above, the Black family has collected substantial evidence that Wrigley,
together with her associate, convicted federal felon Esaun Pinto, has embezzled Joanne's funds
and defrauded Joanne ofhundreds ofthousands ofdollars. It would be appropriate for Joanne to
sue them to recover these funds. But if Wrigley is granted guardianship over Joanne, she will not
sue herself. This conflict is sufficient to disqualiff Wrigley from guardianship. An independent
professional should decide whether Joanne has claims against Wrigley and Pinto for theft and
misappropriation.
So that there can be no doubt, Pinto is indeed a convicted federal felon, despite Wrigley's
false claim (under oath) that he is not. Please look for yourself. Just Google "Esaun G. Pinto" and
see what comes up. His guilty plea is easy to find, either on the internet or under the docket number

that Bernard Blatk provided in a prior submission to this court: United States District Court
Westem district of Washington at Tacoma under docket number CR 07 5775 RBL'
Second, as discussed in the preceding section, Dain, while acting as a trustee for the Black
family trusts, sought to defund the Black family trusts, froze trust assets to foreclose the
beneficiaries' access to funds for legal defense, personally led litigation to defund the trusts, and
has attempted to funnel the defunded assets from the Black family trusts into the hands of his sister
Wrigley. Dain's breach of fiduciary duty to the trusts is extreme and astonishing. For many of
these breaches, a claim by the beneficiaries for breach of fiduciary duty should lead to
straightforward summary judgment, since it is undisputed that Dain, while a trustee, in fact sought
to defund the Black family trusts and harm multiple beneficiaries. Dain is still doing so. Joanne
Black, along with other beneficiaries, was harmed by Dain's attempt to strip assets from the trusts
and funnel them into the hands of Dain's sister Wrigley. Joanne's guardian would be expected to
sue Dain on Joanne's behalf, and Wrigley for aiding and abetting. If Wrigley were appointed
Joanne's guardian, she would no doubt sabotage this effort. This conflict should also disqualify
Wrigley from being appointed a guardian. An independent professional should decide whether
Joanne has claims against Dain for breach of fiduciary duty.

Third, during the Colorado proceedings, Joanne's Colorado counsel, Lisa DiPonio, and
Joanne's Guardian ad Litem, Gayle Young, both admitted that they received Bernard Black's twopage proposed order describing the disclaimer, which stated that two-thirds of the disclaimed
assetiwoutd go to Joanne's trust fund under a specific article of Renata Black's will; read the
order; read Renata Black's will (which clearly states that two-thirds of her Estate goes to Joanne's
trust and one third to a separate trust for the rest of the family); read the two trusts; billed for
reading them (Young billed for two hours!); spoke to Bernard Black's counsel Carl Glatstein about
them the next day; approved the disclaimer proposal in writing - but somehow did not understand
what those documents say!

t4

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 33 of 145 PageID #:13578

This conduct, unbelievable as it is, is prima facie legal malpractice. If they did not
understand the trivially straightforward documents that they signed, after billing for hours for
reading them, as they now claim, Joanne has an excellent claim against both DiPonio and Young'
But if Wrigley is appointed Joanne's guardian, she will no doubt not bring such a lawsuit. Wrigley
and Dain have announced that they will continue litigating in Colorado to continue their so far
unsuccessful quest to strip assets from the Black family trusts, and they critically need cooperation
and support from DiPonio and Young to succeed. An independent professional should decide

whether Joanne should bring claims against Young and DiPonio for malpractice'

Note too that the Blacks have filed a very strong Motion for New Trial in Colorado, and
there is a good chance it will be granted. If it is, cooperation from DiPonio and Young would be
critical to continue Wrigley's and Dain's asset-stripping ploy in Colorado because both DiPonio
and Young served as Wrigley's and Dain's main fact witnesses. Even if a new trial is not granted
in Colorado, Wrigley and Dain need cooperation from DiPonio and Young because there is a very
good chance that the Blacks will succeed on appeal, and at least some portion of the case will be
sent back to the trial court. Thus, there is every reason to think that Wrigley will intentionally
sabotage Joanne's claim against DiPonio and Young, This is yet another conflict that should
disqualif, Wrigley from guardianship.
I attach our Motion for New Trial to this letter. As you can see, the procedural improprieties
that Bernard Black faced in Colorado are staggering, and include items like the judge testifying as
a fact witness in her own case; ruling on a motion for civil theft without jurisdiction; freezing New
York trusts and the New York Estate of Renata Black without jurisdiction; Dain and Wrigley
testiffing as surprise witnesses after Dain said repeatedly they would not (denying the Blacks the
chance for effective cross-examination that we seek here); the judge allowing new claims to be
brought mid-trial, without proper notice; the judge relying improperly on her prior knowledge of
Joanne's guardian-ad-litem and court-appointed counsel to grant them credibility; the judge
denying an emergency motion for continuance sought due to a counsel's severe and documented
injury, and so on.
As you see, contrary to Dain and Wrigley's proclamations in this Court, their position in
Colorado is far from certain and victorious. Their success critically depends on cooperation from
Young and DiPonio. Wrigley can be fully expected to sabotage Joanne's claim against the
members of Wrigley's litigation team and thus cannot be appointed as a guardian.
F. Some Examples of Wrisley's False and Misleading Statements to this Court.
In this section, I only briefly discuss some of the examples of Wrigley's lies to this Court.
These lies are material, and many are committed under oath. If we are allowed a hearing, we will
present many more lies and highly misleading statements that Wrigley and Dain made in an effort
to secure guardianship.

1. Wrigley

Committed Perjury by Stating to this Court, Under Oath, that
Her Associate Esaun Pinto Is not a Convicted Federal Felon, when, as
Wrigley Knew, Pinto Pled Guilty on March 31' 2009 to a Felony Violation
of 18 U.S.C. $S 641-642, Unlawful Conveyance of Government Records, in

15

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 34 of 145 PageID #:13578

the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (3:07-cr0s775-RBL).
In related proceedings in Colorado, Bernard Black presented evidence of Pinto's theft and
misappropriation of Joanne Black's assets, and of his prior criminal conduct, and sought an
investigation. I personally provided copies of Pinto's indictment and guilty plea to Joanne
Colorado guardian ad litem, Gayle Young, and Joanne's Colorado counsel, Lisa DiPonio. Wrigley
was closely cooperating with both of them. In New York, Bernard Black stated, in a prior
submission to this Court on September 9,2015,that Pinto was a convicted felon, and provided the
precise docket number. Bernard Black stated, among other things, that:
10. Upon information and belief, Cherie Wrigley did not properly screen Pinto
and evaluate his credentials and background.

1i. A proper screening

would have disclosed that Pinto is a convicted felon in
United States District Court Western district of Washington at Tacoma under
docket number CR 07 5775 RBL.
12. Pinto's conviction under this indictment involved fraudulently securing
personal information of individuals and selling it to companies to determine
financialholdings of litigants in civil actions.

In response, Cherie Wrigley falsely stated, in an affrdavit submitted to this Court on
September 21, 201 5, that:

ln point of fact, the felony charge against Mr. Pinto, to which [Bernard Black] refers, was
dropped and he has never been convicted of a felony. Further, these events transpired
twenty (20) years ago . . . .
The truth is simple. Pinto was indicted in the Westem District of Washington in 2007 for
aggravated identity theft, fraudulent elicitation of Social Security Administration information, and
solicitation of federal tax information. He pled guilty in2009, to a felony violation of 18 U.S.C.
$$ 641-642, Unlawful Conveyance of Government Records. Copies ofthe indictment and Pinto's

guilty plea are attached.
There is no possible way that Wrigley could have remained unaware of Pinto's criminal
record even after I personally provided copies of the indictment and guilty plea to Wrigley's
associate Young in Colorado, and Bernard Black provided the specific docket number in his filing
in this Court.

simple Google search for "Esaun G. Pinto" provided the following as the first hit:
http://www.assetsearchblog.com/Torrellaindictment.pdf, which contains a photocopy of Pinto's
criminal indictment. The third hit is: http://fraudwar.blogspot.com/2007/12lprivate-eyes-chareedwith-aseravated.html ("Private Eyes charged with aggravated identity theft," discussing the
criminal enterprise in which Pinto participated and listing him by name). The fourth hit is the U.S.
Department of Justice page: http:i/wwwjustice.gov/archive/criminal/cybercrime/pressreleases/2007/torellalndictment.htm, again listing Pinto's name as a member of a criminal
conspiracy.

A

generates as a first hit:
http://www.assetsearchblog.com/uploads/file/Torelladocket.pdf, a criminal docket for Pinto's

A search for "'Esaun Pinto' felony"
t6

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 35 of 145 PageID #:13578

case, showing the details of when he pled guilty and was sentenced. The first ten hits for a search

for "'Esaun Pinto' criminal" provide details containing Pinto's indictment, the full docket,
English discussion of the conspiracy that he was part of, and so on.

a

plain-

Thus, Wrigley committed perjury when she falsely denied that Pinto is a convicted federal

felon. Wrigley knew that Pinto was a felon. Wrigley also knew that Pinto had stolen and
misappropriated Joanne Black's assets. She succeeded in covering up those awkward facts in
Colorado, and hoped to do the same in New York.

At the very least, Wrigley willfully avoided knowing that Pinto was indicted for aggravated
identity theft, fraudulent elicitation of Social Security Administration information, and solicitation
of federal tax information, and pled guilty to and was convicted of unlawful conveyance of
govemment records. Wrigley gave this identity thief access to Joanne's identity and assets, which
is just one more reason she is not suited to be Joanne's guardian'

Wrigley's false denial of Pinto's criminal record also says much about Pinto. He knows
he was indicted and pled guilty, and is also seeking to conceal that information from this Court.
Yet Wrigley proposes to rely on Pinto as her principal source of regular contact with Joanne, and
to pay him lavishly for doing so.

2.

Wrigley Committed Perjury by Falsely Stating to this Court, Under Oath,
that o'there is no assertion that [Esaun G.] Pinto has done anything
improper with [Joanne Black] whatsoever," when, as Wrigley Knew,
Serious Allegations Had Been Made in Related Colorado Proceedings
about Pinto's Theft and Misappropriation of Joanne Black's Assets, and
the Colorado Judge Found those Allegations Credible Enough to
Authorize an Investigation of Pinto's Conduct by a Forensic Accountant.

In related proceedings in Colorado, Bernard Black

presented evidence

of theft

and

misappropriation of Joanne's assets by Pinto, and sought an investigation. These allegations were
made in an open court
participated.

in which Wrigley was

present, during proceedings

in which Wrigley

At the April 2, 2015, status conference, Bemard Black's Colorado attorney, Carl Glatstein,
said the following: "There were a variety of concerns with respect to what was happening with
[Joanne Black's] Social Security; that's part of what we think an evidentiary hearing would be
good for the Court to know. Funds were being withdrawn from her account by Pinto not for her
benefit that we could discern and he would not account to the conservator for those funds." [The
Court interjected]: "Right. I know there was a big dispute about that." [Glatstein continued:]
"And [forensic accountant] Ms. Kerr will be provided all that information so she can also from a
forensic accounting perspective see where everything went, what the concerns and issues were.
Funds were being withdrawn from Joanne's personal account by Mr. Pinto when she's on a locked
psych unit. And no accountability on that to anybody. We would be very concerned about Mr.
Pinto being put back into a position as a rep payee; there needs to be accountability on that as well
as everything else for Joanne's benefit." Tr . 28-29 , Case 2012 PR 1772, Probate Court for Denver
County, Colo., April 2, 2015.

The Colorado court found allegations of Pinto's misconduct sufficiently credible and
troublesome to order an investigation of Pinto by the court-appointed forensic accountant, Pamela
L7

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 36 of 145 PageID #:13578

with documentation
of all funds that were held under his control to Ms. Kerr and Ms. Peterson, who shall ensure copies
are provided to Counsel of record including Mr. Saltzman, the GAL, Mr. Dain and Ms. Wrigley,"
Status Conf. Order fl 8 at 3, Case2012PP.l77z,Probate Court for Denver County, Colo., April2,
20t5.

Kerr. The court ordered that "Mr. Pinto shall provide

a complete accounting

The Colorado court also reviewed Wrigley's and Dain's demand to allow Pinto to serve as
a representative payee and receive Joanne Black's insurance checks, and rejected it on the basis of
the significant accusations it heard. Judge Leith said: "At this point I am satisfied that I don't think
Mr. Pinto should become--be the rep payee. There's too many issues surrounding whatever
expenses--he's got to provide a full accounting." Transcript at 42.

Wrigley was present in the courtroom while the parties were speaking and while the judge
was issuing these orders orally; Wrigley also received the judge's written order for an accounting
by Pinto.
Following this hearing, Wrigley received detailed information about Pinto's misconduct,
with specific amounts stolen, specific accounts from which assets were stolen, and specific
channels of Pinto's theft and misappropriation of Joanne Black's assets, from submissions that
Bemard Black made to the Colorado forensic accountant Pamela Kerr. All of those submissions
were either forwarded or directly copied to Wrigley, Dain, and other members of their litigation
team.

Wrigley was also aware that Pinto had been making unauthorized and unreported
withdrawals from Joanne Black's Chase Account. In a July 7,2013 email to Pinto, Wrigley
referred to the ongoing theft, and described it as "double-billing":
How to bill going forward and [your] continued withdrawals from Chase if that is still
happening? I fear he fBernard Black] will blow a fuse. Thinking you might be doublebilling.
Wrigley did nothing to monitor Pinto, or to cause his to cease making unauthorized and
undisclosed withdrawals. The withdrawals continued. Bernard Black discovered some of them
and wrote to Pinto on Nov. 17,2013, with copy to Wrigley:
does not reflect withdrawals of $1,665
Joanne's [Chase] account in October, in any way. . . .
from

[I]t is not acceptable to me to receive a bill which

When Bemard Black terminated Pinto's services, on Sept. 30,2014, by email with copy to
Wrigley, he demanded return of his advance payment for October 2014, as well as "any amounts
you withdrew from Joanne's checking account for payment, beyond those listed as deductions in
your bill." No amounts were returned.
Thus, when Wrigley stated to this Court, under oath, that "there is no assertion that [Esaun
G.] Pinto has done anything improper with [Joanne Black] whatsoever," she committed perjury.
A hearing is necessary to determine the extent of Wrigley's perjury and the consequences, but
whatever those are, Wrigley has demonstrated that she is not qualified to be Joanne Black's
guardian.

Wrigley and Dain continue to do everything in their power to prevent the truth about
Pinto's theft and misappropriation from being proven in this court. Wrigley continues to pay Pinto

18

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 37 of 145 PageID #:13578

large sums of money, which she plans to recover from Joanne Black's funds. The amounts paid
to Pinto to date, or simply stolen by Pinto, exceed $400,000.

Wrigley continues to be beholden to Pinto, and to look for ways to shovel more of Joanne
Black's money into his hands. Consider her e-mail statement on October 23,2015 about Joanne's
old clothes, which Bernard Black had packed up and moved from Renata Black's home to his own
for safekeeping: "Nov.l7th, 18'h is when Esaun [Pinto] will likely come and pick up all of Joanne's
boxes." Wrigley apparently proposes to use Joanne's funds to pay Pinto, at his usual hourly rate
of $ 150, to drive from New York to Chicago, pick up boxes of old clothes, and drive back - instead
of using a much lower-cost shipping service, or a courier who has not already inflated his charges
and stolen funds in this case.
needed to allow us to provide to this Court evidence of Pinto's
complicity in both this misconduct and in covering it up.
misconduct, and Wrigley's

A hearing is urgently

3.

Wrigley Lied to this Court to Obtain an IIIegal Order for the Transfer of
the Black Family Jewelry to Herself.

The Proposed Order contains other illustrations of Wrigley's true motives. On page 7, the
Proposed Order demands the transfer of the Black family jewelry to Wrigley. Wrigley deceived
this Court on three critical matters.

First, Wrigley is intimating that she is seeking the possession ofjewelry for the benefit of
Joanne. This is odd on its face: Joanne lives in a halfuay house and has little capacity to manage
valuables. Why would she urgently need to possess tens of thousands of dollars worth ofjewelry?
Why is this demand so important that Wrigley is making it, as a separate line item, in her very first
Proposed Order to this Court?
That's because Wrigley has been trying to wrestle this jewelry from the Black family since
the late 1990s - for her personal use. As discussed above, the jewelry was a property of Joanne's
(and Wrigley's) grandmother. In 1999, Wrigley stole significant real estate investments from her
grandmother and from Joanne's mother. In response, the grandmother entirely disinherited
Wrigley and her siblings. She bequeathed the jewelry to Joanne's mother, who then left it to her
estate. Wrigley fought fervently to obtain the jewelry, first with the grandmother, then, with
Joanne's mother, and lost both times. One day after Joanne's mother died, Wrigley started
demanding the transfer ofjewelry to herself. Her siblings did the same later.
Wrigley is now applying for guardianship of Joanne, and her veryfirst action is to demand,
ostensibly on Joanne's behalf, the transfer of the jewelry that she has been trying to steal from the
Blacks for decades! We believe (but without the transcript that Wrigley and Dain are seeking to
conceal from us, cannot prove) that Wrigley failed to inform this Court that the jewelry she is
requesting for an oddly urgent transfer is the same jewelry that Wrigley has been claiming to be
"hers" for decades. No doubt it is material for this Court that a guardian seeking to take personal
possession of assets, ostensibly for her incapacitated ward, has been making public claims to be
the rightful owner of those assets, for years. We also have no doubt that, once Wrigley gets the
jewelry, the Black family will never see it again. That is why Wrigley so eagerly tried to conceal
her Proposed Order from the Blacks.
Wrigley's second deception is the following. As best we can tell, Wrigley and Dain directly
lied to this Court to obtain an order to transfer the jewelry. The Proposed Order states that the
19

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 38 of 145 PageID #:13578

jewelry is "personal property" of Joanne. This is false, and they know it. The jewelry was the
property of Renata Black. It became the property of the Estate of Renata Black, and from there,
was distributed to Joanne's trust by the executor, Bernard Black. The jewelry cannot be removed
from the trust without a decision of trustees.

It was critical for Wrigley to lie to this Court about the legal ownership of the jewelry. If
Wrigley disclosed to this Court that the jewelry belongs to a trust, this Court would have directed
her to pursue legally required steps to get it - to seek trustee approval. Ifthe trustees refused to

give the jewelry to Wrigley, her legal remedy would be to appeal to Surrogates Court, which would
review trustee decision for abuse of discretion. It would hardly be abuse of discretion for trustees
to conclude that Joanne Black, who lives in a halfway house and cannot manage even moderate
amounts of money, has no urgent need to personally possess tens of thousands of dollars worth of

jewelry.
Wrigley made a third deception as well. As best we can tell, Wrigley concealed from this
that the trust that owns the jewelry is currently frozen by the Colorado court, due to
Court
Wrigley's and Dain's own petition. Nobody is allowed to remove any assets from the trust until
the Colorado court lifts the freeze. Wrigley was petitioning this Court to direct Bernard Black to
perform an illegal action, in violation of a Colorado court order. Amazingly - but understandably!
- Wrigley has tried hard to conceal this fact from Black family.
Given the vast amounts of falsehoods that Wrigley has submitted to this Court, all of hers
and her associates' submissions need to be released to the Black family. Only then can we, and
this Court, determine the full amount of fraud that Wrigley and Dain committed on this Court.

4.

Wrigley Lied to this Court to Obtain an Illegal Order for the Transfer of
Savings Bonds.

Wrigley made more false and misleading claims about the legal ownership of savings
bonds, which she is also seeking in her Proposed Order (page 6). To convince this Court to issue
an order to transfer savings bonds to herself, Wrigley (to the best of our knowledge) has claimed
that these savings bonds are personal property of Joanne. Wrigley lied.
These savings bonds are not Joanne's personal property. Instead, they are held in Joanne
Black's 2013 Trust, an Illinois trust. Wrigley and Dain are well aware of this, because they have
been seeking in Colorado to remove the savings bonds and other assets from this trust. Wrigley is
also well aware of the difference between personal property of Joanne and the property of Joanne's
trusts, because Wrigley has just spent many months trying to funnel assets from the trusts into the
"Joanne's personal property" status, where she could control them. Wrigley's misstatements to
this Court were deliberate and intended to obtain an illegal order to transfer assets from an Illinois
trust, without jurisdiction, without proper proceedings, and without notice to the trustees and
beneficiaries.

Wrigley misled this Court on another matter as well. The 2013 Trust, like all Black family
trusts, is frozen by the Colorado court, due to a petition from Wrigley and Dain. Nobody is allowed
to transfer any assets that have been frozen by a court order. Wrigley failed to notifu this Court
that she was seeking an action in violation of another court's order. Wrigley asked this Court to
direct Bernard Black to illegally remove frozen assets from a trust.

20

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 39 of 145 PageID #:13578

Bizarely, Wrigley's Proposed Order also requests the power to seek contempt charges
against Bernard Black should he refuse to violate the Colorado order and transfer the bonds to
Wrigley! This is consistent with Wrigley's and Dain's prior efforts to wrongfully threaten
contempt proceedings to coerce the Blacks not to pursue their claims in this Court and in Colorado.

Wrigley is assisted by a large team of attorneys, including her own litigator brother Dain.
yet, she is seeking an order from this Court that would explicitly require Bernard Black to
And
violate an order from another court. If he transferred the assets, he would be in violation of the
Colorado order, and if he did not, he would be in violation of the New York order.
Given the size of Wrigley's legal team, this is no doubt intentional. Wrigley chose to
deceive this Court - by actively lying about the legal ownership of the bonds and by failing to
disclose the material fact that the bonds are frozen by another court.

Still more bizarrely, Wrigley has been making these demands to force Bernard Black to
engage in illegal actions at the threat of contempt sanctions, while keeping her Proposed Order
secret from Bernard Black! Even now, Dain and Salzman have been claiming that they should not
provide notice. Their goal is to impede the Blacks' ability to catch these sorts of lies and

manipulations, and to reveal them to this Court. Wrigley's deceptive and manipulative behavior
emphasizes why the full disclosure is uitical in this case.
These lies and manipulations are consistent feature of Wrigley's behavior. She is using this
guardianship to tunnel the Black family assets to herself. She is lying to this Court and deceiving
this Court by omitting critical information, to get to her desired outcome.

Wrigley is not fit to be Joanne's guardian.
Because of this volume of falsehoods and deliberately misleading statements that we
already see from the tiny amount of disclosed information, the Blacks should be allowed to receive
all submissions that Wrigley and her associates made to this Court. And we need a hearing to
present evidence properly.

G. The Blacks Are Entitled to Noticel Wrieley and Dain Are Seekins Extreme and
Illegal Secrecy to Cover-Up Evidence of their Periurv and Other Misbehavior.
Wrigley and lain are seeking extreme and illegal secrecy of the proceedings in this Court.
They seek to hide their formal submissions to this Court, proposed orders, sworn testimony, and
so on. An honest litigant has no reasons to hide such documents. Wrigley and Dain seek secrecy
to cover-up the many lies they submitted to this Court and prevent a formal investigation and
possible perj ury prosecution.

justiS their quest for secrecy, Wrigley and Dain, with the assistance of Salzman, have
advanced numerous false defenses against the legal requirement to provide disclosure. Their
To

efforts are specious. The disclosure is legally required.

First, Bernard Black is plainly entitled to notice under Mental Hygiene Law $
81.07(gX1Xi) as Joanne's adult sibling. The statute does not provide for any exceptions to this
notice requirement.
Second, the Proposed Order that we were able to obtain (after much fighting and delay,
and apparently not the entire document anyway) contains demands to distribute assets currently

2t

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 40 of 145 PageID #:13578

held in two Black family trusts. The jewelry that the Proposed Order demands is the property of
the Supplemental Needs Trust for the Benefit of Joanne Black, and the savings bonds it demands
are the property of the Joanne Black 2013 Trust. Any such distributions require notice to trustees
and beneficiaries, and a hearing on the transfer of assets from the trusts. See Matter of Loreffa I
(2006 NY Slip Op 08134, 34 AD3d 480 (2d Dept. 2006)).

Third, Bernard Black is plainly entitled to notice and a hearing on any legal actions that
require an action on his part, such as the payment of legal fees, transfer of assets that belong to
third parties, and such. The partial version of the Proposed Order that we received also specifies a
significant personal payment by Bernard Black to the court evaluator Mr. Russo. Such items cannot
be assessed against Mr. Black without a notice and a hearing. The Proposed Order also bizarrely
seeks contempt sanctions if Bernard Black fails to transfer to Wrigley property that belongs to a
third party - savings bonds and jewelry that belong to trusts - even though Bernard Black did not
even receive a notice that the action forcing him to transfer property is being considered, and never
received an opportunity to be heard on the maffer. And even though the trusts themselves are
frozen, under a Colorado court order that Dain and Wrigley obtained!
Instead of giving the legally required notice, Dain and Wrigley play endless procedural
games, delay and obfuscate, and now, point to the very fact of the delay that they caused as the
reason not to inspect the full extent of their own falsehoods and therefore not to provide legally
required notice.

Conclusion

Wrigley and Dain have repeatedly lied to this Court, made many highly misleading
statements, illegally concealed information, threatened the Black family against participating in
legal proceedings, pressured the Black family counsel to abandon representation, and deprived the
Black family of access to their own trust funds to defend against Dain's and Wrigley's efforts to
funnel the Black family assets into the control of Wrigley. Dain has breached a litany of fiduciary
duties to the beneficiaries of the Black family trusts. Wrigley, assisted by a convicted felon Esaun
Pinto, embezzled and defrauded Joanne and the Black family. To secure their control over Joanne,
Wrigley and Dain have frozen Joanne's access to her own money, making her completely
dependent on Wrigley, and put Joanne under the thrall of a convicted felon specializing in fraud
and manipulation.

Wrigley and Dain are now again seeking to illegally deprive the Black family of the
required notice, so that the Blacks will not have the opportunity to demonstrate the full extent of
Wrigley's and Dain's misconduct to this Court.
To convince this Court not to listen to the evidence of their gross misconduct, Wrigley and
Dain are now claiming that (1) the Blacks should have acted earlier (which they could not do, both
because Wrigley and Dain have illegally concealed information from them and because the Blacks
faced a threat of sanctions for daring to appear), and (2) that any delay would harm Joanne (which
is completely false, both because Joanne has a Colorado conservator who has the power to pay
Joanne's bills, but Wrigley and Dain did not submit any bills to her, and because Joanne would
also have access to her trust funds, but for the asset freeze that Dain and Wrigley themselves
obtained).

22

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 41 of 145 PageID #:13578

Wrigley and Dain are now again seeking to illegatly deprive the Blaclc family of the
required noi.., so that the Blacks will not have the opportunity to demonstrate the full extent of
Wrigley's and Dain's misconduct to this Court'
To convince this Court not to listen to the evidence of their gross misconduct, Wrigley
and Dain are now claiming that (1) the Blacks should have acted earlier (which they could not
do, both because Wrigley and Dain have illegatly concealed information from them and because
the Blacks faced a threat of sanctions for daring to appear), and (2) that any delay would harm
Joanne (which is completely false, both because Joanne has a Colorado conservator who has the
power to pay Joanne's bills, but Wrigley and Dain did not submit any bills to her, and because
iou*r would also have access to her trust funds, but for the asset freeze that Dain and Wrigley
themselves obtained).

Givel the egr.egiousness of this misconduct, we request a hearing and a full access to
necessary information, There is no urgent need to appoint Wrigley guardian. We believe that
once you hear our evidence, you will decide that Joanne should have an independent,
professional, local guardian instead. The phony need-for'urgency plea that Dairr and Salzman
manufactured last we6k is yet another example of the many falsehoods that they have already
unleashed on this Court,

Very truly yours,

lr-/
J
Kq/U /r"

I(atherine Litvak

Via email to:
Ira Salzman
Melissa Cohenson
Anthony Dain
Bart Russo

salzman@seniorlaw, com
mcohenson@raphanlaw. com

anthony.dain@ptocopio. com
[e-mail]

23

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 42 of 145 PageID #:13578

Katherine Letter
(redacted)
Pl. Exh. 65

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 43 of 145 PageID #:13578

NORTHWES'1'ERN UNIVE,RSITY SCHOOL OF LA!7
Profes sor Katherine Litvak
357 East Chicago Avenue ' Chicago, Illinois 60611,-3069

k-Jitvak@notthwe stern. e du
http : / /www.law. northwestem. edu/ facul ty / profiles / Katherinelitvak/

Via Email to: [e-mail]
Hon. Thomas P. Aliotta
Supreme Court, Richmond County
l8 Richmond Terrace
Staten Island, NY 10301

RE: Guardianship of Joanne Black, Index No 80253/14
7 January2016

Dear Justice Aliotta:

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 44 of 145 PageID #:13578

The Colorado court found allegations of Pinto's misconduct sufficiently credible and
houblesome to order an investigation of Pinto by the court-appointed forensic accountant, Pamela

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 45 of 145 PageID #:13578

Kerr.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 46 of 145 PageID #:13578

Very truly yours,

ke{o
Katherine

/-

titvak

Via email to:
Ira Salzman
Melissa Cohenson
Anthony Dain
BartRusso

[e-mail]
mcohenson@raphanlaw. com
anthony. dain@plocopio. com

btr@bzslaw,com

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 47 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit 2

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 48 of 145 PageID #:13578

Kerr Forensic Accountiog, PC
650 S. Cherry"Street

i

Sufte 235

I

Denver, Colorado 80246

0

[phone]

t

Fax [phone] I

January 8,2016

Northwestern University
375 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, tL 6061 I

Attn: Mr. Daniel B. Rodriquez,Dean
Re:

Letter fi'om Professor Katherine Litvak
on Northwestem University Law School
Letterhead

Dear Mr. Rodriquez,

I am a forensic accountant that was retained by the Guardian ad Litem for a Protected
Person under the jurisdiction of the Denver Probate Court. I received a copy of the attached letter
that was submitted to the Honorable Thomas P. Aliotta, Supreme Court, Richard County, New
York on letterhead of the Nofthwestem Universiry School of Law by one of your professors,

Katherine Litvak. I was shocked to receive this letter on your letterhead. I truly believed that
Northwestem University Law School was supporting the statements made by Ms. Litvak. See
eopy of letter attached.
Page 15 of Ms. Litvak's letter states:

"...and the Colorado Judge Found thctse Allegations credible Enough to Authorize
Investiga.tion o.f Pinto's Conduct by a Forensic Accountant. "

an

Not only is this a l00o/o false statement, but in fact, the Colorado Court authorized me to
conduct an investigation into the actions of her husband, another professor at Northu'estern Law
School, Bernard Black. I would not have disclosed this information if Ms. Litvak had not filed
this document with the New York Court with this completely false statement included.

I do not feel that I am at liberty to disclose the outcome of rny forensic investigation, but
attomey and the head of a very prestigious law school, you know that
the facts are the facts. I am a licensed CPA, a Certified Fraud Examiner and a Forensic Certified
Public Accountant and am required to provide a factual report based on the financial and other
documents provided. I have provided such a report to the Denver Probate Court, who is the trier
of fact in this matter. An Order was issued on September 28, 2015 with the results of many months
of hearings in this rnatter. I can tell you unequivocally that the Order in no way reflect Ms. Litvak's
as

I am sure,

as a licensed

NW000427

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 49 of 145 PageID #:13578

Kerr Forensic Accountitrg, PC
Letter to Northwestem Law School regarding letter from Katherine Litvak
January 8,2016

allegations. As a matter of fact, Ms. Litvak testified at these hearings, and I can also tell you
unequivocally that I have never, in my entire professional career, listened to a less credible
testimony than Ms. Litvak's. However, that is a personal opinion but is relevant given Ms. Litvak's
allegations in the attached letter.
Since Ms. Litvak has nou, involved Northwestem University Law School in this rnatter by

filing

with the New York Couft as if Northwestern University Law School was a party
to this case, I would imagine that if you so choose, you could be provided with a copy of my report
of findings, the Court's Order of September 28,2015 and transcripts from the hearings.
a docurnent

Since this letter with this completely talse statement about what I was authorized to
perform was provided to the New York Courts on Northwesteur University Law Sclrool letterhead,
as if you the school were in suppoft of this letter, I would greatly appreciate if you would notify
the New York Court whether or not Northwestern University Law School in fact, supports tlrese
statements made by your professor, Katherine Litvak.

As a matter of fact,

I

have literally hundreds

of emails from Mr. Black from his

Northwestern Law School email in response to rny inquiries in this investigation as wells as letters
he has written on Northwestern University Law School letterhead to both the New York Courts
and the Denver Probate Court. I believe that given the appearance of the involvement of the
Northwestern University Larv School in this case, as a result of both Ms. Litvak's letter and Mr.

Black's communications, it is my duty to inform you of these communications. As stated
previously, had Ms. Litvak not included what I was and was not authorized to do to the New York
courts on Northwestern University Law Sclrool letter'head, I would never have communicated this
activity to you.

I look tbrward to your clarification in this matter.
Very truly yours,
)

(
'\'-*i

\ .-.'

,-\

1

* / n'l 57,vL
ut'1^l^* t

Y-,.

,

t

Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

Attachments:
Copy of Letter from Ms. Litvak on Northrvestern Law School Letterhead

Page 2 of 2

NW000428

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 50 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit 3

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 51 of 145 PageID #:13578

PROtsATE COURT,

TRANSCRIBERI

CASE

S

DENVER,. COLORADO

TRANSCRIPT

NO. 12 PR

IN THE

CITY AND COUNTY OF

1.712

INTEREST OF:

JOANNE BLACK, Respondent.

This matter came on for hearing before THE HONORAB.LE
ELIZABETH D. LEITH, Judge of the Denver Probate Court, on
Thursday, April 2, 2015, The following is a Lranscript of the

audible portions of that hearing as requested by the ordering

party.
APPEAMNCES: M. CARL GLATSTEIN, Esq., Reg. No. 13738 for
Bernard BIack
LISA DiPoNIo, Esq., Reg. No, '21101, for Joanne

Black,

Respondent

Esq., Reg. No. 1'1LO7. Guardian Ad
LiEem for Joanne Black, Respondent

GAYLE YOUNG,

IRA SALZMAN, Esq., Attorney f,or 'Joanne Blacak,

Respondent

'

ANTHONY

DAIN, Trust.ee,/cousin

CHERIE WRfGLEY, Cousin

BLACKOl66I4

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 52 of 145 PageID #:13578

1
2
3

right,

PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: Thank you, you may be seated. AII
The record is now on and the court will- call up 12 PR

the interest of Joanne Black. And could I have
5 appearances for the record, please
MR. GLATSTEIN: Good morning, Your Honor, Carl
6
7 Glatstein, registration l-3738 here on behalf of Bernard
B Black, Conservator; Mr. BIack is presenL.
4

1,7'72,

9

THE COURT: He is?

10
1].

MR. GLATSTEIN: Where did he go?

L2
13
1,4

MR. GLATSTEIN: He is al-most present.

1-

UNIDENTIE]ED SPEAKER: (INAUdiblE).

THE COURT: OkaY.

MR. GLATSTEIN: His spouse Kate Litvak is

a.l-so

5 pre sent .

16

THE COURI: okaY.

MS. DIPONIO: Good morning, Your Honor, Lisa
L7
l-8 Diponio, 277O"t, court appointed counse.l- for .loanne tsIack.
t9 Your Honor, Ira Salzman who is Ms ' B1ack's attorney in New
20 York in rhe proceedings there' They--he is on the phone.

21"

THE COURT: OkaY.

22

MS. DiPONIO: And Ms. Black is present with him

23 we}1.
24

THE COURT: OkaY.

25

MR. SALZMAN: Also present--this is Ira Salzman--

as

BLACKOI66I5

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 53 of 145 PageID #:13578

L also present is Mr. Esaun P-into (phonetic).
2

THE COURT: OkaY.

MR. DAIN: Your Honor, Anthony Dain, trust'ee of the
3
4 various trusts and an interested party.

5

THE COURT: VerY good.

6

MS. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Hono-r, Gayle Young,

7 Guardian ad Litem for Joanne Black.
Anyone el-se who wants to
THE COURT: A11 right.
I
9' enter an appearance?
MR. DAIN: Yeah, go
10

ahead.

Black, ConservaLor.

1l-

MR. BLACK: Bernard

!2
13

THE CoURT: VerY good.

MR. DATN: Cherie Wrigley, who is aLso an

74 interested partY..
:. A11 right

15

THE

16

MS. WRIGLEYI Joanne Black's cousin.

COURT

-

So I've
THF COURT; Right' Okay. A11 rlght.
L']
18 reviewed the various reports and it's my understanding first
19 off Lhat you have stipulated to the forensic review by Ms.
20 Kerr; is EhaL correct?
MR, GLATSTEIN: That is correct, Your Honor.
2L
So IflI si-gn off on that
THE COURT: A11 right.
22
23 order. Did she estimate how long thaL was going to take?

24

MS. YOUNG: I think she indicated in an e-mail

25 thaL--you know, she was supposed to call- in and I don't

know

BLACKOI66I6

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 54 of 145 PageID #:13578

2B

Trust, I'm happy to use the 2013 Trust to pay the
2 S500 a week; that's fine. The Socj-al Security-3
THE COURT: So you're putting her monthly benefits
4 going into a trusL, is that what I'm understanding?
1 the

201-3

5

MR. BLACK: So righL now the Social Security

6 benefits were going to a represencative payee whom f believe
7 to be Mr. Pinto. I arranged to have them come to me; they
B came to me for one month, They went into the 2013 Trust frorn
9 which they could be spent on ,Joanne's benefit.
10
Joanne then arranged to have thos.e benefits
1,1 suspended I believe and so right now Lhey're piling up at
L2 Social Securlty. There's plen'Ey of money, the question is
l-3 what's a reasonable amount of money to pay to Joanne and
14 where should we pay iE from and I don't have any strong view
15 on t.hat.
16
L1
18

MR. SALZMAN: Your Honor, may--may I be heard?
THE COURT: .YeAh,

MR. SALZMAN: The--Mr-

Pinto by the way is present

L9 with rne in my office at the momenl, was the representative
20 payee on the S.ocial Security until the beginning of this
2L year.
22
During the pendency of tltis proceecling and over my
23 cll-ent's objection Mr. Bl-ack arranged for himse.l-f t.o become
24 the representative payee of those funds. At this point we
25 lost track of them. This is the first

we're hearing t.hat

BLACKOI664I

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 55 of 145 PageID #:13578

29

l_

a

the--that the payments of those funds have been suspended.
Now, we would be more than happy to have Mr' Pinto

5

return as the representative payee of the trust--of the
social s.ecurity rather but certainly this is something that
needs to be investigated. This is the firsL f'm learning of

'6

it.

1
4

MR. GLATSTEIN: Your Honor, there were a variety of

7

I
9

10
11

concerns wit.h respect to what was happening with her social
security; that, s part of what we t.hink an evidentiary hearing
would be good for the Court to lcnow. Funds were being
withdrawn from her accounL by Mr.. Pinto not for her benefit

14

that we could discern and he would not account to the
conservator for those funds.
THE COURT: Right. I know there was a big dispute

r-5

about thau.

l2
13

MR. GLATSTEIN: Right.

16

And Ms. Kerr will

be

18

provided all that information so she can also .from a forensic
accounling perspective see where everything went, what the

'19

concerns and issues were.

17

20

'

Funds were being withdrawn from Joanne's personal

22

account by Mr. Pinto when she's on a }ocked psych unit.
no accountability on that to anybody, We would be very

23

Concerned about Mr. Pinto being put back into a position as

2t

24
25

And

a

rep payeei there needs to be accountability on that as well
as everything else for .Ioanne's benefit.

BLACKOI6642

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 56 of 145 PageID #:13578

30

Mr. Pinto has just advj-sed me that
2 will provide a full accounting of all the funds that he
3 withdrew to Ms. Kerr.
1

MR. SALZMAN:

4

"IHE COURT: Okay.

he

BIACK: Your Honor, if I may speak, I want to
6 ask that you think about what orders you want to issue and
7 t.ry to expJ.ain some of the context behind thaE. So one might
8 ask why do Anthony Dain and Cherie Wrigley care so much about
9 suspending my por^rers as conservator given that there's been
10 no showing and not even a claim that I have done anything
5

MR.

11 irnproper in spending rnoney.
L2
If you look at their objections, to mY 2013
l-3 accounting there is not. a single substantive objection to
L4 anything I did. If you look at their objections to the 2014
l-5 accounting there's not a single substantive objection to
L6 anything I did. All you're hearing about ls a complaint.
1,7 about the disclaimers Ln 2Ot2 which we believe were fully
l-8 disclosed and fully approved.
19

THE COURT: Uh-hUh.

20
MR. BLACK: As conservator I have very limited
21- tasks. I get the weekly check from Travelers and f put iL
22 into the new 2013 Trust
23
THE COURT: And what's the source of the Travelers
24
25

money?

MR. BLACK: This is the worker's comp money that

BLACKOI6643

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 57 of 145 PageID #:13578

42

No, just a second.

1

THE COURT:

2

MR. DAIN: Okay.

3

THE COURT:

4

MR. SALZMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

Mr.

Salzman?

fs there anyone in New York that can
5 handle being the rep payee and that sort of thing?
MR. SALZMAN: An entitY or-7
THE COURT: Or--is there some--he we have a trust
8
9 organization that--that. does that sort of thing, is there

5

THE COURT:

10 anything similar or a fiduciary relationship, entity or
11- person that you're aware of that can step in for that?
MR. SALZMAN: Not just--not just to serve as rep
12
1-3 payee, oor Your Honor.
THE COURT: A11 right.
lA
l-5 right--thank you, Ms. WrigIeY.
L6
1'l
18
L9
20
2L

A1l rlght.

At this--a.tl

MS. WRIGLEY: OkaY.

At this point I am satisfied that I
don't thlnk Mr, Pinto should become--be the rep payee.
There's too many issues surrounding whatever expenses--he's
got to provide a full accounting. Someone needs to be the
rep payee and get any backed up funds as Mr. Bl-ack has
THE COURT:

22 represented.
But what I'm ordering ts that everything is frozen
23
24 except for the Social Security and the workmen's comp funds
25 from Travelers, they need to go into a separate

BLACKO16655

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 58 of 145 PageID #:13578

50

f- inquiry?
2

THE

CoURT: Just a minute. The Social Security

3 representative payee needs to be changed elther to Ms.
4 Peterson or anotlter individual. And the Socia1 Security
5 funds and the workmen's comp funds are to be redirected into
6 a conservatorship account t.hat Ms. Peterson will open so that
? she can pay the--Ms. Black's monthly living expenses.
I
Any overage she'Il manage and keep track of.
9 Pinto will provide a fuL-l- accounting of funds under his

Mr.

l-0 control, to Ms. Kerr and cooperate with transferring the
11 representative payee.
1,2
MR. BLACK: Your Honor, may I r.equesL that the--you
13 all-ow the Supplemental Needs Trust, the Issue Trust, and Lhe
L4 2013 Trust to pay income taxes and to pay the .reasonable fees'
15 of in income tax accounlanL. those need to be paid?
1,6
l-'l
18
19
20
2L

THE COURT: Any objections?

r No ob j ection.
MR. DArN: wel1, r would have no objection, Your
Honor, but Ms. Kerr in her report indicates there as a
paymenE of $20,000 t.o an accounting firm which she can't
understand for a tax reLurn--why it was that significant.
Ms

.

DiPONIO

So

22 as long as 1t's without prejudice and disgorgement and, in
23 fact, there is some overpayment of these accounting things-24 or Lhese tax returns.
so that request is granted.
2'5
THE COURT: A11 right.

BLACKOI6663

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 59 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit 4

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 60 of 145 PageID #:13578

District Court, Denver County, Colorado
Court Address:
1437 Bannock Street, Denver, Colorado 80202
ln re the lnterest of:

JOANNE BLACK,

'I
ITATE FILEI-I: April 2,2t 5 l;07
CASE NtlI'IBER: 2012P t772

Plr"l

Protected Peson.
COURT USE ONLY

Attornetor Party Without Attorney (Name and Address)

Case Number:
12 PR 1772

Phone Number:
FAX Number:

Courtroom 224

Email:
AttY. Reg. fi1

STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a Status Conference on April 2,2015.
Present in person were: LiSa DiPonio, Esq. Court Appointed Counsel for the
protected P'erson (PP) Joanne Black; Conservator Bernard Black with Counsel
Carl Glatstein, Esq.; Guardian ad Litem (GAL) for the PP Gayle Young, Esq.;
lnterested Persons and Cousins Anthony Dain, Esq. and Cherie Wrigley; Special
Conservator Nominee Nancy Peterson, Esq. Present by telephone were: PP
Joanne Black with New York Counsel lra Saltzman, Esq.; Esan Pinto'
Discussion was held on the record to clarify the case status for this matter and
the cases in New York State Supreme Court and Surrogate Courts. The parties
represent there is no dispute as to the interpretation of Renata Black's Will.
Objections have been asserted as to Bernard Black's management of his sister's
funds and particularly with respect to the division of POD accounts left to Joanne
Black by her mother, Renata Black. The parties have stipulated to a forensic
accounting of the Conservatorship estate, including the affected trusts, the
disclaimei of Fidelity and Vanguard accounts, POD benefits for all accounts
which disclaimers were used to transfer funds into the Renata Black Estate, the
Roth lRA, all amounts paid to attorneys and accounts - in short, a complete
review of all funds and assets related to Joanne Black both before and after the
disclaimer, by Pamela Kerr, CPA- This Court has reviewed the record including
the variouS reports, responses, objectionS, exhibitS and attachments, aS well as
relevant authority and enters the following Orders pending an evidentiary
hearing:

1.

Bernard Black is the subject of allegations of misconduct by the PP and
her cousins which he vigorously denies. lt appears to the Court to be
prudent to suspend his authority pending an evidentiary hearing and the
iesults of Ms. Kerr's forensic accounting review. This suspension is not a
determination of misconduct, but rather an attempt by this Court to
address concerns raised by the PP, her cousins, the GAL and Ms. Black's
attorneys, and to allow the PP to continue to receive funds for her monthly

BLACKO16676

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 61 of 145 PageID #:13578

living expenses and other necessary expenses without contributing to the
family conflict.
2. This Court

finds it should finalize the current allegations in Colorado prior

to transfer of the conservatorship to New York State, where the PP
resides. The Court is informed that a hearing for the appointment of a
guardian and conservator (Guardian of the Person and Property) is

icheduled in the New York Supreme Court on April 30 and May 1,2015.
This Court finds that proceeding should continue and it is proper for the
New York Court to make a determination as to whether Mr. Black should
continue to manage his sister's funds as guardian of her property, which is
the equivalent of a conservator in Colorado, or whether Ms. Wrigley or a
professional fiduciary or another individual should be appointed to that role
going forward. There is no guardian/guardian of the person appointed for
Joanne Black in the State of Colorado, aS Mr. Black's petition for such
appointment was dismissed by this Court on October 27, 2014 in
deference to the New York Court's jurisdiction where Ms. Black resides.
3.

Accordingly, the Court Suspends Bernard Black as Conservator, pending
further hearing. Mr. Black's Letters expire April 11,2015 and shall not be
reissued.

4. The Court finds the appointment of a Special Conservator pursuant to 1514-112, C.R.S. to serve in an interim capacity, pending the appointment of

a permanent conservator or Guardian of the Property in New York is

appropriate. The Court appoints Nancy Peterson, Esq. to serve as Special
Conservator. Letters may issue and shall expire upon completion of these
proceedings in Colorado and transfer to the fiduciary appointed by the
Court in New York.

5.

Ms. Peterson shall have the responsibility to manage Ms. Black's Social
Security and Workmen's Compensation benefits and to pay Ms. Black's
reasonable and necessary expenses. MS. Peterson shall secure the
benefits and cause them to be deposited into a conservatorship account,
from which Ms. Peterson shall pay Ms. Black's monthly living and other
reasonable expenses. Mr. Black shall cooperate with redirecting the funds
from these two sources into the conservatorship account which Ms.
Peterson shall establish. All funds managed by Ms. Peterson shall be
turned over to the conservator/guardian of the property appointed by the
Court in New York upon completion of the proceedings in Colorado. lt is
not this Court's intention that Ms. Peterson be required to obtain court
approval for Ms. Black's regular monthly living expenses or for her
necessary physician, mental health or similar expenses.

All other assets related to Ms. Black are frozen, pending final hearing.
Should there be any requests for funds from the supplemental needs or

BLACKOI6677

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 62 of 145 PageID #:13578

benefit Ms. Black which cannot be paid from the
conservatorship account, the request may be submitted to the Trustee,

other trust

to

who shall in turn obtain permission from this court to disburse funds before
any payment is made. All requests for funds to be paid from the
conservatorship account or from any trust shall be supported by written
documentation. Ms, Peterson shall obtain copies of any rental or other
agreements to document Ms, Black's ongoing monthly living expenses.

a.

7.

Mr. Black's request for an exception to pay for taxes is granted. Trust
funds may be used to pay for legal and accounting fees related to the
preparation of tax returns and to pay any taxes due for Ms. Black. Full
documentation of the fees, costs and tax payments shall be provided
to Ms. Kerr.

lt has been suggested to the Court that no one is currently named as the
Representative Payee for Ms. Black's social security benefits. lt appears
the former Representative Payee was Esan Pinto, but the funds were
redirected by Mr. Black into one of the Trusts he established for Ms. Black.
Mr. Black represents there are social Security payments currently being
held by the Social security Administration due to the lack of a
Representative Payee. The parties shall confer regarding who should
serve aS the Representative Payee or whether Ms. Peterson should serve
in that capacity, pending a final determination. Regardless of who is
named to serve as Representative Payee, that individual if other than Ms.
Peterson, shall cooperate and ensure the social security benefits are
retrieved and deposited into the conservatorship account to be managed
by Ms. Peterson.
accounting with documentation of all
funds that were held under his control to Ms. Kerr and Ms. Peterson, who
shall ensure copies are provided to Counsel of record including Mr.
Saltzman, the GAL, Mr. Dain and Ms. Wrigley.

8. Mr. Pinto shall provide a complete

represented that he has obtained a transcript of the
proceedings held before this Court to appoint Mr. Black aS conservator'
Mr. Glatstein shall file a copy of the transcript with this Court and provide
copies to counsel of record including Mr. saltzman, the GAL, Mr. Dain
and Ms, Wrigley.

9. Mr. Glatstein has

10. Mr. Black has requested trust and/or conservatorship funds

to pay for his

attorney fees and costs for defending his actions as conservator. The GAL
and CAC DiPonio also request funds to pay their fees. The Court finds
there are sufficient funds in the conservatorship estate to pay these fees
and costs, but finds it is more appropriate to resolve the fee issues after
the results of the forensic accounting are known and the evidentiary
hearing on the disclaimer issue has been held. Accordingly, the payment

BLACKOI6678

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 63 of 145 PageID #:13578

of

attorney fees and costs

is held in

abeyance pending further

proceedings in this Court.
11. Mr. Glatstein shall provide complete copies of all trusts involving Ms. Black

to the Court, Counsel, GAL, Mr. Dain and Ms, Wrigley, including the lssue
Trust, the 2013 Trust and the Supplemental Needs Trust, however they
may be titled as well as any other trusts affecting Ms. Black.
12. Ms. Wrigley asserts she has been paying for Ms. Black's living expenses

and needs from her own, personal funds, has provided documentation to
Mr. Black but has not received any reimbursement. lt is unclear to the
Court why it would be necessary for Ms. Wrigley to pay any of Ms. Black's
expenses from her own funds. Regardless, Ms. Wrigley is directed to
provide an itemization of all amounts paid by her with copies of receipts,
statements and the like to support those expenses to Ms. Peterson for
review, and include copies to all counsel, the GAL and Mr, Dain.
Objections shall be brought to Ms, Peterson's attention, who shall
determine whether the expenses or any one of them should be
reimbursed. Ms. Peterson may file a petition for approval before
disbursing any of the funds under her control to Ms. Wrigley. Any
reimbursements which cannot be paid from the funds under Ms.
Peterson's control may be paid from Trust funds, after a specific request
has been made to this Court by the Trustee aS previously described.
13.The Court finds an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve what the
Court has identified as the fundamental issues in this matter: whether the
disclaimer obtained by Mr. Black as to the accounts at Fidelity and
Vanguard POD to Joanne Black should have acted to divest Ms. Black of
113 of these non-probate assets. Hearing will also determine whether it
was properly disclosed that Mr. Black intended or had authority to redirect
one-third of these non-probate assets, left in their entirety to Ms. Black, to
persons other than Ms. Black. As part of these proceedings, the Court will
determine whether the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty are
supported by the evidence and whether any disgorgement or unwinding of
fiduciary actions, including the creation of trusts is appropriate. Hearing on
these issues is scheduled on June 16 and 17, 2015 commencing at 9:00
a.m.

4

BLACKOI6679

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 64 of 145 PageID #:13578

14.|t is this Court's intention to resolve the issues identified in this Order and
to then transfer the conservatorship to the jurisdiction of the Court in New
York, under the fiduciary appointed by that Court.
DONE lN OPEN COURT this

2nd

day

of April, 2015'
BY THE COURT:

JUDGE
Denver Probate Court

5

BLACKOI6630

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 65 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit

5

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 66 of 145 PageID #:13578
Case: 1:17-cv-0010L Document #: 293 Filed: 05/08/19 Page 1 of 53 PagelD #:6655

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE EASTER}{ DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KATHERINE BLACK,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

Case

No. 17- cv- 00101

)
)

CHERIE WRIGLEY,

)

MELISSA COITENSON,

)

BRrAI\ A. RAPHAII, P.C., and

)

PAMELA KERR,

Honorable Matthew F. KennellY

)

)
Defendants.

)

PLAINTIFF KATHERINE BLACK'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ruDGIVTENT

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 67 of 145 PageID #:13578
Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 293 Filed: 05/08/19 Page 48 of 53 PagelD #'.6702

ringleader -- an enthusiastic participant and the intended beneficiary of the attack on

a witness

who

opposed Wrigley's guardianship. There is ample evidence that Wrigley substantially assisted

Kerr's and Cohenson's attacks. After Kerr sent her letter to Wrigley, in response to Wrigley's
email seeking help in obtaining documents to provide to Northwestern, Wrigley submitted Kerr's
letter to Northwestern. Ex. 28D, Defendants' Jan. 8 Emails; F;x.25, Wrigley 2016 Ethics Point

Complaint. This alone is substantial assistance for the defamation contained in Kerr's letter. Kerr
did not herself submit her letter to Northwestern, which she asserts was based on legal advice. Ex.
9,

NY Guardianship Transcript (March 22,2016) at 365:15-18. A reasonable jury could find that

by sending her leffer to Wrigley, Kerr authorized Wrigley to submit it.

IV.

DEFENDANTS ACTED AS CIVIL CO-CONSPIRATORS IN ASSISTING
THE TINDERLYING DEFAMATION OF KATHERINE

Last in this Response, but far from least in importance, are the civil conspiracy allegations
against Defendants.

"A conspiracy

is almost never susceptible to direct proof. Usually, it must be

established from circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from evidence, coupled with
common-sense knowledge ofthe behavior of persons in similar circumstances." McClure v. Owens

Corning Fiberglas Corp.,188 Ill. 2d 102,134,720 N.E.2d 242,258 (1999) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).

A civil conspiracy claim requires that a defendant "knowingly and voluntarily participates

in a common scheme to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful manner . . . A
defendant who understands the general objectives of the conspiratorial scheme, accepts them, and
agrees, either

explicitly or implicitly to do its part to further those objectives . . . is liable as a

conspirator for any tortious act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy." Adcock, 164lll.2d at

64. Therefore, to be liable for the defamatory statements in the Kerr Letter, it is not necessary for
Kerr or Cohenson to have directly published the Kerr Letter to Northwestern. Similarly, it is not

43

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 68 of 145 PageID #:13578
Case: 1:17-cv-0010L Document #: 293 Filed: 05/08/19 Page 49 of 53 PagelD #:6703

necessary

for them to have directly published to Northwestern to be liable for Wrigley's

defamatory Ethics Point complaints, to which they each encouraged Wrigley and provided
documents to Wrigley.

.,An express agreement among the conspirators is not necessary; the participants must
simply share the same general conspiratorial objective." Patrick v. City of Chicago,2l3 F. Supp'
3d 1033, l05Z (N.D. nl. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, Defendants' unlawful objective for their
attacks against Katherine at Northwestern was

to intimidate her into not testifuing

against

Wrigley's guardianship, which Katherine asked the New York Court for permission to do in her
letter. Ex. 2, Katherine Letter. Defendants' also had a secondary goal, for Katherine to

I

and personally for opposing Wrigley's guardianship. Ex.

tampering and intimidation, which is not only highly improper but

I

28C. This is witness

uiminal. Defendants'

actions,

with each ofthem calling Northwestern to complain about Katherine, amply meet the single "overt
act" requirement for civil conspiracy'
Defendants have offered a variety ofexcuses for contacting Northwestern. They have said

they needed to defend themselves to Northwestern. 8x.49, Cohenson March Aff. & Reply fl 14
(Cohenson asserts that she contacted Northwestern

Docket Entry No. 267-6, Kerr dep. at 158:23-24 ("When I wrote the letter,

my duty was to defend my reputation."). These excuses are flimsy indeed. Cohenson had to
,,defend" Wrigley and Kerr had to "defend" herself to Northwestern against allegations that
Northwestern would have never heard if Defendants had not provided Katherine's sealed letter to

Northwestern. Moreover, nothing in Katherine's letter even remotely attacks Kerr's reputation;
Katherine merely asserted neutrally

-

and truthfully

Ex.Z,Katherine Letter, at 17-18.

44

-

that Kerr was authorized to investigate Pinto.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 69 of 145 PageID #:13578
Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 293 Filed: 05/08/L9 Page 50 of 53 PagelD #',6704

Wrigley asserts she contacted Northwestem because of her concern that Northwestern
resources were being wasted. Docket Entry No. 261-71, Wrigley dep. at 143:7-17. But Wrigley

had no genuine interest in the trivial cost,

if

any, to Northwestem from Katherine using an

electronic Northwestern logo (not even printed letterhead paper), and imposed substantial costs on

Northwestern through her complaints. Note too that, after contacting Northwestem, Cohenson
reported

to her co-Defendants that Northwestern was now
activity. Ex. 28B, Defendants' Jan. 8 Emails. A reasonable jury could find that

I

Defendants' evolving explanations for contacting Northwestern were a pretext for their true goals,
to defame and intimidate Katherine at her place of employment, and make

for opposing Wrigley. A reasonable jury could find that Cohenson did not merely "inquire" about
Northwestern policies, but in

puttingNorthwestetnl

threatened litigation. SeeEx.Z9B,

Defendants' Jan. 8 Emails; see also Ex. 34 (Dean Rodriguez email (Jan.

Defendants had a conspiratorial objective, which extends

20,2016)I

liability "beyond the active

wrongdoer to those who have merely planned, assisted or encouraged the wrongdoer's acts."
Adcockv. Brakegate, Ltd.,164Ill. 2d 54,62,645 N.E.2d 888, 894 (1994). While a civil conspiracy

can be established from circumstantial evidence alone, Defendants emails and

close

communication, summarized in Part I, provide ample direct evidence ofjoint planning and actions.

The extensive email correspondence among the Defendants and a few others, shows
Defendants' knowledge and apparent approval, that:

(i)
(ii)

Kerr had written a letter to Northwestern Law School;
Cohenson, Kerr, and Wrigley had all called the Dean's offices and other
people at Northwestern Law School and the Kellogg School ofManagement
to complain about Katherine's letter;

45

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 70 of 145 PageID #:13578
Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 293 Filed: 05/08/19 Page 51 of 53 PagelD #:6705

(ii0

(iv)

The goal

Ex. 28A-D, Defendants' Jan. 7 and Jan. 8 Emails. Defendants offer no explanation for why a
witness, who had written a letter

to a Court, an absolutely protected activity, should

pay

professionally or monetarily for doing so.

Defendants planned

to continue attacking Katherine even after she testified in the

guardianship case, and the court found Wrigley unfit to be guardian, seeking to punish Katherine

for her testimony. They discussed a plan to sue Kate and Northwestern. On March 22,2016,
Joanne's counsel, [ra Salzman wrote to Wrigley, Cohenson, Kerr, and others about this plan. Kerr
responded that they needed

Ex. 51A, Defendants' March 22,2016 emails about sanctions. Kerr and Cohenson

Jf

also planned to seek sanctions against Katherine, apparently in the guardianship proceedings.

Id.

wrote that
Cohenson responded

Kerr

To which

Id.; see also Ex.5lB, Defendants' March 22,2016

emails about sanctions (Wrigley respondi

In short, Defendants' email exchanges reveal that they worked together to attack Katherine
at Northwestern, intimidate her against testifuing against Wrigley, and make her pay for doing so.

They provided each other with information that facilitated their joint attack. They reported back

to each other about what each had said and might say. Ex. 28A-D, Defendants' Jan.7 & Jan.

8

Emails. A reasonable jury could find from this and the other evidence recited above that
Defendants conspired to attack Katherine at Northwestern to intimidate her and punish her for

46

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 71 of 145 PageID #:13578

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 293 Filed: 05/08/1-9 Page 52 of 53 PagelD #:6706

testifuing in the New York guardianship proceeding. That attack included defamation, but the
conspiracy for an unlawful purpose existed independently of the defamation, which was only one
means that Defendants used toward their unlawful goal.

V.

DEFEIIDANTS' PRIVILEGE ARGUMENTS REMAIN LINAVAILING

Defendants' various claims of privilege were addressed and rejected by this Court in its
previous Order on Motions to Dismiss. Discovery has in no way altered the reasoning relied upon

atthat time, and these attempts to deflect attention from the facts in dispute should once again be
rejected.

vI.

FALSE LIGHT

Lastly, notwithstanding Defendants' actualmalice and highly offensive conduct replete in

this record, Katherine by this Response voluntarily dismisses her false light claims. This
withdrawal will allow the Court and jury to fully focus on Katherine's remaining triable causes of
action.

CONCLUSION
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment rely on a combination of making disputed
claims, asserting demonstrably false "facts," and ignoring other facts, many indisputable. When

limited to actually undisputed facts, Defendants have no argument to support summary judgment,
which should be denied.
Dated: May 8, 2019

itespcctl

{

47

u I I y.

subrn itted,

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 72 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exh ib 6

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 73 of 145 PageID #:13578

From:
Sent:
To:
CC:

Subject:
Attachments:

Bernard

Bl

ack Ibblack@ kel logg.northwestern.edu]

412120L5 2:13:25 AM

Pamela Kerr [[e-mail]]
[e-mail]; Lisa Diponio [[e-mail]]; Carl Glatstein [Carl@denverprobatelaw'com]
Joanne's Wells Fargo accounts

20j.3-01-Joanne-checking.pdf;2013-02Joanne-checking.pdf;2013-03-Joanne-checking.pdf;2013-04-Joannechecking.pdf;2013-05-Joanne-combined.pdf;2013-06Joanne-combined.pdf;2013-07-Joanne-combined'pdf;201308{oanne-combined.pdf;2013-09-Joanne-combined.pdf;2013-L0-Joanne-combined.pdf;2013-11-Joannecombined.pdf;20L3-12-Joanne-combined.pdf;2014-01-loanne-combined.pdf;2014-02-Joanne-checking'pdl;201403Joanne-checking.pdf;2014-04-Joanne-checking.pdf;2014-05-Joanne-checking.pdf;2014-05-Joanne-checking.pdf;
2014-07-Joanne-checking.pdf;20L4-08-Joanne-checking.pdf;2014-09Joanne-checking.pdf;2OL4.Lo-Joannechecking.pdf; 2014-11-Joanne-combined. pdf ;2014-L2-Joanne-combined'pdf

Ms. Kerr: Here are all of the statements I was able to obtain from Wells Fargo for Joanne's checking and savings
accounts there.
what Wells Fargo could provide.
I do not have both checking and savings for all months; l'm not sure why, but this is
This is Joanne's own account, I do not control it.
were
All withdrawals from April 2013 through September 2014 were by Esaun Pinto while Joanne was hospitalized,
never disclosed to me, and are fraudulent.
Bernie

+*****+**#+*:t.**+:i**t.****.*$+*****,***+*:}**++***{.+****+:t***+****
Bernard S. Black
bblack@ northwestern.edu

Chabraja Professor, Northwestern University
Law School and Kellogg School of Management
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave', Chicago lL 606LL
Kellogg: 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel: law: 312-503-2784; Kellogg 847-491-5049; cell: 847-807-9599
papers on SSRN

at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042

*****)t**:*!*'}il**!t+'l*,********{.***********j8*,t**x*{.*********,t****!i.

KERRo000620

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 74 of 145 PageID #:13578

From:
Sent:
To:
CC:

Subject:
Attachments:

Bernard Black [e-mail]]
4/4/2AL5 5:24:54 PM
Pamela Kerr [[e-mail]]
peterson nancy ([e-mail]) [[e-mail]]; Carl Glatstein
[[e-mail]]; Lisa Diponio [diponiolawfirm@comcast. net]; [e-mail]
Esaun Pinto felony conviction
Esaun-guilty-plea-2009.pdf; Esaun-indictment.pdf

Ms. Kerr: lattach public documents relating to the criminal indictment of Mr. Pinto and others in federal court, and his

guilty plea.
Sincerely,
Bernie
:**t*r+,t**i.**d'***,t**,t*,t*ti{.,t*:lt*'r***!$***:l***,t*j!**{'****i(l'*'lrt'***'tr****

Bernard 5. Black
bblack@ northwestern.ed u
Chahraja Professor, Northwestern University
Law School and Kellogg School of Management
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave., Chicago lL 60611
Kellogg: 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel; law: 312-503-2784; Kellogg 847-491-5049; cell: 847-807"9599
papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042
*i(

:f +

* * *.* * * * * *+ * * * * * * * *

+

* * * * * +,r * * *

+

* * * *+ *,t * *

+

*********

** * * * + **

KERR00001 13

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 75 of 145 PageID #:13578

From:
Sent:
To:
CC:

Subject:
Attachments:

Bernard Bl ack Ibblack@kel logg.northwestern.edu]
4/4/2ALs 5:21:17 PM
Pamela Kerr [[e-mail]]
peterson nancy ([e-mail]) [[e-mail]]; Carl Glatstein
d.zen@q'com
[[e-mail]]; Lisa Diponio Idiponiolawfirm@comcast'net];
Esaun Pinto misconduct
Pinto-misconduct summary-for-Kerr-2015-0404-bb.docx

Several of these
Ms. Kerr: I attach a summary of the misconduct and misappropriation of Joanne's funds by Esaun Pinto.
for them, if
items were specifically known to Cherie Wrigley. Others perhaps were not, but I believe that she is liable
Mr. Pinto cannot PaY.

Sincerely,
Bernie
*,!****+****+,I**+t***.*****+*)k**++***{.***********'t*:f***********
Bernard S. Black
bblack@ northwestern.ed u

Chabraja Professor, Northwestern University
Law School and Kellogg School of Management
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave', Chicago lL 60611
Kellogg: 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel: law: 31.2-503-?784; Keilogg 847-491-s049; cell: 847-807-9599
papers on SSRN
+'F********!t!t*$*'i.'f

at: http://ssrn.com/author=15042
***,i(!t,t**!t,t

,l.*******,1.*,t**{"t.,l**'!****'t{'***'l'***ii*

KERR0000216

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 76 of 145 PageID #:13578

Bernard S. Black
2829 SheridanPlace
Evanston IL 60201

(650) 773{955 cell
bb lack@northwestern. edu

Ms. Pamela Kerr
Kerr Forensic Accounting
[by email: [e-mail]

Cc:

Nancy Peterson
Lisa DiPonio
Gayle Young
Carl Glatstein
4 April2015

Ms. Kerr: This letter summarized what I know to date about misappropriation of Joanne's funds
by Esaun Pinto, including funds paid to him from the Estate of Renata Black; funds withdrawn
by him from Joanne Black's "debit account" at Chase Bank (endin gx5372), and Joanne Black's
personal checking account at Wells Fargo Bank (endin gx7482). I believe that these claims
should be pursued by Joanne's property guardian in New York (the equivalent of a Colorado
conservator). I have inquired, and I cannot bring them as a Colorado conservator until my
powers are transferred to New York. They may also be a proper subject for a report in Colorado
to Adult Protective Services.

Item 1. Failure to Return Advance Payment Following Termination of Services
I terminated Mr. Pinto's services to the Estate of Renata Black on Sept. 30,2014. At that time he
had been paid $4,000 in advance for October 2014. I requested return of these funds. They have
not been returned.

Item 2. Unreported Withdrawals from Joanne Black's Chase Account
From April 2013 through September 2014, Mr. Pinto possessed Joanne's debit card and regularly
withdrew funds from Joanne Black's debit account at Chase Bank (ending x5372). He was
obligated, as part of his financial reporting to me as Executor, to account for those withdrawals,
and failed to do so. The amounts withdrawn during 2014, and not reported to me as withdrawn,
total $8,600 (see table below).
Joanne Black checkinq account at Chase
startins balance at 2014.0101
deposits thru 20 1 4.0925 ($500/week)

$534.86
$19,000

st,290.74

rndins balance at 2014.0925
Esaun Pinto withdrawal s

$

Rounded down to account for bank ATM charges,
rot later reversed by Chase Bankl

I

19,755.88
$19_700

Most of tlrese charges rvere refunded to the account by Chase. A few were not. It was not cost-effective to
1

K8RR0000217

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 77 of 145 PageID #:13578

8,000

Reoorted on bills as credits
:eported on bills as spent on Joanne

$3,1 00

Undocumented withdrawals

s8,600

During 2013, Mr. Pinto generally billed $50/week for incidental spending on Joanne. His actual
spendi"ng is not [<nown. If ore assumes that actual spending was $5O/week and allows a credit
for similar spending during 2014, for periods in which Mr. Pinto did not directly report spending
*
:
on Joanne to me, that would be 26 weeks $50 $1,300. This would still leave unexplained
withdrawals of $7,300.
I have provided to you the account statements for Joanne's debit account, which show the
withdrawals.

Mr. Pinto also made thousands of dollars in withdrawals from Joanne's debit account during
2013, but I caught these during my review of this account. He assured me that he would account
accurately for withdrawals in the future, but in fact did not do so.
Item 3. Mr. Pinto's Personal Time During Rescue Effort: April-May 2013
During the period in April 2013 between when Mr. Pinto and Ms. Wrigley attempted a "rescue"
of Joanne und h". hospitalization in June 2013, Mr. Pinto's bills regularly exceeded the amounts
that Cherie Wrigley hid advised me to expect. During this period, Mr. Pinto and Ms. Wrigley
advised me thatMr. Pinto was notbillingfor his own time, only for the time of your associates.
Mr. Pinto later sent me a bill for his own time for this period for $18,073, which was a complete
shock. This included billing for 24 hours per day during the period in which he retumed with
justify this
Joanne from Colorado to the East Coast. Mr. Pinto and Cherie Wrigley attempted to
planned to bill, only later. But as both
bill with the thin justification that Mr. Pinto had always
Mr. Pinto and IVIs. Wrigley fully understood, I was never told this, and had no reason to expect
this. I believed that when Mr. Pinto said, and Ms. Wrigley confirmed, that Mr. Pinto was not
billing for his own time, they meant exactly that. Both Mr. Pinto and Ms. Wrigley understood
that my concern at the time was the extraordinary level of total spending by Mr. Pinto, not the
timing of payments. This was fraudulent and deceptive.
The later bill by Mr. Pinto left me in an impossible position, because at the time, Mr. Pinto was
the principal contact with Joanne. If I had not acquiesced to his sudden demand for more money,
I would have left Joanne helpless. I view this incident as akin to blackmail. I have provided Mr.
Pinto's bills to you.
Item 4, Amounts Withdrawn from Wells Fargo
During the period from June 2013 through June 2014,when Mr. Pinto was billing the Estate of
Renati Black for $250,000 (in round numbers) and had access (known to me) to Joanne's debit
card at Chase, he also had access (not known to me) to a debit card for Joanne's own checking
account at Wells Fargo. Mr. Pinto withdrew $14,437 from these accounts, with no disclosure to
me. The source of these funds was payments by the Social Security Administration to Joanne. I

compute the exact net amourt of ATM witMrawal charges, but I am beliel'e this amount does not exceed the $55.88
effective credit reflected in the table in text.
1

KERR0000218

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 78 of 145 PageID #:13578

only learned of these withdrawals, after

I

terminated

Mr. Pinto's

services, and began to

investigate his conduct.
The monthly withdrawals (by Wells Fargo statement month) are as follows:

Statement ending date

Withdrawal

2013.0610

L,152.50
366.49

2013.0709

19.O7

2013.0808

373.57
3,338.99
1,756.82
1,092.83

2013.0s09

2013.09L0
2013.1008
2013.1108
2013.L209

LA84.67

20t4.0709

684.5C

20L4.OZTO

l_,130.0c

2014.0310
20].4.0448
2014.0508

1,310.75

Iotal

L,265.7C

861.25

$14,497.!4

This was theft of federal government benefits. There can be no plausible claim that these
amounts were spent properly. Mr. Pinto was already billing large amounts directly to the Estate
of Renata Black, both for his own time and expenses, and for amounts that he claimed were
spent directly on Joanne. In effect, Mr. Pinto double-billed for his services. He billed the Estate
of Renata Black directly, and he separately and secretly withdrew funds from Joanne's account
at Wells Fargo Bank. I have provided you with the Wells Fargo statements, showing the
withdrawals.

I have traced the specific withdrawal iocations for the Chase and Wells Fargo debit cards. Many
of them are exactly the same. This provides strong evidence that the same person was using both
cards. I can provide this detail to you, but a phone call would be useful for me to walk you
through my analysis.

Item 5. Demand for Repayment of Amounts Paid to Mr. Pinto as Representative Payee
Beginning in April 2014,Mr. Pinto improperly amanged to become the personal representative
and payee for Joanne's SSDI checks, without notice to me. Mr. Pinto knew that I was paying
him separately for spending on Joanne, knew that she was not capable of handling her own
financial affairs, that I was her court-appointed conservator, and that I had been specifically
authorized by the Colorado court to become Joanne's representative payee. If Joanne required a
representative payee (in hindsight she did, now that we know that Mr. Pinto stole her Social
Security benefits by withdrawing them from Wells Fargo Bank), that person could only be me or
someone approved by me, as her conseryator.
The application by Mr. Pinto to become representative payee was made with the approval and
cooperation of Cherie Wrigley. The amounts paid to Mr. Pinto by the Social Security
Administration, from May 2014 through January 2075, are as follows:
For 2014'.8 months * $l,2l7lmonth: $9,736

KERR0000219

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 79 of 145 PageID #:13578

For Jan. 2015; $1,239

Total: $10,975
documented amounts paid by Mr. Pinto to
Center on or
Joanne, or on her behai! following her discharge from South Beach Psychiatric
about Oct. 29,2014.

These amounts are subject

to reduction for any

Item 6. Double Payment for July and September 2014.
Mr. pinto was paid a flat amount of $8,000 for his services for July 2074. He charged an
additional $2,:bO to Cherie Wrigley during her trip to visit Joanne Black in July 2014, fot
unspecified "personal services." This was improper, and was made without notice to me or
approval by me. Mr. Pinto was being paid a flat amount for all of his services. The overpayment
of$2,300 should be returned.
Mr. pinto was paid a flat amount of $4,000 for his services for Septemb er 2014. He charged an
additional $:,giO (paid by Cherie Wrigley after I refused to pay this charge) related to her trip to
visit Joanne Black in Septemb er 2014, for unspecified "personal services." This was improper.
Mr. pinto was being paid a flat amount for all of his services. The overpayment of $3,950
should be returned.

The combined improper payment for unspecified personal services was $6,250.

Item 7. Esaun Pinto Failure to Visit Joanne 3x/week
Mr. pinto was paid well, even lavishly, for visiting Joanne 3xlweek in the hospital. I have reason
to believe ttraf he often visited less often than that, and have subpoenaed hospital records to
confirm this.
During 2013, for each visit, Mr. Pinto charged $750 plus $46 in gas and tolls. Therefore, each
visit not taken is a claim for $796.
During 2014, we switched from what was nominally hourly billing (although Mr. Pinto did not
track actual hours and billed the same amount in each two-week period) to a monthly flat fee
basis. The billing amount changed from $2,389/week to $8,000 per month. There are 4-ll3
weeks in an average month, and visit frequency was not changed. Therefore, the visit frequency
:
for which I was paying was l3x/month, and Mr. Pinto's charge per visit was $8,000/13 $615'
Item 7. Undocumented Spending on Joanne
Mr. pinto submitted no receipts for amounts he supposedly spent on Joanne. All amounts are
round numbers; some are implausibly large. For example, for the week of April 16, he billed,
with no documentation: $300 for gas; $800 for his own flight to Colorado; $1,000 for hotel, and
$1,000 for car rental (a total of $:,tOO;, To the extent that Mr. Pinto in fact incurred out of
expenses on Joanne's behalf, those may be appropriate, but documentation is needed.

KERRo000220

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 80 of 145 PageID #:13578

Summary of Specific Demands
The table below summarizes the specific demands for repayment listed above. These form part
of the overall demand for repayment of all amounts paid to Esaun Pinto (less any amounts which
can be documented as having been spent on Joanne's care).

Amount

Item

Snecific Demand

1

Unearned payment for October 2014
Undocumented withdrawals from Chase Bank
Pinto bill for personal time during rescue
lmproper withdrawals from Wells Fargo Bank
lmoroper pavments to Pinto as representative payee
Double pavment for Julv and September 2OL4
Failure to visit 3x,iweek
Excessive, undocumented exPenses

2
3

4
5
6
6
7

Total of specific demands

s4,ooo
s8,600
s18,073
51,4,437

Sro,gzs
6,250
To be determined
To be determined
552,335, plus amounts to be
determined

General Demand for Repayment
The total amount paid to Esaun Pinto, or to Cherie Wrigley to reimburse amounts that Mr. Pinto
and Ms. Wrigley advised me that she paid to Mr. Pinto, is $279,300. This includes (i) amounts
paid directly from the Estate of Renata Black; (ii) amounts transferred from the Estate of Renata
black to a checking account at Chase Bank for Joanne Black, for which Mr. Pinto possessed the
debit card and withdrew funds, (iii) amounts deposited in Joanne Black's bank accounts at Wells
Fargo by the Social Security Administration, and then withdrawn by Mr. Pinto, who possessed
the debit card for Joanne's Wells Fargo checking account; (iv) amounts paid by the Social

Security Administration to Mr. Pinto during May 2014 through January 2015, after he
wrongfully arranged to become Joanne's representative payee; and (v) amounts paid by Cherie
Wrigley for "personal services" during July and September 2014As Executor, I paid Mr. Pinto substantial sums for services, which I believed were to me as
Executor, without knowing of the misappropriation of funds noted above, and without knowing
that Mr. Pinto had a recent federal felony conviction. Mr. Pinto and Ms. Wrigley have now
advised me that Mr. Pinto's client was Ms. Wrigley, rather than the Estate of Renata Black. As
Executor and Conservator, I would not have agreed to pay any amounts to Mr. Pinto under the
circumstances. Therefore, all amounts were obtained under false pretenses, and should be
returned to Joanne Black.
Because Mr. Pinto was working for Ms. Wrigley (or so he now claims), and because she was the

primary person overseeing his actions, she should be liable to repay these amounts to Joanne
Black if Mr. Pinto is unable to pay them (other than the $6,250 paid by Cherie Wrigley and not
reimbursed by the Estate of Renata Black).
Very truly yours,

fu*U s 6'/*1,
Bernard S. Black

KERRo000221

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 81 of 145 PageID #:13578

Fr.llt,
on behalf

of

sent:
To:
CC:
Sublect:

BernardBlack[[e-mail]>]
BernardBlack [e-mail]'edu]
5/17/20151:29142 AM
[e-mail]
d.zen@q'com; [e-mail] [e-mail]
Wells Fargo withdrawals

Attachments: 2014-activity-Joanne-al l-accounts-2015-0222-bb'xlsx

pam: For your review of Esaun pinto's activity: The attached spreadsheet, in the wells Fargo w'draw detail worksheet
*exact* locations from which Esaun Pinto withdrew money from Joanne's chase account,
shows matches between the
from Joanne's Wells Fargo
to the locations from which money was withdrawn, without my knowledge or consent,
account. See column

C

of the worksheet

Bernie
:**rF,Fd.********,fi**{.*,(.*t}***,t****{'**{c****'f'r$**:l'*:*:*'*:li**{(***'r*******

Bernard S. Black
bbla ck(d northwestern.ed u
Chabraja Professor, Northwestern University
Law School and Kellogg School of Management
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave., Chicago lL 50611
Kelloggr 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel : law: 312-5a3-27 84; Kel ogg 847 -49:.s}49; cel I : 84 7-8 07-95 99
I

papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042
*************+,f,**!f+*********++**!t+iri.*${.,F*,**+****++***:f****+*'}

KERRo001 174

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 82 of 145 PageID #:13578

Message

Bernard Black Ibblack@kellogg'northwestern.edu]

From:
Sent:

5lB/2aL5 2:30:29 PM

to:
CC:

Subject:
Attachments:

Pamela Kerr [[e-mail]
Patrick
[e-mail]; Lisa Diponio [e-mail]]; Carl Glatstein [[e-mail]];
Thiessen [[e-mail]]; Bernie Poskus [e-mail]]
RE: Wells Fargo withdrawals
2014-activity-Joanne-al l-accounts-2015-0222-bb.xlsx

Bernie
**4,**+*****+,i**+****'**********"tt***$'$+***++'I**$:t***'**'t**+*****
Bernard S. Black
bblack(d northwestern.ed u

Chabraja Professor, Northwestern University
Law School arrd Kellogg School of Management
l-aw School: 375 East Chicago Ave', Chicago lL 6061:t
Kellogg: 2001Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel: law: 312-s03-2784; Kellogg 847-491-s049; cell: 847-807-9599

papers on SSRN

at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042

******:l)trk******{i.**$!*'}****'ii**********:}'k*:{<'l'****'t'****'l'**'t***)F**''

i."ri

p.r.r.

i.ii fr.itil;;@k#;.;;;i

Sent: Friday, MaY 15, 2015 7:26 PM
To: Bernard Black
Cc: [e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; CarlGlatstein
Subject: RE: Wells Fargo withdrawals
Bemard,

of these were
When I said she was on the road, I certainly meant through 61312013.That was an elror since some
,'on the road.'r The totil withdrawals out of the Wells Fargo account aftet 61312012 are
made after she was
$10,734.14 to be exact.
April 12 through
BSB: Through April 12, Joanne was on her own, and I atilibtlte withdrawals to her. From
had her Chase debit
June Z, Joanne was not hospitalized, but was under the control of Esaun Pinto. Mr. Pinto
card, was using it, and was reporting to me, and billing me for, expenses on Joanne. Any additional
withdrawals from the wells fargo account are highly likely to be fraudulent because if Joanne was spending
me for the
money frsm Wells Fargo ta cover her own expenses, Esaun Pinto should not have heen billing
on Joanne. The
same expenses. The tirning of the urithdratrvals is also inconsistent with this being spending
pattern recurs on June 3,
account was fully depleted on May 3, the day that the SSDI deposit hit. The same

the daY she entered the hosPital.

How do you know that these withdrawals out of the Wells Fargo account were made by Esaun and not by
,o*.on. that had stolen or found Joanne's card? It is possible that she had written the PIN on a piece of paper
attached to the card. Believe it or not, a lot of people do this.
$sorneone* (other than Esaun Pinto)
BSB: This is why I traced the exact locations of the withdrawals. The
*somehow* uses the EXACT SAME ATM LOCATIONS that fsaun Pinto
who hypothetically had Joanne's card
used to withdraw funds from Joanne's Chase atcount'

KERRo000865

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 83 of 145 PageID #:13578

Then on Octo 28, !013, that ssmeone {other than Esaun Pinto) hypothetically traueled to Ellenwood Georgia
and withdrew funds frorn Joanne's Wells Fargo account there" And purely by coincidence, Esaun Pinto
happened to be in Ellenwood Geor6ia on the exact same day and withdrew funds from Joanne's Chase
account. Yeah, right!
The pattern of withdrawals from hoth accounts at th€ exa€t same locations, sometimes on the exact same
day, continues. fhe details are in the spre*dsheet I sent to you, in column C of the "Wells Fargo w'draw
detail" work:heet of the spreadsheet. I attach it again.

shsuld note that I confirmed rryith [saun Pints at the tirne (mid-?013] that the Wells Fargo debit card was in
Joanne's possession. I assumed that he was telling the truth. lf he is noul claiming someone else had it, that
is not what he told me then, and is not consistent with the record of withdrawals from this accaunt.
I

fsaun had Joanne's Chase debit card. This I knew.
Bemard, if you knew Esaun had Joanne's Chase debit card and was making withdrawals, why didn't you close
the account or freeze the debit card? The ATM withdrawals after 613/2013 totaled $37,169.91. I have an email
from you to Esaun dated 5/3112013 reflecting the fact that you knew Esaun was making these withdrawals and
you did not close the account or have the debit card frozen. This allowed Esaun to make withdrawals out of
Joanne's funds when you were the Conservator. If Esaun wanted to get paid, he should have provided you with
receipts and invoices to get paid. I have prepared a schedule of all of Esaun's invoices and the amounts he
reflected as ATM withdraws that I will be analyzing once I'm done going through your emails. If he needed
funds up front, you could have given him essentially a retainer that you could track and keep track of the
receipts.
BSB: As long as I could track the withdrawals, I did not see why it mattered how he Bot paid, directly from me
(frorn the Estate account) or by withdrawing funds from Joanne's Chase account), The tstal amount he would
receive would be the same, Thus, I did not see the need to close the account, nor to instruct Esaun Pinto not
ts use the card. I later learned that he did not report his withdrawals honestly, but I did not know that at the

time.
With benefit of hindsight, I regret that I did not require Esaun Pinto to provide backup for his claims on
expenses. I believe that for any expenses that he cannot support, he should be liable to return those funds to
Joanne Black and, if he cannot do so, then Cherie Wrigley shsuld be liable to do so, since he claimed to be
working for her.
did not know he had the Wells Fargo card, I did not know he was making withdrawals, and was relying on him to
honestly report his withdrawals from Chase. He didn't do that either, but at least the Chase withdrawals I knew al:out
and could track. How were you tracking these withdrawals?
I

BSB: I was not tracking these ujithdrawals at the tirne" I treated this as Joanne's account, and assumed that
the SSDI payrnents were simply piling up in Joanne's account. I confirrned with fsaun Pinto at the time (mid20131 that the Wells Fargo debit card was in Joanne's possession. ln the fall of 2O14, after I developed reason
to be suspicious of Esaun Pinto, I went to a local Wells Fargo branch and they provided me with past
statements. They were willing to do this hecause I was Joanne's consen ator.

I'm a little bit confused about this because on your 2013 Conservator Repor! you listed all of these withdrawals
out of Account#5372 (the Chase account) on Exhibit C but it doesn't appear that you included them in Step 3
DisbursementslExpenses by category. On PageT of the Amended Conservator Report for 2013 you listed a
total of Disbursements/Expenses as $32,031.00 yet the total "Less: Total Amount Disbursed" on pages 3,4 &, 5
@xhibits A-C) total $40,365.1B. If you deduct the $6,031, 18 from the disbursements (payments to
Accountant/CPA) the difference is the $26,000.00 that you listed as "Disbursements to Protected

KERR0000866

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 84 of 145 PageID #:13578

person." Essentially you reported that the ATM withdrawals were "Disbursements to Protected Person" yet you
are saying in this email that these withdrawals were made by Esaun.
also a one-time
BSB: I deposited $S0CI weel<ly {$26,000 for the year) to Joanne's Chase account(s}. There was
spending on Joanne, for
transfer on Aprit 20, 2013 from my personal Chase account. that ! treated as Estate
at
which the Estate later reimbursed me. These disbur$ements were made to Joanne's bank account
purposes, including
Chase. Joann€, for her part, allowed Esaun Pints to use her debit card, for various
At least this is horu I salt, matters, urhen I cornpleted my 2013 report' So
spending on Joanne's oyun expenses,
I

would say that the funds were indeed "disbursed to protected person."

I am
I'm just trying to figure out all of these transactions so that I can get the right information in my report.
using your replies as additional information.
I

will

Report
send you a separate email regarding the accounts you reported on the 2013 Amended Conservator

as compared to actual.

F*wr
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

Kevv fwsms{t. 3rc,courtt{xtg
650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
Denver, Colorado 80246

"{

[phone] - phone
[phone] - fax

www.kerrfa.com
"Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" - N{ark Tw'ain

privileged/Confidential Information and IRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachments) contains

conRdential-information intended for a speciflc individual and purpose, and is protected by law. To ensure compliance
(or any
with requirements imposed by the IRS (iRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication
be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
attachment) addresses any tax matter,lt was not written to
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment), In addition, the information contained in this message may be
protected by the accountant-client privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it
then delete it. in addition,'you aie hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message/
in
or "rror,
the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

From: Berna rd Black [mai lto: bblacl<(okel logs. northwestern.edul
Sent: Thursday, May 14,2015 8:06 PM
To: Pamela Kerr
Ccl [e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; Carl Glatstein
Subject: RE: Wells Fargo withdrawals
pam: The purpose of providing to you the Wells Fargo withdrawai locations: All withdrawals after June 4, ?.013 took
place wtren Joanne was a psychiatric inpatientt 1'hey \ /ere not made by Joanne. Joanne was not "on the road." Esaun
pinto was on the road, with Joanne's Wells Fargo debit card. Which he occasionally loaned to someone else.
Esaun had Joanne's Chase debit card' This I knew'
Esaun must have also had her Wells Fargo debit card
The Wells Fargo withdrawals were pure theft.

*

and withdrew cash from both accounts.

KERRo000867

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 85 of 145 PageID #:13578

I did not know he had the Wells Fargo card, I did not know he was making withdrawals, and was relying on him to
honestly report his withclrawals from Chase. He didn't do that either, but at least the Chase withdrilwals I knew about

and could track,
I

will be happy to explain by phone why the matched locations of the Wells

Fargo withdrawals and the Chase

withdrawals are very strong proof of criminal fraud by Esaun Pinto, in tlre approxinrate amount of $15,000.
I

will reply separately with regard to the

Chase withdrawals front x5372.

Bern ie

**.j.*,id**+*,t****,t**r(**********-t,l****,t***+,k***+*,*******i!*i.***{<+*
Bernard S. Blacl<
bblack@ northwestern.ed u

Chabraja Professor, Northwestern University
Law School and Kellogg School of Management
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave., Chicago iL 60611.
Kellogg: 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel: law: 312-503-2784; Kellogg 847-491-5049; cell: 847-807-9599
papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042

From: Pamela Kerr [mailto: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, May 11,2015 4:42PM
To: Bernard Black
Cc: [e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; CarlGlatstein; AnthonyJ. Dain ([e-mail]); Ira Salzman

Subject: RE: Wells Fargo withdrawals
Impoftance: High
Bemard,
What was the purpose of you preparing this schedule? It appears that this is activity in Account #7482. Based
on my forensic accounting done to date, the total ATM withdrawals out of this account were $15,138.88 and it
appears that the majority of the ATM withdrawals out of this account were done by Joanne when she was "on
the road."

Here is my question about the ATM withdrawals that you claim were made by Esaun that you did not
know about out of Account #5372. (I'm attaching a print out of the accounting reconstruction that I have
prepared for this account)
From what I can tell you opened this account (Account #5372) in March of 2013 in your name but never really
added Joanne's name to the account. (see copy of initial statement attached) You have stated that "she never
went into Chase to add her name to the account." What was the purpose of opening this account? How would
Joanne have gotten an ATM card for this account if her name isn't even on the account? How did she or Esaun
get the PIN for it if her name isn't on the account?
The bank statements show that the majority of the funds into this account (#5372 in your name but not Joanne's)
were transfers from the Estate checking account #6179. There is even a transfer into this account from your
personal account in the amount of $3,000.00 in April 2013. Why were you funding this account with money
from the Estate (co-mingling of funds) if there were sufficient funds in her 2013 Trust Account that you opened
in June 2013 to receive her Workers Compensation funds. Were you reviewing the activity in the account at all
during this time frame ttrat the ATM withdrawals were being made? How do you know that these withdrawals

KERR0000868

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 86 of 145 PageID #:13578

you aware of
were being made by Esaun and not by someone who had stolen the card from Joanne? Were
wouldn't have been making ATM withdrawals
where Joanne lived during this time frur" and the fact that she
from this account if she ilas living in a hospital? How would anyone else have gotten access to the bank
pages from
statements to know what was going on in this account? I'm attaching a copy of the first and third
the
this account for l2l3llzol4thit shows that this account is and has always been in your name only and
statements for this account were addressed to you only.

please let me know

if I have it wrong that you have

stated that you didn't know that Esaun was making

ATM

withdrawals out of this account. I would also wonder why funds were being transferred out of the Estate into
you
this account and yet you are stating that you didn't know Esaun was making these withdrawals. What did
think was happening to the money you were transferring into this account?

Faw
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
Denver, Colorado 80246
[phone] - phone
(303) 696-577t - fax

www.kerrfa.com
'Iwain
"Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" - Mark

privilegd/Confidentiat Information and IRS Disclosure: This message

(including any attachments) contains
purpose, and is protected by law. To ensure compliance
confidential information intended for a specific individual and
(or any
with requirements imposed by the IRS (iRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication
written to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
attachment) addresses any tax matter,lt was not
penalties under the tnternil Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment), In addition, the information contained in this message may be
protected by the accountant-client privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it
in error, then delete it. In addition, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message,
or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

From: Bernard Black [mailto:bblack@kel loge.northwestern.edul
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 7:30 PM

Tol Pamela Kerr
Cc: [e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; Carl Glatstein

Subject: Wells Fargo withdrawals

pam: For your review of Esaun pinto's activity: The attached spreadsheet, in the Wells Fargo w'draw detail workheet
*exact* locations from which Esaun Pinto withdrew money from Joanne's Chase account,
Shows matches between the
to the locations from which money was withdrawn, without my knowledge or consent, from Joanne's Wells Fargo
account. See column

C

of the worksheet

Bernie
*****r***r'*****t***********:t*t(****:+*******!r*******'t****'********
Bernard S. Black
bblack@ northwestern.ed u

KERR0000869

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 87 of 145 PageID #:13578

Messaqe

From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:

Bernard Black [[e-mail]]
5/1-5/20L511:32:05 AM
Pamela Kerr [[e-mail]]
[e-mail]; Lisa Diponio [[e-mail]]; Carl Glatstein [[e-mail]]; Anthony
Dain ([e-mail]) [[e-mail]]; lra Salzman [[e-mail]]
RE: Wells Fargo withdrawals

J.

This reply concerns Chase debit account x5312. I replied separately with regarri to the Wells Fargo account.

1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

Joanne obtained cash, from 203.2 until her hospitalization in June 2013, through weekly transfers to a debit
account at Chase, for which she hekj the tjebit card. This practice \ /as begun by nry mother, and I continued it.
ln early 201"3, for reasons best known to Chase, my effort to "link" Joanne's "old" debit card account at Chase to
my accounts at Chase caused Chase to close lrer account. ln order to get money to her, I needed to open a new
account, which would operate in suhstance in the same way as the old account. This new account wi:s x5372.
I autlrorized Joanne as a co-olvner of this account, and sent her the debit card and initial pin. She did not go to
Chase to become a co-owner, so this account remaind in my name, hut I treated it as Joanne's account, and

Joanne's money.
I'he only possible account from which I could have transferred money to the Joanne account at the tinle was the
Estate account x6179. The Supplemental Needs Trust had not yet been funded; it was furrded in July 2013 with
moriey frorn Vanguard. The Joanne Black 2013 Trust had not yet been funded. lt was funded later with workers
cr:mpensatii:n money.
lt could have been possible to stop transfers from the Estate, and replace them with transfers from the SNT or
the 2013 Trust, once these Trusts were funded. But there was no urgency to doing so. The Estate had ample
funds, and so I continued the weeltly transfers from the Estate account to Joanne's account, and treated them as
part ofJoanne's 2/3rds share of the overall estate assets.
'lhis is
Once Joanne was hospitalized in lune 2013, the Chase debit card was in the possession of Esaun Pinti:.
not in dispute. You will observe from his bills that he regularly reported withclrawals from the Chase account, as
an offset to what I otherwise owed him.

7.
8.

he reported only some of the actual withdrawals. This annoyed me, but was not a
disaster, because I could periodically "audit" the withdrawals by comparing the withdrawals he reported to
those that were actually rnade, i:nd deduce any excess withdrawals (rnade but not reported) form what I owed
Esaun reported dishonestly

-

him. I did this on several occasions.

knew Esaun was making withdrawals from ioanne's *Chase+ account. I did not know that he also had
Joanne's +Wells Fargo* card and was rnaking unauthorized withdrawals from Wells Fargo.
I will be happy to walk you through my understand of these account by phone.
I

::li':-?'::l*:i.***r*****+,***..!+,fr**:r*'r**++'***.r*+**+*r**.r**,r*r*****
Bernard S. Black
[e-mail] u
Cha braja Professor, No rthr.vestern U n ive rsity
Law School and Kellogg School of Management
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave., Chicago lL 60611
Kellogg: 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel: law: 312-503-2784; Kellogg 847-491-5049; cell; 847-807-9599
papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042

From: Pamela Kerr [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11,2015 4:42PM
To: Bernard Black
Cc: [e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; Carl Glatstein; Anthony J. Dain (Anthony.Dain@procopio,com); Ira Salzman

KERRo000859

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 88 of 145 PageID #:13578

Subject: RE: Wells Fargo withdrawals
Importance: High
Bemard,

#7482. Based
What was the purpose of you preparing this schedule? It appears that this is activity in Account
and it
on my forensic accounting oone io date, the total ATM withdrawals out of this account were $15,138.88
was "on
upp.u., that the majority 6rtn. ATM withdrawals out of this account were done by Joanne when she
the road."

Ilere is my question about the ATM withdrawals that you claim were made by Esaun that you did not
know about out of Account #5372. (I'm attaching a print out of the accounting reconstruction that I have
prepared for this account)

really
From what I can tell you opened this account (Account #5372) in March of 2013 in your name but never
never
added Joanne,s name to the account. (see copy of initial statement attached) You have stated that "she
went into Chase to add her name to the account." What was the purpose of opening this account? How would
or Esaun
Joanne have gotten an ATM card for this account if her name isn't even on the account? How did she
get the PIN for it if her name isn't on the account?
not Joanne's)
The bank statements show that the maj ority of the funds into this accounl (#5372 in your name but
a transfer into this account from your
were transfers from the Estate checking account #6179. There is even
personal account in the amount of $3,000.00 in April 2013. Why were you fund18 this account with money
irom the Estate (co-mingling of funds) if there were suffrcient funds in her 2013 Trust Account that you opened
in June 2Ol3 toreceive f,er Workers Compensation funds. Were you reviewing the activity in the account at all
during this time frame that the ATM withdrawals were being made? How do you know that these withdrawals
were 6eing made by Esaun and not by someone who had stolen the card from Joanne? Were you aware of
where Joanne lived during this time f.u*r and the fact that she wouldn't have been making ATM withdrawals
from this account if she was living in a hospital? How would anyone else have gotten access to the bank
pages from
statements to know what was going on in this account? I'm attaching a copy of the first and third
this account for l}l3ll}O|4ttrat shows that this account is and has always been in your name only and the
statements for this account were addressed to you only.

stated that you didn't know that Esaun was making ATM
wonder why funds were being transferred out of the Estate into
withdrawals out of this account. I would also
you
this account and yet you are stating that you didn't know Esaun was making these withdrawals. What did
think was happening to the money you were transferring into this account?

please let me know

if I have it wrong that you have

Psrn
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

K*rr fsrsnsis Accm*'mt&mg ff{

650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
Denver, Colorado 80246
[phone] - phone

[phone]-fax
www.kerrfa.com

KERR0000860

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 89 of 145 PageID #:13578

"Kilrlness is the langptage which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" 'Mark Twain

privileged/Confidential rnformation and rRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachmenb) contains

compliance
confide;tiaiinformation intended for a speciflc individual and purpose, and is protected by law. To ensure
(or any
imposed by the IRS (iRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication
with requirements
(i) avoid tax-related
atLachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not written to be (and may not be) relied upon to
p"nurti"s under the Internil Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
may be
matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment). In addition, the information contained in this message
reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it
protected by the accountant-clieni privilege. Please immediately
this message,
in error, then delete it. In addition,'you aie hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of
it, is strictly prohibited.
or the taking of any action based on

From: Bernard Black [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Sunday, MaY 10, 2015 7:30 PM
To: Pamela Kerr
Cc: [e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; CarlGlatstein
Subject: Wells Fargo withdrawals

activity: The attached spreadsheet, in the Wells Fargo w'draw detail worksheet
*exact* locations from which Esaun Pinto withdrew money from Joanne's Chase account,
Shows matches between the
Wells Fargo
to the locations from which money was withdrawn, without my knowledge or consent, from Joanne's
pam:

For your review of Esaun pinto's

account. See column

C

of the worksheet

Bernie

****rt *******,r**+*:!**+************'**:1.*,r**t*,***************'l'***
Bernard S. Black
bblack@ northwestern.ed u
Chabraja Professor, Northwestern University
Law School and Kellogg School of Management
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave', Chicago lL 60611
Kellogg: 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel: law: 312-503-2784; Kellogg 847-491.-5049; cell; 847-807-9599
papers on SSRN

at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042

********i<**'*********,ii(**!k*:f**)*'t*****tl'*r***:t{***'i'+****'l"t********

KERR0000861

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 90 of 145 PageID #:13578

with requirements imposed by the IRS (IRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication (or any
attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not written to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
penalties under the internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment). In addition, the information contained in this message may be
protected by the accountant-client privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it
in error, then delete it. In addition, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message,
or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohiblted.
From: Bernard Black [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Saturday, May 76,201-5 7:03 AM
To: Pamela Kerr
Cc: [e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; Carl Glatstein
Subject: RE: Esaun Pinto message 1
ln some cases, I first received invoices from Mr. Pinto and then paid them.
At the beginning, Cherie Wrigley engaged Esaun Pinto r,vithout consultlng with me, paid hirn without consulting with me,
*instantly*
in some cases continued to pay him vvhen I did not pay him
{and I do mean instantly}, and put extreme
pressure on me to pay Esaun's bills, and strongly opposed my efforts to bring down the extraordinary level of billing. I
did so partly to avoid the *urar* we are now in between me and Cherie Wrigley {and her allies, Esaun Pinto and Anthony
Dain), which is hardly in Joanne's interests, and partly because Esaun was my only contact with Joanne. The alternatives
to paying his bills seemed worse. The evidence for the pressure on me frr:m Cherie Wrigley and Esaun Pinto will be
presented in court.

tsaun Pinto also tried extrerrely hard to get me to pay him in advance, and in part I agreed to do so.
I tried extremely hard to bring his billing rate down, over Cherie Wrigley's strong objections.
*something*, as an excuse for a continued high
I kept thinking they woukl conre down further, but there was always
level of biiling"
So

there is no simple answer to your question.

Mr, Pinto has never provided to me the backup for his supposed expenses, and I hope you will request this backup from
him. Based on what I now know, I believe he will not be able to provide much of this backup, and will therefore owe
substantial funds back to Joanne or the SN'f.
I believe that it will also turn out that Mr. Pinto did not visit Joanne in hospital
did. I am seeking to obtain evidence on that question.

as

often

as he claimed

to me thait he

::llf------**********d(*****{i*****:r,**********)F***:r.,k*********'r.,r
Bernard S. Black
[e-mail] u
Chabraja Professor, Northwestern University
Larw School and Keliogg School of Managernent
Law School: 375 East Chicago Ave., Chicago lL 60611
Kellogg: 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston lL 60208
tel: law: 312-503-27811; Kellogg 847-491-s049; cell: 847-807-9599
papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042

From: Pamela Kerr [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12,2015 5:05 PM
To: Bernard Black

KERR0000700

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 91 of 145 PageID #:13578

=
9c

:Ei: o

O(a
NO

(!tr
=(,
.:o

o

cL
6xo.
oo

=o

U)

6€
L0,

(s

0c
(!L

C)

3p
o.=

t,
L

o

c-o

(B

3=

()

-(t

(d
H
(,)

ti

o
B
C)
ah

o

(-()
@

()6)

=
-Y
6
o

tro
op
lh^

o-

(,
'-.

()P

9+

(r+

L

o

co

Xcn

t'
o)

E\
6)v

h

0

1e

'=x
CJ

!6

-\z
U:

-l
c\l

o

rn

ob

(dc)
tq c.l
t.co

2(,f
o-Lro
o xtU
rn.=(I,6
+ F j
rn

LP
=
'5E
o.!

II
I
I-DI
*O)*
*O)*

a
e
F

E.,i

TJES,fE
r--VcioI
E-O,!@E

ir
*'|.

Tb
O!.

F

EHE6i=

0J = (o
cot--o-!dN'''lulo

ru*

ii0a*

I

r
T

G

(E

c
L

o

6

o

*a

E tst{

o

-,,
c2

A

L

YL

..

..

E€
'Fc

io09={, l!I,)FtJUt<t

I

i:
Pll

E3
$l

Zth

or

oii

lio

L0 El *

c) bO U -C
> rO'=
:

fl x

'= c* 6X 6li
iovts+>lt
JS
i

>.6

c

E

;

.:v o
=>
b€

(o

t9s
E
iDs Eo
d:

oqi

i EEt;gEIi Et
g*g 3fli
rF
i :r;sEtrEI;l E**i.+
i

Po
Y9
Cj)63

€B
'(s
Cl-

OE
-€
6.a

B'
o=

sl

y IEEIE;;'*;;i

E iEEI$iEEEBi

?EEsE

E.f;P.JH

thO

.Y
d_c
0?
o.>

E
g

()fr
r(d

(!o
c(U
(!.c
.io
iitr
(UL

..c >

od
(!C

}E
oc
c,
c(!

aE(,

E=

ril$isIq=i ;t#E=
i eHF*;EHsI EE'edH

I

}E
(E(!d

.q ^
+bO
CL
(d -(E
ol&

[l

EH,

6
t,
L

qj
(!.

'ro E

=o
oo
Hd

3E

I

b!

o'A
.tr,
ov|
PG

br) b

=En=Elt
I
rE*:SE|I E fr

1
*
*

a3
<:g
E(o
o-

=(!

;FL)
'=

\ots

}P;PN,'IIII

I
+
*

arP
d;

a#
Q(U

*.f

EC

*>

B ol

c\l

{b
(oN

=Jao 'E-

(gd

!

bN
d
i-0.)
P=

5
N

-P

x

o9
cE
io
-oo I
=-:
ot,
;o
Eo

BE

6ul

.o

N_
t-l

O

<U
-d,

!pt
!, c,
:E
LC
'f

#r
co,

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 92 of 145 PageID #:13578

E:i e et ;n
.B -EE T; # *
3 E
FI; E
E€Sr$ ,frE
:r=P.sb!:: E*
*i
t :u :;=u€€
Etf, E i E3 g E=
E E E:
Eis E i ;; E ili ErreEE g:! :i
FEfi
EEi r*: E;
r€r =EE;Efi
tFEili
Hg {e

I fr;

E*i;
{li Ii
Ei it Ei
Ei? i-EEEgH fi iE riiEii Eri rt
i++
Erii
:C=iiiirE
a

E.=E

€E

E=EEEE

E: =E Ed HE sE
ni

x€rE€t t.eE
€Ee*EE

Fi.

:lt :l
Efi; €i 3i !* e+
itl EfrfEtS Ei$! s:EiEEEEg iE
t9r

Pe

ri t! iE
i=- t+E;ir I!ir

EliEiigili si
Ei
I! .Bs r* Ees; fl;i{fiEiig g;
*sg
rsE;E.seE+
EElgiEEEi
*EE H;*€

#E

EE

[lE$EE*i,Iiii;iEEEE;T*nE
[.38
,E!E .FE ir sH i$ il
:lPf. . !r
;.U
E;gEfE Is; 3i

srlst3E1' Et ;FEE i;E:Hil:i [E
tgEi E; E: E.gii ;H =i!:sggEHI II
*EFEee!rEE={EEgf
* s.= E
;?SigEgEqE itt
J2i=

E*E# !;
EE
E : $.r

IE tit

;i ;;= :ExtEn€ *i5 ilE

EiEHEEEifiElEi:;{fiEEEIEEi€EgiI

iiEiEBiilgIEiIiIIiEEEiEiEE-EiI
Et
EE

;SIg€EE

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 93 of 145 PageID #:13578

3g
g!:

E=,i

= 3tE
f. g:E

i? E;[

co
o =q

Eo6^qS
SEBfE

et
csio
=*E

Ers{
gBFgE Eif: E
f
hEEEE }E*f E

ist+

s

EE E[€ E;EE? EEEi E
EE i.;s :d=f,:
g'II 3xP:^Q 3:;E X
ie

tl3i i

Fs frEr ;i5?a
;E e!3 SaSE= EE*.E E
oo -6> Eg?gE E;:i
3E
;
gBrI9 EE*! S

t;i

i[ IEE ffiEE iiii E
g; E*;^ ES€[E'r =sr3 E
Ai eiH :EE;E,E $fi8.x :
;i Ii* EEAE5fl ;iIE E
93 EEB 1E?€ie UEeR E
E: Bi; 3€SEl= ifss :
E::'oP;

,lF;
iT :EE

fE

E

s

E
oE

E
n

E
E

u

E

c

=
-FBEI;i
ETEg .r :
g:FStE IEg,* :- E
R

E! EEE. fiEE;EE Eii! E
I
:E ;iEE fiEE+tg BflEE
Ee isig F=EErc f[]c Z
aaIE?EEli;

i

3.

; I
E

ig tE15
ilE;i:nBEiEfleEii

Et'
ei{tritEis*rgtt* I €

H

s
:E*

E elrier
ExEiEa
Ii EiiE t[EfiEi ;EitE 'H, B geEg qq*
E s io:,
€; m:ss

IiEEEiEiEiEieii;eg
€e I-I;g
maE=s

Eg

!E5!EE

EEEI

AE

EEE{ESES33=l

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 94 of 145 PageID #:13578

b-o

L0)
.lJ -cOi
^
(J!#
p=CL

*a#ri$ Ei
EEEEBE A5

=
g
!F

EEEE;e HI
EIEEEE IE

E
E
{
E
EI

EEifiEi

:

q

FAerp.ius

3

:=

E

3

H

I! ;i

EfiEE$E E! :
g;s:$,+
g:
EEEgEg
5E: >: h
E.siEgr

E

;

IE EI
Er

fi*

=E

E EE =
r

--

e

s €'rersE IE ! ii I
iE€EIfi EE 5 il
E Eig:fiF
E
E? E EE
i *EiEsE

E

igEgEEi E; }Ec i
$

0J ar'-

c

f,-C

=

Hi

sEErEEEgEiEIEEfi
;; F p; H !
i fi={geE; fil
s tiE:EEI fl E gE E**iI E* ;

x

i

iIgE*giEtuglgftIiEiiilli;
s

paiggig

E;tBi

iia E:iil

ii

g

l:fl

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 95 of 145 PageID #:13578

tr
fr
e?
Pd-Y

co

9(H

ots
clI
=o
:o
ecd

e

.i'f

{
E

=
I

HL

5;a

5ts
()i
(de
oi2
(,
od

.b€

-!

(H

c.i o

=b
+t'o
='F

trl
6l

'-P
>, !,

ul
{!i

Ol
'ol
^l
Ul
ol

H
H

C,l
cl
.EI

x

ol

X
+

>l

Ll

pl

x
*

tfl

r

*fl

3J

orx-*@
o*.E!u.r
Ul*(EeY
o)*O-iii
'|*.c'.>
v+-

>
E

co ;
J- ;

{sn E
:IRgSll
e
E

;9:e6,'uri

q -E
*: E.elI Elo (9.9
dl
"
*
s
?f ;tIEli 8$ .oE
g:ad;;ll
El+

E5
oboU:nFl
>
'= ru.= .! C d
c o;

fl *
.or

_o

tsl

qEi,E_a'hlr -"lp

Ea
EE

l-O

EE

=tr
gg
(5

E*

c-c

'-

.=
.i-j

q

I]
oa.
cE (!

aP

0E
'=tr

Ed
=oo
-Eoq

r"*(B;

nrE

iEf

:5 5F=

B.:

E.E

Eg
=E
€
='.

sEE
'gaa
EE€
_t

2

s€i
zZil

riE
€;€EE:i *li3g
es;EF.E]l S1{ gq_ ;E:
&>E

3*HtH:i gixHs=r i=i
ais;;?i EEEBEE E EEE
;ii
sf;psf;E- ,E

E;tiefl

X-c ()

iE cqu
.eE SgE

loo

E

a3E

-;:i?iEs

-o.='X-cEl

X

Q

HEEiriE
itx*EEE
ilafrEttE
9iE:EiHB

f* IEg
:r BEf HEEgXE+
i? E!E

(d

Sts
'E

Ei; €EgtEEE'
EE: e.E:=ESr

E EE; iEEBE=fr
EE:E:TE
Ea EEI .:€;sH:*
Fa :;E

^2BK
2a

E
A

Ex:Ell-''.=

;eisElE

EB

rgr\k
E
N
(,
(A-H

Ee#
6I=

uEe'E.^
H= aEs F !
H.;'Ec€H
g:EETEP

,i-8X s*=

; ;EE :A;!it;
E Ens

lu

HP

Ha
H

$ET

QEoi,=Ec>

:=.1'fE;#
EEEEiiF
EEE:gi'a
EE*EE;E

=C; fEfi€E!;
E.=' 3rBs
5 5
'=O

ei
fo O
C5-trQ

O h-c C - i-!:eo<X-

EI E:;u .+E€5€EB

f€!I E;g€Ei*
.eE EE3.E EgE3o,E.E

f;E

EE 3EEE E:EE$:;

gE'E;Ef
AH

3.8H,6

EEgEtg;
EQ€J}"..H

ffi :EEA ESEE€:E

h

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 96 of 145 PageID #:13578

b

AL(IJ ql-C
E
-c
UE!
.
ICL

o Fo (, 9l o

th
.cc
d,5

C)

o

E:HFeg
O?i -:ij

siiIeH
bEE-eiE

a

EEE.= U=
E x paE
u s

E}
rjO
(*c

(!
ct)

olz

-\=-o -ro o
EO ^ 0l'o c
E

eio
o

L

E x=
EEE
P&^

o
o
(d

a

o

;)

l-

S Xq9
522

E Ee
(J.L

=EE
caE()

rr.l 5 h

co
c.l

'do5

:>,
rO

'=d
an

>-P

r|
\
y

A

o.t

r

-u(.)
UE*
LaE*
,.0)(,
!a!d

'o
!c)
tr(3
cso
U'.c

L!
lEr
o€

uo

EE
ots
oB

\

inoar

6.b

*

-

U
t\

s

€0)-r
hoP E

\i.

X Pr
i6*

r!

U

.

Csu)

oc
(d(€

(J

\J

o
u
u

q
h
P

-

989
EaO

M

(D-€A
*6hord

9=.s s

t!\

sBEEpE

p
E

*
E
L

=

:F
(!

u

#
o
=
E
P

c

*:

t
U

il

u

#

Ef,€g8E$
t. =EEE,EEE g E
E
{ E:FIE=3 f
*

E.c?FortU5

= o
Yl
e.l

E
ii

.=\o

-!
i

?E FiEI

E EEEIEEE Ei,EIf, i

a
o
N:

fE ar

P^

il

fi ;t :
EspH;us 3 fE
;
SioH€==1
EE-b=sBs
-XF?E'iu

€l

; FG
o*

El ul
gl

E

a
q

L

6 l.
q)

.U6E ^S A H
E
fu,E
\
i

50
(n>.

*

Q
r\

:E.E

i,
40-iiH

F)

;J

'-PkA
v
k
< OE

E.
tro
;<o

aJ

fr"

BBP
vdA
a
-

.cE=PUSr
vs_6EO
0) ar'- c r-c:
o)ii -'= o-.

T

sEEEEEE-EIIi
S
:l E

B

o)1,
cl, .n

cS(E o
,E-dlr.
- ?)

oo9

nJ

S EEIEH,g

oo

LLE
6)o

9Pb

-

J gEEE>e
frEflEeH
S ;E;;Ei
\

EH9
9rl]
39

E
>.=

\ €*PE5P
S ;:s!,q;

-()
E(d'

5^()
fco
'oo-

o-r
o^

E

$ IH;EPE
S -tq=€€e
E a'.EEEer
^

(deP

c.i

a
ol

g;9;$i
9;i PEE
HEEIEE

tdep
tr >,.=

o

-:

.==PS=U
Ee;.'E anr

trdH

t)
d
p
$

L

!o

ku€
ooPS

(B

L
^
rv^uL-

,Y(' O=o_
tsd-F

B oo8
<<q(!
1',Fftl.* a
L

ah

Aq
E()

.ER:tr8:
E E: F g€
qE-E

N.

P

ro

-

ol
Y0

c/)

a

t)

\

'E$StISEEEflfiEgEHE$EF

to

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 97 of 145 PageID #:13578

q
(!

=
o

c

o
E
.C

.9

-c

B
E

e
ti

c
o

'{=

(E

u

o
c,

-c
P

I
+t
C

96
Uor
=

(!-C
0.,

-9
(oo
OL

53
r"g
(UP
C+

co

3u
-C

EE
of

EU

oo
c0J

o t1
F

}E
Ed

:(J
E(ea*

'=o.1*
>bla*

9F

Cr4*
'^-qa*
*=a*
c(Ja*
f >
(az
q6*Ln*
U'"'

!:E
.eq
-(E

Es
tr l:
o O

I

T

f
I
?
*

!: i
.E6 I

*
*

Ol
O)

*

i
*Fsl
*

*

01

*
*

l.. I
b I
oo n

(

i
Y2

t

oo

1

1:

...+l :t
^rl

'F ,i1

x

:EHEEli
iE;i:6-llllol t
'a E foY !

i{6

x

'; c i: O h

-c O

-L

(Il X
-r < J=
= d*

E;

I

Elt-_enEX:,r

i:

I - o'l o 9 9 '.. - 6 i

sE i 5€YqYEI
!ks;5Elr
i
Etr r U83"iShll
*,E I ;::s*:ll
rol

*

ZE I El€,;EESEI
3x il 9ffi:Ei-ElI

TE Ix:Is;nfrH;i
E:- i eElS{;EH?i
E3

EIEEI€ttglrl
sE 3r 3:l5s-39p3-x

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 98 of 145 PageID #:13578

(*

o
tOg
ti€^
q
EOe
c2

pa

e

!"r:

€x
oa
33
L

r.oT
HJ!9

H

E3

d

ge

.hz=

P

z
G

c'c
-sq

(v

E5.
O
tr
t
()

q.'l
GpO
aXt

,i

i>,
Pto'

q
o
=

5c!

+
*

fr>
E
trg?
O.=)=o
v)

9<*>
a

c
o)
q
0

[

(,

oo-

3E
99

e

-Y
a

o

m

t'
'6

Ig o:i
{o.r

r(
,e

.tr
E

.

'i

*

0
P
(!

*
*
{a

U
fn(o

**
x

oU
r^-h

Ja

==

+
+
x
x
L

Or

o-E

T

rsE
(oJ^
U
v Z
F'r')

o\ x
A "
6, *

EE
OJ L,L

PcroGlE
(J L 0J r)

I
x

C;>

b9fuN,:.i

o>o-!d

IE

tr

-..0,
Fg

o

A

o

L

v
L'
..

..

r

lrUTFL'Ut
=oouf

E!*
c-

q,

:E :=ir
=:o 3;1'

€
7

t n
Ol-l
4"t(S
o

n
>
c

E

. ap
ur X 56UE
d6 (i+

€-b BiT
6
7 ,
.$
o

i

tixl }

.=EE
c)io

q,Eli
-I{gl

th-

Eo

+ ?!i 3El; 6r sE
t fiEP_t-$lt e-: EE
; 35f $*l+ EE A:
Eg;Eli€l* E; EE
*

i
I-av-'El:r'Et

-E

*-c

G

O (rr_Ai C
<rS.y<

-rs

-

c)

>

.E

@E\Z,io

o

H-5
EE.E
o.'o E
x

* E $Fll E E li !H
r rE,= illi H fi .:s :E;
{,

sr

(,

t5g
rr*

E
.

co *
*
"1 i
5
:j crtl

SF
i*

c

5 I
o
*

E

arO
ic\.l
9,-

$,

J T

i
*.r-*i'o(qI*

n.Yro

O

I
Jt

I
l+

P

1'
L

EEA
';6,/)

E
.

P

OJ

CE

q'E

*

C
L

E
:('

,F.,,\

11

.oJ

=
d
N

E^.

a
U(ba-ar)^
I
o-.,!c

o_

uv6
At

=bo

cCg(J!vo

P

.

E q6
E 5=

S
-t

U
.E

.

.:gE-

-b
w

IZ

-

:5.=

th

E
F

't
6_(J

.-

s ),+
6-htl

€-t

o)

\w

i
#

*

..o-1i)l).i..*

I#fEfrilrfiI
3 NEgIEEj;;i

Y a isEjIElEgi

-a
h;etEE

LH

--tt
=N

€9€
t-*tr

HE ErE
Eg giE
seE

Eg

H3 Erf
qiU

V,A o3;;'i
e6"'

E;€ffi EE iE$
FTf
E EE

=EEsE
,E,iFgH ,E Sg

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 99 of 145 PageID #:13578

Z B g-E E ? r
E i E
E 1 cFb'

,Egi

I*EE

I s !l: EE 7 € ieit
:B-aE,EI

EiE:Efl
zrii .pE ,a B s{Ea

I t -Ua E;
Es B nl5
!E ?
gg E

i[
EE

: I

g;
{) tr

E;€:

HEBi
E;e
,:f;E .gc"i C F iEEt
.=! b

i

i

-o

r[E=,
E; E EEE E3 g ; .gFIR:=
#6
EEs 3E p
ts€ E E'E€ EE E € :q*E:
€EriE i
iC Hg iTE EE g
:
v
39$iEi; Hr = g;:IBE
E

,E

5

fi ,i E €=EiE E
il ; ie*tt
;A:T; E;

€; tr EEi
gg

!

*€iE sci;E E
tE ;F iEi f==
EE$aggf x*E 5
$$f i
;s Ee Es*
E;Ea;E€si}gE
au 60
€t
rL" -ffE

N

E -;i6EE

f E iEEiir
ib

fliE€E E
=:s=E

E

ggfi3$g
E
H= 6*
8a
E>
EEa
tg ?E E;x: ..i2a : x eTEEg ;
,,8
E * -ueru; E
i I s;e=; r 5s
€E 5f, ;;;i EEg
eE
$e*
p

=
5

3

jifi

€e

-o!=E

.F

=e€

I

:-t

E:E;E

E

;

EziE s€E g=
5r =:E: sEg E s= ?EitE :
S.i;
EI E;:;r
tE Ez aE:A lEr E+ ;€ Eg::€ *
Esl EH i=E i;i?E * =j ?s.9
rX gg iE;u=
g: EE i=aI €EE :g !E :gEiE s *e.s tpf
rLo
.=.-B
Es:.Es2
aE €d
tf
AggE EEE ;EE?g E&ESB

eE
uE

u;

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 100 of 145 PageID #:13578

o

e €-Ue

, i

.e

* s= ;
9

o6

i

e'E

E fi:

EEEE*H i fi* : *I !E
l gs
EEaE$€ : iE E Ei EI
EIE$E= t
Efr

:I

'=oii-E.EE
EB=E9#

g u: .9 ;9 "rF
H H: ;, E= 3,}

E;+E#3 E FE { Ei }€
EEflEflIE i: #E E I5 ii
EE
*I€rEE :$ !
,o ;s

!

Ei
iq e:
E E != I

;
Ea;;Eg i
s EE|EEI PgI; E,EE EES gEEEf,E E E;i;;:Ei Eitr
t
il ig;gE*Elgif;
} =g;Ef,s H a$=E*e;ii,+iE
EE;EEI g : !E:; #::rEt5#
F PEEE*5 g
E EEg€fl; ;EEI;;!$I,EHfrE
* sEEepr ;r € ' E;58 =Etigil$
E

s

Q

.a

\

\

s

s
B
(.)

fiFEEEE*iIE1gEEiEIiIiEEI

SEIBEEEEg={*EE$iF!EiEiEi$E
t

*EEEtEE;f,IEgtiii:EEE!EEEiI
.!
= Ei;&E!H iIil EE
*

:

so$

E
t 5i $ €Er+E:E t= at g t;iI: E:E3 iiE
xs;, i
€ *EEl
EiEr;i;ilErEr
"" 'r
f,E#EEEE ;;tffi
: ;aEr s 5g!EE#E Eil!l$ I .. ^ ,' +
A AAi
E

h

\o \o Jll

E

E

-s

v

u;

M

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 101 of 145 PageID #:13578

-P
E
=:
LIY_Ov

o.e-.r0
s9.-F

ql

-c, ;

o

;

!2

bE
o--

ol
60
-o

e3

5P
'oH

Hf
QL

V-

0., .96
-

5;

s
,

.= -:
2-9G

h

6

GJ.C

*

.

Uo

:

gE

U

7):v

5 -:'u f
c
.::.EEX
ci

-<
'=-rlq-O
-oJ(oY-

';Bh
Aoe-ti

KL
,OE

>..E

EB

#

c;-o-o
ii;-:q
-?Yhro
a(DL!0J

rn

ts<
3

0.,,

;
=

o-r

cat
(*

E
,_\

uflf
ot-6P-o
O;

o-c

Yl

qo33

+-cruO.Eo2* o
,^ (oi

bl

=

o

:E;E.g ," i
;FTO3fi i i
EF#eEe b i
; "*
;6Er3 o*
to
E;;E-v
:-c

c 5;

cj

.e

br
>

i

o,

IEE#IEI
=*isieg;

i
*

*

I

i

:EgF:iEE
EEls=€Ee I

E*
(s(g

o

6)

'a
O-()

=e=;Eti
EEE:f,EIi
EE-ge9I

i ;r;figEg*I
eEiq*;Ii
;EEEE;E; r

ErEiEEEa

6t=
f()

3R9

E€;

EE
:

Pts-s

Eik

s*i
a

-

I EiEgg€€s;el
: gI sfl6i-gggs-I

El

i
:

E5
.:q

>(s
?a

e=
f-(
cH

.^.Yc)

>.tr

u,

=
*-Es

ok
.9ri

tr>zY@ld},

Egps,Hg

B.!
6E

o5
.tro
-E
oa.
-a-''
cn
-o0

--a

BEE
;l esEE$'Elt
iutEE=:i r gl;;tr8$;i *li --;>
EeE;e:xE i
a?€
etIEtgF AEF
EE:iE!;iviatr e":HI?l #dEBIEi SE3'
IrEls;HIH=l
E#EFE!Er
{sHElue E EsE
.o r-'^ oo
.cl

{r*
?bo

6 > a
o=< i

d- .o;

El= .ag
EE
o-1
olo
El

>,8

.2,ha

tr
'O

q E
6."
Llz

-O

E E =.
g 3E

E

el.
g$

o.5

tB

i
E

EI

E+j

Ie

il

Ri

E>s,'
=o
6)E
oH
>€
,d

.E

H8.:
qia

ii
;

ai i
*
t/r *

Eo.

a<t
Ed
Eoo
.E"q
€oo
a.o

-t"--

i

-aE
o9

cB

c)

Gi
'61
ol
*
kl
;l
EI

0J

=E
C! Gi
u)a
E]U

tr.c
'ie

EI
ol

L

z
L

.k

El
ol

i i

=(,

d5

OI
'ol

E€ E U

'G>.!oJE

x3

!(d

=tr
gE

rnfH

OP-=P

EE

+t'o
E'A

a

-c

.!a

$3.
s.=

c
otr-l.
E
N

o
o

6!ri=
4<oJrgP
r!ut>rg

F

8>

e

{:^,foJ!

o

i5
OcE

Fo

o-r-xvl
o0)o)=

er
:3

o

o9

q 3U f

:

(J

()E
=o
(de

;

Y6

E

s$ig

.eE
ais
.2 6t
9r FX?a
;in
iri +h

1

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 102 of 145 PageID #:13578

EI

=

H

[i:€

B

=

=

>
€rtsE

I99 c
!c*f
=.st9
EEp.s

igEEiEEi€EBEE
E6E F:i

5sE$

iE; f3:EE?:€ E:
'€
E:E

'{= >

^-C
A=c
EO^O

E

ER: fr
'- (t, xr5

E=EEEEET

EEB EsHH;EiE
g!:

LL^L

.P3=E

E5E E
.S2(noJ:

Ei=

eEsErEEl E..E

:d

=

Ep€:
rg nr C.9

E E bH
U
o ro
6'I}E E
!xcil
E EE>
E O(u F
-c c!

E*E E;EEflIfE Ef,E
i* x€B€Ei E E fi
.EBEE'il€H.i EUB
.s?i
eE- 9iaB;EE,T: Eti

iii

EI.eE
.S tsEnii
d >EE x
s 9E;i

E trpl
T
\

=-utE

:
Q)

vS-d
G) nr'-

B

.E€Ep
C

F

EE b
E4.E
LEEL

+
\\

EE; EEESsEfHi EEE

F E.=!
gHfrE

U

\
S

E*EE3E#
#Ii fC;;:E€:gE H;g
EEE
gEE

.E

t

$

qEEEEEFEE iEE

E;EiEEE{:+EEE

L

ovdr
=H

EEEEEEEEE$EEEE

9Eft

-c.

prg
o Fa o
(D
L=

t

tJ

S

s

Ef,5 q

!€E;EgEETEI:E::s
iEEE E:EElIfl[t eE*

F

s

N
-s

\

.il

\
e)

*

a
.E-

(r)

:

;\w!r=(rHtrE

U-o.(.It

EfEEEEgiE*iEEEEEs L ?E F=81 s
j E5 UsTI ;
.rBE
=oEZ EHe=EEELo.r
\ 3u qqg *
i

a)

E

sExa

-EeUg
.U HE E
6}

(o E

Be:
trE

ra

E?

E€EE

A3:
E: F

.E

s I8'Et
E;.:$
B"
.B E- $
E€ i?.r : E!Ee

U
U o

f, E
U

E

=

E o -s

E_=qE

.q:;;

H.,

ESEf, $EEE€EIHi $EE

S

t
q)

E

;EEE
EH&g
EEEE

v EE

SgiI $

h

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 103 of 145 PageID #:13578

b
gGJ

0
(I,

oJ

E€_c
Cg

=

(uo
tt

OJ

C

o

e8,
:f(II
oE
POJ

E

E
()

>E
&.e
L-E

=
3
E

o
L
+

go
(I,c
E€

q
C

o
,F

:-o
CL

(o

U

o

gE
Ea
o-

0)
!
P

o

P

.cTl
oc

Pg'

oc
0r=

_E',e

-C^P
6;.i(U

:=8

+ztro

i s{

Eg
.e8

=(oO >
G-C
E--'- oE
5 c+
(!cO
j o,,
>-E
'c.9

t'?',

'JE
ri th

EE
!>
CC
f(IJ
Q-

Uq
(Ei
EE

tbo:,
hE I

L>."

>:E

-ob
!c
o>.
+,tn
UP

.:l33
oJ ou)
3EqrlE

o-

gb

c!
'--i

F9
c

f;,f

:6
ts-c

-C0,,:

o)

(o

H'= s

>?

SE
(sP
(nE

PE
E(n;i

'= .

::
itE

oJ Cr{=

cEE
!! C-C

Ei.
I cE
o-f>
q(R-

rl
EI
cl
Ll

B -'ar
.csc

EI

HES
orEE

(J.9 c
(o-(!

orl

:l
Pl

_coo
LLL

:l

;pt'

CI

.il
g
9:.3

E99

.=
e,

-I
E=3 il f E
€;E- #l I EE
iil ..n
9:b
.EEE

*l

gl rr

iro-

e

XE
=

;UH Fl R 5E
EHf !e sa
#EE
a:

ig

;i.E :1EElg
EfYolE
-r=)
EEq +; E i
E g g i I { il.q
E'=*
o o u
E1

H

(oif

U

i:

l!l,F(Jul

5

}I
**
**
**

iT
**

i

ai
AI

*lJ.*

*o)*

I

*Fi.*
*Fiir*

i
X

H38

I
I
*

o:q ir

r

r:E - E }ti
H 5li
A E; B q nli

;

:EEH
H(!C

o

s*
c*o 6

E

6'

?or3 o
ii-c
UPC
+ cl
oo>
rlJ-.u
=9E
>oi

-o !z
-n.P- 3

0J

=i -,9EA
9Lr
>P
.(o=

.. >E

tr -.c'=
(E ot

O-l./rS

r E F:3 El *
PII
O b! U - r{r
(o'=
c i fl *
> C
X cl *
= q +: O 1'--lx

*
*

I

5

E

". E

E

; F B EII

I u,;; gs ggi
I iltg;EF.Eli

t H i n: r
l3 sipRH?i
I

u

Eli
El

-I:9Siii,r;:IB-e b
: I F !l; - -

X

E i s tlS i E s e Bi

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 104 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit

7

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 105 of 145 PageID #:13578

SI.IPREME COURT OF T}M STATE OFNEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Iri the Matter of the

Ap. plication

x

of

BERNARD BLACK,

Index No. 8025311+

etitioner,
for the appointment of a Guardian
the Person and Properfy

ANSWER
TO AlvIENpEp PETITION

of

of

JOANNE BLACIq
A Person Alleged to be trncapacitated.

CHERIE WRIGLEY, being duly swom, deposes and says:

1.

I

am the first cousin of the alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter *AIP"), and

cross-petitioner in the above captioned proceeding.

2.

I

submit this Answer in response to Bemard Biack's Amended Verified Petition

and Opposition to Cross Petition, and to advise the Court with regard to how the proceedings in
Colorado have unfolded.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 106 of 145 PageID #:13578

16.
consequence

With regard to petitioner,s allegations about Mr. pinto,s
background, this is of no

to this proceeding; it is simply a red herring.
However,

length regarding his criminal history, or lack
thereof. In point of
N4r' Pinto,

I

spoke

to jrdr. pinto

fac! the felony

at

charge against

to which Petitioner refers, was dropped and he
has never been convicted oi a felony.

Further, these events transpired twenty (20) years
ago, and are patentiy irrelevant to the issues
at

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 107 of 145 PageID #:13578

hand. Notably, there is no assertion that Mr. Pinto has done anything improper

in connection

with the AIP whatsoever. On the contrary, lv&. Pinto has been a tremendous advooate of the AIP
and has helped immensely in her recovery. He is mentioned positively in her doctors' reports, as

well as the reports of the Guardian ad Litem and Cout Visitor in the Colorado proceeding.
am appointed Guardian of the AIP's Person a:rd Properfy, the Court can certainly

compensation

at a

d.esired amount.

I wilt of cowse provide billing

If I

fix Mr, Pinto's

statements and receipts

evidencing the services he provides. It is truly incomprehensible that Petitioner, who was foufld

to have essentially stolen the AIP's assets in Colorado and transferred them to his own childlen,
along

with falsifying documents in two different jurisdictions, is asking that someone else's

actions be scrutinized.

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 108 of 145 PageID #:13578

Sworntobefore me this
T'L ary of September,2ol5

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 109 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit 8

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 110 of 145 PageID #:13578

Frorn:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Attechments:

cherie wrigley Icheriewrigley@yahoo' coml

4fial21!71o:14:29

PM

Pamela Kerr [[e-mail]

ooPS
EthicsPoint.pdf

I thouoht r sent this. rt was in ryy outbox! !
I #v;-r ieceived the other EMArL from FIr

KERRo003836

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 111 of 145 PageID #:13578
I,ithic.q

Itttps:1,'secure.ethicsPoint,comidornaiulliN;login-reporter"-priDt

l)oirrt

lrslr')..

This report has been closed,

Repo$ $tttrrlissi$tr liate
2/1t2017
ft e

portc* Ccnrlx

nyi Sri*

rrs:

h

J

vrf c

rrrutl io rl

Northwestern University
VARIOUS LOCATIONS

Vialati*x lssue Type
lnform*tion
Retaliation
Relationsh ip to lnstitution
Other/Anonymous

Please ldentify the person(s) engaged in thls behavior:
Katherine (Black) LITVAI( - Law Professor
Marcia lsaacson - Chief Compliance Officer
Do you suspeot or know that a supervisor or managemeilt is involved?
Yes

lf yes, then who?
Marcia lsaacson gave NU employees confidential and sealed information to protect NORTHWESTERN
She then wrote a letter to two Judges in two different states.
Mr. Dana and Ms. Schulte might hold supervisory positions also as they are menttoned in the attached
lawsuit.

ls management aware of this problem?
Yes

What is the general nature of this matter?
A repod was made to ETHICS POINT to simpy let the U know that a husband and wife professor team were
using school resources in a very private CIVIL matter. NONE of the members knewthedocs were sealed
and are still lN DISBELIEF that docs could be sealed without anybody knowing!ll! THE MAIN POINT lS: No
reta liation

should EVER come from making an ANONYMOUS report. SEE ATTACHED!llll

Where did this incident or violation occur?
SEE ATTACHED

Please provide the specific or approximate time this incident occurred:
This retaliation and harassment has been going on for close to 2 years. There is NOT ONE statement in this
lawsuit that ls eompletely factual or unbiased. lt is based on misstatements, delusionary and paranoid
thoughts as well as complete falsehoods.

How long do you think this problem has been going on?
More than a year
How did you become aware of this violation?
Other

lf other, how?
Found info on the internet

Details

l ol 2

'l
'tr'l0r 7, I :48 P\ I

KERR0003837

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 112 of 145 PageID #:13578
https:i,'secure.etlricspoirrt.eornrdorn*inrHNilogirl-teFx)rter-print.arsp'1...

I'ithiesltrint

Lisa DiPonio..Colorado AttomeY
Gayle Young...GAL Colorado attorney
Anthony Dain San Diego Attorney
Esaun Pinto Private lnvestigator NYC
Judge Alliotta Staten lsland NY
All of these people are mentioned in the lawsuitlll!

Fcllow-Up Note*
There are no additional notes for this teport.

Foll+w-Up Questio *#C orfi m*$ts
Mar 16, 2017,3:09 PM
Gomment: This report and earlier EthicsPoint reports related to this matter were reviewed again independenuy of Ms.
lsaacson's oversight. We determined that Ms. lsaacson handled the reports and information appropriately and did not violate
any University policies or laws, This report will now be closed.

Clr*t fraas*ripts
There are no chat transcripts for this incident.

Clqsey{indoU
@2017 NAVEX Global

2ol

2

,+30, 17,

l:48 P\{

KERR0003838

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 113 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit 9

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 114 of 145 PageID #:13578

At an tAS Part 12G of the
Supreme Court of the State of
New York, held in and for
Richmond County at 26 Central
Avenue, Staten lsland, New York
on the
d^y of June, 2016.

7

PRESENT:

THOMAS P..ALIOTTA,

ln the Matter of the Application

of

Bernard Black, Petitioner and
Cherie Wrigley Cross-Petitioner,
For the Appointment of a Guardian
the Person and Property of
JOANNE BLACK,
an Alleged lncapacitated Person.

AMENDED
DECISION AND ORDER

of

lndex No. 8A253114

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 115 of 145 PageID #:13578

OROERED, that Mot #007 to temporarily restrain and enjoin Cherie Wrigley, her
Page 8

of '10

BLACKOl845O

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 116 of 145 PageID #:13578

attomey and the parties referred to as the "Wrigley group" from contacting the family of
Bernard Black and Katherine Litvak and Northwestern University Law School (their
employer), is denied and the temporary restraining order is discontinued based upon
the assurance of all parties and their attorneys, on the record, that they would cease
and desist any further contact with Northwestern University Law School, except as it
it
relates to the collection on any judgment emanating from the State of Colorado; and
is further

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 117 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit

10

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 118 of 145 PageID #:13578

Katherine Black vs Cherie Wrigley, et al.
17-CV,101

Transcript of the Video Deposition of:

CHERTE WRIGLEY
September 07,2018

Wm
The P*wer of

& NI{

RAMA

Commitment"* REpORTING

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 119 of 145 PageID #:13578

Yage to

Page 14

A
Q
cal1ed

-- do You have what's
an "auto delete" -- a provision that

So no\^/ everlrthing's pretty m:ch
deleted. I had it hacked into; okay? So I had
to -- there was some kind of -- I had hacking. Uil'rat
can I say? That's all. Tlr-is is, nnybe, four months
aqio, five months ago. So I use a new e-nrail

works the same way on e-nrai1s.
my messages

Q

deactivated.

L1

t2
13
T4
1,5

15
11
18
L9

address

periodically deleted.

1A

MR. FAITIIONE:

ratrether your Yahoo!

vJsJ

Q
A
Q

I'm asking you a different question.

a2

A
Q

t2
13

L4
15

was,

Okay.

documents, you
colrputer?

like,

So when you were

didn't

Istow how

to

looking for these

searctr your

10

L4

|'t
1B

enough.

19

Q
A
date. I

20

2t
11

23
24
atr

I -- I

mean,

I

search?

]srow how

to search blz

know how to search b,y -- I Jmow how to
search fu date. I lmow how to search hy name. I
hrow -- I didn't lcrow how to search -- 1ike, narrow
the search to a particular word or topic,
necessarily. Like what I learned the other day was

witranscripts

@

uslegalsupport,com

Yes.

And what

did you search?

L't

A
was

You

for

documents you would have

it?

Yes.

Did you look

for

documents

with Brian

it?

Yeah.

r actually had a folder of his, but it

mostly invoices.
Q Okay. Did you

))

Pamela

,?

on

25

Did you look

Raphan, PC, on

2L

24

did

Yes.

19
20

How

use?

I

A
Q

18

did you do the

Yes.

had with Melissa Cohenson's name on

16

How

where you receive e-maiIs?

And you searched that?

A
Q

L2

15

A

It.'s

used the people's names.
Okay. So you -- you looked for documents
have "Katherine Black" or "Katherine
that would
Litvak" on it?

13

No. I mean, f Jcrsv how to search enough.
I mean, I could -- I still h:e+r how to search

tb

e-mail

Yes, yes.

A
Q

L1

three daYs ago.

manY

You bave an inbox; correct?

search that? V,/h,at terms did you

Yes.

It

very

vage I I

your cofiputer?
was

I don't have the --

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q

t)

Nor,r, in looking -- in searching for those
documents, you said you had recentLy leamed to put
in search terms and then search your document --

you say, "recently, "

Okay.

Q

25

2018?

Yes.

boxes.

Yes.

when

t

Okay.

A
Q
A

found to your latlyers?

--

nLrl'

o: your corputer, did you search each of
the rnailboxes you had?

22

24

Put that aside.

l

21.

age

Did you

SCHAALMAN:

Q

1n

that before February of

think

THE VifTTTIESS: Yeah.
BY MR.

response to the reqrest for documents v,Jas prepared,
you had a1reafu provided the documents Ehat you

11

I

object to form.

rr

19

account was changed before Februarlz or after
February?
A After February.
Q okay. And vtren this document -- your

A
Q

nrailboxes that

she's talking about her messages on her phone.

1B

10

of the

l-6

HInA-hnm,

on

on your

15

okay. This odribit was sigrred Lv your
attorneys in Eebruary of this year.

A
Q

to be

My--

11

13

Like, not everything gets

I'm asking

that I learned sometlr-ing.
Let's -- let's focus

Did you search each
in your cofiputer?

A

L0

L2

Q

And

happened

A11 right..

you had

saved.

A
Q

It

a

messages.

t't

2L
11

Gnail.
But ttre settings are that.

if somethi-ng's
in, like, an arc -- I don't lcrow if it's "archive";
I'm not sure what it's calIed -- they will get

20

22

--

I

could actually put in a specific word and
person's name, arrd it nLight pul1 up. It was
actually on my messages. So I don't ]a:ow if it

that

A l4ac.
And does Your

autonatically deletes things from your corputer?
A The setting does delete some things. I
had a Yahool account aL the time, which now has been

1-0

Pages 74-77

CHERIE WRIGLEY

09t0712018

-- did you look for Pam or
Kerr in your inbox? Docunents with her name

it?

A
Q

llm, yes.
llhat oLher names did you search?

U. S. LEGAL SUPPORT / GRAMANN REPORTING

Phone: [phone]

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 120 of 145 PageID #:13578

rage t

rage 1 ru

Q

before.
a

No.

Q

Let's go to the next Page. And I want
Q
you to look at !,lrigley 38.

A
Q

38.

is

somebody named

LL

A
Q
A
Q
A

t-3

L4
15
16

t]
1B
1,9

20
2L
a1

"Tauta1aufa.
And who

A
Q

24

is

"
"

because

Q

assistant.

this

20

to this, I have.
BY MR.

about

And

Q
numbers

24

am

25

A
Q

rage r rJ

it

nrakes

Q
A
Q

addj.tional hearing.

it's "cc'd" to your brother, Anthony
in the guardianship

And

Q

He was appearing

pro

Q

se.

And you had separate counsel

in the -- in

LO

about before, my brother's alv,ays assisting me in

I3

sense

t-B

A
Q

20

2l
zt

And you

number 40.

A
Q

are the author of Lhat

document.;

witranscripts

A
@

A

you've sent

j.t to Gail Young and Lisa

I

thought

it

would be

--

make more

way.

Okay.

And you can give I4r. Baron the extra

Ihis is

what you showed yesterday; right?

MR. FAIIoNE: Wait

l5
t't

BY MR.

tiu

there's

a

question.
SCI{AALIVIAN:

Q
A
Q

19

Yes.
And

And

copy.

18

20

Again, please don't ask
I'm sorry.

me

any questions.

It's not that I'm trying to be rude.

It.'s just not

Yes.

uslegalsupport,com

21

24

And the date

my job Lo give you an answer.
Exhibit 6 is a document that has a title,
"ELhics.Point. Issue and event manager. " Have you

seen

2L

1)

Yes.

correct?

25

L2

L6

Diponio; right?

,?
24

Let's look at. Wrigley
Yup. I see iL.

correct?

L9

have already narked other documenLs.

to do j-t this

A
Q

LA

L1

I

BY MR, SCI{AAI,I"IAN:

No.

everything 1ega1.

tb

That's riqht.

MR. FAITII0NE: Thad< you.

LA

Q
A
Q

Alzl r

he representing you

13

r-5

You can keep that. Don't puL that away.
okay. So it's not in order. This j-s 2?

a

sense, though.

March

11

L2

I'm going to skip ahead in terms of Lhe
in this case. I'm going to show wlat you I

rlr

the gn-rardianship matter, didn't. you?
A I had Melissa Cohenson. But as we taLked

11

I -- apparently, according
I don't remernber.

But, no,

marking as Wrigley Dd:libit 6.
(E{hibit 6 marked)

9, 20L6. And r think that's when
Lhe additional hearing. If f'm not mistal<en,

Was

object to foundation.

SC!IAAI,tr'1AN:

23

proceeding?
t-0

MR. FANT0M:
TtlE WITNESS:

19

BY MR. SGIAAI,MAN:

Yeah. No,

Q

case?

18

22

it's

we had an

Dain.

t]

2L

of the personal property of Joanne
this e-mail is
it is dated

haven't seen the e-mail.

L6

She

rage

we had

I

But you've used Lhe word "retaliation
Iawsuit" before, haven't you? -- in connection wj-th

2015.

A

referring to the lawsuit

1-5

that?

other than tbaL description?

Because

Yes.

And you were
which you were sued in,

L4

last

"

Right.
Do you remember what

Icrch 9,

the retaliation

Yeah.

pronoi:nce the

She's an a&ninistrative

guardian
Black. "

is

you see that?

Thank you.

I'm not sure how to

of

Do

Northern

was a personal assistant of my brother's.
Q Now, the "Re:" line for that is, "In the
rnatter of Lhe application of drerie WrigLey, for the
application of Cherie Wrigley, for the appointment

23

25

"Tautalaufa.
"Tautalaufa.

Lz

ever

in fact, this case in the
District of lllj-nois; right?
A I -- this is the firsL time I've seen
l-0
t\ this excepL for yesterday ratren it came up, so I
L2 actually hadn't seen ttrat before. So I'm -- I don't
13
lsrow. I'm really not sure what it's referring to,

Yes.

name?

L2

A
Q

--

Al<e1i

A
Q

And the subject matter

lawsuit.

Yes.

And there apparently

or Ms. Younq

And neither Ms. Diponio

represented you in any nratter; correct?
A Yeah, correct.

But he doesn't represent you; right?

A

10

Pages 110-113

CHERIE WRIGLEY

09t07120t8

is

February

t,

2017;

25

this before?

A

This looks like what

U. S. LEGAL SUPPORT / GRAMANN REPORTING

I

saw

yesterday.

Phone: [phone]

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 121 of 145 PageID #:13578

CHERIE WRIGLEY

09t07/2018

0
A
Q

lst,

I6

Page

BY MR. SCIIAAIiMAN:

Stre Sure
Did you and Pamela Kerr ever discuss

Edribit

6?

A
Q
A
Q

No.

on February

ll4-ll7

1t4

Page

Okay. And the date of the docunent is
February L, 20L7, the same date as the e-mail that
you sent to lG. Younq and I,Is. Diponio, whl-ch you
line, "Retaliation lawsuiL."
have as
Do you recal1 filing a conplaint on the
Northwestern UniversiRr Ethics.Point system --

Q

--

Pages

201-7?

Sorry. No, I don't.

No-Did you ever --

-- not that I recall.
Did you ever discuss with Pamela Kerr

whether she

filed a conplaint

on February

L,

2011,

Northv,/estern University E[hics. Point

you remernber rnaking a conplaint on the
Ethics.Point systen about Marci-a Isaacson?
A No, f don't.
Q Do you )mow who did?
A No, I don't..

10

with the

11

system?

L4

have

15

about

l6

Let's look on the second page. At the
very bottom, there's a section cal1ed "Updated Files

16

1'1R.

L'l

From Reporter.

T't

TtlE WITIiESS:

10
11
L2
13
LA

t-5

Do

Q

A
Q

1B

19

I

''

See.

Novr,

(Telephonic internrpti-on

20

MR. SCHAAI,MAN:

2L

22

at

I'm sorry.

the --

12:57 P.M.)

I

thought

I

turned that. off.

23

13

1-B

I'1I tel1 you the reporter is

l_9

20

2L

BY I,IR. SCHAAItr4AN:

Q
atr

22

The reporter

conplaint on this

is

the person who makes the

-- in this

Ethics.Point

system.

24

t5

rage r lJ

Lhe reporter had uploaded
documents. The second document being the Northern

District corplaint .pdf,
"ReLaliation Lausuit.
Does

and

it's

you would have uploaded the conplaint in this case
on this Ethics.PoinL system, calling it a

LO

L1
L2

A
Q

MR. FAI{IONE:

L]

TT{E

(IndicaLing)

Q
A

t9

10
L1

t2

and

l_3

t}ris

15

LA

Eftibit 6?

l5

?

L't

BY MR. SCHAALI4AN:

LB

18

Yes.

Sorry.

19

17

l4R. FAMIONE: You can testify as to the
existence of any conversations or if Lhere rdas noL
conversations, but don't discuss the detaiLs of any

23

privileged comrunication.

20
2L

TIIE WITI{ESS: Yeah

24
25

So ask Lhe question

@

uslegalsupport.com

20
2L

24

,q

again, please.

witranscripts

Not that

I

reca11.

rage ttt
No. Not that I recall.
Do you recall filing a conplaint against
Litvak on February 1,, 20L1?
February 1. It's the same date.
Yes.
No.

Do you lcrow utro

I don't

know

Marcia fsaacson is?

-- I

]crow rai:o she

is

from

this lawsuit, yes.

I'm going to object

WITNESS: $trhat's

FANI0NE: Same objection.

Yeah

doesn't.

just instruct you --

15
l_6

it

Do you recall Pamela Kerr telling you
whefher she had filed a conplaint, which is
Dddbi-r. 6?

13

t4

No,

first

Q And dl-d you have a conversation with her
abouL filing a conplaint. on the Ethics.Point systen
on February l, 20I'l?
A That's the same date?
Q This document. Yes.
A Same date?
Q Same date -- with Melissa Cohenson?

Q
A

?

Cohenson

6?

BY MR. SCHAALI4AN:

A
Q

that refresh your recollection that

"Retaliation lawsuit"

Dd:ibit

Katheri-ne

labeled,

"

I reca11.
And how about Melissa Cohenson? Did you

Not that

a conversation with Melissa

A
Q

--

And, apparently, that

A
Q

L2

U. S.

Q
A

And ratro

is

she?

her exact Litle, but I think
that she has somethj.ng Lo do -- she describes
herself as a corpliance officer.
Q Under the "Details" section -A trlhere would that be?

I don't

Q

lorow

0n page
Northwestern --

A
Q

Okay.

--

the second page, which has

a

I got it.

Document number

430, there are a

number

of people listed.
A I see that.
Q And underneath it, it says, "AL1 of these
people are mentioned in the 1awsuit."
Do you reca11 whether in the conplaint
filed in this case -- whether aI1 these people are

LEGAL SUPPORT / GRAMANN REPORTING

Phone: [phone]

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 122 of 145 PageID #:13578

CHERIE WRIGLEY

09t01/20t8

vage l4u

38

Page

A
Q

Pages 138-141

Go dorvn

So has

your

memory now been

refreshed,

to this space, press a button, and you can

tlpe in

Yeah.

some

things.

this particular one, I can't tell
if it's their writing or nfne to be honest with you.
There are some times I can te11 when it was their

that E{Llibit. 6 is your third conplaint
tbat you filed?
A No. There's several things -- I'm not
even going to get into it why it's not mine.
Q But your manory is that you did file

writing, but thqf were on the phone with me the
entire time, whenever I rnade a conplaint.

three conplaints?

BY MR. SCT{AAI.IBN:

IA.

A

No. I said --

13

:

TTIE WtTtiESS

12

MR. FAIrIONE: She

L1

said. "A conplaint,

L2

follcur-up, and then this conplaint."
lHE lrlfTIrlESS: I,ly conplaints were done

14

Black; right?

LO

No.

11

Q The writing conLinues -- the Lyping, "He
has continued to use school letterhead, e-mai1
address, phones, and other resources to fight h-is
personal battle. "
The 'he' is you're referring to Bernard

L4

MR. FAIVIONE: Object Lo form.

10

13

BuL on

Wij-g1ey,

15

over the phone.

L6

BY MR- SCHAA],MAN:

16

A
Q

15

Q

17
1B

A
Q

19
20
21

And what nrakes you

wasn't done over the

It

17

6

1B

says, "Report 437, Internet."

And you

Internet to

think that D&ibit

phone?

make

19

don'l believe you -- you used the

this conplaint?
Objection.

22

MR. FAIJIONE:

23

THE WITNESS: Do

24

Yeah.

25

I

am

I

20

21
Form.

,2
24

not. savr4z enough.

I

had

to

1q

be
Page

11

12

l3
14

-- yes.

A
Q

We'11 get there.

t_0

Okay.

11
T2

was

typed ouL on your behalf; correct?

A

27
22

,2
24
25

You ]srow

--

MR. FAITIIoNE:

@

uslegalsupport,com

U, S,

l4l

V\llrat

He had sent.

0h, that he continued to -Yes.

--

use school letterhead.

not Judge Aliotta
did not upload it,

Q
be1ow,

"I

out a letter to Judge A1i --- ,Iudge Leith; okay? And if I
it could easily be found.

The tlpi-ng goes on another sentence
in all good conscience allow this

cannot

LB

to contj,nue. SorneLhing rm:st be done to save the
i.ntegrity of your school. How can sornething like
this go on for almost three years?"
Would you agree that tb,at is an accurate
typing of the statsnent that you gave to the call
center?

L4

16
L'7

20

Object to form.
TtlE VIITT{ESS: I don't. want. to say
100 percent, because there were -- there was
something that they did with me. But I'm -- I would
say, pretty sure, they did have me at tjres -- say:

witranscripts

l3
15

L8

20

We're now talking about seven months

L9

Yes.

19

L7

the previous conplaint thaL
2015; correct?

of

evidence did you have when you filed
thj-s conplaint -- your second conplainl -- thaL, in
fact, he was continuing to use Northwestern
University Law School letterhead?

SCT{AA],MAN:

Okay. And you've already testified that
the langrage at the top of the page is, in fact,
language Ehat you gave to the call cenLer and thqy'

16

--

A
Q
A
Q

And there's

I'm going Lo read further from the
conplaint that you remember now filing, which
B<hibit 7. Do you have that in your hand?

15

f'm

Page

earlier coplaint.

Q
A
Q

A
Q

And

was in }{ay
I guess.

A

TI{E IrrllT}JESS: E<cuse
BY MR.

filed

later.

referrj-ng to Ddeibit 7.

10

you

39

walked through every single process of this and told
exactly what to do while somebody was askj-ng me
questions.
MR. FAIIIT0NE: I just would like the
record to reflect when she said, "this she was

an

Q

22

answer?

ltrm-hrm.

hlhat ercanples did you have in January of
2016 that l4r. Black was using NorthwesLern
leLLerhead to fight his legal battles?
A That's utry I knovr that. there was a
previous report, because they had asked me Lo
upload, and they showed me how -- exanples of that.

2L

A
Q

Close enough.

Okay. Now, how woul-d the use of
letterhead, e-mails, phones, and other

22

NortLn^resLern

aa

resources affect your conscience?

25

begin?

A

Okay. I'11 calmly

LEGAL SUPPORT/GRAMANN REPORTING

start.

V,/liere

do

I

Phone: [phone]

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 123 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit

11

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 124 of 145 PageID #:13578

Bernard Black
Pamela Kerr <[e-mail] >
Monday, May 18, 2015 9:39 PM

From:
Sent:
To:

cherie wrigley; Eernard Black
[e-mail]; Lisa Diponio; Carl Glatstein; Nancy Peterson
CPI Investigations invoices, payments, etc.
Schedule of Esaun Pinto's Invoices and payments made.pdf

Cc:

Subject:
Attachments:

Bemard & Cherie,
I am sending this schedule and infonnation to both of you because between the two of you, I need better
documentation. Cherie, it seems Iike you hired Esaun and paid him initially but Bernard you continued to pay
him. Unfortunarely, it looks like he was overpaid by $41,470,50. Some of this overpayment was due to
duplicate charges by Esaun and maybe some is becausc I'm including all ATM withdrawals made after
41;1 12013 , If Esaun wanrs to dispute that, he will have to be able to shorv me proof that Joanne took the money
out of the ATM.
a schedule of the details of the invoices I have received from Esaun, the duplicate payments
the payments made by Cherie and Bernard and all ATM withdrawals after 4lll12013 out of Joanne's
noted.
accounts,

I am atkching

I would absolutely dispute some of the charges, especially the 2 wecks before Joannc's hospiulization and a flat
fee of Xi8,000.00 a month. I have clients that pay much less than that for 100% 24/7 care in a Memory
Unit. Unless he can give us detailed days aud times he was with her, I would not pay $5,000.00 a week or
$8,000,00 a month. Ultimately it u,ill not be up to me to decide about these charges-it will he up to the
Judgc. But, as noted below, whenever a fiduciary is making payments on behalf of a Protected Person, the
documentation regarding those payments have to be provided. Without further documentation, a flat fee of
$5,000.00 a wcek or $8,000 a month is not a reasonable charge. The Judge and attomeys will knorv it better
than me, but there is Statute regarding payment of professional fees in the State of Colorado, This would fall
under that Statute.

r

As you can see, based on the invoices provided by Esaun, the total charges from
is $258,350.00 (Line 84 column S).

4ll3l20l3 -

10131 2014

)> I absolutely need receipts fbr all of the Flight, HoteLMotel, Rental Car, Cas, Motel, Storage, etc.
etc. Since Joanne is a Protected Person and her funds are under jurisdiction of the Court, every
expense has to be properly documented. I need receipts for all of these expenscs in columns C

through P. I have not included the column for tolls, bul what are those for? Did Esaun actually
go ro scc Joanne? The chargcs just say $39/week or along those lines. I realize that Column C is
Esaun's time but we need to know exactly what service he was performing for Joanne.

o

o
o
o

When exactly did Esaun get back to New York with Joanne? I see an ATM withdrawal in Ohio
on 4/18/2013. However, he is charging 24 hours a day all the way through 51712013.
Where was she living when she got back to New York?
V/hat was Esaun doing for her from that time until she was picked up by the New Jersey police on
6t3/20132
If Esaun was charging $5,000 a week for Joanne at this point (5120 - 6/3) I would want to see a
daily log of when she was with him,

/u/
EXHtBtr

Z

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 125 of 145 PageID #:13578

If you look at lines 14 and l5 it looks like

Esaun switched to a "Flal Rate of $5,000." It appears

that he is charging her $5,000 a week.

Did either of you know he was charging $5,000.00

a week?

regarding
I will be asking Cayle and/or Ira to request documentation from the hospital and Joanne's doctors
well. We will need the information in order to prepare an accurate
Esaun's involvement in Joannc's life as
Financial plan for her. I did not see any line item on the Financial Plan for Esaun.

I don't have any invoices from Esaun from I li I - to cuffent, ls he not doing anything with Joannc anymore?

If you need copies of the invoices I have been provided, please let me know. I doubt we will have this
from Esaun for
informarion before I write the report so I will just report it as it is. I will be listing a receivable
$41,470.50 at a minimum.

Pam
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

3(err fwensic Accmtnting
650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
Denver, Colorado 80246

"c

[phone] - phone
[phone] - fax
wrvw.kerrfa.com
"Kindne,ss is the language which the deaf can hear snd the hlind can see" -

Mark Twain

message (including any attachments) contains
purpose, and is protected by law, To ensure compliance
confidential information intended for a specific individual and
(orany
with requirements imposed by the IRS (iRS circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication
any tax matter, it was not written to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
attachment) addresses
parly any transaction or
penalties under the Internal Revenue tode, or (ii) promote, market or rerommend to another
In addition, the information contained in this message may be
matter addressed herein (or in any such atiachmlnt),
you have received it
protected by the accountant-clieni privilege. please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if
or distribution of this message,
then delete it. In addition,'yo, aiu hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
in
the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited,
or "rror,

privileged/Confidential Information and IRS Disclosure: This

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 126 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exh

t2

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 127 of 145 PageID #:13578

Message

From:
on behalf

cheriewrigleylcheriewrigley<[e-mail]>]

of

cherie wrigley [cheriewrigley@yahoo'com]
718/2OL6 9:11:17 PM

Sent:
To:
Subject:

[e-mail];[e-mail]
Re: Guardianship ofJoanne Black: Katherine Litvak Letter

Pam,
t--'rl
-r
^.c,,c, c^^
bit
off for ^ .i++1^ l^.i+
r am very lnterested!! My ,brother wants merto holdat least a flittle pay for
jrI"'to-Oirin,jiing-iunas n'ut r am so angry. would
like to

a consultation.
che

ri

e

From: Pamela Ken <[e-mail]>

To : Young/Zen <[e-mail]> ; cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>

Cc: Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>; Lisa Diponio <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 7,2016 3:29 PM

Subject: RE: Guardianship of Joanne Black: Katherine Litvak Letter

Yep. I can give you some names of attorneys for liable and slander.
Sent from my Verizorl'dJireless 4G LTE smartphono

Original message
From: Young/Zen
Date:01 1O712016 3:46 PM (GMT{7:00)
To: cherie wrigley
Cc: Pamela Kerr, Melissa Cohenson , Lisa Diponio
Subject: Re: Guardianship of Joanne Black: Katherine Litvak Letter
Time to bring out the big guns.
> On Jan

7

,2016, al2'.15 PM, cherie wrigley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Totally agreel! I spent an hour talking to Joanne. She is holding up well. Melissa has contacted

Northwestern and is doing all she can. I thank everyone for their feedback.This just makes me sick!!
> Cherie

> From: Pamela Kerr <[e-mail]>
> To: Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>; Lisa Diponio
<di pon iolawfirm @comcast. net> ; Young/Zen <d. zen@q. com >
> Cc: cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 7,201611:22 AM
> Subject: RE: Guardianship of Joanne Black: Katherine Litvak Letter
> Unreal. I wonder if someone should contact Northwestern and let them know that she is writing this
letter (which I haven't read yet) on Northwestern letterhead as ifNorthwestern is supporting her

KERR0002508

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 128 of 145 PageID #:13578

position.
> This stufl with Esaun is not smart on Kate's part since it is Bernard Black who paid him and gave

him an ATM card that the oNLy person that had control over what Esaunmoney into that account
He
from the Estate and claiming it was for the benefit of Joanne, but he did NOTHING to monitor it.
was the only person that received these statements.
>

yes, Joanne is the person that is being harmed by all of this. Does she not think that Joanne will be

able to testify about Kate's involvement in Joanne's life?
> Best regards,
> Pam Kerr
> Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE
> Kerr Forensic Accounting PC
> 650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
> Denver, Colorado 80246
> [phone] - Phone
> [phone] - fax
> www.kerrfa.com
> "Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" - Mark Twain

> privileged/Confidential lnformation and IRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachments)
containJconfidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by
you
law. To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS (lRS Circular 230), we inform
that, to the extent this communication (or any attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not
writien to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related penalties under the lnternal
Revenue Code, or (iii promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein loiih any such attachment). ln addition, the information contained in this message
may be protected by the accountant-client privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this emrit it you have rec-eived it in error, then delete it. ln addition, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly
prohibited.

> From: Melissa Cohenson [mailto:mcohenson@raphanlaw'com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 07,201612:16 PM
> To: pamela Ken <[e-mail]>; Lisa Diponio <[e-mail]>; Young/Zen
<[e-mail]>
> Cc: cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>
> Subject: FW: Guardianship of Joanne Black: Katherine Litvak Letter
> Received this today. lt is, for lack of better word, crazy.
> Lisa and Gayle, she mentions you two-think it is relevant you read (as this matter is becoming
inappropriate). My heart breaks for Joanne.
> Melissa L Cohenson, Esq.
> Brian A. Raphan, P,C.
> 7 Penn Plaza,8th Floor
> New York, New York 10001

KERR0002509

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 129 of 145 PageID #:13578

> Tel. [phone], ext. 238
> Fax. [phone]
> www.raphanlaw.com

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This e-mail and any attached files from Brian A. Raphan, P.C., may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law- lf you are not the
intendeO recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. lf you received this e-mail by accident, please notify the sender
immediately and destroy this e-mail and all copies of it. We may scan and or monitor emails sent to
and from our servers to ensure regulatory compliance to protect our clients and business.

> From: Piper Hoffman [mailto:phoffman@mail187$.suw1 1 .mandrillapp.coml On Behalf Of Piper
Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, January 07,2A16 1:33 PM
> To: Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Guardianship of Joanne Black: Katherine Litvak Letter
> Dear Justice Aliotta,
> On behalf of Katherine Litvak, Joanne Black's sister-in-law, I send the attached letter and three
exhibits.

> Respectfully subm itted,
> Piper Hoffman, Esq.
> *&Hak*****#***********************

> Piper Hoffman
> Attorney at Law
> Piper Hoffman, Esq., PLLC
> 71 8-487-9839
> phoffman@piperhoffm anesq. com
> *******************************#**

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12840 (20160108)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

KERR0002510

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 130 of 145 PageID #:13578

Frcmi Famela Kerr i.j,iii'r ilt .r:j'if,t.ir(ll'ir
subiect: RE: lnfo for leter to dlan
0$!e: January 8, 2016 at 12:35 PM
Anhony J. Dain ([e-mail]) Ar,tli!flr'ntix|-r,Eir:'a\:.,i1:l(r
lra Salzm an t'dizt i' I : A!:.'el'Ji-'f lc.'ili c*iTl

(,.-,m, cherie

wrigley tr,*rif,"i,itrf

err Q'1,:;rcr::.i-r:,tLr

lwillalsobefollowingupwlthalettertotheJudgeinttlewYork. ldon'tknowifit'sapproprlateornot,
but I can't let someone write a letter with my name in it and saying What I was hlred to do when that is
simply NOT the case.
From: M elissa Cohenson [mailto: mcohenson@ rapha nlaw'co m]
Sent: Friday, JanuarY 8, 2016 9:59 AM
To: pamela Kerr <[e-mail]>; Young/Zen <[e-mail]>; Lisa Diponlo
<[e-mail]>; Anthony J. Dain ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>; lra Salzman
<salzma n@senio rlaw.com>
Subject: RE: lnfofor letterto dean

lalso put a call in and tdld not divulge the name of the person but ldid saythat they should be on
notice thatthis is goingon and itis completelyinappropriate. Carolina my assistant is currently
preparingthe fed ex overnights
lVlelissa I. Cohenst-:n, Esq.

Brim A. Raphm, P.C.
? Per:n Plaza, Bth Floor
Nerv York, New York 1t1001
Tel. 212'268'8gfjfj, ert. 238

Fax. 2L2'244'3075
www.raohanlaw.com

CONFIDENTIAL ITY NOTiCE :
Tlds e-mail and arry attarrhed fi.les from Brian A. Rapharl P.C., may contafut informalion that is
privilege( c:on-fi.rJerrtia1 and/or exempt from <lisclosure under applicable larv. If you are not the
imenAed rcrripiert, you arc lrereby notiflecl thai any disseminaliorr, distribution or copying of this
comrmrrication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by accidenl, please notifi the
sencler immediately and destroy this e-ma:il and all copies of it. \trre may scail and or monitor
emails sent to a1d frnrn our senrers to ensure regulatory complianr-:e to protect ou1' cliellts and
business.

From: Pam e la Ke rr haihgparn @lefdaJg-arl
Sent: Frlday, January 08,2016 LL:42 AM

To:Young/Zen<d'zen@q.C0m>;LisaDiponio<dl@;AnthonyJ.Dain
([e-mail]&) <Anthfi-ry*Eain"@-il,fgtg.0ig.Sg-B>; cherie wrlgley
<cheriewrigtey-@gahSg-com.>; lra Salzman <[e-mail]>; Melissa Cohenson
< mcohenson@ ranhan law.cnm>

Srrhiorf, RF' lnfn fnr lolfarln r{prn
WRIGLEYOl 13

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 131 of 145 PageID #:13578

gsPJlVlr

ltLr

llllv

lVt

I

I just spoke to the Dean's office at Northwestern about this letter from Bernard's wife. Today is
tlie first chance I've had to read the whole letter and saw that she stated that I was hired to
ilvestigate Esaun, which is 100% not true. I also informed them that it appears that Northwestern
is supporting Ms. Litvak by having this letter on Northwestern letterhead, and the woman I spoke
to seemed to be quite bothered by that. I will be following up with a letter to the Dean.

Punt
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

1(err forensic Accau,rutirtg ?C

650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
Denver, Colorado 80246
[phone] - phone
[phone] - fax
'i,v.ww.kerrfa.com

"Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the bltnd can see" - Mark Twain

Privileged/Confidential Information and IRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachmenE)
contains confidenUal information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. To
ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS (IRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the
extentthis communication (or any attachment) addresses any tax matter, itwas notwrifren to be (and may
not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promote,
market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any such
attachment). In addition, the information contained in this message may be protected by the accountantclient privilege, Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it in error, then
delete it, In addition, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message/ or
the taking of any acUon based on it is strictly prohibited'

From: Pamela Kerr
Sent: Friday, January 08, 20L6 9:32 AM
To: Pamela Kerr <p3![e-mail]>
Subject: lnfo for letter to dean

Northwestern University
375 E. Ghicago Avenue

Chicago,lL 50611
Aftn: Mr. DanielB. Rodriquez,

Dean

Pant
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

1(err fore,rtsic Accouruting ?C
650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
WRIGLEYO1

l4

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 132 of 145 PageID #:13578

Message

Sent:
To:

cherie wriBl ey Icherie wrigley <[e-mail]>]
cherie wrigley [e-mail]]
Ll8/2OtA 9:03:07 PM
[e-mail];

Subject:

BN3pR08MB19557A9E9ACAs6E670931B8OCOF60@BN3PR08M B1955.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Re: lnfo for letter to dean & lnvestigational opening to ETHICS DEPT>

Frorn:

on behalfof

lent job ! ! DO you mean r can't
LEith IN SEPT?
r was just about to do it.
Excel

!

download

the decision from ludge

From: Pamela Ken <[e-mail]>
To: cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>

Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:51 PM
Subject: RE: lnfo for letter to dean & lnvestigational opening to ETHICS DEPT>

would be careful about providing documents in this case to anyone other than those involved. You
may want to check with Melissa as to what you can and cannot provide. I think the letter itself will be
incriminating enough.
I

l'm attaching my letter to the Dean so you can see what l'm writing.

fiesf regards,
Fam lterr
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

Kerr Forensic Accounting PG
650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
Denver, Colorado 80246
[phone] - Phone
[phone] - fax
www.kerrfa.com
"Kndness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" - Mark Twain
privileged/Confidential lnformation and lRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachments) contains

confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. To ensure compliance with
requirements imposed by the IRS (lRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication (or any
attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not wriften to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
penalties under the lnternal Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
matteraddressed herein (or in any such attachment). ln addition, the information contained in this message may be
protected by the accountant-client privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it in
enor, then delete it. ln addition, you are hereby notified that anydisclosure, copying, ordistribution of this message, orthe
taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

From : cherie wri g ey [mai lto cheri ewri g ley@yah oo. com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 1:44PM
To: Pamela Ken <[e-mail]>; Lisa Diponio <[e-mail]>; Young/Zen
I

:

<d^[e-mail]>

Cc: Anthony J. Dain ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; lra Salzman
<[e-mail]>; Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: lnfo for letter to dean & lnvestigational opening to ETHICS DEPT>

KERR0003692

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 133 of 145 PageID #:13578

HIAII,
Just an update.
I left a message earlier for the Dean of the Law school and the Business School of Management so
that they are aware of the new investigation I have re-opened from May 15,2015. This one will
include Kathryn Litvak and also lets them know I was disturbed with their ineffective closure and
resolution of BB's previous case. The independent organization that they have hired to follow up on
staff ethic code violations is Ethicspoint.com. lt took me quite a while to make the report but they were
VERY RESPONSIVE!
I am going to be able and they want me to download docs that will back my case.
Gayle,
Do you have Judge Leith's courtroom transcripts where Kate says some very unflattering and
unplofessional remarks regarding Joanne and herself. Then later the Judge admonishes her for NOT
helping her husband's case. That's what I remember....ANYWAY>>HELP.
Cherie
From: Pamela Ken <[e-mail]>
To : Lisa Diponio <diponiolavufi rm@comcast. net>; Young/Zen <[e-mail]>

Cc: "Anthony J. Dain ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>; cherie wrigley
<[e-mail]>; lra Salzman <[e-mail]>; Melissa Cohenson
<mcohenson@rapha nlaw. com>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: lnfo for letter to dean

503-3100. lfirst asked if I could speak to the Dean himself (Daniel
Rodriquez) and she said he wasn't available. So, I told her who I was and what I was calling
about. "My name is Pam Kerr, l'm a forensic accountant from Denver. I am looking at a letter on
Northwestern Law School letterhead and it contains a false statement about me. lt is unfortunate
because it really appears that Northwestern Law School is supporting this letter since it is on your
I called the Dean's office at (312)

letterhead"... .she put me on hold and came back and said she had gotten a call yesterday about the
same thing. I said I was going to follow up with a letter to the Dean and she said she wasn't sure if he
would be the person handling this but it would be forwarded to the person who will be "handling it." I
would recommend that anyone whose name is in the letter do the same. I cannot believe what is in
this letterl

Here is the mailing address:
Northwestern Un iversity
375 E. Chicago Avenue
Chicago, lL 6061'1
Attn: Mr. Daniel B. Rodriquez, Dean

Pam
Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE

Kerr Forensic Accounting PC
650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235
Denver, Colorado 80246
[phone] - phone

KERRo003693

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 134 of 145 PageID #:13578

[phone] 'fax
www.kerrfa.com
,,Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and fhe blind can see" - Mark Twain
privileged/confidential lnformation and IRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachments) contains

with
confidential information intended for a specific indiMdual and purpose, and is protected by law. To ensure compliance
(lRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication (or any
requirements imposed by the IRS
attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not written to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
penalties under the lnternil Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment). ln addition, the information contained in this message may be
protected by the accountant-clieni privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it in
bnor, then delete it. ln addition, you are hereby notified that anydisclosure, copying, ordistribution of this message, orthe
taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

From : Lisa Diponio [mailto:di poniolawfirm@ comcast. netl
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Young/Zen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Pamela [e-mail]![>; Anthony J. Dain (Anthonv.Dain@procopio.c-om)
<[e-mail]>; cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>; lra Salzman
[e-mail]>; Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: lnfo for letter to dean
Who did you talk to? Maybe another call is in order....l want them to pay professionally for this as well as monetarily.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 8, 2O't 6, at 9:45 AM, Young/Zen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Pam, you are absolutelY fearless.
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Pamela Ken <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I just spoke to the Dean's office at Northwestern about this letter from Bernard's wife. Today is the finst chance l've
had to read the whole letter and saw that she stated

>> Pam

>> Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE
>> Kerr Forensic Accounting PC
>> 650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235

>> Denver, Colorado 80246

>> [phone] - Phone
>> (303) 696-571 1 - fax
>> www.kenfa.com

:l
KERRo003694

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 135 of 145 PageID #:13578

>> ',Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" - Mark Twain

>> privileged/Confidential lnformation and IRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachments) contains
with
confidentiil information intended for a specific indiMdual and purpose, and is protected by law. To ensure compliance
by the IRS (lRS bircular 230), we inform you that, to the exent this communication (or any
requirements imposed
attichment) addresses any tax mafter, it was not written to be (and may nol be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
fenalties under the lnternal Revenue Code, or (ii)
(or in any such attachment). ln addition, the information contained in this message may be
matter addressed herein
protected by the accountant-ctieni privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it in
or the
enor, then delete it. ln addition, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message,
prohibited.
taking of any action based on it, is strictly

>> From: Pamela Ken
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 9:32 AM
>> To: Pamela Kerr <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: lnfo for letter to dean

>> Northwestern UniversitY
>> 375 E. Chicago Avenue
>> Chicago,
>>

lL

60611

Attn: Mr. Daniel B. Rodriquez, Dean

>> Pam

>> Pamela M. Kerr, CPA, FCPA, CFE
>> Kerr Forensic Accounting PC
>> 650 S. Cherry Street Suite 235

>> Denver, Colorado 80246

>> [phone] - phone
>> [phone] - fax
>> www.kenfa.com

>> "Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see" - Mark Twain

KERR0003695

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 136 of 145 PageID #:13578

>> privileged/Confidential lnformation and IRS Disclosure: This message (including any attachments) contains
confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. To ensure compliance with
requirements imposed by the IRS (lRS Circular 230), we inform you that, to the extent this communication (or any
attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not written to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related
penalties underthe lnternal Revenue Code, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or
matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment). ln addition, the information contained in this message may be
protected by the accountant-client privilege. Please immediately reply to the sender of this e-mail if you have received it in
enor, then ielete it. ln addition, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the
taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 AntiMrus.

>> httD://www.eset.com

>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

>> http://www.eset.com

>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus,

>> http://www.eset.com

lnformation from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12839
(20160108)
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
lnformation from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12839
(20160108)
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com

KERR0003696

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 137 of 145 PageID #:13578

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12840 (20160108)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com

KERR0003697

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 138 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit

13

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 139 of 145 PageID #:13578
lssue and Event Manager - Standard

2t27t2018

ethlc$.Poiftt

lssue and Evcnt

i?ff*7,l

Date Submitted

1t8t2016
Status
Closed
Re ported

O

rg

a n

izatio nlTie r I nfo rmation

Original Organizationmer Name from Reporter
Northwestern UniversitY
ls the reporter an emploYee?

Users with access to this rePort

Dana BradleY

Janet Bice
Marcia lsaacson
Melanie Earle
Pamela S Beemer
Stephanie Griffin

Report lnformation
Report Summary

No summary available.
lssue Type
Employee Relations
Relationship to lnstitution
Other/Anonymous
Please identify the person(s) engaged in this behavior:

Bernard Black - Chabraja professor
Katherine Litvak - law Professor
Do you suspect or know that a supervisor or management is involved?

Yes
If yes, then who?

Bernard Black - Chabraja professor
ls management aware of this problem?
Yes

https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/en/admin_reportlcrint.asp?caseid=1702413

113

NU00833

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 140 of 145 PageID #:13578
lssue and Event Manager - Standard

2t27t2018

What is the general nature of this matter?

follow up on a closed report.
How long do you think this problem has been going on?

More than a year
How did you become aware of this violation?
I observed it

Details
On 05/07/1 5, Cherie filed a report regarding Bernard misusing and abusing organizational resources.
The mafterwas submitted and closed, but Bernard continues his misconduct. The previous report had
an unsatisfactory resolution and needs to be looked at again. Furthermore, Katherine, Bernard's wife,
sent a letter to a judge in New York using stationary from the school, and she used her professional
status at the school and affiliation with the university as leverage regarding a personal civil matter.
Again, the university handled the previous report in an inept manner, and moving forward, Cherie
would like to be provided more updates on the status of the report.
Repo rte r Co nta ct I nfo rmati o n

Reporter ldentified
Yes

Reporter Name
Cherie WrigleY
Phone Number
805-492-1 502
E-mail Address

cheriewrigley@gmail. com
Contact AvailabilitY

Anytime after 12:00 PM

Uploaded Files From RePofter
#1:

K Litvak to J Aliotta re Guardianship of Joanne Black 0'10716.pdf
Professor from your school using your letterhead to slander people and fight a personal case.

#2'.

#3:

Hearing.l 0.1.201 5.NYSupreme.pdf.95-1 05.pdf
These

ire a few pages from the tianscript with opinions from the Judge that vastly differ from Kate Litvak's emotional

diatribe.

#4:

#5:

Letter to Northwestern Law School.pdf

Additional Notes From Reporter
111212016

posted by Reporter

https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/en/admin-reportJsrint.asp?caseid=1 70241

3

213
NUOOB34

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 141 of 145 PageID #:13578
lssue and Event Manager - Standard

2t27t2018

I have filed a report before about your employee Bernard Black and nothing was done. I was not going
to pursue anything more until the case was finished in Westchester County,NY and we had removed
him as executor and trustee of my cousin Joanne Black's Special Needs Trust. He has continued to
use school letterhead,email address,phones and other resources to fight his personal battle. Now his
wife is doing the same. I cannot in all good conscience allow this to continue. Something must be done
to save the integrity of your school. How can something like this go on for almost three years?
1112t2016 posted by Reporter

My other REPORT KEY was 665513072701
The case was closed and I was told nothing. The misuse of resources continued.....OBVIOUSLY>
112A2A16 posted by

Repo(er

I have just uploaded another letter/complaint that was sent to your school regarding this matter.

Follow-ups to Reporter
Jan 08, 2015, 2:36 PM posted by Janet Bice

Comment: Thank you for using the Ethics Point reporting system. We have received your report and
are in the process of reviewing it. We will contact you if we need further information and when our
investigation is complete.
111912016

posted by Reporter

Reply: I would like to know who at the university is in charge of reviewing the uploaded files? I do not
feel it would be appropriate to have the same person working on this case as the previous case I had
opened.REPORT KEY:6655 1307 27 01..Thank you.
Jan 26,2016,9:57AM posted by Janet Bice

Comment: This confirms receipt of the documents you uploaded in support of your report. Thank you
for using the Ethics Point sYstem.
112912016

posted by Reporter

Reply: Thank you. Please note that I had a question on Jan. 19th. that still has not been addressed.
Jul 26, 2016, 11:33 AM posted by Janet Bice
Comment: The University has reviewed the information you provided in your report and has taken
appropriate action to address the concerns you raised. This report will now be closed.
Chat Transcripts
There are no chat transcripts for this incident.

Report lVofes
There are no report notes.

https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/en/admin-reportJcrint.asp?caseid=1 70241 3

3t3
NU00835

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 142 of 145 PageID #:13578

Exhibit 14

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 143 of 145 PageID #:13578

Messaqe
From:

on behalf of
Sent:
To:
CC:

SubJect:

Young/Zen [Young/Zen <[e-mail]>]
Young/Zen [[e-mail]]

3/77/Z}LG 1:28:01AM
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Re: WHO sent my letter to Northwestern

Cherie, Parn's letter rvas fine as sent. It'sjust that she had changed her mind about sending it, and she nor you didn't know it was
inadvertently sent to Northwestern I think rve all have pressed the 'send' button too soon.

> On Mar 16. 2016, at 6:57 PM, cherie wrigley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> All,
> I just got online. I have been busy with my paperw,ork, phone calls etc. I COULD DIEI! My brother called me and told me what
happened. The anonymous site ETHICSPOINT.com that I used to complain about the use of school letterhead from N.W. had me
upload Kate's le1ler. I rvas told it was not a sealed doc. I uploaded several docs that I thought were portions of the trarscripts from the
Colorado court showing some examples th,at disputed Kate's evaluations of me and my brother. I sent the last order from Judge Leith
and the order from the NY court.

> I NEVER INTENDED TO SEND PAM'S LETTER!!
> It was uploaded by mistake and I never would have knownleft Pam a long message.
AMBEYOND SORRY!!!
hope there is sornething thatl can do to clean up this mess
think they are again trying to distract frorn the real issue.
> CI{ERIE
> Frorn: Pamela Kerr <[e-mail]>
> To : Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]> ; Young/Zen <d. zen@q. co m>
> Cc: cherie rvrigley <[e-mail]>; "Dain, Anthony J." <[e-mail]>: Ira Salzman
<[e-mail] m>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16. 2O16 4:32PM

> Subject RE: WHO sent my letter to Northrvestern
> I arn seriously reconsidering testifying next week.

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

> From: Melissa Cohenson
> Date:0311612016 5:31 PM (GMT-07:00)
> To: Pamela Ken, Young/Zen
> Cc: cherie wrigley , "Dairl Antlrony J." , Ira Salzman
> Subject RE: WHO sent my letter to Northrvestern

> I am trying to compretrend Piper's recent filings (4) today.,.
> Melissa l. Cohensoq Esq.
> Brian A. Raphan, P.C.
> 7 Penn Plaza, 8th Floor
> New York New York 10001
> T el, 212-268-8200, ext. 23 8

>Fax. [phone]
> rvvrv.rapharlaw.corn
> CONFIDENTIAIITY NOTICE:

KERR000235s

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 144 of 145 PageID #:13578

> This e-mail and any attached files from Brian A. Raphan, P.C., may contain infonnation that is privileged, confidential and/or
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminatioq
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by accident, please notifu tlre sender
inrmediately and destroy this e-mail and all copies of it. We rnay scan and or rnonitor emails sent to and from oru sen/ers to ensure
regulatory compliarrce to protect our clienls and business.

> From: Pamela Kerr [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:27 PM
> To: Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>',You,ttglZen <[e-mail]>
> Cc: cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>; Dain, Anthony J. <[e-mail]>; Ira Salzman
<salzman@,senio rlarv. co m>
> Subjecl RE: WHO sent my letter to Northlvestern
> It did not come from me ! That's a problem because now it looks like I sent them the letter from Kate.

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

> From: Melissa Cohenson
> Date:0311612016 5: I 1 PM (GMT-07:00)
> To: YomglZen, Parnela Kerr
> Cc: cherie wrigley , "Daiq Arthony J." , Ira. Salizman
> Subjecu RE: WHO sent my letter to Northwestern
> I am severely confused. Horv did Piper get this...Bernard must have got it or Kate from NWL...don't they have access to tlre school?
> Let's not let this distract us from these liars.
> Melissa L Cohensoq Esq.
> Brian A. Rapha4 P.C.
> 7 PernPlaza, 8th Floor
> New York, Nerv York 10001
> Tel. [phone], ext. 238
> Fax. [phone]
> www.raphanlaw.com

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This e-rnail and any attached files from Brian A. Raphan. P.C., tr,ay contain information tlrat is privileged, confidential and/or
exempt frotn disclosure under applicable larv. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminatiog
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by accident, please notiS the sender
imrnediately and destroy this e-mail and all copies of it. We rnay scan and or rnonitor enrails sent to and from our servers to ensure
regulatory compliarrce to protect our clients and business.

> ---Odginal Message--> From: Y oungl Zen [mailto :[e-mail]]
> SenI: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:10 PM
> To: Pamela Kerr<[e-mail]>
> Cc: Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>: cherie wrigley <[e-mail]>: Dain, Anthony J.
<Anthony.Dain(@procopio.com>; Ira Salzman <[e-mail]>
> Subject Re: WHO sent my letter to Northwestern
> Pam:

> I just sent out fte letter from Northr.vestern and your letter that rvas attached to both courts.
> Gayle

ktrPPnnnr?6A

Case: 1:17-cv-00101 Document #: 437 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 145 of 145 PageID #:13578

> > On Mar 16.20L6, at 5:08 PM, Pamela Kerr <pam@kerrfa,corn> rvrote:
> ) I'nt heading to a meeting so I can't get to my computer but this is tlre letter that I sent to people on this team
saying it's what I was
going to send t}at I never ever sent.

> > Ser[ from rny Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

>>
>>
>>
>>

From: Melissa Colrenson
Date:03/16/20L6 5:04 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Pamela Kerr, 'cherie wrigley' , "Dain, Anthony J.,,' , Ira Salzman ,younglZen
Subject: RE: WHO sent my letter to Northwestern

> > Not me. This comes to a surprise to me. Do yorr guys think Bemard orKate uploaded it?

> > PanL is that ev-en your signature?

> > I cant seem to even upload or see the leller they are purporting was uploaded...

> > Melissa I. Cohensoq Esq.

> > Brian A. Raphan P.C.
> > 7 Penn Plaza, 8th Floor
> > New Yorlg New York 10001
> > Tel. [phone], ext. 238
> > Fax. [phone]
> > www.raphanlaw.corn

> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> > This e-mail and any attached files from Brian A. Raphar, P.C., may contain infonnation that is prh{leged,
confidential a1d/or
exempt from disclosure under applicable larv. Ifyou are not the intended recrplent, you are hereby not'rfied-that aniv dissenfnatiorL
distributiou or copying of this coruuunication is srictly prohibited. If you reciived this e-rnail bj accident, please notiS the sender
immediately and destroy this e-mail and all copies of it. We may scan and or monitor emails seni to and from our seryers to ensure
regulatory compliance to protect oru clients and business.

> > From: Pamela Ken [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:01 PM
> > To: 'cherie wrigley'<[e-mail]>; Melissa Cohenson <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; Ira Salzman <[e-mail]>; Young/Zen<[e-mail]>
> > Subject: WHO sent my letter to Northwestern

Daiq Anthony

J.'

> > I forwarded a copy Of the letter I was going to send to Northwesternbut never did.
Somehow they have a copy please tell rne who
forwarded my letter to Northwestem This rvi1l have a. severe impact on my testimony next week

>

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone