General Summary
The facts show that over the course of this hearing and in relation to the preceding court dates the Court acted in a manner that not only violated my rights to a fair and full hearing of all the facts but that violated earlier Court decisions, caused tremendous hardship on myself and my family, and allowed inappropriate evidence to be presented and argued at trial as well as prolonged the trial and the use of Court and State time and resources. All of the mis-steps in this case came to a head on March 20, 2014 when the Court stated “Now, it appears from what I’ve been told here and what’s been testified to, that there were additional assessments, that those assessments amounted to $143,000 but that Ms. Avraham was found to have been the innocent spouse in those so those should not be assessed against her.” (March 20, 2014 Transcript Page 16 Lines 23-28) As the evidence included in this document will show, this could not be more wrong. The Court made a series of errors and misjudgments that led to this final situation and Respondent has been given no choice but to fight for his rights beginning with the fact statement below. It will further be shown that Petitioner in this case has incorrectly claimed legal exemption from taxation as not receiving income from the properties held by the community (she did not sign the returns has received community property improperly even after abusing that property and her responsibilities under the original Settlement), and has extended these courtroom proceedings longer than should have been possible.
May 20, 2013
On May 20, 2013, the Court ordered that either of the two parties (Miri or Natan) had until June 11, 2013 to submit proposals from area realtors. The Court explicitly stated that it believed it was in the Court and the parties’ best interest to move through with the sale of the house as quickly as possible (the Court stated clearly that it was aware that the issues of this case needed resolved immediately. The Court began the proceedings by stating “the property was to be sold.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 7-8) The Court was correct in noting that the original Judgment in this case indicated that the Shenandoah property was to be sold, but incorrect in stating that “the judgment awarded, as I understand it, the Shenandoah property to Petitioner...” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 5-7). Although it is correct that one of the children were living in the house (and that Natan was extremely happy to have them with a roof over their head and had in fact, as will be seen later, saved the home from full foreclosure several times) it is incorrect that the Judgment awarded the house to Miri--the house was community property, to be owned by both Natan and Miri until it was sold. It should be noted at this point that the Respondent was already actively working to protect the community property and help all parties along, having achieved modification of the Shenandoah mortgage from 5.75% to 2.00% (Wells Fargo Mortgage Statement) Furthermore, Respondent received an offer from Wells Fargo to settle the mortgage on the Shenandoah property for approximately $82,000 (a savings of more than $217,000) (Wells Fargo Mortgage Settlement Offer) , an opportunity which was quickly shut down by Petitioner’s Counsel. It should be noted that Petitioner expressed interest in taking advantage of these offers.
Regardless, during the discussion as to the sale of the Shenandoah property, Miri’s counsel himself states that” there is no sale at the moment” and that “it wasn’t selling” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 19 and 27) and Miri herself states that “it started with 850 and...Went down to 750” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 2-3) after taking this testimony into consideration, the Court reinforced the earlier statement, stating “the order is for the house to be sold. She could buy it. He could buy it. Third person could buy it. So somebody needs to but it. I don’t care how it happens. He could buy it if he pays fair market value for it...because I think respondent does have a point that even if he’s not paying the mortgage he’s liable for paying the mortgage and the court order is that it be sold,” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Lines 18-28) further backed up by “it needs to be sold...sooner rather than later so that the court doesn’t have to take some other action” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Lines 2-6). Ironically, it was as early as 2011 that the Respondent had provided evidence to the Court that he had been appropriately using the funds sent to him by Petitioner to pay the mortgage, even though Petitioner made claims to the contrary. (Mortgage Statements 2011) It is truly shocking that these mortgage payments were also later used by the Petitioner (claiming they were not paid) as an argument against the Respondent. None of these accusations are true or supported by any evidence whatsoever, and instead it is Respondent who spent this time attending to the mortgage and trying to protect the property. Miri’s attorney, in discussing this issue in the same proceeding, clearly stated that “I can represent to the Court that Ms. Avraham is not going to buy the house, so it would be either Mr. Avraham or a third party.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Lines 15-17) to which the Court responded “[The Court still needs] from the Petitioner her view of the current fair market value,” making it clear that the Court did not wish to allow either Party to have a claim to the property or its’ value without the documentation to reinforce that claim (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Lines 19-21). The Courts attempt at “wrapping things up” was to “continue this hearing for 30 days to allow both sides to bring in evidence as to the fair market value, current fair market value of the property.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Lines 13-16).
The Court wished to expedite the conclusion of this trial so clearly that the Court attempted to schedule the next hearing before an upcoming trip by Miri to Israel, stating “Let’s do it before you leave. When are you leaving?” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 9 Lines 12-13). The Court was forced to schedule around two scheduling difficulties raised by Miri’s Counsel from his personal schedule, but the date to determine the Fair Market Value was pushed back to June 18, 2013. The Court promised to decide the list price based on the evidence brought by both parties, stating “I’ll decide what the listing price should be based on the evidence you present.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Line 28 Page 9 Line 1) Repeatedly over the course of this case the Court has acted in a manner consciously violating Mr. Abraham’s rights, as Mr. Avraham first stated “The House was supposed to be sold. I am not responsible to pay...I already paid more and I have to find how I can have the credit. This has to be sold…This judgment enforced by the Court on me.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript, Page 6, Lines 8-16). Even at this early date Mr. Avraham is pointing out to the Court that the judgment being enforced upon him is not the fair Judgment as decided in this case, but a new set of rules and interpretations allowing the Court and Petitioner’s Counsel to violate Mr. Avraham’s rights. This effect will be even more exaggerated when looking at the later issues of this case, as it will be shown that not only was the Court already at this point acting unfairly but that the effect of this unfairness will cause the remainder of the trial to be misleading and incorrect in regard to decision, arguments, and Orders made from this point forward.
June 18th, 2013
During the morning session of the proceeding, the Court suggested “What about the other idea, since there is not much equity in this property anyway, why don’t you just let respondent (Natan) buy it for the amount he’s got stuck in the Wilshire Escrow?...Best case scenario, even under Petitioner’s valuation, how much is she going to get out of this thing, 10, 20,000?” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Lines 18-26) This statement simultaneously confirms on the part of the Court that the money in the Wilshire Escrow belonged to Natan and further that it would likely be the most expedient choice for making a clean deal in the property that would be best for all the parties involved, finally stating “Then take the 40 and you’re done,” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Line 28) referring, of course, to Miri taking the forty thousand dollars in the Wooster escrow in exchange for the Shenandoah property which she had been wrongly awarded. Natan’s counsel agreed to this proposition immediately, stating “That would be agreeable, you honor.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 1) Just as it looked like hope was on the way, Miri’s Counsel, Mr. Berman, stated that this proposition was “Not agreeable” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 2). When the Court asked why that was the case, Mr. Berman stated that Miri “... [didn’t] want to sell the house for $40,000” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 11-12) The Court responded by stating that “All [Miri is] going to get out of it, even under your valuation, is less than $40,000.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 11-12) Mr. Berman, even after hearing this logic from the Court,Refused to sell the house (which was, remember, not even a power he or Miri had to decide according to the actual Judgment in this case). The Court at this point ordered both parties involved to return after the lunch break and in the mean time to “think seriously from just a dollars a dollars and cents point of view whether it makes sense to take the money he has sitting in escrow and let him have the property.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 23-26) further stressing the futility of the sale again by asking “How much more is she going to get from the sale anyway?” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 27) The Court goes on to reveal that even the Court detects that there may be something inappropriate unfolding by stating “If it’s just about time there is a sham as he’s arguing by Petitioner to buy time because she knows it won’t sell, that’s not well-taken.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 28-Page 8 Lines 1-2) All parties involved went to lunch, with order to figure things out before the returned. Coming back from lunch, the Court escalated the disturbing trend of refusing to rule with its power as dictated by the Settlement. At this point most courtroom procedure seemed to fall apart. Petitioner’s Counsel offered that he had “received an e-mail at lunch” that claimed that a real-estate broker he was in contact with had the day before sold an entirely separate property down the street from the Shenandoah property for $990,000. Miri’s Counsel states “We just received word and I sent Mr. Green (Natan’s Counsel) an e-mail from the real estate broker, a house about four doors down sold for about 990,000” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 9 Lines 27-28 Page 10 Line 1). For reasons that still remain a mystery the Court entertained this value as an appropriate arguing point for the value of the Shenandoah property, even after the Court had ordered and followed-through with the May 20th order to formally present that value of the property (an Order which we should remember only Natan followed with any degree of effort).
Miri’s Counsel even went so far as to admit he knew very little about the property, stating that he “talked to [the real estate broker] over the noon hour” and that Miri’s Counsel “[didn’t) know what work had been done on the house” in question, claiming that he “just [knew] that it is a comparable basis.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Line 19-22) Natan’s Counsel responded by objecting to this “evidence,” stating “First of all, your honor, I object to the introduction of evidence, it’s not in his papers. The real estate broker--...” to which the judge responded by cutting him off with a short “Overruled” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Line 25-28). Natan’s Counsel responded clearly with a shocked “What?” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 1) to this allowance of obvious hearsay evidence. The Court simply repeated, “That Point is Overruled”(June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 2) Natan’s Counsel further backed up his tremendous surprise at this strange allowance of “evidence” by reminding the Court that “the real estate broker listed it at 850 and this is also the broker who was unable to sell it for the past 24 months” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Lines 3-5)
Still in disbelief about the admission of erroneous evidence, Natan’s attorney then points out to the Court that the current action of delaying the sale of the house is creating a Capital Gains issue that would not have existed had the original Judgment been followed. Because Natan had been outside of the Shenandoah property for more than 24 months (the property which, remember, was supposed to be sold as immediately as possible after the Judgment), Natan had lost a potential $250,000 deduction in Capital Gains tax that would now be a huge liability if the house was sold in the manner suggested. The disregard for the Capital Gains issue can actually be detected earlier in the trial, however, as earlier in the proceedings Miri’s Counsel stated “Let’ get it back on the market and sell it. And whatever the consequences may be with regard to tax issues, those will have to be dealt with--” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 20-22). Even Mr. Berman, Miri’s council, stated “My client just wants to get it sold” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 25-26). Already at this point in the hearing, however, Miri’s Counsel was allowed to further extend the hearing, informing the Court that he “[had] several arguments” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 20-22) even though he was at the same time stressing that they “get it back on the market and sell it” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 25-26) Furthermore, at this point (during the morning hearing of June 18th) Petitioner’s Counsel verified Respondent’s proposal of $800,000 saying “I think that they both kind of meet in the middle at 800,000 (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 16-17) which the Court pointed out was still higher than “all of the Respondent’s” numbers (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 15). (In context this shows not only that the further discussions about the intention to sell the house on Miri and Counsel’s part are disingenuous but further that Miri’s Counsel was acting in a negligent manner, essentially creating a Capital Gains issue through delaying the sale of the house and then pushing the price far above the Fair Market Value with no actual intent or belief that the property will be sold. Following the closing of proceedings that day, Natan immediately drafted and sent a letter of complaint to the Court, promising to go to the full extent the law would allow to preserve the liberties and rights the the Court had deprived him of through negligent action. (Complaint Letter)
July 18, 2013
On the June 18, 2013 date the Court ordered that the Respondent could purchase the property at the Fair Market value and that the Respondent had 30 days to present the Court with a purchase offer of that value. During the same hearing the Court extended this period until August 12, though the Respondent brought the offer well within this time period (which will be an issue later in the case). The Respondent brought back an offer on July 18, 2013, as well as evidence that the house was worth 850,000 as the Court requested. Respondent brought numerous pieces of evidence to indicate that the house was worth 800,000-850,000 and an offer to buy the house for that 849,000 (the high end of that value). It should be noted that this is equal to the original value presented for the property by the Petitioner. (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 16-19). The Court, however, did not allow the purchase of the property as it had earlier instructed and instead allowed the Petitioner’s council to claim that the property was worth 990,000 with no hard evidence to support this claim. Even further, it should be noted that the broker the Court allowed to submit this value via e-mail was later ignored when the Respondent brought correspondence from the same broker requesting the price be returned to the 849,000 approximately 3 weeks after these events when the house would not sell for the astronomical 990,000 price. Why did the Court allow a simple e-mail from this broker to change the Court’s valuation of the property? The Court would go on to acknowledge in August that the property was allowed to be transferred to the Respondent but would not complete the sale in July as the Court had ordered. In August even Petitioner’s Council offered that the property truly should be listed at 849,000 but Mr. Avraham was inexplicably blocked from purchasing the property at this agreed-upon value. (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 10-11) The evidence will show that not only did the Court prevent Mr. Avraham’s purchase of the property, but that the Court allowed Petitioner’s Counsel to access the very money that the Respondent rightfully had and intended to use for the purchase of the home (June 18, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Line 18-21 Page 7 Lines 25-27) further preventing the lawful sale of the home (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 13 Lines 11-15). These delays and denials essentially served to extend the case tremendously, preventing the Respondent from gaining the property at the expense of the Respondent’s money, time, and credit. The Court would later disregard these inconveniences even when Respondent asked to approach the subject of valuing the property again as late as September, saying that the Court would only deal with the issue is “new circumstances had arisen.” The evidence will show that the constant disagreement over the valuation and sale of the property involved exactly those circumstances, and that the Court refused to address those issues, once again acting contrary to the Court’s own statements. The Court repeatedly requested frivolous accounting and documentation, all of which was shown to be meaningless on January 9, 2014. The evidence will show that these actions on the Court make no sense economically or pragmatically on the part of the Court but instead were made to cover the Court’s own mistakes and delays made as the case moved forward.
July 18, 2013 Detail
First, it must be noted that Miri and Counsel followed through with their in-court statement up until this point and did not file any interest in purchasing the Shenandoah property as was mentioned in the June hearing, leaving only Natan to purchase the property as per the Court’s order as that order demanded that those parties interested in purchasing the house make that interest known during the proceedings of the June hearing, which as seen above Miri’s Counsel did quite the opposite. At this point is was evident to the Court that Miri was not interested in preserving the property or the value of the Shenandoah property, as she had allowed it to lapse into foreclosure repeatedly only to be saved by Natan’s actions. The Court already had photographic evidence that the property had been allowed to deteriorate physically to the point where it required major overhaul and repair. It is also clear that the actions taken by Miri and her counsel are not to protect the children, as Natan’s wish to preserve the house for the children to live in is obviously superior to having the house slip into foreclosure and face repossession by the bank. For a perfect example of the difference between the actions of the parties involved and the Court’s feelings on preserving the property, see the Court’s April 25, 2011 decision to clearly understand that even the Court favored a situation that would provide the children with the house now and in the future. After (only eighteen days after!) the listing price disagreement in June, the realtor employed by Miri contacted Miri and Natan and suggested that the price of the house be reduced to $850,000 from the surprise $990,000 value presented in Court! At this point it is clear that Petitioner and Mr. Berman did not go to Court for economic reasons. Berman and Miri never went to the Court over the house to prevent it from being foreclosed or ensuring that the mortgage payment would be made, Since Petitioner has not paid the mortgage, the foreclosure action by the bank did tremendous damage to the Respondent’s credit and Mr. Berman was clearly aware that foreclosure action would cause the children involved to be removed from the property, proving that Miri and Mr. Berman had no actual interest in preserving the property for the children. This suggested reduction to the price suggested and agreed upon so thoroughly before the surprise presentation of the $990,000 price in June clearly indicates that this was the appropriate sale price of the home. On July 18th, Natan filed a motion to have the Court-ordered sale reduced to this suggested price once again as that reduction would allow him to purchase and preserve the property. The processing of the order demanded that Miri send any response she might have, yet none was received.
August 12, 2013
It is clear that Court attendance at this point is the result of Commissioner Cowan’s agenda against the Respondent, as Commissioner St. George had been present since the June 18, 2013 proceedings and was carrying through with the orders Commissioner Cowan had created by dragging the parties back to trial once again at this point (especially after the case could have been finished using the actual fair market values provided in accordance with Court order before the lunch break during the July hearing). The continued support of Commissioner Cowan by Commissioner St. George is also clearly an effort by the Court to support (and potentially cover for) Commissioner Cowan’s early decisions on policy. On August 12th, 2013, Miri and Natan were back in Court and the trend of broken and one-sided decision making continued. The Court made some level of error at this point, maintaining that the property had been awarded to Miri. The Court begins the proceedings by asking “Does Mr. Avraham still have the opportunity to buy out the Petitioner? That was part of the previous order.” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 27-28, Page 3 Line 1) This clearly establishes that the Court fully intended to carry on with earlier proceedings and to deal with Natan purchasing the house. This misleading statement further indicates that the Court was unwilling to follow its’ own Court Order and was still willing to incorrectly award Miri the property even after the Court further stressed that Natan had complied with the May 20, 2013 Order and provided more than fifty (50) pages of real estate documentation indicating the value of the Shenandoah property as approximately $800,000 and even the scant one (1) page of documentation filed by Miri’s Attorney indicated a value of $800,000 to $850,000 for the Shenandoah property. Also in the apparently ignored paperwork attached to the Ex Parte was a full outline of the Capital Gains and other liabilities that would come with the sale of the house at $850,000 The Court, however, refused to follow through with the duties described in the Judgment and in the Courts’ own earlier orders and instead suggested to Natan “If you can arrange to buy the petitioner out in an equitable way...then you’re welcome to do so.” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Lines 16-19) Placing this power in Miri’s hands is just one more inappropriate step by the Court allowing the further delay and hardship in this case, essentially allowing Miri to delay the sale and resolution of the property for as long as she wished. The Court further backs this inaccuracy almost to the point of fact by again incorrectly stating that “the order I saw and the earlier judgment said that Shenandoah was her property” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Lines 11-12). This error in analysis assured the issues of the day would remain unresolved, especially ironic because went on shortly thereafter to remind the Court that he had repeatedly saved the house from foreclosure. At this point Natan was no longer even attempting to use the funds from the Escrow money to buy the house out from Miri, (Transcript August 12, 2013 Page 14 Line 19 and Page 10 Line 7 and Page 11 Line 5) willing to settle the Escrow argument at another point the Court continued to give power away to Miri for seemingly no reason, responding to Natan asking about how to deal with Miri’s lack of acceptance for any offer he brought to the table with “Then you man have to make her a different offer” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 14 Lines 21-22). At this point there is no argument that Commissioner St. George has violated Natan’s civil rights, depriving him of property with no due process of law. Natan has at this point been forced to come to Court, forced to expend thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and other expenses just to pursue the execution of the divorce Judgment in the manner is was originally written. Natan was sanctioned $15,000 by the Court to be paid to Mr. Berman, had to pay for the above legal expenses, and had to keep the House he was not being allowed to live in out of foreclosure to the tune of $110,000. At this point in the proceeding it goes even further to point out that Miri owed more than $47,000 dollars in attorney fees which Miri’s Counsel did not seem to even consider. Respondent has used tremendous resources at this point to maintain the house for the property of the Community, and the Court’s actions have only served to endanger that property and to put power in the hands of those who would have allowed the property to fall into disrepair and foreclosure.
September 9, 2013
On this date the Court continued to ignore the Judgment made earlier in the case, ironically stating “There’s a Judgment in this case, and once there’s been a Judgment, as you saw earlier, the Court will not deal with things unless there’s been a change in circumstances. Now, clearly the sale of those properties is a change in circumstance, which the Court is going to deal with and that’s what these request for orders are about.” (September 9, 2013 Transcript, Page 8 Lines 15-24) This is very strange, because this comes after the long series of events described above in which the Court repeatedly and almost randomly did ignore the actual judgment and instead relied upon testimony and un-corroborated findings to modify and ignore this same judgment
October 9, 2013
The Court by this date has allowed the proceedings to continue far longer than necessary, and acknowledges this fact by stating “Your children are grown, you just need to resolve the remaining issues and division of property and you could both proceed with your lives. That’s in your interest. It’s in the Court’s interest too. So I understand your frustration, but it looks like we’ve made some progress. (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 17 Lines 3-8) Miri’s Counsel clearly was not acting at this point in a manner that would have proceeded with the case quickly and easily, stating in response to Respondent’s request for an interpreter that “Respondent has been asked by this Court whether he needs an interpreter and clearly in 2009 he said he did not, and he had the wherewithal to file numerous motions and appeals and has been able to drag everybody back into Court five, six, seven times.” (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 3 Lines 26-28, Page 4 Lines 1-2) Regardless of the position Mr. Avraham had taken on an interpreter in the past (which is, in fact, incorrect--the Court was the party that originally refused an interpreter, not Mr. Avraham his kind of instant rejection of a request to make the Court proceedings move more easily is a sign that the Court and Miri’s Counsel were not truthful in insisting that the proceedings move forward as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is further complicated by the fact that the Court itself had earlier ignored Mr. Avraham’s request for an interpreter on October 16, 2009 (October 16, 2009 Transcript Page 5-6).
The Court’s misrepresentation of facts continues at this point, stating “the judgment did not include--by the respondent’s own admission did not include and reimbursement per the Barrington Property, any repairs” (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 26-28, Page 6 Line 1). Both of these statements are incorrect, as it is actually one of Mr. Avraham’s arguments that he wished to be reimbursed for the Barrington Property as outlined in the Judgment. 6.8.1.1 The Court goes on to misrepresent the facts of the case and proceedings by stating that “Mr. Avraham is free and has been free for some time actually at his request to buy out the Petitioner, and now that that’s very clear, I would expect it to occur fairly quickly as he’s been very concerned about this” (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 13 Lines 24-28). This is not true, as Mr. Avraham had been attempting at this point for months to purchase the house as was outlined in both the Judgment and the Court Order and had not been allowed to make the purchase as he had been blocked repeatedly by the Court and Miri’s Counsel as shown on the dates above.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the court flatly denied Mr. Avraham’s request for reimbursement contrary to the Judgment and Settlement in this case. The Court made a quick decision on October 9, 2013 depriving the Respondent of access to the funds held in escrow for the sole purpose of providing for these expenses. (Court Order October 9, 2013). This is put into perspective considering the Court’s earlier flat denial of Respondent’s motions on multiple occasions, primarily the August 12, 2013 motion to reimburse Respondent using funds held in escrow that the Court also summarily denied on no stated legal grounds (Court Order August 12, 2013). These massive legal inaccuracies can best be summed up by the Court’s misallocation of properties rights and thus deprivation of Respondent’s rights when on September 9, 2013 the Court stated “the Court ruled on that and denied it saying that the judgment that had been stipulated to gave that to the petitioner.” (September 9, 2013 Transcript Page 1 Lines 27-28 Page 2 Lines 1-2). Using an incorrect assumption about the legal facts of these proceedings as the basis for depriving respondent of his rights and property is unfortunately too common by this point in the trial, and does not improve from this point forward. Respondent has tried to gain control of the property for the benefit of the property and for the benefit of his children living on the property. Respondent has extensive examples of his children acknowledging the benefit of his presence, and Respondent paid Petitioner for control of the property simply to gain control as quickly as possible to protect the property and the children as Petitioner allowed the children to consume drugs and alcohol on the premises all while living in the house for free. The disregard for the financial well-being and stability of the properties involved continues to the apartments owned by the parties, as Petitioner responded to Respondent’s efforts to buy the home by placing their child in one of the rental units the parties owned nearby. This not only deprived the parties of rental income but would have been rendered entirely unnecessary had Petitioner simply complied with Court Order and the Settlement and Judgment and allowed Respondent to purchase the property for the Fair Market Value. This decision can be seen as even further ill-advised, as earlier Court Orders indicated that the property was to be sold within ten months at which time the child’s living situation would have to be re-assessed once again.
January 9, 2014
It should be noted that the Court states during these proceedings that the Court is trying to enforce the settlement along these lines, stating “Both sides have grievances, some that are more well taken than others, but I’m trying to assist you to move forward so that you can both be in a better place, shall we say.” (January 9 2014 Transcript Page 2 Lines 2-5) This comes in light of the Court claiming that neither side was going to “walk away with a victory” and after Petitioner had made the reaching statement “At the very least, I am entitled to my one-half of the remaining proceeds. ”All of these statements taken together make it even more clear that the Court in this situation was acting with almost complete freedom in reorganizing the terms of the original settlement in this case, and that those changes would soon harm the Respondent. on this date, the Court clearly continued to move against its’ earlier judgments and Orders and against the Respondent. This began when Miri’s counsel stated “I’d like to say that Ms. Avraham would submit on the Court’s last suggestion, which is the first 40,000 and change go to pay the credit cards, the rest is split equally and each side bears their own fees, only if there are no other issues, they’re all wiped out and neither party can--Barrington and Shenandoah are put to bed. We say goodnight to those two properties.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 1 Lines 16-23) the court responded “that is what I had said in chambers” (January 9, 2014 Transcript Page 11 Line 24) This suggestion by Mr. Berman clearly indicates that the Court has moved away from the Judgment and Settlement in this case, and that the properties are now being considered for a “settlement” outside of any of the original agreements in this case and in line with ignoring the actions Mr. Avraham has taken to preserve the property while allowing Miri (and, most specifically, Miri’s counsel Mr. Berman) to take more resources and property with little in any reason. The Court responded by saying “I’m trying to help both parties move forward, because
we can get bogged down in minutia. Both sides have grievances, some that are more well taken than others, but I’m trying to assist you to move forward so that you can both be in a better place.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 1 Line 28 Page 2 Lines 1-5) The Court’s statement here is incorrect when seen in the light of the tremendous lengthening this case has seen under this Court, and for the Court to now again stress that the case must come to an end simply indicates that the Court wished to now structure some kind of a settlement that could be enforced to assure these issues could be settled and the earlier mistakes by the Court could be forgotten. The Court goes on to say “Things have happened which have made both parties suffer financially. You both have taken considerable losses and I don’t think anyone’s going to walk away feeling they’ve won a victory here.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 4 Lines 21-25). It is surprising that the Court would say this while also creating a situation in which Miri and her Counsel could receive more from the property and from the settlement than was ever expected by the the original Judgment and Settlement Agreement, showing clearly that if the events of this case were allowed to continue as they have been that Miri and Counsel at the very least would win a much larger “victory” than Natan and that Miri would be released from her responsibilities to the property and to the agreements (especially under the terms of the original agreement). This will be seen as especially strange after reviewing the March 20, 2014 Transcript in which the Court certainly awarded a “victory” to Miri and her Counsel through awards to Miri and sanctions on Mr. Avraham.
The Court then proceeds to attempt to enforce settlement on the parties, stating with no prompting “I may decide that there is a valid 271 argument by the Petitioner which would result in sanctions against Mr. Avraham.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 5 Lines 10-12). Mentioning the possibility of sanctions of this kind without any prompting and especially after the Court demanded at an earlier date that Natan appear with Counsel and extend the Court proceedings is clearly an attempt to pressure a settlement, which at this point in the proceedings would have clearly been unfair to Mr. Avraham. The Court goes on to state “Mr. Avraham, you will get the benefit of this bargain as you will walk away with the majority of the funds in escrow.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 5 Lines 17-19) This is also misleading and meant to pressure Mr. Avraham into a settlement, as per the original Judgment and Settlement these funds were already clearly due to Mr. Avraham and including this information at this point is a disguised manner of threatening those funds. The Court further states that “In fact, the Judgment says that the Wooster property is left within the jurisdiction of the Court should there not be an agreement as to how to deal with it.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 5 Lines 23-26). This is also not true, as the Judgment only gives power to the Court in this matter to lead the parties in reaching an agreement, not to make decisions outright. Once again, this statement is the Court suggesting power in a manner meant to pressure Mr. Avraham into a settlement that not only hurts his position but unfairly represents the earlier Judgment and Settlement in this case. The Court at this point tries to shift the blame for the extension of this case to Mr. Avraham, stating that “If he sincerely believes somehow he will benefit from further litigation and somehow come out of this in better shape than what an end to it would produce today, then we’re going to have to continue this matter for hearing on another date.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 6 Lines 11-15) Miri’s Counsel follows this by stating “It’s almost unfathomable for Ms. Avraham to come back again. This will be, I think, the fourth or fifth time we’ve been here on the same issues.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 6 Lines 17-20) Both of these lines of discussion misrepresent what has happened until this point, as it has been Mr. Avraham consistently trying to wrap up this trial as quickly as possible on all of the above-mentioned dates by offering to in fact pay more than the established values for the properties in questions (offering to pay the $850,000 chosen my Miri’s Counsel in June as opposed to the $800,000 market value just to finish the case and have this matter resolved back in June). Only the mis-interpretation of the Judgment and Settlement and the misrepresentation of the facts of this case that have led to the Courts’ decisions have extended the case to this point, and if Mr. Avraham had his way the property and the case would have been settled a long time ago (namely in June or July). Mr. Avraham clearly points out that the situation being presented by the court and Miri’s Counsel is incorrect, stating “She only get $60,000 from me and then lose $100,000” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 7 Lines 26-27) in reference to the Capital Gains liability that would be created by the Court’s current suggestion and the misinformation being presented. It is clear throughout these proceedings that the Court has deviated far enough from the original settlement that a further settlement would require almost complete changes to the agreement in this case, and that the Court’s statements at this point are largely meant to pressure Mr. Avraham into accepting these new terms regardless of the truth or justice behind them. Mr. Green, Mr. Avraham’s Counsel, presents tremendous amounts of backing evidence for these arguments and was summarily ignored, all shown in the attached January 2014 Transcript.
There is a long history in this case of the Court working against the Respondent directly and indirectly. Foremost, in regard to the valuation and sale of the Shenandoah property on August 12, 2013 the Court approved Respondents request to lower the cost of the property while at the same time blocking Respondent from buying the property. This action and decision ignores the Court Order in this regard, creating a new way of deciding the issue on the Shenandoah property an essentially depriving the Respondent of his rightful property while leaving the property in the hands of Ms. Avraham and her attorney. Furthermore August 12 September 9 October 9 and December 16 of 2013 And on January 9 of 2014 the Court refused to honor the judgment and release the Respondents money in the form of reimbursements. On March 20, the judge further misled in regards to reimbursement and instead awarded all of the money in question to the Petitioner in this case. There is no foundation for these actions and denials, and these decisions on the part of the Court are misleading at best and unjust at worst. The actions on the part of Commissioner St. George, when looked at in totality, have been misleading all along in an effort to block Respondent’s access to his money and property. The Court repeatedly ignored evidence presented by Mr. Avraham, making extraneous requests for the information, documentation, and accounting that in the end only served to delay the process of justice. The Court was further misleading in that it represented the facts of Respondent’s motion as requesting that the Court directs the parties as to what to do with their escrow money when in fact the Respondent’s motion was to release the money to Respondent as agreed upon in the original Judgment. The Respondent filed the requested accounting on January 9 2014 and it was verified that there were no issues with any taxes in regards to the escrow accounts, no money taken by any tax authorities. There was no levy in question on the Wilshire Escrow and that no additional 143,000. No money went to the IRS and no money had been removed for tax purposes as had been alleged by the court and Miri’s attorney. Even after these unnecessary steps had been taken, however, Commissioner St. George still refused to release the Respondent’s money even after repeatedly agreeing to accept the Respondent’s motion and release the money from escrow. Instead, after all of the process had been completed, the Court incorrectly attributed the status of Innocent Spouse and awarded the money in question to Miri Avraham. The issue of Innocent Spouse is actually unrelated to the events of this case, as finding Petitioner to be an Innocent Spouse had no bearing on the tax issues of this case until the judge essentially instructed Petitioner to object (January 1, 2014 Transcript) The objection made on the ground of Innocent Spouse came with no evidence of why the Respondent could not receive his escrow money, yet the objection leveled in January was accepted with no legal reason. Related to this point was a Court Order put forward on December 16 as a result of Petitioner bringing forward information claiming that moneys had already been removed from the accounts and both the F T B and IRS to be an innocent spouse” and released from any income tax liability for the years 2000 through 2007 (an unfounded claim that was made repeatedly at almost every hearing in question) That further blocked Respondent from receiving funds as outlined in the Judgment, even though there was no supporting evidence for these claims given by Petitioner or Counsel. The Court simply allowed Petitioner and her attorneys to make these claims, subsequently blocking reimbursement or disbursement of funds to Respondent in direct violation of the Judgment and the earlier Orders of the Court.
Example: On October 9, 2013 the court cooperate with Mr. Berman to mislead and to block the Respondent’s money. (Transcript October 9, 2013 Page 11 Line 1) Mr. Berman stated “…although, actually. I believe there probably has been more money taken out – Transcript…” (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 3) the court; stated that’s my point. It is a fact the court has no point. The Court allowed the modification of the judgment even though the petitioner did not pay the mortgage. The Respondent had paid the mortgage thereby saving the property from going into foreclosure, Petitioner further claimed that there was no evidence to support payment of the mortgage on the property, even though this information had already been presented in court (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 9 Lines 17-22 ) and was clearly evident by the continued residence on the property. After all this it should be remembered Mr. Avraham’s attorney spent the first part of this day very clearly laying out a number of the discrepancies in this case, stating “Yes. Your Honor, Respondent would be willing to submit...without prejudice as to his other claims...If we look at the other claims, if we look particularly at the Barrington property, he’s put forth proper evidence of repairs. If we look at the Shenandoah Mortgage payments, he’s put forth evidence that he’s made the mortgage payment for two years and brought the property out of foreclosure twice. So if the Court wants to submit...dividing the escrow funds in accordance with the judgment, Respondent would agree to that, but not if it goes beyond and makes findings with prejudice as to his other bona fide claims. The Court could deny those claims today without prejudice, but he would not submit that those claims be denied with prejudice just for him to receive the escrow funds that he’s entitled to in the judgment. And further, Capital Gains tax. The Capital Gains tax on the sale of the Barrington property was deemed community in the judgment. It was sold pursuant to the judgment. The title and the loans were held only in Respondent’s and, therefore, the IRS is holding him responsible for the Capital Gains taxes of $90,000 on the Barrington property and he doesn’t have the $90,000. There’s a lien on Wooster for the $90,000 Capital Gains tax, but to keep the IRS at bay, he paying $528 a month to keep a payment plan so they don’t seize his bank accounts and whatnot. So these claims, particularly Barrington Capital Gains and the mortgage, we could have those hearings at another date or another time or they could be denied without prejudice for today’s date, but they should not be coupled with the distribution of the escrow proceeds...so just because he put these claims in today’s papers, he shouldn’t lose the substantial claims, particularly the Capital Gains, that would be wholly inappropriate to hold him personally and unilaterally responsible for Capital Gains tax on an asset that was sold as a community property. And also for the mortgage payment, the provided no evidence that she’s made the mortgage payments, none whatsoever.” (January 9, 2014 Transcript Pages 2-4)
March 20, 2014
Simply following the March 20, 2014 transcript reveals a tremendous amount of misconduct on the case of the Court. At this point a long track record has been established--the Court has found or come upon various ways to stop Natan from purchasing the property In July, August, and September. After this tremendous delay, To this day, (Respondent actually did what could be considered a favor in these proceedings by taking the property as it went into active foreclosure, instead of waiting to receive the property before 2/12/2014 from the court in order to avoid the property from the threatened bank foreclosure at 10am on 2/12/2014. It should also be noted that in doing so the Respondent did the Petitioner a favor, helping the Petitioner avoid a 170,000 financial burden that would have come with foreclosure on the property. The Respondent’s main goal was to protect the family property from active foreclosure in order to preserve the property for the children. Respondent affirms that if it were not for his children he would have avoided the health, financial, and personal troubles caused by this extended battle. This brings the case back to the September hearing, at which time the Respondent stated “I cannot continue. My kid very important for me. I work entire life for my kid. My kid is my entire life. This is very important for the government, for the Court to stop this immediately. That’s what’s happening in my house. This is very important for everybody. he kid have no--I have to go convince this is not good. This is not the only way his client can hurt me, to have my kid because she knows I’m against that… (Transcript September 9, 2013 Page 8 Line 4 to 14 Page 11 Lines 6-9) Furthermore, it is important to remember that the well-being of the children was not important to the Court or to the Petitioner’s attorney. On September 9th Respondent offered again to provide 50,000 for the children, which was again rejected. (Transcript September 9, 2013 Page 9 Line 6-9).
On this date, as well, Petitioner's Counsel Mr. Berman was allowed to testify onto the Court record
Facts Regarding Potential Tax Consequences from Sale
By allowing the proceedings to continue, the Court allowed a massive potential tax liability to fall on Mr. Avraham. As will be shown, the Respondent took actions that were not only meant to protect property but to minimize the huge losses that could be incurred if the properties continued to be managed as is. This includes capital gains liabilities, tax liabilities on the part of the community, tax liabilities on the part of Mr. Avraham himself, and tax liabilities even for the Petitioner. Already Respondent’s actions had conserved $59.700, for the petitioner as opposed to the actions suggested by Petitioner’s Counsel. The facts will show that the Respondent’s actions actually benefited the Petitioner to the tune of $120,000. Mr. Green, Natan’s attorney, brought this up bluntly when he said “the Capital Gains only accrued a year ago. There was no Capital Gains consequence. He lost his $250,000 deduction by being out of the house more than 24 months. That accrued a year ago.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Lines 15-19) The actions of the Petitioner's Counsel and the Court would cause the liability for Capital Gains tax to fall on Petitioner alone, as the Court inappropriately attempting to award the Shenandoah Property as Petitioner's sole and separate property would cause the entire liability for the property to fall on Petitioner alone. The Respondent saved also created a lot of money for the Petitioner.
Tax Issues
In fact the community didn’t lose from tax issue. The county claimed more than $900,000.00 for capital lose but the capital loss was never reported Mr. Berman acknowledges about the community capital loss and he refused to cooperate by not relocating and claiming the additional capital loss. The community therefore lost benefits by this negligence. In contention is the Wooster property, which the documentation in this case will show was meant to be left between the two parties involved and to be held, as per the judgment, for four years by the two parties as a safeguard against possible tax debts. The Court incorrectly interpreted this to mean that the Court had jurisdiction over the property, and then rolled ahead to state that, in regard to taxes, “we’ll deal with that when and if it comes up.” (May 23, 2011 Transcript Page 10 Lines 2-4) (Before the judgment enter on October 5, 2010 the Shenandoah and Barrington property were Respondent's separate properties as well as 75% of the property at 1442 Wooster.
Petitioner’s dealings with the Court were shown to be even further from the truth, with her attorney stating that she had been given “innocent spouse” status, this was simply false as was allowed by the Court. (September 9, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 22-23) Mr. Berman also stated that the I.R.S. had already taken $135.000 (Transcript August 12, 2013 Page 4 Line 1-2) Mr. Barman stated that the tax authorities did go in and take 150.000 out of the Barrington escrow account. (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Line 22-23) This served to mislead and lie as was allowed by the Court, as already on 8/12/2013 the Court had promised the Respondent money (June 18, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Line 20-21 Page 7 Lines 25-26) peaking to Mr. Berman (Transcript August 12, 2013 Page 13 Line 11-15) Mr. Berman stated “regardless of this 49 or $89.000 in escrow, but our positron is we want to use that and come back in 60 days to try to establish that” to which the court stated “right.” Mr. Berman replied “thank you your honor.”
The community benefited tremendously from the new assessment of the tax liabilities, saving the Petitioner specifically a large sum of money by serving to offset a large section of the impending Capital Gains liability. Further evidence of the Court ignoring the decisions in the (6.6.5.1) Judgment and Settlement arises when the Court blocked the distribution of funds from the escrow account for Respondent and Petitioner’s son as outlined in the original Settlement. To this day the son has received absolutely nothing from the property marked as being set aside to pay for his education, and this is in light of the constant battle over the properties and the fighting done by Petitioner in order to gain control of these properties. It should be noted at this point, as well, that the tax authority is not the party in this case that should have been dealing with the decision of how community property should be divided (or the tax liabilities/assets involved) but that statements by tax authorities or attributed to tax authorities were often used as a type of proof. It should be noted that during this entire time the Respondent was earning money and giving it to the Petitioner for her use and for that of her children, saving the family home from foreclosure on more than one occasion and trying to find the best resolution to the taxes and liabilities the couple had incurred. All this while the Petitioner and Counsel were spending money to manipulate information from tax authorities and incurring further debt and liability on the Respondent, far outside the bounds of the Judgement. From the earliest statements regarding the division of the property to the claim of innocent spouse and the evasion of the tax situation all while prolonging a solution to the problem, the actions of the Court have created an environment in which the original binding Settlement and Judgment in this case are being ignored almost entirely. The Court ignored Earlier Orders on repeated occasions and allowed Petitioner’s Counsel to do the same. These actions caused tremendous hardship on the Respondent, and have led to the disaster seen today.
October 9, 2013
The Respondent was careful to respect the Court’s wishes by retaining counsel and filing evidence that the Petitioner and Mr. Berman have no point and no legal reason for the lies they have presented to the Court.On October 9 Commissioner George went against the Respondent without any legal grounds, siding with Petitioner’s Counsel in every way. The facts of this case can be understood most easily by looking to the minutes from the October 9 2013. The requests made for money regarding state levies and tax returns was misleading in every way and was an attempt to block the Respondent from receiving reimbursement for money already spent. The original Court agreement allowed for the unconditional reimbursement of monies spent. On June 18 Commissioner Cowan even acknowledged that the money in escrow belonged to the Respondent, and certainly did not request any accounting at that time (June 18, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Lines 20-21 and Page 7 Lines 25-26). It is a fact that the Court refused to properly use the money in escrow to pay the 2005 tax debt, and this make no sense in terms of Court economy—the Court’s only remaining excuse for its’ actions. Furthermore, the Court was mislead by stating that the judgment in this case did not allow for the reimbursement of monies (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Line 28). It is very clear that the judgment does allow for this (6.8.1.1 and 7.3). It is a fact that Mr. Berman lies and Refused for courts order and misleads the Court and created more than 500,000 damaged to Petitioner and the children. it is a fact that the Court regularly relied upon Mr. Berman for guidance in this case even after Berman repeatedly mislead the Court and continually ignored the Respondent’s attempts to follow the Court’s own orders. The discussion of money being taken out of escrow improperly was a delaying tactic presented by Mr. Berman that the Court fell for, lying to the Court and presenting faulty evidence of both inappropriate tax withdrawals and the Petitioner’s “Innocent Spouse” status. As late as the October 9 court date the Court acknowledged that the Respondent needed to be reimbursed while refusing to release his money, instead siding with Mr. Berman and refusing to release funds from escrow as outlined in the original Agreement (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 3). The Court was further misleading on the same date when told that the Respondent should have been paying the mortgage out of inaccessible funds for five years (October 9, 2014 Transcript Page 11 Line 13). These delays and accusations in fact made the Respondent scared to even enter the courtroom for fear of losing more property and rights (September 6, 2012 Transcript). On October 9, 2013 Commissioner St. George misled and stated that respondent has to accept the value of the Shenandoah property and he denied the respondent’s motion he blocked respondent’s attorney fees and sanction accordingly the judgment 6.2.4 he did allow the petitioner and Mr. Berman to request attorneys fees, the court ordered only the respondent to pay the mortgaged as it becomes due, in violation of earlier court orders 6.2.1.
Cowan ComplaintThis section includes the complaint made against Commissioner Cowan and the Court's abuses of Natan Avraham's rights.
These injustices have led to the situation in question today.
For those who have already read through the other material on this site, this may shed light on the events the led up to the actions of the Court today.
The facts show that over the course of this hearing and in relation to the preceding court dates the Court acted in a manner that not only violated my rights to a fair and full hearing of all the facts but that violated earlier Court decisions, caused tremendous hardship on myself and my family, and allowed inappropriate evidence to be presented and argued at trial as well as prolonged the trial and the use of Court and State time and resources. All of the mis-steps in this case came to a head on March 20, 2014 when the Court stated “Now, it appears from what I’ve been told here and what’s been testified to, that there were additional assessments, that those assessments amounted to $143,000 but that Ms. Avraham was found to have been the innocent spouse in those so those should not be assessed against her.” (March 20, 2014 Transcript Page 16 Lines 23-28) As the evidence included in this document will show, this could not be more wrong. The Court made a series of errors and misjudgments that led to this final situation and Respondent has been given no choice but to fight for his rights beginning with the fact statement below. It will further be shown that Petitioner in this case has incorrectly claimed legal exemption from taxation as not receiving income from the properties held by the community (she did not sign the returns has received community property improperly even after abusing that property and her responsibilities under the original Settlement), and has extended these courtroom proceedings longer than should have been possible.
May 20, 2013
On May 20, 2013, the Court ordered that either of the two parties (Miri or Natan) had until June 11, 2013 to submit proposals from area realtors. The Court explicitly stated that it believed it was in the Court and the parties’ best interest to move through with the sale of the house as quickly as possible (the Court stated clearly that it was aware that the issues of this case needed resolved immediately. The Court began the proceedings by stating “the property was to be sold.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 7-8) The Court was correct in noting that the original Judgment in this case indicated that the Shenandoah property was to be sold, but incorrect in stating that “the judgment awarded, as I understand it, the Shenandoah property to Petitioner...” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 5-7). Although it is correct that one of the children were living in the house (and that Natan was extremely happy to have them with a roof over their head and had in fact, as will be seen later, saved the home from full foreclosure several times) it is incorrect that the Judgment awarded the house to Miri--the house was community property, to be owned by both Natan and Miri until it was sold. It should be noted at this point that the Respondent was already actively working to protect the community property and help all parties along, having achieved modification of the Shenandoah mortgage from 5.75% to 2.00% (Wells Fargo Mortgage Statement) Furthermore, Respondent received an offer from Wells Fargo to settle the mortgage on the Shenandoah property for approximately $82,000 (a savings of more than $217,000) (Wells Fargo Mortgage Settlement Offer) , an opportunity which was quickly shut down by Petitioner’s Counsel. It should be noted that Petitioner expressed interest in taking advantage of these offers.
Regardless, during the discussion as to the sale of the Shenandoah property, Miri’s counsel himself states that” there is no sale at the moment” and that “it wasn’t selling” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 19 and 27) and Miri herself states that “it started with 850 and...Went down to 750” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 2-3) after taking this testimony into consideration, the Court reinforced the earlier statement, stating “the order is for the house to be sold. She could buy it. He could buy it. Third person could buy it. So somebody needs to but it. I don’t care how it happens. He could buy it if he pays fair market value for it...because I think respondent does have a point that even if he’s not paying the mortgage he’s liable for paying the mortgage and the court order is that it be sold,” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Lines 18-28) further backed up by “it needs to be sold...sooner rather than later so that the court doesn’t have to take some other action” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Lines 2-6). Ironically, it was as early as 2011 that the Respondent had provided evidence to the Court that he had been appropriately using the funds sent to him by Petitioner to pay the mortgage, even though Petitioner made claims to the contrary. (Mortgage Statements 2011) It is truly shocking that these mortgage payments were also later used by the Petitioner (claiming they were not paid) as an argument against the Respondent. None of these accusations are true or supported by any evidence whatsoever, and instead it is Respondent who spent this time attending to the mortgage and trying to protect the property. Miri’s attorney, in discussing this issue in the same proceeding, clearly stated that “I can represent to the Court that Ms. Avraham is not going to buy the house, so it would be either Mr. Avraham or a third party.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Lines 15-17) to which the Court responded “[The Court still needs] from the Petitioner her view of the current fair market value,” making it clear that the Court did not wish to allow either Party to have a claim to the property or its’ value without the documentation to reinforce that claim (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Lines 19-21). The Courts attempt at “wrapping things up” was to “continue this hearing for 30 days to allow both sides to bring in evidence as to the fair market value, current fair market value of the property.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Lines 13-16).
The Court wished to expedite the conclusion of this trial so clearly that the Court attempted to schedule the next hearing before an upcoming trip by Miri to Israel, stating “Let’s do it before you leave. When are you leaving?” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 9 Lines 12-13). The Court was forced to schedule around two scheduling difficulties raised by Miri’s Counsel from his personal schedule, but the date to determine the Fair Market Value was pushed back to June 18, 2013. The Court promised to decide the list price based on the evidence brought by both parties, stating “I’ll decide what the listing price should be based on the evidence you present.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Line 28 Page 9 Line 1) Repeatedly over the course of this case the Court has acted in a manner consciously violating Mr. Abraham’s rights, as Mr. Avraham first stated “The House was supposed to be sold. I am not responsible to pay...I already paid more and I have to find how I can have the credit. This has to be sold…This judgment enforced by the Court on me.” (May 20, 2013 Transcript, Page 6, Lines 8-16). Even at this early date Mr. Avraham is pointing out to the Court that the judgment being enforced upon him is not the fair Judgment as decided in this case, but a new set of rules and interpretations allowing the Court and Petitioner’s Counsel to violate Mr. Avraham’s rights. This effect will be even more exaggerated when looking at the later issues of this case, as it will be shown that not only was the Court already at this point acting unfairly but that the effect of this unfairness will cause the remainder of the trial to be misleading and incorrect in regard to decision, arguments, and Orders made from this point forward.
June 18th, 2013
During the morning session of the proceeding, the Court suggested “What about the other idea, since there is not much equity in this property anyway, why don’t you just let respondent (Natan) buy it for the amount he’s got stuck in the Wilshire Escrow?...Best case scenario, even under Petitioner’s valuation, how much is she going to get out of this thing, 10, 20,000?” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Lines 18-26) This statement simultaneously confirms on the part of the Court that the money in the Wilshire Escrow belonged to Natan and further that it would likely be the most expedient choice for making a clean deal in the property that would be best for all the parties involved, finally stating “Then take the 40 and you’re done,” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Line 28) referring, of course, to Miri taking the forty thousand dollars in the Wooster escrow in exchange for the Shenandoah property which she had been wrongly awarded. Natan’s counsel agreed to this proposition immediately, stating “That would be agreeable, you honor.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 1) Just as it looked like hope was on the way, Miri’s Counsel, Mr. Berman, stated that this proposition was “Not agreeable” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 2). When the Court asked why that was the case, Mr. Berman stated that Miri “... [didn’t] want to sell the house for $40,000” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 11-12) The Court responded by stating that “All [Miri is] going to get out of it, even under your valuation, is less than $40,000.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 11-12) Mr. Berman, even after hearing this logic from the Court,Refused to sell the house (which was, remember, not even a power he or Miri had to decide according to the actual Judgment in this case). The Court at this point ordered both parties involved to return after the lunch break and in the mean time to “think seriously from just a dollars a dollars and cents point of view whether it makes sense to take the money he has sitting in escrow and let him have the property.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 23-26) further stressing the futility of the sale again by asking “How much more is she going to get from the sale anyway?” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 27) The Court goes on to reveal that even the Court detects that there may be something inappropriate unfolding by stating “If it’s just about time there is a sham as he’s arguing by Petitioner to buy time because she knows it won’t sell, that’s not well-taken.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 7 Line 28-Page 8 Lines 1-2) All parties involved went to lunch, with order to figure things out before the returned. Coming back from lunch, the Court escalated the disturbing trend of refusing to rule with its power as dictated by the Settlement. At this point most courtroom procedure seemed to fall apart. Petitioner’s Counsel offered that he had “received an e-mail at lunch” that claimed that a real-estate broker he was in contact with had the day before sold an entirely separate property down the street from the Shenandoah property for $990,000. Miri’s Counsel states “We just received word and I sent Mr. Green (Natan’s Counsel) an e-mail from the real estate broker, a house about four doors down sold for about 990,000” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 9 Lines 27-28 Page 10 Line 1). For reasons that still remain a mystery the Court entertained this value as an appropriate arguing point for the value of the Shenandoah property, even after the Court had ordered and followed-through with the May 20th order to formally present that value of the property (an Order which we should remember only Natan followed with any degree of effort).
Miri’s Counsel even went so far as to admit he knew very little about the property, stating that he “talked to [the real estate broker] over the noon hour” and that Miri’s Counsel “[didn’t) know what work had been done on the house” in question, claiming that he “just [knew] that it is a comparable basis.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Line 19-22) Natan’s Counsel responded by objecting to this “evidence,” stating “First of all, your honor, I object to the introduction of evidence, it’s not in his papers. The real estate broker--...” to which the judge responded by cutting him off with a short “Overruled” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Line 25-28). Natan’s Counsel responded clearly with a shocked “What?” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 1) to this allowance of obvious hearsay evidence. The Court simply repeated, “That Point is Overruled”(June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 2) Natan’s Counsel further backed up his tremendous surprise at this strange allowance of “evidence” by reminding the Court that “the real estate broker listed it at 850 and this is also the broker who was unable to sell it for the past 24 months” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Lines 3-5)
Still in disbelief about the admission of erroneous evidence, Natan’s attorney then points out to the Court that the current action of delaying the sale of the house is creating a Capital Gains issue that would not have existed had the original Judgment been followed. Because Natan had been outside of the Shenandoah property for more than 24 months (the property which, remember, was supposed to be sold as immediately as possible after the Judgment), Natan had lost a potential $250,000 deduction in Capital Gains tax that would now be a huge liability if the house was sold in the manner suggested. The disregard for the Capital Gains issue can actually be detected earlier in the trial, however, as earlier in the proceedings Miri’s Counsel stated “Let’ get it back on the market and sell it. And whatever the consequences may be with regard to tax issues, those will have to be dealt with--” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 20-22). Even Mr. Berman, Miri’s council, stated “My client just wants to get it sold” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 25-26). Already at this point in the hearing, however, Miri’s Counsel was allowed to further extend the hearing, informing the Court that he “[had] several arguments” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 20-22) even though he was at the same time stressing that they “get it back on the market and sell it” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 25-26) Furthermore, at this point (during the morning hearing of June 18th) Petitioner’s Counsel verified Respondent’s proposal of $800,000 saying “I think that they both kind of meet in the middle at 800,000 (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 16-17) which the Court pointed out was still higher than “all of the Respondent’s” numbers (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 15). (In context this shows not only that the further discussions about the intention to sell the house on Miri and Counsel’s part are disingenuous but further that Miri’s Counsel was acting in a negligent manner, essentially creating a Capital Gains issue through delaying the sale of the house and then pushing the price far above the Fair Market Value with no actual intent or belief that the property will be sold. Following the closing of proceedings that day, Natan immediately drafted and sent a letter of complaint to the Court, promising to go to the full extent the law would allow to preserve the liberties and rights the the Court had deprived him of through negligent action. (Complaint Letter)
July 18, 2013
On the June 18, 2013 date the Court ordered that the Respondent could purchase the property at the Fair Market value and that the Respondent had 30 days to present the Court with a purchase offer of that value. During the same hearing the Court extended this period until August 12, though the Respondent brought the offer well within this time period (which will be an issue later in the case). The Respondent brought back an offer on July 18, 2013, as well as evidence that the house was worth 850,000 as the Court requested. Respondent brought numerous pieces of evidence to indicate that the house was worth 800,000-850,000 and an offer to buy the house for that 849,000 (the high end of that value). It should be noted that this is equal to the original value presented for the property by the Petitioner. (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 16-19). The Court, however, did not allow the purchase of the property as it had earlier instructed and instead allowed the Petitioner’s council to claim that the property was worth 990,000 with no hard evidence to support this claim. Even further, it should be noted that the broker the Court allowed to submit this value via e-mail was later ignored when the Respondent brought correspondence from the same broker requesting the price be returned to the 849,000 approximately 3 weeks after these events when the house would not sell for the astronomical 990,000 price. Why did the Court allow a simple e-mail from this broker to change the Court’s valuation of the property? The Court would go on to acknowledge in August that the property was allowed to be transferred to the Respondent but would not complete the sale in July as the Court had ordered. In August even Petitioner’s Council offered that the property truly should be listed at 849,000 but Mr. Avraham was inexplicably blocked from purchasing the property at this agreed-upon value. (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 10-11) The evidence will show that not only did the Court prevent Mr. Avraham’s purchase of the property, but that the Court allowed Petitioner’s Counsel to access the very money that the Respondent rightfully had and intended to use for the purchase of the home (June 18, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Line 18-21 Page 7 Lines 25-27) further preventing the lawful sale of the home (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 13 Lines 11-15). These delays and denials essentially served to extend the case tremendously, preventing the Respondent from gaining the property at the expense of the Respondent’s money, time, and credit. The Court would later disregard these inconveniences even when Respondent asked to approach the subject of valuing the property again as late as September, saying that the Court would only deal with the issue is “new circumstances had arisen.” The evidence will show that the constant disagreement over the valuation and sale of the property involved exactly those circumstances, and that the Court refused to address those issues, once again acting contrary to the Court’s own statements. The Court repeatedly requested frivolous accounting and documentation, all of which was shown to be meaningless on January 9, 2014. The evidence will show that these actions on the Court make no sense economically or pragmatically on the part of the Court but instead were made to cover the Court’s own mistakes and delays made as the case moved forward.
July 18, 2013 Detail
First, it must be noted that Miri and Counsel followed through with their in-court statement up until this point and did not file any interest in purchasing the Shenandoah property as was mentioned in the June hearing, leaving only Natan to purchase the property as per the Court’s order as that order demanded that those parties interested in purchasing the house make that interest known during the proceedings of the June hearing, which as seen above Miri’s Counsel did quite the opposite. At this point is was evident to the Court that Miri was not interested in preserving the property or the value of the Shenandoah property, as she had allowed it to lapse into foreclosure repeatedly only to be saved by Natan’s actions. The Court already had photographic evidence that the property had been allowed to deteriorate physically to the point where it required major overhaul and repair. It is also clear that the actions taken by Miri and her counsel are not to protect the children, as Natan’s wish to preserve the house for the children to live in is obviously superior to having the house slip into foreclosure and face repossession by the bank. For a perfect example of the difference between the actions of the parties involved and the Court’s feelings on preserving the property, see the Court’s April 25, 2011 decision to clearly understand that even the Court favored a situation that would provide the children with the house now and in the future. After (only eighteen days after!) the listing price disagreement in June, the realtor employed by Miri contacted Miri and Natan and suggested that the price of the house be reduced to $850,000 from the surprise $990,000 value presented in Court! At this point it is clear that Petitioner and Mr. Berman did not go to Court for economic reasons. Berman and Miri never went to the Court over the house to prevent it from being foreclosed or ensuring that the mortgage payment would be made, Since Petitioner has not paid the mortgage, the foreclosure action by the bank did tremendous damage to the Respondent’s credit and Mr. Berman was clearly aware that foreclosure action would cause the children involved to be removed from the property, proving that Miri and Mr. Berman had no actual interest in preserving the property for the children. This suggested reduction to the price suggested and agreed upon so thoroughly before the surprise presentation of the $990,000 price in June clearly indicates that this was the appropriate sale price of the home. On July 18th, Natan filed a motion to have the Court-ordered sale reduced to this suggested price once again as that reduction would allow him to purchase and preserve the property. The processing of the order demanded that Miri send any response she might have, yet none was received.
August 12, 2013
It is clear that Court attendance at this point is the result of Commissioner Cowan’s agenda against the Respondent, as Commissioner St. George had been present since the June 18, 2013 proceedings and was carrying through with the orders Commissioner Cowan had created by dragging the parties back to trial once again at this point (especially after the case could have been finished using the actual fair market values provided in accordance with Court order before the lunch break during the July hearing). The continued support of Commissioner Cowan by Commissioner St. George is also clearly an effort by the Court to support (and potentially cover for) Commissioner Cowan’s early decisions on policy. On August 12th, 2013, Miri and Natan were back in Court and the trend of broken and one-sided decision making continued. The Court made some level of error at this point, maintaining that the property had been awarded to Miri. The Court begins the proceedings by asking “Does Mr. Avraham still have the opportunity to buy out the Petitioner? That was part of the previous order.” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 27-28, Page 3 Line 1) This clearly establishes that the Court fully intended to carry on with earlier proceedings and to deal with Natan purchasing the house. This misleading statement further indicates that the Court was unwilling to follow its’ own Court Order and was still willing to incorrectly award Miri the property even after the Court further stressed that Natan had complied with the May 20, 2013 Order and provided more than fifty (50) pages of real estate documentation indicating the value of the Shenandoah property as approximately $800,000 and even the scant one (1) page of documentation filed by Miri’s Attorney indicated a value of $800,000 to $850,000 for the Shenandoah property. Also in the apparently ignored paperwork attached to the Ex Parte was a full outline of the Capital Gains and other liabilities that would come with the sale of the house at $850,000 The Court, however, refused to follow through with the duties described in the Judgment and in the Courts’ own earlier orders and instead suggested to Natan “If you can arrange to buy the petitioner out in an equitable way...then you’re welcome to do so.” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 10 Lines 16-19) Placing this power in Miri’s hands is just one more inappropriate step by the Court allowing the further delay and hardship in this case, essentially allowing Miri to delay the sale and resolution of the property for as long as she wished. The Court further backs this inaccuracy almost to the point of fact by again incorrectly stating that “the order I saw and the earlier judgment said that Shenandoah was her property” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Lines 11-12). This error in analysis assured the issues of the day would remain unresolved, especially ironic because went on shortly thereafter to remind the Court that he had repeatedly saved the house from foreclosure. At this point Natan was no longer even attempting to use the funds from the Escrow money to buy the house out from Miri, (Transcript August 12, 2013 Page 14 Line 19 and Page 10 Line 7 and Page 11 Line 5) willing to settle the Escrow argument at another point the Court continued to give power away to Miri for seemingly no reason, responding to Natan asking about how to deal with Miri’s lack of acceptance for any offer he brought to the table with “Then you man have to make her a different offer” (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 14 Lines 21-22). At this point there is no argument that Commissioner St. George has violated Natan’s civil rights, depriving him of property with no due process of law. Natan has at this point been forced to come to Court, forced to expend thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and other expenses just to pursue the execution of the divorce Judgment in the manner is was originally written. Natan was sanctioned $15,000 by the Court to be paid to Mr. Berman, had to pay for the above legal expenses, and had to keep the House he was not being allowed to live in out of foreclosure to the tune of $110,000. At this point in the proceeding it goes even further to point out that Miri owed more than $47,000 dollars in attorney fees which Miri’s Counsel did not seem to even consider. Respondent has used tremendous resources at this point to maintain the house for the property of the Community, and the Court’s actions have only served to endanger that property and to put power in the hands of those who would have allowed the property to fall into disrepair and foreclosure.
September 9, 2013
On this date the Court continued to ignore the Judgment made earlier in the case, ironically stating “There’s a Judgment in this case, and once there’s been a Judgment, as you saw earlier, the Court will not deal with things unless there’s been a change in circumstances. Now, clearly the sale of those properties is a change in circumstance, which the Court is going to deal with and that’s what these request for orders are about.” (September 9, 2013 Transcript, Page 8 Lines 15-24) This is very strange, because this comes after the long series of events described above in which the Court repeatedly and almost randomly did ignore the actual judgment and instead relied upon testimony and un-corroborated findings to modify and ignore this same judgment
October 9, 2013
The Court by this date has allowed the proceedings to continue far longer than necessary, and acknowledges this fact by stating “Your children are grown, you just need to resolve the remaining issues and division of property and you could both proceed with your lives. That’s in your interest. It’s in the Court’s interest too. So I understand your frustration, but it looks like we’ve made some progress. (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 17 Lines 3-8) Miri’s Counsel clearly was not acting at this point in a manner that would have proceeded with the case quickly and easily, stating in response to Respondent’s request for an interpreter that “Respondent has been asked by this Court whether he needs an interpreter and clearly in 2009 he said he did not, and he had the wherewithal to file numerous motions and appeals and has been able to drag everybody back into Court five, six, seven times.” (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 3 Lines 26-28, Page 4 Lines 1-2) Regardless of the position Mr. Avraham had taken on an interpreter in the past (which is, in fact, incorrect--the Court was the party that originally refused an interpreter, not Mr. Avraham his kind of instant rejection of a request to make the Court proceedings move more easily is a sign that the Court and Miri’s Counsel were not truthful in insisting that the proceedings move forward as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is further complicated by the fact that the Court itself had earlier ignored Mr. Avraham’s request for an interpreter on October 16, 2009 (October 16, 2009 Transcript Page 5-6).
The Court’s misrepresentation of facts continues at this point, stating “the judgment did not include--by the respondent’s own admission did not include and reimbursement per the Barrington Property, any repairs” (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Lines 26-28, Page 6 Line 1). Both of these statements are incorrect, as it is actually one of Mr. Avraham’s arguments that he wished to be reimbursed for the Barrington Property as outlined in the Judgment. 6.8.1.1 The Court goes on to misrepresent the facts of the case and proceedings by stating that “Mr. Avraham is free and has been free for some time actually at his request to buy out the Petitioner, and now that that’s very clear, I would expect it to occur fairly quickly as he’s been very concerned about this” (October 9th, 2013 Transcript Page 13 Lines 24-28). This is not true, as Mr. Avraham had been attempting at this point for months to purchase the house as was outlined in both the Judgment and the Court Order and had not been allowed to make the purchase as he had been blocked repeatedly by the Court and Miri’s Counsel as shown on the dates above.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the court flatly denied Mr. Avraham’s request for reimbursement contrary to the Judgment and Settlement in this case. The Court made a quick decision on October 9, 2013 depriving the Respondent of access to the funds held in escrow for the sole purpose of providing for these expenses. (Court Order October 9, 2013). This is put into perspective considering the Court’s earlier flat denial of Respondent’s motions on multiple occasions, primarily the August 12, 2013 motion to reimburse Respondent using funds held in escrow that the Court also summarily denied on no stated legal grounds (Court Order August 12, 2013). These massive legal inaccuracies can best be summed up by the Court’s misallocation of properties rights and thus deprivation of Respondent’s rights when on September 9, 2013 the Court stated “the Court ruled on that and denied it saying that the judgment that had been stipulated to gave that to the petitioner.” (September 9, 2013 Transcript Page 1 Lines 27-28 Page 2 Lines 1-2). Using an incorrect assumption about the legal facts of these proceedings as the basis for depriving respondent of his rights and property is unfortunately too common by this point in the trial, and does not improve from this point forward. Respondent has tried to gain control of the property for the benefit of the property and for the benefit of his children living on the property. Respondent has extensive examples of his children acknowledging the benefit of his presence, and Respondent paid Petitioner for control of the property simply to gain control as quickly as possible to protect the property and the children as Petitioner allowed the children to consume drugs and alcohol on the premises all while living in the house for free. The disregard for the financial well-being and stability of the properties involved continues to the apartments owned by the parties, as Petitioner responded to Respondent’s efforts to buy the home by placing their child in one of the rental units the parties owned nearby. This not only deprived the parties of rental income but would have been rendered entirely unnecessary had Petitioner simply complied with Court Order and the Settlement and Judgment and allowed Respondent to purchase the property for the Fair Market Value. This decision can be seen as even further ill-advised, as earlier Court Orders indicated that the property was to be sold within ten months at which time the child’s living situation would have to be re-assessed once again.
January 9, 2014
It should be noted that the Court states during these proceedings that the Court is trying to enforce the settlement along these lines, stating “Both sides have grievances, some that are more well taken than others, but I’m trying to assist you to move forward so that you can both be in a better place, shall we say.” (January 9 2014 Transcript Page 2 Lines 2-5) This comes in light of the Court claiming that neither side was going to “walk away with a victory” and after Petitioner had made the reaching statement “At the very least, I am entitled to my one-half of the remaining proceeds. ”All of these statements taken together make it even more clear that the Court in this situation was acting with almost complete freedom in reorganizing the terms of the original settlement in this case, and that those changes would soon harm the Respondent. on this date, the Court clearly continued to move against its’ earlier judgments and Orders and against the Respondent. This began when Miri’s counsel stated “I’d like to say that Ms. Avraham would submit on the Court’s last suggestion, which is the first 40,000 and change go to pay the credit cards, the rest is split equally and each side bears their own fees, only if there are no other issues, they’re all wiped out and neither party can--Barrington and Shenandoah are put to bed. We say goodnight to those two properties.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 1 Lines 16-23) the court responded “that is what I had said in chambers” (January 9, 2014 Transcript Page 11 Line 24) This suggestion by Mr. Berman clearly indicates that the Court has moved away from the Judgment and Settlement in this case, and that the properties are now being considered for a “settlement” outside of any of the original agreements in this case and in line with ignoring the actions Mr. Avraham has taken to preserve the property while allowing Miri (and, most specifically, Miri’s counsel Mr. Berman) to take more resources and property with little in any reason. The Court responded by saying “I’m trying to help both parties move forward, because
we can get bogged down in minutia. Both sides have grievances, some that are more well taken than others, but I’m trying to assist you to move forward so that you can both be in a better place.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 1 Line 28 Page 2 Lines 1-5) The Court’s statement here is incorrect when seen in the light of the tremendous lengthening this case has seen under this Court, and for the Court to now again stress that the case must come to an end simply indicates that the Court wished to now structure some kind of a settlement that could be enforced to assure these issues could be settled and the earlier mistakes by the Court could be forgotten. The Court goes on to say “Things have happened which have made both parties suffer financially. You both have taken considerable losses and I don’t think anyone’s going to walk away feeling they’ve won a victory here.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 4 Lines 21-25). It is surprising that the Court would say this while also creating a situation in which Miri and her Counsel could receive more from the property and from the settlement than was ever expected by the the original Judgment and Settlement Agreement, showing clearly that if the events of this case were allowed to continue as they have been that Miri and Counsel at the very least would win a much larger “victory” than Natan and that Miri would be released from her responsibilities to the property and to the agreements (especially under the terms of the original agreement). This will be seen as especially strange after reviewing the March 20, 2014 Transcript in which the Court certainly awarded a “victory” to Miri and her Counsel through awards to Miri and sanctions on Mr. Avraham.
The Court then proceeds to attempt to enforce settlement on the parties, stating with no prompting “I may decide that there is a valid 271 argument by the Petitioner which would result in sanctions against Mr. Avraham.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 5 Lines 10-12). Mentioning the possibility of sanctions of this kind without any prompting and especially after the Court demanded at an earlier date that Natan appear with Counsel and extend the Court proceedings is clearly an attempt to pressure a settlement, which at this point in the proceedings would have clearly been unfair to Mr. Avraham. The Court goes on to state “Mr. Avraham, you will get the benefit of this bargain as you will walk away with the majority of the funds in escrow.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 5 Lines 17-19) This is also misleading and meant to pressure Mr. Avraham into a settlement, as per the original Judgment and Settlement these funds were already clearly due to Mr. Avraham and including this information at this point is a disguised manner of threatening those funds. The Court further states that “In fact, the Judgment says that the Wooster property is left within the jurisdiction of the Court should there not be an agreement as to how to deal with it.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 5 Lines 23-26). This is also not true, as the Judgment only gives power to the Court in this matter to lead the parties in reaching an agreement, not to make decisions outright. Once again, this statement is the Court suggesting power in a manner meant to pressure Mr. Avraham into a settlement that not only hurts his position but unfairly represents the earlier Judgment and Settlement in this case. The Court at this point tries to shift the blame for the extension of this case to Mr. Avraham, stating that “If he sincerely believes somehow he will benefit from further litigation and somehow come out of this in better shape than what an end to it would produce today, then we’re going to have to continue this matter for hearing on another date.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 6 Lines 11-15) Miri’s Counsel follows this by stating “It’s almost unfathomable for Ms. Avraham to come back again. This will be, I think, the fourth or fifth time we’ve been here on the same issues.” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 6 Lines 17-20) Both of these lines of discussion misrepresent what has happened until this point, as it has been Mr. Avraham consistently trying to wrap up this trial as quickly as possible on all of the above-mentioned dates by offering to in fact pay more than the established values for the properties in questions (offering to pay the $850,000 chosen my Miri’s Counsel in June as opposed to the $800,000 market value just to finish the case and have this matter resolved back in June). Only the mis-interpretation of the Judgment and Settlement and the misrepresentation of the facts of this case that have led to the Courts’ decisions have extended the case to this point, and if Mr. Avraham had his way the property and the case would have been settled a long time ago (namely in June or July). Mr. Avraham clearly points out that the situation being presented by the court and Miri’s Counsel is incorrect, stating “She only get $60,000 from me and then lose $100,000” (January 9th, 2014 Transcript Page 7 Lines 26-27) in reference to the Capital Gains liability that would be created by the Court’s current suggestion and the misinformation being presented. It is clear throughout these proceedings that the Court has deviated far enough from the original settlement that a further settlement would require almost complete changes to the agreement in this case, and that the Court’s statements at this point are largely meant to pressure Mr. Avraham into accepting these new terms regardless of the truth or justice behind them. Mr. Green, Mr. Avraham’s Counsel, presents tremendous amounts of backing evidence for these arguments and was summarily ignored, all shown in the attached January 2014 Transcript.
There is a long history in this case of the Court working against the Respondent directly and indirectly. Foremost, in regard to the valuation and sale of the Shenandoah property on August 12, 2013 the Court approved Respondents request to lower the cost of the property while at the same time blocking Respondent from buying the property. This action and decision ignores the Court Order in this regard, creating a new way of deciding the issue on the Shenandoah property an essentially depriving the Respondent of his rightful property while leaving the property in the hands of Ms. Avraham and her attorney. Furthermore August 12 September 9 October 9 and December 16 of 2013 And on January 9 of 2014 the Court refused to honor the judgment and release the Respondents money in the form of reimbursements. On March 20, the judge further misled in regards to reimbursement and instead awarded all of the money in question to the Petitioner in this case. There is no foundation for these actions and denials, and these decisions on the part of the Court are misleading at best and unjust at worst. The actions on the part of Commissioner St. George, when looked at in totality, have been misleading all along in an effort to block Respondent’s access to his money and property. The Court repeatedly ignored evidence presented by Mr. Avraham, making extraneous requests for the information, documentation, and accounting that in the end only served to delay the process of justice. The Court was further misleading in that it represented the facts of Respondent’s motion as requesting that the Court directs the parties as to what to do with their escrow money when in fact the Respondent’s motion was to release the money to Respondent as agreed upon in the original Judgment. The Respondent filed the requested accounting on January 9 2014 and it was verified that there were no issues with any taxes in regards to the escrow accounts, no money taken by any tax authorities. There was no levy in question on the Wilshire Escrow and that no additional 143,000. No money went to the IRS and no money had been removed for tax purposes as had been alleged by the court and Miri’s attorney. Even after these unnecessary steps had been taken, however, Commissioner St. George still refused to release the Respondent’s money even after repeatedly agreeing to accept the Respondent’s motion and release the money from escrow. Instead, after all of the process had been completed, the Court incorrectly attributed the status of Innocent Spouse and awarded the money in question to Miri Avraham. The issue of Innocent Spouse is actually unrelated to the events of this case, as finding Petitioner to be an Innocent Spouse had no bearing on the tax issues of this case until the judge essentially instructed Petitioner to object (January 1, 2014 Transcript) The objection made on the ground of Innocent Spouse came with no evidence of why the Respondent could not receive his escrow money, yet the objection leveled in January was accepted with no legal reason. Related to this point was a Court Order put forward on December 16 as a result of Petitioner bringing forward information claiming that moneys had already been removed from the accounts and both the F T B and IRS to be an innocent spouse” and released from any income tax liability for the years 2000 through 2007 (an unfounded claim that was made repeatedly at almost every hearing in question) That further blocked Respondent from receiving funds as outlined in the Judgment, even though there was no supporting evidence for these claims given by Petitioner or Counsel. The Court simply allowed Petitioner and her attorneys to make these claims, subsequently blocking reimbursement or disbursement of funds to Respondent in direct violation of the Judgment and the earlier Orders of the Court.
Example: On October 9, 2013 the court cooperate with Mr. Berman to mislead and to block the Respondent’s money. (Transcript October 9, 2013 Page 11 Line 1) Mr. Berman stated “…although, actually. I believe there probably has been more money taken out – Transcript…” (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 3) the court; stated that’s my point. It is a fact the court has no point. The Court allowed the modification of the judgment even though the petitioner did not pay the mortgage. The Respondent had paid the mortgage thereby saving the property from going into foreclosure, Petitioner further claimed that there was no evidence to support payment of the mortgage on the property, even though this information had already been presented in court (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 9 Lines 17-22 ) and was clearly evident by the continued residence on the property. After all this it should be remembered Mr. Avraham’s attorney spent the first part of this day very clearly laying out a number of the discrepancies in this case, stating “Yes. Your Honor, Respondent would be willing to submit...without prejudice as to his other claims...If we look at the other claims, if we look particularly at the Barrington property, he’s put forth proper evidence of repairs. If we look at the Shenandoah Mortgage payments, he’s put forth evidence that he’s made the mortgage payment for two years and brought the property out of foreclosure twice. So if the Court wants to submit...dividing the escrow funds in accordance with the judgment, Respondent would agree to that, but not if it goes beyond and makes findings with prejudice as to his other bona fide claims. The Court could deny those claims today without prejudice, but he would not submit that those claims be denied with prejudice just for him to receive the escrow funds that he’s entitled to in the judgment. And further, Capital Gains tax. The Capital Gains tax on the sale of the Barrington property was deemed community in the judgment. It was sold pursuant to the judgment. The title and the loans were held only in Respondent’s and, therefore, the IRS is holding him responsible for the Capital Gains taxes of $90,000 on the Barrington property and he doesn’t have the $90,000. There’s a lien on Wooster for the $90,000 Capital Gains tax, but to keep the IRS at bay, he paying $528 a month to keep a payment plan so they don’t seize his bank accounts and whatnot. So these claims, particularly Barrington Capital Gains and the mortgage, we could have those hearings at another date or another time or they could be denied without prejudice for today’s date, but they should not be coupled with the distribution of the escrow proceeds...so just because he put these claims in today’s papers, he shouldn’t lose the substantial claims, particularly the Capital Gains, that would be wholly inappropriate to hold him personally and unilaterally responsible for Capital Gains tax on an asset that was sold as a community property. And also for the mortgage payment, the provided no evidence that she’s made the mortgage payments, none whatsoever.” (January 9, 2014 Transcript Pages 2-4)
March 20, 2014
Simply following the March 20, 2014 transcript reveals a tremendous amount of misconduct on the case of the Court. At this point a long track record has been established--the Court has found or come upon various ways to stop Natan from purchasing the property In July, August, and September. After this tremendous delay, To this day, (Respondent actually did what could be considered a favor in these proceedings by taking the property as it went into active foreclosure, instead of waiting to receive the property before 2/12/2014 from the court in order to avoid the property from the threatened bank foreclosure at 10am on 2/12/2014. It should also be noted that in doing so the Respondent did the Petitioner a favor, helping the Petitioner avoid a 170,000 financial burden that would have come with foreclosure on the property. The Respondent’s main goal was to protect the family property from active foreclosure in order to preserve the property for the children. Respondent affirms that if it were not for his children he would have avoided the health, financial, and personal troubles caused by this extended battle. This brings the case back to the September hearing, at which time the Respondent stated “I cannot continue. My kid very important for me. I work entire life for my kid. My kid is my entire life. This is very important for the government, for the Court to stop this immediately. That’s what’s happening in my house. This is very important for everybody. he kid have no--I have to go convince this is not good. This is not the only way his client can hurt me, to have my kid because she knows I’m against that… (Transcript September 9, 2013 Page 8 Line 4 to 14 Page 11 Lines 6-9) Furthermore, it is important to remember that the well-being of the children was not important to the Court or to the Petitioner’s attorney. On September 9th Respondent offered again to provide 50,000 for the children, which was again rejected. (Transcript September 9, 2013 Page 9 Line 6-9).
On this date, as well, Petitioner's Counsel Mr. Berman was allowed to testify onto the Court record
Facts Regarding Potential Tax Consequences from Sale
By allowing the proceedings to continue, the Court allowed a massive potential tax liability to fall on Mr. Avraham. As will be shown, the Respondent took actions that were not only meant to protect property but to minimize the huge losses that could be incurred if the properties continued to be managed as is. This includes capital gains liabilities, tax liabilities on the part of the community, tax liabilities on the part of Mr. Avraham himself, and tax liabilities even for the Petitioner. Already Respondent’s actions had conserved $59.700, for the petitioner as opposed to the actions suggested by Petitioner’s Counsel. The facts will show that the Respondent’s actions actually benefited the Petitioner to the tune of $120,000. Mr. Green, Natan’s attorney, brought this up bluntly when he said “the Capital Gains only accrued a year ago. There was no Capital Gains consequence. He lost his $250,000 deduction by being out of the house more than 24 months. That accrued a year ago.” (June 18th, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Lines 15-19) The actions of the Petitioner's Counsel and the Court would cause the liability for Capital Gains tax to fall on Petitioner alone, as the Court inappropriately attempting to award the Shenandoah Property as Petitioner's sole and separate property would cause the entire liability for the property to fall on Petitioner alone. The Respondent saved also created a lot of money for the Petitioner.
Tax Issues
In fact the community didn’t lose from tax issue. The county claimed more than $900,000.00 for capital lose but the capital loss was never reported Mr. Berman acknowledges about the community capital loss and he refused to cooperate by not relocating and claiming the additional capital loss. The community therefore lost benefits by this negligence. In contention is the Wooster property, which the documentation in this case will show was meant to be left between the two parties involved and to be held, as per the judgment, for four years by the two parties as a safeguard against possible tax debts. The Court incorrectly interpreted this to mean that the Court had jurisdiction over the property, and then rolled ahead to state that, in regard to taxes, “we’ll deal with that when and if it comes up.” (May 23, 2011 Transcript Page 10 Lines 2-4) (Before the judgment enter on October 5, 2010 the Shenandoah and Barrington property were Respondent's separate properties as well as 75% of the property at 1442 Wooster.
Petitioner’s dealings with the Court were shown to be even further from the truth, with her attorney stating that she had been given “innocent spouse” status, this was simply false as was allowed by the Court. (September 9, 2013 Transcript Page 2 Lines 22-23) Mr. Berman also stated that the I.R.S. had already taken $135.000 (Transcript August 12, 2013 Page 4 Line 1-2) Mr. Barman stated that the tax authorities did go in and take 150.000 out of the Barrington escrow account. (August 12, 2013 Transcript Page 8 Line 22-23) This served to mislead and lie as was allowed by the Court, as already on 8/12/2013 the Court had promised the Respondent money (June 18, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Line 20-21 Page 7 Lines 25-26) peaking to Mr. Berman (Transcript August 12, 2013 Page 13 Line 11-15) Mr. Berman stated “regardless of this 49 or $89.000 in escrow, but our positron is we want to use that and come back in 60 days to try to establish that” to which the court stated “right.” Mr. Berman replied “thank you your honor.”
The community benefited tremendously from the new assessment of the tax liabilities, saving the Petitioner specifically a large sum of money by serving to offset a large section of the impending Capital Gains liability. Further evidence of the Court ignoring the decisions in the (6.6.5.1) Judgment and Settlement arises when the Court blocked the distribution of funds from the escrow account for Respondent and Petitioner’s son as outlined in the original Settlement. To this day the son has received absolutely nothing from the property marked as being set aside to pay for his education, and this is in light of the constant battle over the properties and the fighting done by Petitioner in order to gain control of these properties. It should be noted at this point, as well, that the tax authority is not the party in this case that should have been dealing with the decision of how community property should be divided (or the tax liabilities/assets involved) but that statements by tax authorities or attributed to tax authorities were often used as a type of proof. It should be noted that during this entire time the Respondent was earning money and giving it to the Petitioner for her use and for that of her children, saving the family home from foreclosure on more than one occasion and trying to find the best resolution to the taxes and liabilities the couple had incurred. All this while the Petitioner and Counsel were spending money to manipulate information from tax authorities and incurring further debt and liability on the Respondent, far outside the bounds of the Judgement. From the earliest statements regarding the division of the property to the claim of innocent spouse and the evasion of the tax situation all while prolonging a solution to the problem, the actions of the Court have created an environment in which the original binding Settlement and Judgment in this case are being ignored almost entirely. The Court ignored Earlier Orders on repeated occasions and allowed Petitioner’s Counsel to do the same. These actions caused tremendous hardship on the Respondent, and have led to the disaster seen today.
October 9, 2013
The Respondent was careful to respect the Court’s wishes by retaining counsel and filing evidence that the Petitioner and Mr. Berman have no point and no legal reason for the lies they have presented to the Court.On October 9 Commissioner George went against the Respondent without any legal grounds, siding with Petitioner’s Counsel in every way. The facts of this case can be understood most easily by looking to the minutes from the October 9 2013. The requests made for money regarding state levies and tax returns was misleading in every way and was an attempt to block the Respondent from receiving reimbursement for money already spent. The original Court agreement allowed for the unconditional reimbursement of monies spent. On June 18 Commissioner Cowan even acknowledged that the money in escrow belonged to the Respondent, and certainly did not request any accounting at that time (June 18, 2013 Transcript Page 6 Lines 20-21 and Page 7 Lines 25-26). It is a fact that the Court refused to properly use the money in escrow to pay the 2005 tax debt, and this make no sense in terms of Court economy—the Court’s only remaining excuse for its’ actions. Furthermore, the Court was mislead by stating that the judgment in this case did not allow for the reimbursement of monies (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 5 Line 28). It is very clear that the judgment does allow for this (6.8.1.1 and 7.3). It is a fact that Mr. Berman lies and Refused for courts order and misleads the Court and created more than 500,000 damaged to Petitioner and the children. it is a fact that the Court regularly relied upon Mr. Berman for guidance in this case even after Berman repeatedly mislead the Court and continually ignored the Respondent’s attempts to follow the Court’s own orders. The discussion of money being taken out of escrow improperly was a delaying tactic presented by Mr. Berman that the Court fell for, lying to the Court and presenting faulty evidence of both inappropriate tax withdrawals and the Petitioner’s “Innocent Spouse” status. As late as the October 9 court date the Court acknowledged that the Respondent needed to be reimbursed while refusing to release his money, instead siding with Mr. Berman and refusing to release funds from escrow as outlined in the original Agreement (October 9, 2013 Transcript Page 11 Line 3). The Court was further misleading on the same date when told that the Respondent should have been paying the mortgage out of inaccessible funds for five years (October 9, 2014 Transcript Page 11 Line 13). These delays and accusations in fact made the Respondent scared to even enter the courtroom for fear of losing more property and rights (September 6, 2012 Transcript). On October 9, 2013 Commissioner St. George misled and stated that respondent has to accept the value of the Shenandoah property and he denied the respondent’s motion he blocked respondent’s attorney fees and sanction accordingly the judgment 6.2.4 he did allow the petitioner and Mr. Berman to request attorneys fees, the court ordered only the respondent to pay the mortgaged as it becomes due, in violation of earlier court orders 6.2.1.
Cowan ComplaintThis section includes the complaint made against Commissioner Cowan and the Court's abuses of Natan Avraham's rights.
These injustices have led to the situation in question today.
For those who have already read through the other material on this site, this may shed light on the events the led up to the actions of the Court today.