| |
Main
Date: 21 Mar 2008 23:00:02
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
As every chess player knows, Ruth V. Cardoso, the South American
Woman's Chess Champion, was the constant companion of Grandmaster Pal
Benko. They were together for thirty years from 1970 until her death
in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Volgl_Cardoso
Although Ruth Cardoso spent six months out of every year in New Jersey
or New York, she retained a dual residence in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Ruth Cardoso died on February 11, 2000 leaving everything to
Grandmaster Benko in her will, including her brokerage accounts at
Citibank, 120 Broadway, New York NY.
After her death, Grandmaster Benko presented the will to her Citibank
account officer, who informed him that he would have get a court order
from New York Surrogates Court before the bank could hand over the
money.
Benko accordingly applied to the New York Surrogates Court for letters
of administration. However, the court has an unusual rule that when a
person dies without relatives, any person claiming under a will must
prove to the satisfaction of the court that there are no living
relatives. However, since it is impossible to prove a negative, the
applicant must detail the steps that have been taken to locate any
possible relatives of the deceased person.
Although Ruth Cardoso had been born in Brazil and was a citizen of
Brazil, she had been trapped in Nazi Germany during World War II and
grew up there. All of her relatives had died in the war except for her
mother who had died two years before Ruth died.
Accordingly, Benko was required to search for any possible relatives
of Ruth Cardoso. In the course of this required search, Benko
contacted Wolfgang Roddewig, who was the Honorary Consul of Germany to
Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, where Ruth Cardoso had died.
Roddewig informed Benko that Ruth Cardoso had left no relatives and no
significant assets in Brazil when she died.
However, upon learning from Benko that there was a proceeding in New
York Surrogates Court, Roddewig applied to the courts of Brazil to be
appointed executor of her estate in Brazil. This was routinely granted
by that court. Roddewig then contacted the Citibank offices in
Salvador, Brazil and demanded that the funds that Ruth Cardoso had on
deposit in Citibank New York be transferred to him, even though
Roddewig had no relationship with Ruth Cardoso. This happened in
mid-2003, more than three years after Ruth Cardoso had died.
Benko, being completely unaware of what Roddewig was doing in Brazil,
went through the procedures required by the New York Surrogates Court,
which included publishing a legal notice in the New York Law Journal
for four consecutive weeks in November and December 2003.
Following the publication of the legal notices, the New York Public
Administrators Office demanded that the witnesses to the will be
produced to testify that Ruth Cardoso was of sound mind and body when
she made out her will. However, the attorney assigned the task by the
New York Public Administrator was John Reddy, who then delayed seven
months and only issued his report after the Benko Family complained to
the court that he was not doing his job.
As a result of these delays by John Reddy, it took seven months until
July 2004, before he issued his report. The same day that he issued
the report, the New York Surrogates Court, Judge Roth, issued letters
of administration in favor of Grandmaster Benko.
Benko then went to Citibank at 120 Broadway to collect the $70,000
that Ruth Cardoso had left to him, only to be told that Citibank did
not have the money any more. They refused to reveal what had happened
to the money.
However, from other sources, Benko eventually was able to find out
that in May 2004, Citibank had given the $70,000 to Wolfgang Roddewig
in Brazil.
Benko then filed a �Miscellaneous Proceeding� in New York Surrogated
to recover the money, arguing that Citibank had made a mistake in
giving the money to the wrong person, ignoring the legal notices that
had been published in the New York Law Journal in December 2003,
months before Citibank had sent the money to Brazil, and also charging
Attorney John Reddy as being culpable by delaying seven months when by
statute he is required to complete his proceedings within ten days.
This case was argued and submitted before the newly elected Surrogates
Judge Krestin Booth Glen in May 2005. Judge Glen had just become a
judge under controversial circumstances. The New York Bar had rated
her as �unqualified�. Nevertheless, she had defeated a �highly
qualified� candidate for judge in one of the dirtiest election
campaigns for a judicial post in recent memory.
After the case was argued and submitted, Judge Glen sat on the case
doing nothing for nearly two years until yesterday when she issued an
8-page decision in favor of Citibank and Wolfgang Roddewig.
The decision by Judge Glen which is attached is obviously wrong. First
and foremost, she fails to mention that a legal notice was published
in the New York Law Journal for four consecutive weeks in December
2003. She implies that in May 2004 when Citibank paid the money to
Roddewig, a man who was not named in any will and who had no
relationship with Ruth Cardoso, they did not know that there was a
case pending in New York Surrogate's Court. However, they did know.
Not only was the required legal notices published, but Benko
repeatedly over the period of four years and visited the Citibank
Offices at 120 Broadway and spoke to her account executive, Eric k,
about the progress of the case. The problem arose when it was not Erik
k but another branch of Citibank who took the money out of the
Cardoso account and gave it to Wolfgang Roddewig. Eric k was never
notified of this.
Another problem with Judge Glen's decision is that it implies that
there is a �Brazil Will� that postdates the New Jersey Will. However,
no such Brazil Will has ever been produced, nor has any document
signed by Ruth Cardoso in Brazil been produced. What Citibank did
submit to the court was a document signed by another person stating
that there is a will in Brazil. No copy of the alleged will was
provided to the court.
These are just two of the many things wrong with the decision of Judge
Glen. In addition, Judge Glen is asking Judge Roth to vacate her
decision appointing Grandmaster Benko as the Administrator of the
Cardoso Estate. It seems unlikely that Judge Roth will be willing to
do this because both Judge Roth and Grandmaster Benko followed all of
the required steps and procedures, and if this decision by Judge Glen
is allowed to stand, the procedures that the New York Surrogate's
Court has been following for decades will have to be changed.
Another question concerns the fact that Wolfgang Roddewig was able to
use his position as Honorary Counsel of Germany to Salvador, Brazil to
grab $70,000 that did belong to him. Perhaps the Government of Germany
can be held responsible for the acts of its errant representative and
made to pay back the $70,000 that Wolfgang Roddewig stole.
Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/cardoso-glen.pdf
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:51:55
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Paul C. Benko
204 Passaic
Avenue, # 10
Belleville NJ
07109
Tel:
973-751-0614
April 16, 2008
Hon. Renee R. Roth
New York Surrogate's Court
31 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Estate of Ruth V.
Cardoso, File No. 2546 / 2002
Dear Surrogate Roth,
Perhaps you are aware of the decision of Judge Kristin Booth Glen in
this case dated ch 17, 2008 in which she states that she will ask
you to overturn and vacate your prior decision and order in this case.
I am now writing to ask you not to vacate your prior order. My
daughter and I fulfilled all the required and long established
procedures of the New York Surrogates Court. We followed the required
rules and the letter of the law exactly. For example, we published
legal notices in the New York Law Journal on four successive weeks in
October and November 2003 at a cost of $2700. A hearing was held
before you in December 2003. Citibank, although under legal notice,
did not appear and answer at that hearing. As a result, their claims
were extinguished. They cannot be allowed to come into this court now
five years later and say that by the way there was another will in
Brazil.
Citibank still to this day has failed to produce the so-called "Brazil
Will". From Judge Glen's decision one would imagine that she was
holding the will in her hands. Actually, the will has not been
produced, not even a photocopy thereof.
At a conference before Judge Eva Preminger in 2005, Citibank was given
30 days to provide a copy of the will. Thirty days passed and Citibank
provided nothing. Nothing was filed with the court either. At the oral
argument on the motion for sumy judgment in May 2006, Counsel for
Citibank stated that they had never agreed to provide the will. They
had only agreed to provided the documents on the basis of which they
had paid the money to Wolfgang Roddewig in Brazil. Those documents
consisted entirely of documents that Wolfgang Roddewig had sent to
Citibank in connection with his demands for the money. Those documents
were entirely self-serving. This court has yet to receive any
certified documents from the Widows and Orphans Court of Brazil. We do
not even know that such a court exists.
A motion for sumy judgment can only be granted if there are no
triable issues of fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of
fact. For example, was there a will, who signed it, and what does it
say. According to documents received from Wolfgang Roddewig, Ruth
Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink of death. She was
so ill that she could not sign the will.
In addition, according to a letter received from Brazil which is in
the court file, the so-called "Brazil Will" only gave articles of
furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to the friends and neighbors
of Ruth Cardoso in Salvador, Brazil. It did not give any money.
Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the will. He got
into this case merely by being appointed as the Executor of the Estate
by the Widows and Orphans Court of Salvador Brazil. He has stated that
he intends to donate the money to the poor people living in the slums
of Brazil. If you believe that, there is a large bridge perhaps you
have seen just outside the door to your courthouse that I would like
to sell you.
After this case was argued orally and submitted in May 2006, it took
Judge Glen 22 months until ch 2008 to decide the motion. This may
set a record for taking a long time to decide a motion.
I believe that this decision by Judge Glen is clearly erroneous and
must be set aside. Accordingly I ask you not to make any changes or
modifications in the order you signed in July 2004 until this can be
done.
I enclose a copy of a petition for a rehearing I have filed in this
case.
Very
Truly Yours
Pal C.
Benko
Copy to:
Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
Counsel for Citibank
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022
John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 12:20:12
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
PETITION FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x
The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated ch
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous
findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge
Glen granted sumy judgment to Citibank. This decision cannot be
allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to
support these claims and these are triable issues of fact.
1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
motion for sumy judgment.
2. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a �Brazil Will�.
However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a
photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we cannot even
examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the
signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter
from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to
Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and money left
by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador
Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogates
Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident
that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed
Brazil Will.
3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery
where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that
person knew of any relatives of the deceased.
5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier.
This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner,
following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable
Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the
cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the
Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner contacted
Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso,
because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr.
Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in
Brazil.
6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
7. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
8. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
�prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take
depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven
months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report.
9. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in
New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in
Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will.
10. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
Surrogates Court.
11. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
12. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric k.
13. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
14. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
completely stonewalling on this subject.
15. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
sumy judgment.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.
_______________________
Pal C. Benko
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 15:08:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On Apr 18, 4:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I was just wondering if Benko had much chance of winning his case.
> If Sam's involved, his chance is somewhere between slim and none.
The main point right now is that every chess player on this group
knows that Grandmaster Pal Benko and Ruth Cardoso were boyfriend-
girlfriend and lived together for 30 years. They often traveled
together and played in chess tournaments together.
Nevertheless, due to an error or mistake by Citibank, the inheritance
money was paid to an obvious con-man or swindler named Wolfgang
Roddewig who lives in Brazil and thus there is no legal way to get the
money back.
Right now, I am hoping to embarrass Citibank and make them realize
that by cheating Grandmaster Pal Benko out of his rightful
inheritance, it is going to cost Citibank a lot more than just the
$70,000 the bank lost by paying the money to the wrong person.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:56:50
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On Apr 18, 12:55=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0Sam, are you representing GM Benko in this matter, or does he have
> >other counsel?
>
> Don't answer that. :-)
I was just wondering if Benko had much chance of winning his case.
If Sam's involved, his chance is somewhere between slim and none.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:08:16
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Sam, are you representing GM Benko in this matter, or does he have
other counsel?
On Apr 18, 8:20=A0am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
> COUNTY OF NEW YORK
> =A0__________________________________________x
>
> In the Matter of the Estate of
>
> Ruth V. Cardoso,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Deceased
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 FILE
> NO. 2546/2002
>
> PETITION FOR REHEARING
>
> =A0__________________________________________x
>
> The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
> of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated ch
> 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous
> findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge
> Glen granted sumy judgment to Citibank. This decision cannot be
> allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to
> support these claims and these are triable issues of fact.
>
> 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
> mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
> 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
> York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
> all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
> time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
> silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
> motion for sumy judgment.
>
> 2. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a =93Brazil Will=94.
> However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a
> photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
> somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
> not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
> translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
> deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we cannot even
> examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the
> signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter
> from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to
> Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and money left
> by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador
> Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogates
> Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident
> that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed
> Brazil Will.
>
> 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
> Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
> followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
> but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
> must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
> Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
> relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
> concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
>
> 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
> Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery
> where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that
> person knew of any relatives of the deceased.
>
> 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
> Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier.
> This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner,
> following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable
> Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the
> cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the
> Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner contacted
> Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso,
> because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr.
> Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in
> Brazil.
>
> 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
> that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
> ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
> Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
> then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
> Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
>
> 7. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes
> Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V.
> Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
> three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
> in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
>
> 8. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome
> proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
> =93prove=94 the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
> signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
> Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
> in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
> $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in
> December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take
> depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven
> months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report.
>
> 9. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in
> New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
> Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
> produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
> has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
> is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
> articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in
> Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will.
>
> 10. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
> the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
> overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
> late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
> Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
> Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
> who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
> still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
> petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
> in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
> out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
> Surrogates Court.
>
> 11. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
> court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
> discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
> of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
>
> 12. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
> system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
> thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
> do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
> supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
> Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
> was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
> six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
> Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
> account executive, who was Eric k.
>
> 13. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
>
> 14. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
> failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
> happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
> thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
> claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
> and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
> is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
> and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
> oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
> that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
> which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
> the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
> whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
> money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
> completely stonewalling on this subject.
>
> 15. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
> honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
> to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
> claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
> and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
> were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
> stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
> this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
> the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
> notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
> their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
> information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
> sumy judgment.
>
> WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
> rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
> 2008 should be set aside and reversed.
>
> _______________________
>
> Pal C. Benko
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:55:14
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> Sam, are you representing GM Benko in this matter, or does he have
>other counsel?
Don't answer that. :-)
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:54:18
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
PETITION FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x
The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated ch
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous
findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge
Glen in effect granted sumy judgment to Citibank. This decision
cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented
evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact.
1. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a �Brazil Will�.
However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a
photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No document
signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we
cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it
resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt
of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of
Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and
money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of
Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this
Surrogates Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes
it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of
the supposed Brazil Will.
2. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
3. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery
where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that
person knew of any relatives of the deceased.
4. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier.
This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner,
following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable
Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the
cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the
Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner asked Sr.
Roddewig if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this
information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied
that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil.
5. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Widow's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil
and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then
contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
6. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. So, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
7. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
�prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take
depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven
months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report.
8. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in
New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in
Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will.
9. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the
New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not given it to Wolfgang Roddewig yet.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court.
10. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
11. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six month of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric k.
12. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
13. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Widows and
Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there is
such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will and
so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the oral
argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During that
oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements which I
know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on the
subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to whom. I
have learned from other outside sources that they paid the money to
Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been completely
stonewalling on this subject.
14. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New Yorks Surrogates Court will
have to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later
and claim that there was a will in some other country previously
unknown and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that
notices were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so
as to stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision
of this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published
in the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have ended the case.
Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no information until May
2006 when petitioner filed his motion for sumy judgment.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.
_______________________
Pal C. Benko
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 20:21:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE NO. 2546/2002
PETITION FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x
The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated ch
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous
findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge
Glen in effect granted sumy judgment to Citibank. This decision
cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented
evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact.
1. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a =93Brazil Will=94.
However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a
photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No document
signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we
cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it
resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt
of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of
Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and
money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of
Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this
Surrogates Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes
it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of
the supposed Brazil Will.
2. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
3. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery
where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that
person knew of any relatives of the deceased.
4. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier.
This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner,
following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable
Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the
cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the
Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner asked Sr.
Roddewig if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this
information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied
that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil.
5. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Widow's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil
and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then
contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
6. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. So, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
7. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
=93prove=94 the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take
depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven
months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report.
8. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in
New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in
Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will.
9. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the
New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not given it to Wolfgang Roddewig yet.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court.
10. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
11. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six month of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric k.
12. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
13. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Widows and
Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there is
such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will and
so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the oral
argument that took place before this court in May 2003. During that
oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements which I
know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on the
subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to whom. I
have learned from other outside sources that they paid the money to
Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been completely
stonewalling on this subject.
14. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New Yorks Surrogates Court will
have to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later
and claim that there was a will in some other country previously
unknown and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that
notices were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so
as to stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision
of this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published
in the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have ended the case.
Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no information until May
2006 when petitioner filed his motion for sumy judgment.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.
_______________________
Pal C. Benko
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 03:14:59
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
PETITION FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x
The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated ch
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous
findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge
Glen in effect granted sumy judgment to Citibank. This decision
cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented
evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact.
1. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil Will".
However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a
photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No document
signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we
cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it
resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt
of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of
Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and
money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of
Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this
Surrogates Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes
it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of
the supposed Brazil Will.
2. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
3. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery
where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that
person knew of any relatives of the deceased.
4. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier.
This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner,
following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable
Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the
cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the
Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner asked Sr.
Roddewig if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this
information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied
that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil.
5. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Widow's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil
and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then
contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
6. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. So, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
7. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
"prove" the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take
depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven
months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report.
8. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in
New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in
Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will.
9. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the
New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not given it to Wolfgang Roddewig yet.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court.
10. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
11. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six month of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric k.
12. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
13. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Widows and
Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there is
such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will and
so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the oral
argument that took place before this court in May 2003. During that
oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements which I
know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on the
subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to whom. I
have learned from other outside sources that they paid the money to
Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been completely
stonewalling on this subject.
14. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New Yorks Surrogate's Court will
have to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later
and claim that there was a will in some other country previously
unknown and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that
notices were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so
as to stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision
of this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published
in the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have ended the case.
Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no information until May
2006 when petitioner filed his motion for sumy judgment.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.
_______________________
Pal C. Benko
|
| | |
Date: 20 May 2008 03:06:23
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
The hearing in this case is set for tomorrow, May 20, 2008, at 10:00
AM in courtroom 503 of the New York Surrogate's Court, 31 Chambers
Street, New York NY before Judge Kristin Booth Glen.
|
| | |
Date: 20 May 2008 01:26:21
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
The hearing in this case is set for tomorrow, May 20, 2008, in
courtroom 503 of the New York Surrogate's Court, 31 Chambers Street,
New York NY before Judge Kristin Booth Glen.
Grandmaster Benko will argue his own case. He has flown in from
Hungary just for this case.
He will ask Judge Glen to reverse her prior decision. Chances are
never good in that sort of motion. This is a preliminary for an
appeal. However, Grandmaster Benko has one Ace in the Hole so to
speak.
This is that Judge Glen in her decision asked Judge Renee Roth to
reverse her July 2004 decision that made Grandmaster Benko the
Administrator of the Ruth Cardoso estate. However, Judge Renee Roth
has not vacated her prior decision. The two decisions are in conflict
with each other. It would seem that either Judge Roth has to vacate
her decision or Judge Glen has to vacate her decision. Both cannot
stand.
Judge Roth has been on the bench for nine years and is highly
respected. Judge Glen is a new judge.
This would seem to improve Grandmaster Benko's chances somewhat of
winning before Surrogate Glen tomorrow.
|
| | |
Date: 17 May 2008 00:52:27
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On May 4, 5:54 am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> --- [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I assume that GM Benko is actually pleased to have people know about the
> > case -- this is an instance where the louder the shouting, the more likely justice will be done.
>
> > ECJ
>
> > In a message dated 5/3/2008 5:33:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > [email protected] writes:
>
> > Sam: I realize these are public records but why are you sending them to me and hundreds of other people?
> > This is not any of my business. Just because you can does not mean you should.
>
> > David Spigel
Sam is not sending them to people. He is posting them in Usenet
discussion groups. If you choose to receive all the messages in a
Usenet discussion group, that is your choice, not Sam's.
>
> This is a legitimate question. The answer is that, as you can see,
> this case has been going on for a long time. All this time,
> Grandmaster Benko assumed that it was just a matter of time before he
> received his rightful inheritance and thus he was patiently waiting
> and saw no reason to make this case openly public.
>
> However, he is completely shocked by the decision by Surrogate Glen,
> who by the way is a new judge who was rated as "Unqualified" by the
> Bar Association when she ran for election in 2005. She was strongly
> opposed by the legal establishment. You can still find some references
> to her 2005 election campaign on the Internet where she claimed to be
> the champion of the "little guy" against the big monolithic
> corporations. This is quite ironic in view of her recent decision.
>
> Every chess player and regular reader of these groups will know that
> Woman's International Master Ruth Cardoso and Grandmaster Pal Benko
> were constant companions for 30 years and every time in those 30 years
> that Grandmaster Benko came to a major chess tournament or visited a
> local chess club he was always accompanied by Ruth Cardoso and visa
> versa. Thus, we will all know that it is impossible that she would
> have left her money to the "poor people living in the slums of Brazil"
> or to a previously unknown German Consular Officer named Wolfgang
> Roddewig. I have been wondering whether the Nation of Germany can be
> held responsible for this misconduct by one of their consular
> officers.
If he is an honorary consul. I believe the main responsibility of his
position is to assist German nationals rather than the poor people
living in the slums of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. If he himself is a
German national, he may have misused his position to interfere in the
affairs of a Brazilian national, and ought to be prosecuted under
German law.
> Incidentally, right after receiving the money, Wolfgang Roddewig was
> involved in a serious auto accident in Brazil. Although he barely
> survived the accident, he is now said to be an invalid in a wheelchair
> and is not able to respond to these motions (or to give back the
> money).
Given the circumstances, one might suspect that Roddewig had a more
urgent use for the money himself.
If Grandmaster Benko does not succeed against Citibank, Roddewig's
claimed injury may be all the satisfaction he can get. Citibank ought
to realize that Benko is an esteemed figure in Hungary, and that
publication in Hungary of their carelessness harming Benko must
reflect badly on their ability to conduct business internationally. I
wonder if Metro publishes in Budapest.
> Sam Sloan
David Ames
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2008 19:40:34
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
help bot wrote:
> > A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
> > phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
> > to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
> > down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
> > Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.
>
>
> What I want to know is, who is "Paul C. Benko"?
>
>
> -- help bot
It's a more realistic transliteration of his Hungarian name than
"Pal." Perhaps he spells it that way on official documents. A pretty
trivial point.
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2008 18:58:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
> A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
> phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
> to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
> down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
> Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.
What I want to know is, who is "Paul C. Benko"?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2008 18:21:48
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
> COUNTY OF NEW YORK
> __________________________________________x
>
> In the Matter of the Estate of
>
> Ruth V. Cardoso,
>
> Deceased
> FILE
> NO. 2546/2002
>
> NOTICE
> OF MOTION
>
> __________________________________________x
>
> PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko
> and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned
> will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting
> a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of
> this court dated ch 17, 2008 which granted sumy judgment in
> favor of Citibank.
>
> PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy
> of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the
> return date of this motion.
>
> Yours, etc.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________
> Paul C. Benko
> April 30, 2008
> To:
>
> Barry R. Glickman
> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
> 575 Lexington Avenue
> New York NY 10022
>
> John Reddy
> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
> 85 Worth Street
> New York NY 10013
>
>
>
> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
> COUNTY OF NEW YORK
> __________________________________________x
>
> In the Matter of the Estate of
>
> Ruth V. Cardoso,
>
> Deceased
> FILE
> NO. 2546/2002
>
> MOTION
> FOR REHEARING
> __________________________________________x
>
>
> The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
> of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated ch
> 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made
> numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision
> of Surrogate Glen granted sumy judgment to Citibank. A motion for
> sumy judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of
> fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This
> decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even
> presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable
> issues of fact.
>
> 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
> mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
> 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
> York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
> all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
> time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
> silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
> motion for sumy judgment.
>
> 2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil
> Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not
> even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
> somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
> not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
> translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
> deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file
> states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink
> of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed
> will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso.
> Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who
> is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that
> he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor
> people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed
> by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was
> received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not
> named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will.
>
> 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
> Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
> followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
> but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
> must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
> Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
> relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
> concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
>
> 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
> Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he
> must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out
> who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the
> deceased.
>
> 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
> Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years
> earlier. This was because her mother was a German National.
> Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of
> this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and
> learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig,
> because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil.
> Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any
> relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to
> probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no
> relatives nor any money in Brazil.
>
> 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
> that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
> ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
> Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
> then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
> Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
>
> 7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes,
> Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in ch 2003. Ruth V.
> Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
> three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
> in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
>
> 8. It was in ch 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the
> Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim
> Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular
> Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased.
> Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate
> Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian
> Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they
> knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate
> Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase
> except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was
> the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my
> contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had
> by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the
> pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was
> pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court
> that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts
> to grab the money for his own benefit.
>
> 9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able
> to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to
> Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the
> 111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided
> to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of
> the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said
> that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr.
> Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport
> or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a
> long time to comply and then only after several letters had been
> exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that
> there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this
> time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money
> had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice
> the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal.
>
> 10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome
> proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
> =EF=BF=BDprove=EF=BF=BD the will. This involved bringing in all the witnes=
ses to the
> signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
> Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
> in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
> $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in
> December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the
> opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it
> took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions
> and writing his report.
>
> 11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings
> in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
> Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
> produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
> has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
> is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
> articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various
> friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under
> this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in
> this supposed will.
>
> 12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
> the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
> overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
> late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
> Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
> Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
> who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
> still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
> petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
> in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
> out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
> Surrogates Court.
>
> 13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
> court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
> discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
> of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
>
> 14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
> system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
> thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
> do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
> supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
> Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
> was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
> six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
> Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
> account executive, who was Eric k.
>
> 15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
>
> 16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
> failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
> happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
> thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
> claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
> and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
> is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
> and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
> oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
> that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
> which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
> the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
> whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
> money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
> completely stonewalling on this subject.
>
> 17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
> honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
> to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
> claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
> and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
> were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
> stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
> this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
> the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
> notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
> their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
> information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
> sumy judgment.
>
> WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
> rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
> 2008 should be set aside and reversed.
>
>
>
> _________________________
> Paul C. Benko
>
> April 30, 2008
>
>
> VERIFICATION
>
> I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
> being duly sworn, says:
>
> I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
> contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
> to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
> belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
>
>
>
> _________________________
> Signature of
> Petitioner
>
> On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko
> to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the
> foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before
> me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.
>
>
> _____________________________
> NOTARY PUBLIC
>
>
>
>
> Copy to:
>
> Barry R. Glickman
> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
> 575 Lexington Avenue
> New York NY 10022
>
> John Reddy
> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
> 85 Worth Street
> New York NY 10013
A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 May 2008 14:16:00
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
>> COUNTY OF NEW YORK
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>> In the Matter of the Estate of
>>
>> Ruth V. Cardoso,
>>
>> Deceased
>> FILE
>> NO. 2546/2002
>>
>> NOTICE
>> OF MOTION
>>
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>> PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko
>> and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned
>> will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting
>> a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of
>> this court dated ch 17, 2008 which granted sumy judgment in
>> favor of Citibank.
>>
>> PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy
>> of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the
>> return date of this motion.
>>
>> Yours, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________
>> Paul C. Benko
>> April 30, 2008
>> To:
>>
>> Barry R. Glickman
>> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
>> 575 Lexington Avenue
>> New York NY 10022
>>
>> John Reddy
>> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
>> 85 Worth Street
>> New York NY 10013
>>
>>
>>
>> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
>> COUNTY OF NEW YORK
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>> In the Matter of the Estate of
>>
>> Ruth V. Cardoso,
>>
>> Deceased
>> FILE
>> NO. 2546/2002
>>
>> MOTION
>> FOR REHEARING
>> __________________________________________x
>>
>>
>> The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
>> of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated ch
>> 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made
>> numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision
>> of Surrogate Glen granted sumy judgment to Citibank. A motion for
>> sumy judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of
>> fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This
>> decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even
>> presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable
>> issues of fact.
>>
>> 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
>> mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
>> 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
>> York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
>> all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
>> time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
>> silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
>> motion for sumy judgment.
>>
>> 2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil
>> Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not
>> even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
>> somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
>> not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
>> translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
>> deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file
>> states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink
>> of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed
>> will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso.
>> Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who
>> is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that
>> he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor
>> people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed
>> by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was
>> received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not
>> named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will.
>>
>> 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
>> Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
>> followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
>> but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
>> must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
>> Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
>> relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
>> concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
>>
>> 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
>> Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he
>> must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out
>> who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the
>> deceased.
>>
>> 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
>> Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years
>> earlier. This was because her mother was a German National.
>> Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of
>> this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and
>> learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig,
>> because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil.
>> Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any
>> relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to
>> probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no
>> relatives nor any money in Brazil.
>>
>> 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
>> that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
>> ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
>> Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
>> then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
>> Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
>>
>> 7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes,
>> Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in ch 2003. Ruth V.
>> Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
>> three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
>> in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
>>
>> 8. It was in ch 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the
>> Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim
>> Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular
>> Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased.
>> Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate
>> Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian
>> Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they
>> knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate
>> Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase
>> except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was
>> the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my
>> contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had
>> by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the
>> pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was
>> pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court
>> that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts
>> to grab the money for his own benefit.
>>
>> 9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able
>> to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to
>> Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the
>> 111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided
>> to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of
>> the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said
>> that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr.
>> Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport
>> or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a
>> long time to comply and then only after several letters had been
>> exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that
>> there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this
>> time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money
>> had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice
>> the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal.
>>
>> 10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome
>> proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
>> �prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
>> signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
>> Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
>> in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
>> $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in
>> December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the
>> opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it
>> took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions
>> and writing his report.
>>
>> 11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings
>> in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
>> Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
>> produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
>> has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
>> is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
>> articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various
>> friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under
>> this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in
>> this supposed will.
>>
>> 12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
>> the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
>> overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
>> late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
>> Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
>> Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
>> who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
>> still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
>> petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
>> in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
>> out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
>> Surrogates Court.
>>
>> 13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
>> court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
>> discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
>> of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
>>
>> 14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
>> system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
>> thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
>> do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
>> supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
>> Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
>> was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
>> six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
>> Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
>> account executive, who was Eric k.
>>
>> 15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
>>
>> 16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
>> failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
>> happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
>> thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
>> claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
>> and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
>> is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
>> and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
>> oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
>> that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
>> which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
>> the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
>> whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
>> money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
>> completely stonewalling on this subject.
>>
>> 17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
>> honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
>> to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
>> claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
>> and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
>> were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
>> stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
>> this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
>> the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
>> notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
>> their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
>> information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
>> sumy judgment.
>>
>> WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
>> rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
>> 2008 should be set aside and reversed.
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________
>> Paul C. Benko
>>
>> April 30, 2008
>>
>>
>> VERIFICATION
>>
>> I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
>> being duly sworn, says:
>>
>> I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
>> contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
>> to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
>> belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________
>> Signature of
>> Petitioner
>>
>> On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko
>> to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the
>> foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before
>> me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.
>>
>>
>> _____________________________
>> NOTARY PUBLIC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Copy to:
>>
>> Barry R. Glickman
>> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
>> 575 Lexington Avenue
>> New York NY 10022
>>
>> John Reddy
>> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
>> 85 Worth Street
>> New York NY 10013
>
>
> A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of
> phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought
> to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie
> down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if
> Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.
Glenn is going to deny the motion anyway. This is really setting the
stage for an appeal.
I appeared before Glenn when she was sitting as a Supreme Court Justice
in Part V (matrimonial). [Her ex-husband taught NY CPLR at NY Law School
for years] IMO, she was one of the worst judges in NYS. She was
eventually transferred out of Part V. A blessing given the havoc she
spread there. How she ever got herself elected Surrogate is a mystery.
Her decision here is typical of the way her reasoning works, which is to
say it doesn't. I expect she will be reversed on appeal.
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2008 20:41:37
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
NOTICE
OF MOTION
__________________________________________x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko
and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned
will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting
a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of
this court dated ch 17, 2008 which granted sumy judgment in
favor of Citibank.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy
of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the
return date of this motion.
Yours, etc.
_________________________
Paul C. Benko
April 30, 2008
To:
Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022
John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
MOTION
FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x
The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated ch
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made
numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision
of Surrogate Glen granted sumy judgment to Citibank. A motion for
sumy judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of
fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This
decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even
presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable
issues of fact.
1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
motion for sumy judgment.
2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil
Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not
even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file
states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink
of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed
will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso.
Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who
is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that
he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor
people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed
by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was
received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not
named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will.
3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he
must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out
who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the
deceased.
5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years
earlier. This was because her mother was a German National.
Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of
this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and
learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig,
because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil.
Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any
relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to
probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no
relatives nor any money in Brazil.
6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes,
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in ch 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
8. It was in ch 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the
Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim
Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular
Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased.
Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate
Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian
Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they
knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate
Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase
except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was
the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my
contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had
by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the
pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was
pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court
that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts
to grab the money for his own benefit.
9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able
to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to
Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the
111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided
to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of
the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said
that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr.
Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport
or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a
long time to comply and then only after several letters had been
exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that
there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this
time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money
had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice
the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal.
10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
�prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the
opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it
took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions
and writing his report.
11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings
in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various
friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under
this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in
this supposed will.
12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
Surrogates Court.
13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric k.
15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
completely stonewalling on this subject.
17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
sumy judgment.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.
_________________________
Paul C. Benko
April 30, 2008
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:
I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
_________________________
Signature of
Petitioner
On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko
to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the
foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before
me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.
_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Copy to:
Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022
John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013
|
| | | |
Date: 04 May 2008 09:54:54
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
--- [email protected] wrote:
>
> I assume that GM Benko is actually pleased to have people know about the
> case -- this is an instance where the louder the shouting, the more likely justice will be done.
>
> ECJ
>
>
> In a message dated 5/3/2008 5:33:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> Sam: I realize these are public records but why are you sending them to me and hundreds of other people?
> This is not any of my business. Just because you can does not mean you should.
>
> David Spigel
This is a legitimate question. The answer is that, as you can see,
this case has been going on for a long time. All this time,
Grandmaster Benko assumed that it was just a matter of time before he
received his rightful inheritance and thus he was patiently waiting
and saw no reason to make this case openly public.
However, he is completely shocked by the decision by Surrogate Glen,
who by the way is a new judge who was rated as "Unqualified" by the
Bar Association when she ran for election in 2005. She was strongly
opposed by the legal establishment. You can still find some references
to her 2005 election campaign on the Internet where she claimed to be
the champion of the "little guy" against the big monolithic
corporations. This is quite ironic in view of her recent decision.
Every chess player and regular reader of these groups will know that
Woman's International Master Ruth Cardoso and Grandmaster Pal Benko
were constant companions for 30 years and every time in those 30 years
that Grandmaster Benko came to a major chess tournament or visited a
local chess club he was always accompanied by Ruth Cardoso and visa
versa. Thus, we will all know that it is impossible that she would
have left her money to the "poor people living in the slums of Brazil"
or to a previously unknown German Consular Officer named Wolfgang
Roddewig. I have been wondering whether the Nation of Germany can be
held responsible for this misconduct by one of their consular
officers.
Incidentally, right after receiving the money, Wolfgang Roddewig was
involved in a serious auto accident in Brazil. Although he barely
survived the accident, he is now said to be an invalid in a wheelchair
and is not able to respond to these motions (or to give back the
money).
Since the death of Ruth Cardoso, Grandmaster Benko has lived most of
the time in his native Hungary. Previously, he and Ruth Cardoso shared
a house in Jersey City, New Jersey. Grandmaster Benko has just flown
back from Budapest Hungary because of this case and plans to appear
personally before Surrogate Glen on May 20, 2008 to argue his case.
I understand that already Grandmaster Benko has received strong
opposition papers to this motion from the attorneys for Citibank, who
are claiming that this motion should not be heard because it is just a
rehash of arguments previously be made. It is now clear that Citibank
will try to stop this motion from being heard and will try to deprive
Grandmaster Benko of the opportunity to appear before the court on May
20.
This case, as is every other case, is open to the public. You are
welcome to go down to the Surrogates Court and read the court file.
The court is located at 31 Chambers Street, 4th Floor, New York NY
near to the Brooklyn Bridge Stations on the 4, 5 and 6 trains (which
gives rise to the joke about selling the Brooklyn Bridge). You are
also welcome to come to court to hear this case argued before
Surrogate Glen on May 20, although do not be surprised if they try and
succeed in shutting this case down and in depriving Grandmaster Benko
of his rightful day in court.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 May 2008 10:28:05
From: Papadillos
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
There is a lot in this case that is interesting, and doubtless the decision
on law will be made not by some Surrogate by by an appellate court in New
York.
It's a pity that it wasn't a "New York" will instead of a "New Jersey" will
since New York has a specific law applying New York law in certain cases of
foreigners' wills:
"Whenever a decedent, being a citizen of the United States or a citizen or a
subject of a foreign country, wherever resident, shall have declared in his
will and testament that he elects that such testamentary dispositions shall
be construed and regulated by the laws of this state, the validity and
effect of such dispositions shall be determined by such laws."
Estates, Powers and Trusts Law � 3-5.1(h)
Malfeasance by a consular officer is not new. Whether a honorary consul has
any legal protection for malfeasance (any diplomatic or consular immunity)
even for official acts is problematic. And this seems not to be an official
act, but conversion and/or theft.
What did the Auswertiges Amt in Berlin have to say?
(I haven't had time to read the entire history of this posting)
On 04/05/2008 10:54, in article [email protected], "Sam
Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote:
> --- [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I assume that GM Benko is actually pleased to have people know about the
>> case -- this is an instance where the louder the shouting, the more likely
>> justice will be done.
>>
>> ECJ
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 5/3/2008 5:33:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>> Sam: I realize these are public records but why are you sending them to me
>> and hundreds of other people?
>> This is not any of my business. Just because you can does not mean you
>> should.
>>
>> David Spigel
>
> This is a legitimate question. The answer is that, as you can see,
> this case has been going on for a long time. All this time,
> Grandmaster Benko assumed that it was just a matter of time before he
> received his rightful inheritance and thus he was patiently waiting
> and saw no reason to make this case openly public.
>
> However, he is completely shocked by the decision by Surrogate Glen,
> who by the way is a new judge who was rated as "Unqualified" by the
> Bar Association when she ran for election in 2005. She was strongly
> opposed by the legal establishment. You can still find some references
> to her 2005 election campaign on the Internet where she claimed to be
> the champion of the "little guy" against the big monolithic
> corporations. This is quite ironic in view of her recent decision.
>
> Every chess player and regular reader of these groups will know that
> Woman's International Master Ruth Cardoso and Grandmaster Pal Benko
> were constant companions for 30 years and every time in those 30 years
> that Grandmaster Benko came to a major chess tournament or visited a
> local chess club he was always accompanied by Ruth Cardoso and visa
> versa. Thus, we will all know that it is impossible that she would
> have left her money to the "poor people living in the slums of Brazil"
> or to a previously unknown German Consular Officer named Wolfgang
> Roddewig. I have been wondering whether the Nation of Germany can be
> held responsible for this misconduct by one of their consular
> officers.
>
> Incidentally, right after receiving the money, Wolfgang Roddewig was
> involved in a serious auto accident in Brazil. Although he barely
> survived the accident, he is now said to be an invalid in a wheelchair
> and is not able to respond to these motions (or to give back the
> money).
>
> Since the death of Ruth Cardoso, Grandmaster Benko has lived most of
> the time in his native Hungary. Previously, he and Ruth Cardoso shared
> a house in Jersey City, New Jersey. Grandmaster Benko has just flown
> back from Budapest Hungary because of this case and plans to appear
> personally before Surrogate Glen on May 20, 2008 to argue his case.
>
> I understand that already Grandmaster Benko has received strong
> opposition papers to this motion from the attorneys for Citibank, who
> are claiming that this motion should not be heard because it is just a
> rehash of arguments previously be made. It is now clear that Citibank
> will try to stop this motion from being heard and will try to deprive
> Grandmaster Benko of the opportunity to appear before the court on May
> 20.
>
> This case, as is every other case, is open to the public. You are
> welcome to go down to the Surrogates Court and read the court file.
> The court is located at 31 Chambers Street, 4th Floor, New York NY
> near to the Brooklyn Bridge Stations on the 4, 5 and 6 trains (which
> gives rise to the joke about selling the Brooklyn Bridge). You are
> also welcome to come to court to hear this case argued before
> Surrogate Glen on May 20, although do not be surprised if they try and
> succeed in shutting this case down and in depriving Grandmaster Benko
> of his rightful day in court.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 May 2008 15:48:53
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On May 4, 10:16 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Glenn is going to deny the motion anyway. This is really setting the stage for an appeal.
Right. Grandmaster Benko already knew this. He knows that his chances
of wining before Judge Glen are now slim to none as they say. This is
a preliminary step to an appeal. Still, he is hoping that if Judge
Glen actually sees him before her and realizing as she must that her
granting of "sumy judgment" to Citibank is ridiculously wrong, she
will chicken out and do the thing that the law requires.
There is also the hope that Citibank will realize that stealing
$70,000 from a famous person like Grandmaster Benko is not worth the
negative publicity they should receive.
The reason her decision is ridiculously wrong is that Citibank did not
even meet the basic minimum requirements for sumy judgment such as
setting out the undisputed facts upon which sumy judgment can be
based. Citibank set forth no facts at all in their opposition papers.
It was only verbally at oral argument that counsel for Citibank stated
that they had paid the money to somebody in Brazil. They still have
never said in writing who they paid, how much they paid or on what
basis they paid. A representative of Roddewig wrote a letter to the
court stating that he is incapacitated. As far as I know, that letter
is not in the court file as it was not from an attorney admitted to
practice in this court.
> I appeared before Glenn when she was sitting as a Supreme Court Justice
> in Part V (matrimonial). [Her ex-husband taught NY CPLR at NY Law School
> for years] IMO, she was one of the worst judges in NYS. She was
> eventually transferred out of Part V. A blessing given the havoc she
> spread there. How she ever got herself elected Surrogate is a mystery.
> Her decision here is typical of the way her reasoning works, which is to
> say it doesn't. I expect she will be reversed on appeal.
This is all very interesting (to quote Bobby Fischer).
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 00:15:50
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
MOTION
FOR REHEARING
__________________________________________x
The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing
of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated ch
17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous
findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge
Glen granted sumy judgment to Citibank. A motion for sumy
judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of fact.
In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This decision
cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented
evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact.
1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no
mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December
2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New
York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish
all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the
time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained
silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the
motion for sumy judgment.
2. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil Will".
However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a
photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from
somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is
not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified
translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the
deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file
states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink
of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed
will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso.
Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who
is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that
he intends to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor people
living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the
petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was
received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not
named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will.
3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the
Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is
followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will
but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner
must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the
Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find
relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence
concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives.
4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim
Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery
where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that
person knew of any relatives of the deceased.
5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in
Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier.
This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner,
following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable
Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the
cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the
Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner contacted
Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso,
because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr.
Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in
Brazil.
6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry
that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then
ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador
Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He
then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in
Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him.
7. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes
Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in ch 2003. Ruth V.
Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than
three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court
in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam.
8. It was in ch 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the
Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim
Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular
Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased.
Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate
Department specifically directed me to contact the Brazilian Embassy
or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they knew of
any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate Department sent
me on what would have been a wild goose chase except that as a result
I contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was the Honorary Consul of Brazil.
Upon realizing the purpose of my contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized
that there was money to be had by claiming the money for himself. I
have filed all of the pertinent documents with this court and it
plainly obvious that it was pursuant to the directives of the Probate
Department of this Court that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig
and he then started efforts to grab the money for his own benefit.
9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able
to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to
Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the
111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided
to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of
the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said
that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr.
Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport
or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a
long time to comply and then only after several letters had been
exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that
there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this
time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money
had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice
the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal.
10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome
proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to
"prove" the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the
signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the
Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices
in the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003 (at a cost of
$2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in
December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take
depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven
months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report.
11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings
in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to
Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to
produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will
has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It
is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain
articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various
friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under
this supposed will.
12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in
the New York Law Journal in October and November 2003, Citibank simply
overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as
late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig.
Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the
Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account,
who was Eric k of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. k
still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time
petitioner visited Mr. k to inform him of the latest developments
in the case, Mr. k assured him that the money would not be moved
out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York
Surrogates Court.
13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required
court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. k and Mr. k
discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out
of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. k.
14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security
system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and
thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often
do not talk to each other. Eric k probably only talks to his own
supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador
Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it
was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived
six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of
Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the
account executive, who was Eric k.
15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE.
16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a
failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all
happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right
thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their
claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's
and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there
is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will
and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the
oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During
that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements
which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on
the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to
whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the
money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been
completely stonewalling on this subject.
17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time
honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have
to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and
claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown
and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices
were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to
stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of
this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in
the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those
notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished
their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no
information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for
sumy judgment.
WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a
rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated ch 17,
2008 should be set aside and reversed.
_________________________
Paul C. Benko
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:
I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
_________________________
Signature of
Petitioner
Before me personally came Paul C. Benko to me known to be the person
described herein and who executed the foregoing instrument. Such
person duly swore to such instrument before me and duly acknowledged
that he executed the same.
_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Copy to:
Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022
John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jun 2008 19:45:18
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
__________________________________________x
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned hereby Appeals to the
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department located at 27
Madison Avenue, New York NY 10010 from all parts of the Decisions and
Orders of Judge Kristin Boothe Glen of the Miscellaneous Department of
the Surrogates Court dated ch 13, 2008 which denied the motion of
Paul C. Benko for Sumy Judgment and granted Sumy Judgment in
favor of Citibank and from all parts of the order dated June 3, 2008
and filed June 9, 2008 which denied the motion of Paul C. Benko for
reargument.
Yours,
etc.
_________________________
Paul
C. Benko
Copy to:
Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022
John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
__________________________________________x
Kayo Kimura, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is over 18
years of age and is not a party to this action and on the 12th day of
June, 2008 she served the within Notice of Appeal by depositing a true
copy of the same in a mail box under the exclusive care of the United
States Postal Service in a securely sealed envelope addressed to:
Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022
John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013
______________________
Kayo
Kimura
Sworn to before me this 12th
Day of June, 2008
____________________________
Notary Public
SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________x
In the Matter of the Estate of
Ruth V. Cardoso,
Deceased
FILE
NO. 2546/2002
PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT
__________________________________________x
1. Title of Action: In Re: Ruth V. Cardoso
2. Parties: Paul C. Benko, Administrator
Respondents: Citibank
Public Administrator of New
York
John Reddy
3. Petitioner Pro Se: Paul
C. Benko
204
Passaic Ave.
Belleville, NJ 07109-1917
973-751-0614
Counsel for Respondents:
Barry R. Glickman
Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP
Counsel for Citibank
575 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022
John Reddy
The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy
Counsel for NY Public Administrator
85 Worth Street
New York NY 10013
5. Appeal from the Miscellaneous Division of the Probate Department
6. Proceeding to require turn-over of the assets of the deceased held
by Citibank.
7. Sumy Judgment Granted in favor of Citibank and motion for
reargument denied.
8. Deceased at the time of her death in 2000 had approximately $61,000
in her account with Citibank New York. Citibank wrongfully ignored her
will filed with the NY Probate Court and also ignored four legal
notices published in the New York Law Journal and instead sent the
money to an unknown person in Brazil. Petitioner seeks return of the
money wrongfully distributed in Brazil to the wrong person.
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 09:49:20
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Guess what?! My article, the same article I posted here, was removed
from the USCF Issues Forum by Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl at
12:51 AM with the following statement:
Your post has been pulled for multiple AUG violations:
"1. Off topic post (not a USCF issue).
"2. Suggestions (more than one) without specifically identified
substantial proof of criminal actions.
"3. Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments
about any person, group or company. Do not flame or troll.
"Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy,
envy, and slander of every kind."
This is obviously nonsense. I did not accuse anybody of a crime or an
unethical act. I stated that Citibank made a mistake. They paid the
money to the wrong person. That was not a crime.
Also, I made negative reks about Citibank, Judge Kristin Booth
Glen, and Wolfgang Roddewig. None of them are chess personalities. It
is not the job of the USCF Forum Moderators to protect the reputations
of persons who do not even play chess or are involved in chess in any
way.
Also, I did provide substantial proof, the exact decision of the
judge:
http://www.samsloan.com/cardoso-glen.pdf
Also, it is a USCF Issue. Grandmaster Benko has been writing a monthly
column in Chess Life magazine for the last 40 years since the 1960s.
Also, another famous chess personality, Ruth Cardoso, is involved.
Of course, the truth is that it is well known that Herbert Rodney
Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl has been out to get me for the past year and a
half and just finds some excuse to delete every posting I make. He
should not be allowed to moderate my postings.
P.S. The correct spelling of the name of the judge is Kristin Booth
Glen. Her name is often misspelled. See:
http://207.29.128.48/judge/JudgeDetail?judge_cars_id=7030136
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 18:16:09
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> On Sat, 22 2008 14:25:02 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
> As far as legal citations are concerned, I have researched the law
> thoroughly and I have found no cases like this one. There was a
> slightly similar case in the Cayman Islands but in that case the
> money was already in the Cayman Islands at the time of death.
>
> Sam Sloan
Unfortunately, Judge Glen, who knows far more about the subject than
you do, disagrees. Since, by your own admission, you have lost almost
every pro se case you've ever filed, your credibility is not high. As
I said, I feel considerable sympathy for Benko, but he'd be a fool to
allow your comments to giove him false hope.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 17:24:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 22, 12:49 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Note: please trim the newsgroup line when replying
> to sam Sloan. This was crossposted to:
>
> rec.games.chess.politics,
> rec.games.chess.misc,
> misc.legal,
> nyc.politics,
> ny.politics,
> soc.culture.usa,
> soc.culture.brazil,
> soc.culture.german,
> alt.chess,
> soc.culture.magyar
>
> It's bad enought that Sam Sloan harasses all of these newsgroups.
> They don't need our replies adding to the harassment.
To the contrary, the more we "add to" Mr. Sloan's
vanity postings, the quicker we can expect results.
If Mr. Sloan's endemic cross-posting habit is only
mildly annoying, it will likely be allowed to fester
indefinitely, whereas if it gets out of hand (thanks
to a whole slew of replies), somebody might one
day do something to treat the cause of the dread
disease. The way I see it, *complaints* have no
effect whatever, so electric shock therapy seems
in order.
-- doc bot
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 14:25:02
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> On Sat, 22 2008 16:49:07 +0000, Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >
> >Sam Sloan wrote:
> >
> >>This is obviously nonsense. I did not accuse anybody of a crime or an
> >>unethical act. I stated that Citibank made a mistake.
> >
> >Writing "Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko" is a claim that
> >Citibank commited a crime / unethical act, you moron.
>
> Citibank made a mistake. They paid the inheritance money to the wrong
> person. The error was made worse by the fact that they sent the money
> to somebody in Brazil and there is obviously no way to recover the
> money from there.
>
> However, making a mistake is not a crime or even unethical.
>
> On the other hand, once they realized their error they should have
> just admitted it and paid Benko the money. It is clear that he did
> nothing wrong. A loss of $70,000 is peanuts to Citibank. They take
> losses like this all the time for example when a forged check is
> passed. It is part of their cost of doing business.
>
> It is also poor judgment on their part when they cheat a famous
> personality like Grandmaster Benko out of his rightful inheritance.
> Millions of chess players around the world know that Ruth Cardoso was
> for many years the regular girlfriend of Grandmaster Benko. I hope
> that Citibabank comes to their senses and realizes that the negative
> publicity they will get from this case will cost them a lot more than
> $70,000.
>
> The rule that if a person dies without relatives the beneficiary of a
> will must search the world for possible relatives seems to be a local
> rule in New York County only. It was that rule that brought about this
> problem. I am wondering if other counties or other states have that
> rule.
>
> Sam Sloan
I have considerable sympathy for Benko here, but judges have to follow
the law, not emotion. (Or Sam Sloan's crackpot beliefs.) The decision
to which Sam linked essentially says three things: 1) The bank
followed the law. 2) There is evidence of a later will. 3) If Benko
wants to challenge that will, he has to do so in the jurisdiction in
which it was probated, meaning Brazil. If Sam want's to challenge any
of these conclusions, he's going to have to offer legal citations
supporting his claims -- you know, those things judges and lawyers do.
Of course, Sam lacks the knowledge or training to do so, but perhaps
Benko's attorney will.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 23:21:13
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On Sat, 22 2008 14:25:02 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 2008 16:49:07 +0000, Guy Macon
>> <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> >
>> >Sam Sloan wrote:
>> >
>> >>This is obviously nonsense. I did not accuse anybody of a crime or an
>> >>unethical act. I stated that Citibank made a mistake.
>> >
>> >Writing "Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko" is a claim that
>> >Citibank commited a crime / unethical act, you moron.
>>
>> Citibank made a mistake. They paid the inheritance money to the wrong
>> person. The error was made worse by the fact that they sent the money
>> to somebody in Brazil and there is obviously no way to recover the
>> money from there.
>>
>> However, making a mistake is not a crime or even unethical.
>>
>> On the other hand, once they realized their error they should have
>> just admitted it and paid Benko the money. It is clear that he did
>> nothing wrong. A loss of $70,000 is peanuts to Citibank. They take
>> losses like this all the time for example when a forged check is
>> passed. It is part of their cost of doing business.
>>
>> It is also poor judgment on their part when they cheat a famous
>> personality like Grandmaster Benko out of his rightful inheritance.
>> Millions of chess players around the world know that Ruth Cardoso was
>> for many years the regular girlfriend of Grandmaster Benko. I hope
>> that Citibabank comes to their senses and realizes that the negative
>> publicity they will get from this case will cost them a lot more than
>> $70,000.
>>
>> The rule that if a person dies without relatives the beneficiary of a
>> will must search the world for possible relatives seems to be a local
>> rule in New York County only. It was that rule that brought about this
>> problem. I am wondering if other counties or other states have that
>> rule.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
>I have considerable sympathy for Benko here, but judges have to follow
>the law, not emotion. (Or Sam Sloan's crackpot beliefs.) The decision
>to which Sam linked essentially says three things: 1) The bank
>followed the law. 2) There is evidence of a later will. 3) If Benko
>wants to challenge that will, he has to do so in the jurisdiction in
>which it was probated, meaning Brazil. If Sam want's to challenge any
>of these conclusions, he's going to have to offer legal citations
>supporting his claims -- you know, those things judges and lawyers do.
>Of course, Sam lacks the knowledge or training to do so, but perhaps
>Benko's attorney will.
What you fail to understand is that the "later will" has yet to be
produced. The court was simply told that there was another will. We
have not seen it. We know that it is in the Portuguese Language. Also,
even the statement that there is another will is hearsay. We have yet
to receive any certified documents from the "Widows and Orphans Court"
of Bahia, Brazil. All we have and all the court has is a letter from
Wolfgang Roddewig stating that he has been appointed by the "Widows
and Orphans Court" as executor of her estate. It could be a total
fabrication.
Meanwhile, Wolfgang Roddewig had stated that he has already
distributed the $70,000 he got from Citibank to the "poor people
living in the slums of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil". (Roddewig was not
named as a beneficiary of the supposed will, which explains why he had
to say that. The supposed will only provides for various pieces of
furniture to be given to Ruth's friends and neighbors.)
Like most judicial decisions, Judge Glen's decision looks reasonable
until you look at what is behind it. Legal notices were published in
the New York Law Journal in 2003. Citibank, which was on legal notice,
did not appear or object. Benko was appointed. Again, Citibank did not
object. Letters were written to Citibank. No response. Finally, Benko
served them with what is called a "Miscellaneous Proceeding". Only
then did Benko object. Judge Eva Preminger gave Citibank two months to
produce any evidence they had. Citibank produced nothing. Another year
passed while Benko was waiting for something to happen. Nothing
happened. Citibank was stonewalling. Judge Preminger retired (she
"aged out") and a new judge was elected. Finally, Benko had no choice
but to file a motion for sumy judgment. It was only then, in
response to the motion, that Citibank produced the letter from
Roddewig which provides their only defense. The case was argued and
submitted in May, 2005. Another two years passed with nothing
happening. Then, suddenly last Thursday, a decision appeared (which
has not yet appeared in the New York Law Journal).
As far as legal citations are concerned, I have researched the law
thoroughly and I have found no cases like this one. There was a
slightly similar case in the Cayman Islands but in that case the
money was already in the Cayman Islands at the time of death.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 16:49:07
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Note: please trim the newsgroup line when replying
to sam Sloan. This was crossposted to:
rec.games.chess.politics,
rec.games.chess.misc,
misc.legal,
nyc.politics,
ny.politics,
soc.culture.usa,
soc.culture.brazil,
soc.culture.german,
alt.chess,
soc.culture.magyar
It's bad enought that Sam Sloan harasses all of these newsgroups.
They don't need our replies adding to the harassment.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Sloan wrote:
>This is obviously nonsense. I did not accuse anybody of a crime or an
>unethical act. I stated that Citibank made a mistake.
Writing "Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko" is a claim that
Citibank commited a crime / unethical act, you moron.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 17:52:21
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On Sat, 22 2008 16:49:07 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>>This is obviously nonsense. I did not accuse anybody of a crime or an
>>unethical act. I stated that Citibank made a mistake.
>
>Writing "Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko" is a claim that
>Citibank commited a crime / unethical act, you moron.
Citibank made a mistake. They paid the inheritance money to the wrong
person. The error was made worse by the fact that they sent the money
to somebody in Brazil and there is obviously no way to recover the
money from there.
However, making a mistake is not a crime or even unethical.
On the other hand, once they realized their error they should have
just admitted it and paid Benko the money. It is clear that he did
nothing wrong. A loss of $70,000 is peanuts to Citibank. They take
losses like this all the time for example when a forged check is
passed. It is part of their cost of doing business.
It is also poor judgment on their part when they cheat a famous
personality like Grandmaster Benko out of his rightful inheritance.
Millions of chess players around the world know that Ruth Cardoso was
for many years the regular girlfriend of Grandmaster Benko. I hope
that Citibabank comes to their senses and realizes that the negative
publicity they will get from this case will cost them a lot more than
$70,000.
The rule that if a person dies without relatives the beneficiary of a
will must search the world for possible relatives seems to be a local
rule in New York County only. It was that rule that brought about this
problem. I am wondering if other counties or other states have that
rule.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 06:35:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 22, 9:11 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Too bad about what happened to GM Benko.
>
> Yes, too bad. If she had placed her money in a cash value life policy
> and named Benko as beneficiary there would be no problems at all.
For those of you who are not aware, Rob (The Robber") Mitchell's
actual day job (when he is not out robbing) is selling life insurance.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 06:11:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 22, 7:22 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 22, 4:49 am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
>
> > "3. Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments
> > about any person, group or company. Do not flame or troll.
>
> > None of them are chess personalities. It
> > is not the job of the USCF Forum Moderators to protect the reputations
> > of persons who do not even play chess or are involved in chess in any
> > way.
>
> Sam - reality check.
>
> It obviously does not matter whether the person attacked, defamed or
> allegedly defamed is a chess personality or not. That seems pretty
> easy to understand.
>
> Too bad about what happened to GM Benko.
Yes, too bad. If she had placed her money in a cash value life policy
and named Benko as beneficiary there would be no problems at all.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 06:11:19
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 22, 3:49 am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> It
> is not the job of the USCF Forum Moderators to protect the reputations
> of persons who do not even play chess or are involved in chess in any
> way.
You mistake the purpose of their actions. The purpose is to protect
the USCF from being sued by these persons, not to protect their
reputations.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 06:01:11
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> This is obviously nonsense. I did not accuse anybody of a crime or an
> unethical act. I stated that Citibank made a mistake. They paid the
> money to the wrong person. That was not a crime.
What about that Roddewig fellow?
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 05:22:30
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 22, 4:49 am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> "3. Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments
> about any person, group or company. Do not flame or troll.
>
> None of them are chess personalities. It
> is not the job of the USCF Forum Moderators to protect the reputations
> of persons who do not even play chess or are involved in chess in any
> way.
Sam - reality check.
It obviously does not matter whether the person attacked, defamed or
allegedly defamed is a chess personality or not. That seems pretty
easy to understand.
Too bad about what happened to GM Benko.
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 00:08:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 21, 7:00 pm, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
Bear Stearns just recently "went under", as
they say, so PB might want to act fast, before
Citibank too, bites the dust.
I noticed that Mr. Sloan -- as is his longstanding
habit -- targeted somebody with money (Citi), as
opposed to say, the state of New York or some
foreign state like Brazil. According to the account
by Mr. Sloan, the real culprit would appear to be
the mess we call "probate" or whatever, which
has a tendency to muck things up.
One advertisement I see all the time has it that
a Supreme Court Justice made a simple error in
his will (at least he did have a will) which cost his
benefactors hundreds of thousands of dollars!
In this case, the deceased having dual residence
in Brazil and the USA can certainly not be blamed
on Citbank, nor can our laws regarding the
settlement of such estates. This just goes to show
how difficult life (and death) can be when you have
a lot of money; money is nothing but trouble-- and
worry. I think everyone should unload their worries
on Mr. Sloan-- let him deal with all those troubles.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 17:29:38
From:
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 21, 7:00=A0pm, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
>
> Another question concerns the fact that Wolfgang Roddewig was able to
> use his position as Honorary Counsel of Germany to Salvador, Brazil to
> grab $70,000 that did belong to him.
Sam, did you perhaps omit the word "not" between "did" and "belong"
in the above sentence? Roddewig cannot have stolen his own property.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 17:35:39
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000
|
On 21, 7:29 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 21, 7:00 pm, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Another question concerns the fact that Wolfgang Roddewig was able to
> > use his position as Honorary Counsel of Germany to Salvador, Brazil to
> > grab $70,000 that did belong to him.
>
> Sam, did you perhaps omit the word "not" between "did" and "belong"
> in the above sentence? Roddewig cannot have stolen his own property.
Right. It should be "did not belong to him".
Thank you for pointing out this error.
Sam Sloan
|
|
