, along with hundreds of other of my online newspapers and publications. My life is focused on my church, my spiritual and healing work. I am selling individual blogs (online magazine publications), all blogs, individually to the highest bidder. If you Like one of my online magazines, my publications, my intellectual property, and want to make me an offer, email me at . This FOR Sale posted by Reverend Crystal Cox, Bringing Back Goddess Church.

Also Note, if you wish to hire me to do any online marketing or investigative blogging work use that same email.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

No Steps, as the Trustee of a Multi-Million Dollar Estate to Validate Documents? Hmmm

"That Judge Phillips knowing he is a material and fact witness and potential defendant of charges of Fraud By the Court in these cases who now has an adverse interest that reflects in his intent to deprive Eliot, his three minor children and his lovely wife of their fundamental due process rights. 

Phillips has threatened Eliot and his wife Candice repeatedly with contempt for nothing other than to create false record, as the records of the hearings reflect because Eliot has accused Phillips and demanded his disqualification for in part being part of the improper Post Recusal steering and transfer of the cases by former recused Judge Colin (who recused 1 day after denying a disqualification motion that alleged FRAUD BY THE COURT OF COLIN) and Phillips rude and threatening behaviors reflected in the transcripts of the hearings appear entirely in retaliation and to suppress Eliot’s rights to fair hearings.  

In the Proposed Order submitted by attorney Rose they now attempt to remove Eliot’s standing and his prior pleadings filed on behalf of himself and as Guardian of his minor children and remove his standing in the matters through this improper proposed Order without due process.

The Order Rose has prepared for Phillips to sign does not accurately reflect the truth of the proceedings and is designed to remove Eliot’s rights to his inheritancy through further denial of due process and procedure, even attempting Gag Orders and to suppress distribution of the December 15, 2016 hearing that exposes new frauds on the court and more.

That the Court should take JUDICIAL NOTICE and REPORT THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT AND NEW FRAUD ON THE COURT INFORMATION ADMITTED TO BEFORE JUDGE PHILLIPS UNDER OATH BY ATTORNEY ROBERT SPALLINA, the sole witness to the validity hearing, who has now violated an SEC consent Order for criminal securities fraud and insider trading before Judge Phillips by perjuring himself and more.

Spallina under oath admitted to new crimes, including fraud on the court, fraud on beneficiaries, mail fraud and more in the December 15, 2016 hearing and Spallina further perjured his testimony about not having pled to felony or misdemeanor charges.

The following information is cause for impeachment of Spallina’s testimony and voiding of the validity hearings ruling due to the criminal conduct learned and committed in the Court on December 15, 2015 by Spallina, a court appointed officer of the court and a court appoint fiduciary in these matters.

Therefore, immediate actions should be taken by the Court to notify proper authorities, including but not limited to, the SEC of the violation of criminal consent order that Spallina has signed as evidenced below, the FBI regarding the newly admitted mail fraud, the Sheriff department regarding the newly admitted Fraud on the Court, Fraud on Beneficiaries and their counsel and the misuse of a deceased person’s identity to close another deceased persons estate now fully admitted, the Inspector General of the Courts due to the Fraud on the Court and alleged Fraud by the Court, the Chief Judge and where the Court is the scene of fresh new crimes of continued Fraud on the Court in these matters this Court should disqualify itself entirely from the matters as it appears that one cannot investigate oneself or ones court without a MASSIVE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY;


On or about September 28, 2015, the SEC out of Washington, DC publicly announced Insider Trading and related charges in a separate action against Florida attorneys and Third-Party Defendants herein SPALLINA and TESCHER.

That SPALLINA pled guilty of criminal misconduct and the SEC Consent signed by SPALLINA states,  “2. Defendant has agreed to plead guilty to criminal conduct relating to certain matters alleged in the complaint in this action and acknowledges that his conduct violated the federal securities laws.  Specifically, Defendant has agreed to plead guilty to a one count information which charges him with committing securities fraud involving insider trading in the securities of Pharmasset, Inc. in a matter to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, (the “Criminal Action”).”

October 01, 2015 SEC Consent Orders Felony Insider Trading SPALLINA signed  September 16, 2015 and TESCHER signed June 15, 2014

September 28, 2015 SEC Press Release Regarding SPALLINA and TESCHER INSIDER TRADING CHARGES,  “SEC Charges Five With Insider Trading, Including Two Attorneys and an Accountant”

December 15, 2015 hearing under sworn oath as a witness in a Validity Hearing before Judge PHILLIPS, SPALLINA stated the following from the hearing transcript Page 93 Lines 14-22 Page 94 Lines19-21;
14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You can answer the question, which
15· · · · is, did you plead to a felony?
16· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· Sorry, sir.
17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I have not.
18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Next question.
20· · · · Q.· ·Have you pled guilty to a misdemeanor?
21· · · · A.· ·I have not. [emphasis added]
22· · · · Q.· ·Were you involved in a insider trading case?
23· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.
24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sustained.· Next question.
20· · · · Q.· ·Have you pled guilty to a misdemeanor?
21· · · · A.· ·I have not.

Further, in the SEC Consent signed by SPALLINA reads,
“12. Defendant understands and agrees to comply with the term of 17 C.P.R. f 202,S(e). which provides in part that it is the Commission's policy ''not to permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings." As part of Defendant's agreement to comply with the terms of Section 202.5(e), Defendant acknowledges that he has agreed to plead guilty for related conduct as described in paragraph 2 above, and: (i) will not take any action or make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis; (ii) will not make or permit to be made any public statement to the effect that Defendant does not admit the allegations of the complaint, or that this Consent contains no admission of the allegations; (iii) upon the filing of this Consent, Defendant hereby withdraws any papers filed in this action to the extent that they deny any allegation in the complaint; aud (iv) stipulates for purposes of exceptions to discharge sot forth in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.. §523. that the allegations in the complaint are true…”

September 28, 2015 SEC Government Complaint filed against TESCHER and SPALLINA @
SPALLINA further states under sworn testimony at the Validity Hearing regarding the trust documents he created being valid admits to fraudulently altering a Shirley Trust Document and sending to Attorney at Law Christine Yates, Esq. representing the minor children of Eliot via the mail, Page 95 Lines 14-25 and Page 96 Line 1-19,
14· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Spallina, have you been in discussion with
15· ·the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office regarding the
16· ·Bernstein matters?
17· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.
18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.
19· · · · · · ·You can answer that.
20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, I have.
22· · · · Q.· ·And did you state to them that you
23· ·fraudulently altered a Shirley trust document and then
24· ·sent it through the mail to Christine Yates?
25· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
·1· · · · Q.· ·Have you been charged with that by the Palm
·2· ·Beach County Sheriff yet?
·3· · · · A.· ·No, I have not.
·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· How many times were you interviewed by
·5· ·the Palm Beach County Sheriff?
·6· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.
·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sustained.
·9· · · · Q.· ·Did you mail a fraudulently signed document to
10· ·Christine Yates, the attorney for Eliot Bernstein's
11· ·minor children?
12· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.
13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.
14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
16· · · · Q.· ·And when did you acknowledge that to the
17· ·courts or anybody else?· When's the first time you came
18· ·about and acknowledged that you had committed a fraud?
19· · · · A.· ·I don't know that I did do that [emphasis added].

SPALLINA then perjures himself in self-contradiction when he tries to claim that his law firm did not mail Fraudulent documents to the court and commits here further FRAUD ON THE COURT when he then slips up and admits that his legal assistant and notary public Kimberly Moran, already prosecuted in these matters for fraudulent notarization and who has admitted forgery of six persons in these matters then sent the fraudulent documents back to the court when he states;

11· · · · Q.· ·And what was she convicted for?
12· · · · A.· ·She had notarized the waiver releases of
13· ·accounting that you and your siblings had previously
14· ·provided, and we filed those with the court.
15· · · · Q.· ·We filed those with the court.
16· · · · · · ·Your law firm submitted fraudulent documents
17· ·to the court?
18· · · · A.· ·No.· We filed -- we filed your original
19· ·documents with the court that were not notarized, and
20· ·the court had sent them back.
21· · · · Q.· ·And then what happened?
22· · · · A.· ·And then Kimberly forged the signatures and
23· ·notarized those signatures and sent them back.

That not only does SPALLINA admit to Felony criminal acts that have not yet been investigated but admits that his office members are also involved in proven Fraudulent Creation of a Shirley Trust and where MORAN has already admitted six counts of forgery for six separate parties (including for a deceased Simon and for Eliot) and fraudulent notarizations of such documents when Spallina states in the hearing Pages 102-103,
20· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· Sure.
22· · · · Q.· ·You've testified here about Kimberly Moran.
23· · · · · · ·Can you describe your relationship with her?
24· · · · A.· ·She's been our long-time assistant in the
25· ·office.
·1· · · · Q.· ·Was she convicted of felony fraudulent
·2· ·notarization in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein?
·3· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.
·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.
·5· · · · · · ·You're asking if she was convicted of a felony
·6· · · · with respect to the Estate of Shirley Bernstein?
·7· · · · · · ·You can answer the question.
·8· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· Correct.
·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe she was.

SPALLINA then claims that it is “standard operating procedure” for he and his clients to sign sworn Final Waivers under penalty of perjury with knowingly and irrefutably false statements and admitting that the April 09, 2012 Full Waiver (already referenced and linked herein) submitted to this Court by Spallina’s law firm in October of 2012 by Simon Bernstein, at a time after his death on September 13, 2012 and yet still acting as the Personal Representative, signed under penalty of perjury allegedly by Simon Bernstein and witnessed by Spallina, contained knowingly false statements .

Then SPALLINA had a deceased Simon file that alleged sworn document with the Court as Personal Representative on a date after his death as part of a Fraud on the Court and Fraud on the Beneficiaries and Interested Parties.  SPALLINA states in testimony as follows,

Pages 108-110
17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Are you aware of an April 9th full
18· ·waiver that was allegedly signed by Simon and you?
19· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· That was the waiver that he had signed.
20· ·And then in the May meeting, we discussed the five of
21· ·you, all the children, getting back the waivers of the
22· ·accountings.
23· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And in that April 9th full waiver you
24· ·used to close my mother's estate, does Simon state that
25· ·he has all the waivers from all of the parties?
·1· · · · A.· ·He does.· We sent out -- he signed that, and
·2· ·we sent out the waivers to all of you.
·3· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So on April 9th of 2012, Simon signed,
·4· ·with your presence, because your signature's on the
·5· ·document, a document stating he had all the waivers in
·6· ·his possession from all of his children.
·7· · · · · · ·Had you sent the waivers out yet as of
·8· ·April 9th?

21· · · · Q.· ·April 9th, 2012, you have a signed full waiver
22· ·of Simon's that says that he is in possession of all of
23· ·the signed waivers of all of the parties?
24· · · · A.· ·Standard operating procedure, to have him
25· ·sign, and then to send out the documents to the kids.
·1· · · · Q.· ·Was Simon in possession -- because it's a
·2· ·sworn statement of Simon saying, I have possession of
·3· ·these waivers of my children on today, April 9th,
·4· ·correct, the day you two signed that?
·5· · · · · · ·Okay.· So if you hadn't sent out the waivers
·6· ·yet to the --
·7· · · · A.· ·I'm not certain when the waivers were sent
·8· ·out.
·9· · · · Q.· ·Were they sent out after the --
10· · · · A.· ·I did not send them out.
11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· More importantly, when did you receive
12· ·those?· Was it before April 9th or on April 9th?
13· · · · A.· ·We didn't receive the first one until May.
14· ·And it was your waiver that we received.
15· · · · Q.· ·So how did you allow Simon, as his attorney,
16· ·to sign a sworn statement saying he had possession of
17· ·all of the waivers in April if you didn't get mine 'til
18· ·May?
19· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· I think it's relevance
20· · · · and cumulative.· He's already answered.
21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· What's the relevance?
22· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· Oh, this is very relevant.
23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· What is the relevance on the issue
24· · · · that I have to rule on today?
25· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· On the validity?· Well, it's
1· · · · relevant.· If any of these documents are relevant,
·2· · · · this is important if it's a fraud.
·3· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'll sustain the objection.
·4· · · · · · ·MR. BERNSTEIN:· Okay.· Can I -- okay.
·6· · · · Q.· ·When did you get -- did you get back prior to
·7· ·Simon's death all the waivers from all the children?
·8· · · · A.· ·No, we did not.
·9· · · · Q.· ·So in Simon's April 9th document where he
10· ·says, he, Simon, on April 9th has all the waivers from
11· ·his children while he's alive, and you didn't even get
12· ·one 'til after he passed from one of his children, how
13· ·could that be a true statement?
14· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.· Cumulative.
15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sustained.

Finally, SPALLINA also perjures himself under sworn oath at the hearing when testifying to the status of his Florida Bar license, which at this time he is listed as “Not Eligible to Practice Law in Florida” when he states in the December 15, 2015 hearing,

Page 91
·8· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Spallina, you were called today to provide
·9· ·some expert testimony, correct, on the --
10· · · · A.· ·No, I was not.
11· · · · Q.· ·Oh, okay.· You're just going based on your
12· ·doing the work as Simon Bernstein's attorney and Shirley
13· ·Bernstein's attorney?
14· · · · A.· ·Yes.
15· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Are you still an attorney today?
16· · · · A.· ·I am not practicing.
17· · · · Q.· ·Can you give us the circumstances regarding
18· ·that?
19· · · · A.· ·I withdrew from my firm.

Pages 120-121
20· · · · Q.· ·Did you -- are you a member of the Florida
21· ·Bar?
22· · · · A.· ·Yes, I am.
23· · · · Q.· ·Currently?
24· · · · A.· ·Yes, I am.
25· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· You said before you surrendered your
·1· ·license.
·2· · · · A.· ·I said I withdrew from my firm.· It wasn't
·3· ·that I was not practicing.

Spallina Bar Page!ut/p/a1/jc_LDoIwEAXQT-pthRaWo6mkRazxgdCNYUWaKLowfr_42LioOrtJzs3cYZ41zA_dLfTdNZyH7vjYvTxACM3dBrawxEHlOl3ZqgSEHEE7girnxJMMNktoDlOr2qgtF7RM_8sjMoRf-T3zn8RJNQO5BXKtp0AxeYNIRTj-HTx_eJ2Il7ycdg2C6e8_WXgh/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?mid=497381

That as for Ted being qualified as a fiduciary, the following passage from the December 15, 2015 hearing that Ted called for to prove the validity of the dispositive documents after his former counsel admitted criminal activities shows that Ted, who used this disgraced attorney Spallina as his star and only witness to validate the documents, did nothing to validate the documents himself as Trustee to protect the beneficiaries harmed by his former counsels actions, his friend and business associate when he states, under oath,

            Page 206-210
25· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Ted, you were made aware of Robert
1· ·Spallina's fraudulent alteration of a trust document of
·2· ·your mother's when?
·3· · · · A.· ·I believe that was in the early 2013 or '14.
·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when you found out, you were the
·5· ·fiduciary of Shirley's trust, allegedly?
·6· · · · A.· ·I'm not sure I understand the question.
·7· · · · Q.· ·When you found out that there was a fraudulent
·8· ·altercation [sic] of a trust document, were you the
·9· ·fiduciary in charge of Shirley's trust?
10· · · · A.· ·I was trustee, yes.· I am trustee, yes.
11· · · · Q.· ·And your attorneys, Tescher and Spallina, and
12· ·their law firm are the one who committed that fraud,
13· ·correct, who altered that document?
14· · · · A.· ·That's what's been admitted to by them,
15· ·correct.
16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you became aware that your counsel
17· ·that you retained as trustee had committed a fraud,
18· ·correct?
19· · · · A.· ·Correct.
20· · · · Q.· ·What did you do immediately after that?
21· · · · A.· ·The same day that I found out, I contacted
22· ·counsel.· I met with counsel on that very day.· I met
23· ·with counsel the next day.· I met with counsel the day
24· ·after that.
25· · · · Q.· ·Which counsel?
·1· · · · A.· ·Alan Rose.

P 209-210
25· · · · Q.· ·Have you seen the original will and trust of
·1· ·your mother's?
·2· · · · A.· ·Can you define original for me?
·3· · · · Q.· ·The original.
·4· · · · A.· ·The one that's filed in the court?
·5· · · · Q.· ·Original will or the trust.
·6· · · · A.· ·I've seen copies of the trusts.
·7· · · · Q.· ·Have you done anything to have any of the
·8· ·documents authenticated since learning that your
·9· ·attorneys had committed fraud in altering dispositive
10· ·documents that you were in custody of?
11· · · · · · ·MR. ROSE:· Objection.· Relevance.
12· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.
13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I have not.
15· · · · Q.· ·So you as the trustee have taken no steps to
16· ·validate these documents; is that correct?
17· · · · A.· ·Correct."