|
OPEN LETTER TO MARIANNE ESPINOSA
Formerly k/a
Marianne Espinosa-Murphy
with Notifications to Others
By: Dorothy
Mataras
Dear Ms.
Espinosa:
This is to
advise you that I listened to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
related to your judicial nomination interview.
The Public no
longer has the right to protest a nomination
Your comments
about me and your position as a defense attorney for four individual
attorneys from the Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
Olstein were not only misleading but several of your statements were
downright falsehoods. See
Grievances against Murphy [the Attorney],
Involving
Case Fixing.
I'm personally aware you didn’t adhere to court rules, rules of
evidence or rules of professional conduct in the Mataras v. Carella
Byrne et al case. I have a First Amendment right to let the public
know. I believe they also have the right to know how the committee
rules were deliberately altered to push through your nomination to the
bench. Upon information and belief, the rules require one week notice
so the public has an opportunity to express their views. In your case,
your interview was scheduled around 2 P.M. Friday afternoon,
June 24, 2005
for your
Monday June 27,
2005 interview. I can only surmise it’s par for the course for the
State of New Jersey – ignore the public as well as all rules.
Your
Characterization:
I Sued A Whole Bunch Of Lawyers???
Your comment to
the Senators about me suing a whole bunch of lawyers is misleading. I
was informed by my former attorney Robert B. Green as well as our
legal ethics expert, Michael P. Ambrosio, Professor of law, that the
NJ Rules require that everyone involved must be named. Please review
the Entire Controversy Doctrine and relevant court rules that still
exist although they were ignored in my malpractice lawsuit where you
were one of the defense attorneys.
Personally, I
still believe you had a serious conflict of interest in representing
four individual lawyers as well as the law firm itself since they each
had differing responsibilities. It isn’t my fault that the Carella
Byrne firm kept changing attorneys in the survival/wrongful death
action related to my husband’s untimely demise. It isn’t my fault they
neglected to name my son and me as ‘parties in interest.’ It isn’t my
fault that I wasn’t allowed in Judge Napolitano’s courtroom when the
settlement was put on the record in violation of related court rules.
It wasn’t my fault that your clients ignored my right to be informed
of the final settlement. At no time did you introduce any evidence
that two of your clients, Judith Heim or John Agnello, contacted Mr.
Green related to the settlement. I was never sent a copy of the
settlement order and never asked to sign any releases. If you deny
these statements, please supply me with documentation that so far has
not been introduced in any court or to any other official agency.
Where is any
mention anywhere on the official records that someone in the Carella
firm forged my endorsement on a final settlement check to hide the
truth of the settlement from me? It took a lot of persistence on my
part to obtain a copy of this check and was totally shocked to see the
forgery. See Exhibit 1. I sort of
expected to see an attorney’s signature or initials, anything but not
a forgery. If they had followed the rules, they would have sent the
check to me to sign together with notification of the final settlement
and a financial statement. Where is my notification Ms. Espinosa? You
never included one in any of your court filings.
The Settlement
of the survival/wrongful death action:
Where was Mr.
Green the two days of settlement negotiations? He filed affidavits as
to his whereabouts backed up by an affidavit from another attorney he
was working with at the time. He swore he wasn’t aware of the final
settlement and stated that no one from the Carella firm called him. I
know he wasn’t involved because I was in the court house with my son
and your client, Judith Heim of the Carella firm -- our only attorney
of record at that time. The judge, Andrew Napolitano, kept the entire
family out of his courtroom contrary to the rules related to
settlements that are put on the record. My minor son was also in the
courthouse and he knows Green wasn’t there. How much evidence is
required to overcome Heim’s false certification and your total
reliance upon it? Doesn’t ‘candor to the court’ mean anything? Why
aren’t both sides of a dispute allowed to be heard in New Jersey? Why
are certified documents suddenly missing from the court's files as if
they never existed?
See the
copy of the 3
page transcript of the settlement
Exhibit 2
and its subsequent Order as
Exhibit 3.
Can you read who was involved? Where is my name or Green’s name? You
were fully aware that neither of us knew about the real settlement
until 10 months after the fact and we had to learn about it from an
adversary defense attorney. You were fully aware that Napolitano took
over the malpractice case although he was a witness to the underlying
death action because he was the judge that kept the family out of the
courtroom. There’s no question you preferred to believe Judith Heim’s
false certification despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
I believe that’s why you went after Green with your extortionate
demands for his recusal. In my opinion, your phony shock when he would
not capitulate to what amounted to blackmail is just that, phony. At
my request, he sued you in a fourth party complaint with the
appropriate summons, something you didn’t bother doing when you sued
him as a third party defendant. You ignored the court rules in that
instance too. You never served me; the plaintiff thus avoided the
summons and my ability to respond. As I recall, didn’t you do the same
thing in another case?
Green’s
involvement as a conduit:
You informed
the Senate Committee Green was a conduit, which is nothing more than a
‘conveyor of information.’ Yes, in May 1991 I asked Green to go with
me to talk to the Carella attorneys because they wouldn’t respond to
me or give me any information and I was moving out of state.
Unfortunately, they did the same thing to him so nothing was ever
resolved. One of your clients, Judith Heim, told him to leave her
alone and he complied. She also told me to leave her alone and I
complied until she wanted my son and me to meet her in the courthouse
for an alleged trial. She called the conduit, Green, to tell him to
call me to inform me a trial was scheduled and both my son and I were
expected to be there. She could have sent me a letter to avoid
speaking to me. In the end, it became a two day settlement conference
with the entire family kept outside of the courtroom.
After the
settlement was put on the record without my knowledge, I received
letters from Heim and Agnello. See Exhibit 4
from Heim and Exhibit 5 from Agnello.
Funny isn’t it? Why didn’t they write to my conduit? If he was my
attorney, why didn’t they write to him or at least copy him?
Napolitano in the end claimed Green was my attorney at settlement. So,
which is it, was he nothing more than a ‘conduit’ or was he on the
record at the settlement? Do you contend the settlement court
transcript and subsequent order are forgeries?
All documented
exhibits were on file in the malpractice case while Napolitano reigned
over it in addition to numerous other documents that implicated him.
Especially appropriate is Napolitano’s fax to me ordering me to sign
Green’s name. Was I right to refuse or do you think that’s okay for a
judge to demand?
Wrongful
Death/Survival Action:
Another
question: Why did your clients send money to S. George Greenspan, the
attorney who was supposed to be handling all matters related to me in
the Estate? Why didn’t they send a payment to Green, Ms. Espinosa? The
law required that they pay all attorney fees out of the settlement
money. There might be a case against not paying a ‘conduit’ but then
you would have had a problem related to suing him.
Why did you
tell the Judiciary Committee that Green was at all the hearings when
you knew he was not? Why isn’t he at the oral hearing as shown by the
March 31, 1995 Order exhibited here as
Exhibit 6?
Why wasn’t I notified there would be an oral hearing? It was your law
firm that prepared the order even though you didn’t believe in mailing
copies in a timely fashion. Why didn’t I receive a copy of the Order
pursuant to the 5 day rule so I could file an objection?
Where’s That
Summary Judgment Order Ms. Espinosa?
You informed
the Senate Judiciary Committee that you received a summary judgment
order against me. To date, you have never sent me a copy of the
alleged summary judgment order conforming to the rules of court,
specifically R. 4:42-1. Form; Settlement. According to
court records it was granted on March 24, 1995 but it was never filed
and I never received a copy. According to the appellate court there is
also a transcript I was never allowed to see specifically reciting the
rubric required when any judge grants summary judgment. The appellate
court opined that: “the trial court properly granted summary
judgment dismissing plaintiff's third amended complaint because
plaintiff's competent evidence submitted did not raise a genuine issue
as to a material fact.” Where is that transcript? Where is any
mention that Napolitano refused to allow discovery?
Another Missing
Signed Order!
Where is
Napolitano’s signed order denying my motion for his recusal? I
followed the court rules and submitted certifications related to his
involvement in the underlying case, how he continually kept me out of
his courtroom, refused to allow me to attend hearings, threatened me
on the phone, ordered me to sign Mr. Green’s name on a document he
sent me via fax. You filed a response to my motion for Napolitano’s
recusal. You see Ms. Espinosa; people like me believe they’re supposed
to follow the rules and the law while others in position of power have
no such limitations. People like me also believe the NJ Statutes are
to be followed; not consistently ignored. Yes, I may have made some
mistakes, but nothing of a critical nature, while you ignored most of
the rules and laws.
Jurisdiction:
Since the
appellate court didn’t seem to require a signed order related to
Napolitano’s recusal one wonders what the rules mean that they can
only rule on signed orders. It is still my opinion that Napolitano did
not have legitimate jurisdiction. One has to wonder how the appellate
court could have had jurisdiction over Orders that I could never
appeal because I didn’t have them. If Napolitano followed the court
rules, he was supposed to decide the recusal motion and sign an
appropriate appealable order together with an explanation for his
denial. Do you have a copy of such a signed Order? I’d love to see it.
The Estate:
All my
extensive efforts to locate the appropriate court documents related to
your false statements remain unaccounted, including my husband’s
estate filings that actually didn’t concern you. Once again, I had no
choice over who to sue because of New Jersey’s rules. My original
attorney, S. George Greenspan was involved in the estate and also in
the death action; he became the tie that forced me into the State
court instead of going after your clients in Federal Court. I would
have definitely preferred the Federal courts.
You couldn’t
resist mentioning the estate to the Committee as if the estate was
done in a legitimate manner. You seemed to believe there were three
executors – there was only one. But then you might have to explain how
the Carella firm eventually represented my three step-sons to my
detriment after I discovered their cover-up of the settlement.
Retainer
Agreement:
Your clients
insisted I had to sign the retainer agreement individually and as
custodian of my minor son. The only executor of the estate, my eldest
step-son also signed but only individually. See Exhibit #7 (coming). My
other two step-sons did not have to sign anything. Speaking of
agreements, I never agreed to Green representing me in the death
action and there was never a signed substitution of attorney. How do
you explain this Ms. Espinosa? Do you have any signed releases from
me? If not, why not?
Missing Court
Documents in Three Cases:
See
Exhibit #8
for a
listing of court documents that remain concealed from me. I’ve sent
the list to various authorities including the NJ Supreme Court but all
requests are ignored. Unfortunately, the Senate didn’t include the
courts in OPRA. My goodness, my son and I have even been accused of
filing all sorts of lawsuits and appeals that simply never happened,
at least not to my knowledge. My son was NEVER a litigant in the state
of New Jersey but has orders against him, how did that happen Ms.
Espinosa? Why were you including him? When did you file a motion to
bring my minor son into the case as a plaintiff or defendant? The
court records show he’s both a plaintiff and a defendant without
explanation.
Your Ex-Parte
hearings with Judge Napolitano:
Really, Ms.
Espinosa, how could you tell such bald faced lies that Mr. Green was
at all the hearings? He WAS NOT and NEITHER WAS I.
The Court
records confirm that there was a non-scheduled hearing related to your
proposed Order and my attorney’s motion to amend the Fourth Party
Complaint against you. Judge Ciolino postponed the hearing. Without
notice to all litigants Napolitano took it over. He signed the order
dismissing my attorney prior to the five day rule on August 5, 1994.
On the same day, without any notice to Green or me, he dismissed the
motion to Amend the Fourth Party Complaint. Obviously, Green corrected
the original Fourth Party Complaint to conform to the law you wanted.
Now if there was a legitimate open hearing maybe the truth would have
prevailed but we’ll never know because of the manner in which the case
was fixed to benefit you and your clients.
Ms. Espinosa, I
believe you were threatening Mr. Green to have him thrown off the case
based on Heim’s statement that he was at the settlement. In my
opinion, it was not only a fraud, it was a form of blackmail and most
definitely unethical. Why shouldn’t Mr. Green’s sworn statement hold
as much weight as your client? What about my sworn statement and the
affidavit of yet another attorney that had nothing to do with the
case. You had nothing but Heim’s statement while we had the weight of
evidence on our side. Something that didn’t sit well with you, your
clients and Napolitano. Ironically, at the open hearing on July 29,
1994 Napolitano admitted on the record that Green was not at the
settlement. The reason he gave for dismissing him was that you wanted
to ‘impeach me’ through him. Isn’t that what the transcript states Ms.
Espinosa?
So how in the
world at your last ex parte hearing with Napolitano (allegedly March
30, 1995) did he conclude that Green was at the settlement? This is
what happens when attorneys and judges violate the laws and rules to
fix a case. It can’t be explained except to perpetuate more and more
falsehoods and in the end they start contradicting each other. One
doesn’t have to worry about trying to cover up one lie with another
when the truth is on their side. The order proving neither Green nor I
were at the open hearing is
Exhibit 6
herein.
An Appellate
Court Contradiction involving you:
“Further,
although no formal application had been made, the trial court granted
Carella Byrne's oral application for attorney's fees as a sanction
against plaintiff for filing frivolous pleadings.”
Now you should
know the rules and law Ms. Espinosa. You were required to file a
separate motion with certifications and I was supposed to be allowed
to respond and entitled to an open hearing. No such Motion was filed;
yet you received a signed Order against me for filing what Napolitano
claimed was a frivolous complaint. Where’s the Show Cause Order Ms.
Espinosa? How can I respond when you go to the judge behind my back?
The appellate
court has a different take when it came to Mr. Drasco’s cross-appeal
on behalf of my step-sons (one executor & 2 in the same position as my
son and me) the court took a different stance and actually cited
existing law. They opined: “pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(c),
a formal application had to be made, after which plaintiff would be
entitled to a hearing. See McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel &
Casino, 132 N.J. 546, 559, 626 A.2d 425 (1993) (citing
Fagas v. Scott, 251 N.J. Super. 169, 221, 597 A.2d 571 (Law
Div. 1991)). Why are you treated differently Ms. Espinosa? You’re
exonerated for not filing a formal application but it’s a different
story for another set of defendants.
Although it
didn’t involve you, the appellate court had another serious
contradiction. I remind you that the attorney that handled my
husband’s estate admitted he never contacted me, never sent me a copy
of the will, and admitted he never did an accounting. He asked
Napolitano for permission to do an accounting and I was all for it.
Yet, Napolitano ignored all the laws and rules related to estate
accountings. Then we have the appellate court who seemed to want it to
appear there was an accounting, but in order to create that illusion
they made contradicting statements: (a) “plaintiff received the
full amount of all probate and estate monies properly due and owing to
her;” (b) “plaintiff did not receive any of the assets from
decedent's estate,” and (c) *** she received more than she was
entitled to as a matter of law.” These statements literally defy
logic and common sense.
When you are again a Judge Ms. Espinosa:
When you are a
judge are you also going to help certain litigants fix cases? A person
has to live through the experience to comprehend how it all works.
It’s rather simple, certain lawyers and judges just ignore the rules
and laws and do whatever you choose including holding hearings without
notice to the plaintiff. The public should be made aware of these
types of cases so they don’t have any illusions that the New Jersey
Judiciary adheres to the ‘rule of law’ and gives all persons due
process.
| 
