And oh yes, the “owner” of the church on the work permit for this job is listed as “Government”.
The attorney who did the financing deal, Mr. Gregory Moundas, worked for Proskauer Rose when he prepared the UCC agreement. (He was moved to Texas). Proskauer Rose is a lawfirm that some say own the United States court system. The lawyers certainly are the most powerful and politically connected in New York City, as the Chief Administrative Judge of New York State is Judith Kaye, and her husband Steven Rachow Kaye was a partner of Proskauer Rose. Michael Cardozo was a partner as well, before Michael Bloomberg appointed him the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. I thought it would be reasonable to believe that Judith Kaye knew what her husband's lawfirm was doing, which seemed to be financing real estate properties under the color of "church tax exemptions". Without realizing it, I walked head-on into the 'wrath of Kaye', a place in which anyone who wants justice in the court system of New York State never wants to be. Even though I am not an attorney, I have read the law and written hundreds of motions since March 31, 1998, when the Session of Madison Avenue voted me and my twin sister off of the membership roll of MAPC, the church that I had belonged to since 1961. I was voted out of my church (the only person who ever had this distinction) approximately 15 days after my mom’s death.
Dr. Fred Anderson, the Pastor, said at his deposition: "We planned to get rid of you as soon as your mother was dead or incapacitated, whichever came first". (2001)
When I was thrown out of the church and Associate Pastor Charles Amstein had obtained my mom's ashes, I was worried that he would not allow me to have them back to bury her, because I heard from people in the office at the church that he was "talking" with my mom, in ash form. On July 31, 1998, I called Mr. Amstein and told him I wanted my mom's ashes back, immediately, that day. At 6:30PM I heard that he would not give them back, and there was nothing I could do. I called him every day for the next week, and he finally returned the ashes to me on August 7, with a handwritten note on top of the box that he had "delayed" returning the ashes until he had heard from Jill. I did not find out until 2004 that it was attorney Mr. Kenneth Wasserman who told him to withhold the ashes from me. Mr. Wasserman was on the Ethics Committee of the NYC Bar Association from 2000-2003. In either May or June 1998 he entered my mother’s apartment and removed all the valuable documents and property – worth now almost $1 million.
Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Shafer made a ruling in December 2003 that all the actions of the defendants were without malice and "in the church's self-interest". She also made a non-party individual, Mr. Kenneth Wasserman, a Respondent, and forbade me from deposing him to find out why he told the church to withhold my mother's ashes from me. Shafer also recognized there was open discovery on the question of why the private school my daughters attended, Nightingale-Bamford, would reject the application of my third daughter, and why the admissions Director Carole Everett was suddenly moved to St. Croix.
On March 31, 2004, a trial on the withholding of my mother's ashes from me and on the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm started, in the courtroom of Judge Lottie E. Wilkins. The judge would not allow my witnesses to speak, but the jury found that the defendants were liable for withholding my mother's ashes, and were considering a damage award of $500,000, when Judge Wilkins told them, "You certainly dont understand this case" and declared a mistrial. She ordered me and my attorney back into her courtroom in 1 hour with a new jury.
The second trial actually began on May 10, 2004. Judge Wilkins would not allow any questions of the jury on whether or not any of the prospective jurors had any connection with an insurance company, (a violation of CPLR 4110) and then proceeded to deny testimony from any of my witnesses, a rebuttal of any of the testimony, and a recusal for prejudice, which my attorney asked for countless times. The jury deliberated for 20 minutes over lunch, and decided that the defendants were, once again, liable, but this time they were "justified".
I am a mom of four children, a church-goer, and a whistleblower of what I believe to be illegal actions being committed right now in New York City by the members of the Board of Trustees of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, in partnership with Guide One Insurance Company, their agent Mr. Kenneth Wasserman, and the law Firm of Michael E. Pressman. The President of the Board of Trustees in 2004-5 was David C. Johnson, CFO of Preservation Group, (135 E 57th St., New York, NY 10022-2050), (646) 521-8530 who praised Vincente Gigante for his investment ability. A few days after I sent an email to David asking him why Vincente Gigante "the Chin" was a hero on his company's website, the entire website disappeared.
A verdict that defendants from Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church (“MAPC”) were liable for withholding my mother’s ashes from me but were justified in doing so is not only repugnant, but unreasonable. What makes a withholding of a dead body from the next of kin “justified”? No evidence was presented in either of the trials in front of Lottie Wilkins. And, the defendants never pled “justification”. The justification defense was dreamed up after Judge Wilkins saw that the jury in the first trial wanted to give me money damages. The insurance company didn’t like this, and Judge Wilkins declared a mistrial and ordered me and my attorney back into her courtroom in one hour with a new jury!
CPLR 4110.04. Interest in Insurance Company
“CPLR 4110(a), which is identical in this respect to section 452 of the former Civil Practice Act, provides that in an action for personal injury or property damage, a juror who has any employment, management, or ownership interest in any liability insurance company may be challenged for cause. Under CPLR 4110(a), as with its predecessors, it is permissible to ‘inquire fully into all the facts bearing upon any interest which any prospective juror might have in any such insurance company.” Thus, counsel may ask about a juror’s interest in a specific casualty company. Moreover, the provision, like its predecessor, appears to be based upon the belief that jurors connected with liability insurance companies are likely to minimize the claims of plaintiffs. Accordingly, it clearly authorizes a challenge to a juror who has an interest in “any” liability insurance company, not just the one involved in the particular case.” (p. 41-183, with notes).
The following is from the trial transcript:
“THE COURT: All right, counsels. So that you can better understand my rulings, counsel, and so that you will know how better to proceed, the law only allows recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress for extreme and outrageous conduct.
Nothing you have set forth so far regarding the church’s harassing conduct and/or actions rise to that level and are thus not being considered.
By definition, the Court – and the law does consider interference with someone else’s ashes actionable. And as such I have carved out that section to proceed on.
In light of that ruling, I will consider anything that falls within that ambit from January 1998 until the time the ashes were returned….(TRIAL #1, p.32, lines 22-24) maybe I misunderstood. Is it true that the mother didn’t die until March of 1998?...(p.33, lines 1-9) Then I’ve revised my decision so that everything from –counsel, I was under the impression that the mother had died before 1998. That had been my impression. I am apologizing for that.
Now that I know the mother died in March 1998, anything from March ’98 till the time that the ashes were returned would be admissible except for the counseling or supporting the employees of the church”.
MR. LANDSMAN: “So, I don’t agree with the characterization of the issue about my client was helping employees of the church. It doesn’t matter what she was saying. The fact is she was retaliated against for helping people.
Without getting into the substance of what was happening, she was helping employees. Therefore, they retaliated against her. Very simple issue.
THE COURT: As to that, I’m not allowing testimony as to that area.” (p. 30).
“Trial #1 commencing March 30, 2004, from the transcript:
Judge Marilyn Shafer ordered, on 12/23/03, that:
“…plaintiff may not base her cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on any matter pertaining to her removal from the active roll of the Church, or on any claim of defamation…the rest of this action shall continue.”
Judge Shafer was not dismissing my claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, she was denying me any right to ask the court to decide whether or not the church was correct in throwing me off of the active membership roll, which I was not, indeed, requesting (this had been proven wrong already).
Therefore Court changed the claims made in this case from emotional distress after not getting the ashes, to not allowing any emotional distress at all. I was forbidden by the Judge from supporting my own case and from presenting any evidence to support my case.
Mr. Kenneth Wasserman called me the day after my mother's death and threatened me, saying "You're going to be sorry that she gave you the apartment", and "You better give your sister half". I asked him, "Who ARE you?" He told me then that he was my sister's attorney, but there were no lawsuits until he made one up in 2000. I found out in 2002 that he was paid to harass me by Guide One Insurance Company. Wasserman was made a "respondent" by Judge Shafer, and by the Appellate Division, First Department. On March 15, 2005, I saw a secret memo written by Mr. Wasserman in my file of this case. It was two pages long, and stated that "Ms. Combier only wants her membership back in the church, nothing else, and this case must be dismissed". I took a picture of the caption, and then asked Mr. Dan Ramos, a clerk of the Court, to copy it for me. He ripped the two pages up quickly, and threw the pieces into the garbage. He walked away, saying "You were not supposed to see that".
The questions “why did this matter go to trial so quickly?” and, ‘IF the Church Tribunal AND the Supreme Court both deny jurisdiction of this matter, who will take jurisdiction?’ are left unanswered. This is, I allege, proof that Justice Shafer did not want to deal with the fundamental issue in this case: the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm by a church, which in turn led to me being denied my First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which to me meant full membership with voting privileges and the right to hold office in the church of my choice. I claim that Judge Shafer, by her statements above and her ruling that the actions of the church to harass her were “not the product of malice, but a byproduct of actions that Church officials took, in aid of what they considered to be the Church’s self-interest,” made a fundamental and egregious error in deciding what should have been a jury deliberation and decision.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
