While this case has been floating around for awhile and it involves Ms. Solo and her prosecuting/persecuting a certain Mr. Schwartz for $217,000 in promissory notes, I thought many of you might enjoy this particular scenario. The GAL has been after Mr. Schwartz to return some $217,000 to the estate of one of his parents. Unfortunately for Ms. Solo it appears that these “notes” are not in writing, no one can find them and her main witness cannot recall if the notes were written or not.
Of course, financial documents must be in writing. There are no oral promissory notes, no oral credit agreements per statute in Illinois, and agreements in excess of $500 that are not in writing in general violate the Illinois Statute of Frauds.
For some reason, Ms. Solo knows all this and knows the testimony, but will not stop the prosecution. Of course we know she gets paid out of the estate and many, many GAL’s churn the bill on frivilous fights and claims to line their own pockets. So just see what you think about the below.
I asked KDD about why the imaginary promissory notes (I thought it was just standard GAL/Solo bill churning) and this is what he said. Apparently the estate probated in Illinois was only $30,000, but Ms. Solo submitted a $5,000 bill–which a court would not stand for in such a small estate. BUT if there were also $217,000 in promissory notes, then a $5,000 fee would seen quite appropriate and a false judgment against some innocent relative out there. She could then claim, but look, your honor, we recovered $217,000 in promissory notes (even though there are no evidence of them anywhere after dilligent search) and then judge would then approve a $5,000 GAL fee. Now I get it.
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Apr 3, 2013 11:10 AM
To: Miriam Solo
Subject: Re: Your letter
I trust that you are aware that Mr. Schwartz is my client. I trust that you also aware that Mr. Schwartz has an attorney in Florida. I also trust that I have a right to share your communication as you a stranger to me and when you make an admission that suggests a serious scenario has occurred I have a right to consult with others to ascertain 1) the veracity of your statement and advice as to whether or not statement is serious enough to require further action.
Let me be much more specific. Your client, Susan Harris, in her testimony stated that the document (that you previously refused to furnish me prior to the hearing) was part of a will that she observed. You are correct that she did not say that the will was executed or was not executed. To be the will of Mr. Ronald Schwartz it had to be executed or it was a meaningless piece of paper. Thus, you by your statement have indicated that a document prepared by unknown persons was represented by your client with your full knowledge and consent to be evidence that Mr. Schwartz had done something work.
Let me be very blunt. This evidence that was presented to the Court was in my opinion per se fraudulent. Demand is made at this point in time for the production of the entire will and all the alleged attachments that Ms. Susan Harris was referring to in relation to your exhibit 2.
The information that you furnished us this morning in your e-mail clearly meets the criterion 735 ILCS 5/2 1401 as newly discovered evidence. Mr. B and Mr. Schwartz will have to make a decision if we file a 1401 petition based upon what appears to a ‘fraud on the Court.’ Thus, in addition to multiple versions of exhibit 3 (affidavit of Schwartz) my client’s rights were seriously affected by what appears to be ‘doctoring’ of documents.
Just so that there is no mistake. This revelation that you made today is not something that can or is going to be taken likely. I do not get any joy in writing these e-mails. I am certain that Ms. Harris and Mr. Schwartz would like to get on with their lives. This matter can be re-mediated in a very simple manner – join with me in a motion to vacate the citation and dismiss it with prejudice. Transfer 100% of the assets of the Ronald Schwartz estate to the Administrator of the Christa Schwartz Estate and close the Ronald Schwartz estate.
From: Miriam Solo <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Your letter
Miriam SoloThis communication (including accompanying documents) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq. and is intended for the above addressee only. The information contained herein may contain confidential attorney/client and/or work product matter and is to remain confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication and/or any accompanying documents is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please contact me immediately at 773-478-2615 or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org, and delete this communication and all accompanying documents. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: kenneth ditkowsky <email@example.com>
; JoAnne Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 8:19 am
Subject: Re: Your letter
Bob and Steve,
Enclosed please find the response that I received today from Ms Solo.
Apparently Ms. Solo is denying in her e-mail that she told the Administrator that there was no appeal filed. In any case – here is her acknowledgement that an appeal is pending. I wonder if Ms. Solo will acknowledge that she made the following statement as to what the citation was all about, to wit:
“The matter before the court is a Citation to Recover Ronald Schwartz’s personal property unlawfully taken by his son Respondent Steve Schwartz prior to his demise, and now belonging to the Estate of Ronald Schwartz. Specifically Steven Schwartz stole from the decedent promissory notes payable to the decedent Ronald Schwartz in the amount of $217,000.00.”
and in support of the Citation to Recover her client testified:
“Q. Do you know if these promissory notes were in writing? ***
A. I don’t know for sure.” (Transcript of Proceedings Page 86)
by way of status – as soon as the record is ready, we will fill in the record citations and the appellant’s brief will be ready to file.
I note the last thought that Ms.Solo has in the e-mail. I guess that refers to the will that Ms.Harris testified concerning. Ms. Solo now claims that the will was not executed. That scenario makes matters even worse! Not only is exhibit 3 part of a document, but, it may not have been written by the decedent. thus, we have oral promissory notes and worse!
1. I have made no representations to the Broward County Court.
2. I have spoken with the Administrator of Christa Schwartz’s Estate.
3. I have told her that you did not request a “Stay Pending Appeal” and hence the judgment against your client is totally, irrevocably enforceable. If you believed there is an automatic stay pending appeal, you are incorrect. I believe the time has passed for you to request a stay and furthermore I do not believe your client would have been able post the required cash bond to support the request for Stay.
4. Please re-read the transcript you sent. Ms. Harris did not state that she saw an “executed” will, nor did you ask her if she did.
Miriam SoloThis communication (including accompanying documents) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq. and is intended for the above addressee only. The information contained herein may contain confidential attorney/client and/or work product matter and is to remain confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication and/or any accompanying documents is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please contact me immediately at 773-478-2615 or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org
, and delete this communication and all accompanying documents. Thank you for your cooperation.