Installation #5
emani Pamela taylor has stolen money from Judge Phillip’s estate and disbursed it among her mother, daughter Charisse Howell, and son Daniel Howell. Jarris Howell only got a crumb while the other two needed more. Charisse got a house from Judge Phillip’s that was taken away and if it were not for the brownstone Emani continues living in today with your possessions, what little of your possession she has left would not be here today.
Emani has upset many houngans who use white magic with her careless mistakes. For example, emani forgot to mention that you were not the only person who belonged to those items in the truck and when they impounded the car someone else accused her of stealing only she did not only steal the truck she stole the license plate number and the guitar and the phone that you took off of the charger when you returned home from longon this time around there is no mistaken who died and who is alive today to write about that. Careless actions on emani’s part make many powerful houngans care less about her ill gotten fortune and more about where she will live in the next two years when you take the time to write where, when, this happens to be living in you are only given one gift to write and think about helping yourself only no one else okay don’t even give one cent to anyone other than you be selfish
Emani is no longer welcome in the house of Baron Samedi by his wife alone who has influence over the ill-gotten fortune. Black chickens are sacrificed to the wife of Baron Samedi. It is not of consequence to anyone other than you Emani who are there to be. When the bones of the fossil breaks her back to create a living sacrifice it only lets us know who is really the zombie and who is really the one living in another world where there are no bones yet this time around we see how easily this is the subject of discussion on the internet with no retaliation. There is something to be said about that and what is done is done and what is not done is not done and she has no time to second guess so she just wants to forged straight ahead and hammer away at the amount of ill-gotten funds used to pay the bokor who refuses to forge at this time, not saying four years isn’t enough saying forteen is way to young to yes that did occur and that did happen before but what about today three to ten is a different element never before considered and only leads emani back to zero no title of authority very little money and finished. Did you understand my language? That had to come out really slow to ensure that you did hear us.
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Richard T. Andrias, Justice Presiding,
Eugene Nardelli
Luis A. Gonzalez
John W. Sweeny, Jr.
Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices.
---------------------------------------x
In the Matter of Emani P. Taylor
(admitted as Emani Pamela Taylor),
an attorney and counselor-at-law:
Departmental Disciplinary Committee M-5482
for the First Judicial Department,
Petitioner,
Emani P. Taylor,
Respondent.
---------------------------------------x
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental
Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.
Respondent, Emani P. Taylor, was admitted to the Bar of the State
of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court for the Fourth Judicial Department on July 17, 1997.
Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental
Disciplinary Committee, New York
(Andral N. Bratton, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
2
M-5482 — November 5, 2007
IN THE MATTER OF EMANI P. TAYLOR, AN ATTORNEY
Per Curiam
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State
of New York by the Fourth Judicial Department on July 17, 1997,
under the name Emani Pamela Taylor. At the times relevant to
this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice
of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order
pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i) and (iii) immediately
suspending respondent from the practice of law based upon her
willful failure to cooperate with the Committee in its
investigation of allegations of professional misconduct and other
uncontested evidence of misconduct which immediately threatens
the public interest.
In October 2006, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee was
notified by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh
Districts that Justice Michael L. Pesce had issued an order to
show cause in the Matter of John Phillips, an Incapacitated
Person (Supreme Court, Kings County, Index No. 108298/00)
regarding respondent’s role as former guardian of John Phillips,
a retired Brooklyn judge. Respondent served as Mr. Phillips’s
guardian from September 2003 to September 2006 and was permitted
to resign as guardian pending a proceeding that sought, among
3
other things, to remove her as guardian. James Cahill, Esq., was
appointed successor guardian and within days brought the
aforementioned order to show cause alleging, among other things,
that respondent had failed to account for significant assets
belonging to the guardianship and that she had written numerous
checks to herself from the guardianship account without leave or
authority from the court.
On October 6, 2006, the Kings County District Attorney’s
Office opened an investigation into whether respondent had
stolen, embezzled or improperly obtained money from the assets of
Mr. Phillips (he owned property worth several million dollars).
On October 30, 2006, Justice Pesce granted the District
Attorney’s request to share with the Committee documents and
records it had obtained in relation to its grand jury
investigation. During November 2006, the Committee had several
conversations with the prosecutor’s office and the successor
guardian and received complete copies of the guardianship bank
account records for September 2003 to October 2006, as well as
copies of bank records for respondent’s IOLA account. The
guardian, Mr. Cahill, also provided pleadings in the civil
proceeding and advised the Committee that the identical issues
were pending before Justice Pesce.
On November 28, 2006, the Kings County District Attorney’s
Office notified the Committee that although the evidence did not
4
demonstrate that respondent committed a crime, “she may well have
violated rules governing an attorney’s conduct” and, therefore,
referred the matter to the Committee to take whatever action was
necessary.
Although the Disciplinary Committee often closes
disciplinary files pending the completion of civil litigation,
here, in light of the seriousness of the allegations against
respondent, it decided to keep the file open notwithstanding the
civil case pending before Justice Pesce. From December 2006 to
May 2007, the Committee, through contact with the successor
guardian, monitored the progress of the Kings County civil
proceeding.
By May 2007, Mr. Cahill advised the Committee that the civil
proceeding was not proceeding apace. Therefore, the Committee
wrote respondent on May 22, 2007, requesting her to specifically
address allegations of her wrongful taking of funds from the
guardianship account and “the fate of the $696,000 from the sale
of the 132-136-140 Herkimer Street Property.” The Committee
enclosed with its letter all prior bank statements and pleadings
it had received and asked respondent to answer by June 30, 2007.
Respondent failed to respond to the Committee’s letter. When the
Deputy Chief Counsel to the Committee returned from a medical
leave, he wrote to respondent on August 9, 2007 and, noting her
failure to cooperate, requested her to fully comply with the
5
Committee’s May 22 letter by August 24, 2007, or else she would
face a motion seeking her interim suspension.
On or about August 28, 2007, respondent sent the Committee a
copy of her “reply to the objections to the Final Accounting” she
had submitted in the civil matter on August 4, 2007. That
submission, however, was non-responsive to the specific questions
posed by the Committee in its previous correspondence. For
example, on the issue of her wrongful taking of fees, respondent
referred to a March 25, 2004 order which she “drafted and
followed”; however, that order directed the sale of the
aforementioned Herkimer Street property and did not address or
authorize her to release any funds from the guardianship account
for attorneys fees or expenses.
Following receipt of respondent’s submission, the Committee
learned that, on June 1, 2007, Justice Pesce appointed Seth E.
Coen, Esq., to prepare and submit a final accounting for the
period during which respondent served as guardian -- September
2003 to September 2006. In his affirmation attached to a motion
for judicial settlement of final account dated June 20, 2007, Mr.
Coen detailed respondent’s misconduct, mistakes and neglect. He
began by stating, “[d]ue to the combination of incomplete
records, poor recordkeeping and the lack of cooperation from the
former Interim Guardian of the Property, Emani P. Taylor, the
Final Account as submitted represents a reconstruction to the
Mr. Coen’s final account also reveals that four family
1
members of respondent were paid money from the guardianship
account allegedly for services provided. For example,
respondent’s mother was paid as a self-styled “nurse in charge”
of Mr. Phillips. The final account also indicates possible
missing pension deposits and establishes that for the three years
that respondent was guardian, no tax returns were filed, to the
financial detriment to Mr. Phillips’s estate.
6
best of my ability from the proofs and records available to the
preparer.” Most relevant to the Committee’s present motion is
Schedule G attached to Mr. Coen’s motion, which was prepared at
the court’s direction and shows that respondent, without court
order, helped herself to $327,491.23 in the guardianship account
from October 24, 2003 to August 8, 2006. Of that amount, more
than $200,000 was in the form of checks written to herself as
“retainer” or “legal fees,” more than $69,000 was issued either
to herself or to “cash” with references to expenses, and more
than $57,000 were withdrawals made without the use of checks.
The Committee contends that on its face, respondent’s activities
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (7), and DR 9-102(A), (B)(2) and
(E). Attached as Exhibit H to the Committee’s present motion is
1
a copy of respondent’s August 10, 2007 “Affirmation of Legal
Services” she filed with Justice Pesce wherein she requested a
total of $853,100 in legal fees. Nowhere in this affirmation did
she advise the court that she had already withdrawn from the
guardianship account for her own use more than $327,000.
Accordingly, by certified letter dated September 12, 2007,
7
the Committee confronted respondent with Mr. Coen’s final
account, her August 10, 2007 Affirmation of Legal Services, and
the fact that her previous submission was non-responsive to the
Committee’s previous questions and gave her --
a final opportunity to address the clear
allegations that 1) You converted to your own
use without authority $327,491.23 of funds
belonging to the Guardianship and 2) You
failed to advise the Court in your August 10,
2007 Affirmation of Legal Services that you
had already withdrawn the above amount for,
among [other] things, purported “legal fees.”
I advise that your failure to furnish a full,
satisfactory response to these issues by
October 1, 2007 will result in this office’s
filing a motion, pursuant to 22 NYCRR
603.4(e)[1](i) and (iii) for your
immediate[,] indefinite suspension from the
practice of law based both upon your lack of
cooperation and uncontested evidence of
misconduct.
The Committee now seeks respondent’s immediate suspension
from the practice of law based upon her pattern of non-
cooperation and uncontested evidence of her serious professional
misconduct that threatens the public interest. The Committee
contends that respondent’s unresponsiveness to specific inquiries
regarding her alleged wrongful taking of funds can only be
interpreted as a deliberate and willful attempt to impede the
Committee’s investigation (Matter of Spiegler, 33 AD3d 187
[2006]). Furthermore, the Committee maintains that respondent’s
uncontradicted conversion of guardianship funds without court
authority and her failure to advise the court of her previous
8
taking of “legal fees” constitutes uncontested evidence of
professional misconduct warranting her immediate suspension
pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(iii), regardless of the fact
that a civil proceeding is still pending (Matter of Tannenbaum,
16 AD3d 66 [2005][attorney who took estate money for “fees” was
immediately suspended]; Matter of Pape, 10 AD3d 40 [2004]).
In her affirmation, dated October 29, 2007, in opposition to
the Committee’s motion, respondent, who is appearing pro se,
denies converting guardianship funds to her own use. Rather, she
claims that: 1) she reasonably relied upon the March 25, 2004
order signed by Justice Pesce (and drafted by respondent) as full
authorization to withdraw funds from the guardianship account in
unspecified amounts for legal fees; 2) she disputes Mr. Coen’s
finding that she depleted the sum of more than $327,000 from the
guardianship account; 3) she claims the Kings County court was
already on “judicial notice” that she had withdrawn funds for
legal fees, therefore she did not have to mention it in her
subsequent affirmation for legal services; and 4) the issue of
reasonableness of her actions is already before Justice Pesce and
therefore this Court should not take any action.
Respondent claims that she believed she had authorization to
pay herself and other “workers” guardianship funds because at a
court conference on February 11, 2004, Justice Pesce told her to
draft an order about the sale of real property and “provide for
9
some payment of fees.” She then points to the March 25, 2004
order she drafted entitled “Order Directing Sale By Publication
and For Attorney Fees.” However, a reading of that order shows
that Justice Pesce gave permission for the sale of the Herkimer
Street property and directed respondent to:
provide to this Court an accounting of the
disperse [sic] of funds which shall include
but not limit the execution [of] all
documents necessary in connection with the
renovation, of the garden floor, parlor
floor, roof and basement of the Incapacitated
Person’s home... and the compensation to
appropriate health care professionals for the
personal companion as well as for the private
24 hour private care and housing for the
Incapacitated Person (emphasis added).
Although not one word of the order addresses the issue of
attorney’s fees, respondent avers that it was her “interpretation
that this Order permitted Respondent to include herself in the
laundry list of persons and authority ‘which includes but not
limits’” the people to be paid. However, any interpretation that
the court order gave respondent unfettered permission to withdraw
guardianship funds strains credulity.
Next, although respondent disputes Mr. Coen’s finding that
she depleted the sum of more than $327,000 from the guardianship
account she provides this Court with no alternative figure.
Indeed, the Committee points out, in reply, that when it wrote
respondent on May 22, 2007, it enclosed complete copies of her
bank records pertaining to this matter and asked her for an
10
explanation “for all checks written by (you) to (yourself) on
both the Guardianship and IOLA account.” Yet, respondent has
never given an explanation nor has she even attempted to address
this issue in her current opposition papers. Likewise,
respondent’s assertion that the court was on “judicial notice” of
funds she had taken which were then in dispute and, therefore,
she did not have to advise the court again in her application for
legal services is very disturbing. Indeed, the fact that such
funds were taken from the guardianship account by respondent was
first brought to the court’s attention by the successor guardian
and Mr. Coen, not by respondent. Respondent cannot simply file
an application for attorney’s fees, after the fact, without first
advising the court of the amount she had already awarded herself.
Respondent also contends that this Court should take no
action since the issue of her “reasonableness” is already before
Justice Pesce. The Committee has already explained that where,
as here, misconduct is clear and is an immediate threat to the
public, the Committee will seek an interim suspension despite
ongoing civil litigation. Furthermore, the Committee notes that
respondent has not cooperated with the Committee’s investigation
(although she claims she has by forwarding a copy of her reply to
Mr. Coen’s final accounting) and it is uncertain when the Kings
County proceeding will be resolved.
Respondent states that a trial was scheduled for October 30,
11
2007 and she is suspicious of the timing of the instant motion.
She complains further that the information sought by the
Committee is duplicative of the information sought by the
successor guardian Mr. Cahill, and it appears that the Committee
has been “spoon-fed” documents by Mr. Cahill. She also states
that she requested but was denied a chance to meet with Mr. Coen,
rather, she was asked to answer 33 questions that were sent by
mail. Thus, she claims, his final accounting is inaccurate.
Finally, respondent asserts that she does not pose a danger to
the public and presently does not hold any client funds for any
pending matter.
An attorney who is the subject of an investigation by the
Disciplinary Committee of professional misconduct may be
suspended from the practice of law, pending consideration of
charges against the attorney, upon a finding that the attorney is
guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the
public interest. Such a finding shall be based upon the
attorney's failure to comply with any lawful demand of this Court
or the Departmental Disciplinary Committee made in connection
with any investigation or other uncontested evidence of
professional misconduct (22 NYCRR 603.4[e][1][i] and [iii]).
Although respondent claims she has cooperated with the
Committee’s investigation, she has not. Respondent did not
answer the Committee’s May 22, 2007 letter which asked her to
12
explain her withdrawal of funds from the guardianship account
even though she was provided with all of the pertinent bank
documents she needed to answer those questions. Nor did she
respond to a follow-up letter. The only document she did provide
was non-responsive insofar as it was her reply to the objections
in the final accounting in the Kings County matter.
In addition, the final accounting by Mr. Coen (although
based upon “incomplete records [and] poor recordkeeping”)
provides uncontested evidence that respondent has committed
misconduct that threatens the public interest (Matter of Goldman,
7 AD3d 18 [2004]; Matter of Adelman, 263 AD2d 160 [1999]. At a
minimum, respondent withdrew funds from the guardianship account
as legal fees without court permission, at worst, she
intentionally converted guardianship funds. While respondent was
entitled to be compensated for the work she performed for three
years, self-help to guardianship funds is not the way to proceed.
Moreover, the final accounting raises several other questions
regarding respondent’s tenure as guardian including why several
of her relatives were compensated for “services” they allegedly
provided, where did the escrow deposit from the sale of estate
property go, whether pension and/or Social Security monies are
missing from the guardianship estate, and why respondent failed
to file tax returns for the estate.
Accordingly, inasmuch as respondent has failed to
13
meaningfully controvert the evidence of professional misconduct
against her, and based upon her lack of cooperation with the
Committee’s investigation, the Committee’s motion should be
granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law,
effective immediately, and until such time as disciplinary
matters pending before the Committee have been concluded, and
until further order of this Court (22 NYCRR 603.4[e][1][i] and
[iii]).
All concur.
Order filed. [December 27, 2007]
Brigitte
The loa who represents money and who has special influence over black magic and ill-gotten fortune. She is also the wife of Bron Samedi and is analogous to the Catholic St. Brigid. Brigitte lives in a tree in the cemetery and dresses in purple. Black chickens are sacrificed to her.
No comments:
Post a Comment