The Eden Rose Brown Law Firm

To whom it may concern:

On July 24 I had a phone conversation with Kerry. The gist of the conversation was, “Pick a side.” Kerry believes that my lack of a response or silence is the same as saying I agree with everything Rob has been saying from day one. I have never said one way or the other what I agree or disagree with.

Rob has raised some interesting questions about the estate. Questions Kerry has steadfastly refused to provide answers to. Rob has accused him of mishandling the estate and called into question his honesty and integrity. All along Kerry has let him slap him around with these claims and he just sits there and takes it.

Kerry’s law firm has given him bad advice from the start as well, basically telling him to let them handle everything (at $350/hr). “Just hide behind my pants legs and Eden’s skirt and we’ll protect you. Oh, by the way here’s another bill for our services, not including this bit of legal advice which will be on our next bill.” My never to be humble opinion is that Mr. Green has been somewhat complicit in the whole ordeal. My guess is that as a junior partner at Eden Rose Brown part of his responsibilities to the firm is to produce billable hours and he saw in Rob an unwitting cash cow. I can see P. Freeman Green (and how pretentious is using the initial of your first name? Once again, just my opinion) in his office each morning opening his e-mails and thrusting his fist into the air and exclaiming, “Ka-ching!”, every time he clicked on an e-mail from Robert Burtis. He was more than willing to exchange parries with Rob at $350.00 per hour per e-mail. Of course he told Kerry to not respond. “We’ll take care of everything.”

Not a bad day’s work.

Kerry and Rob have both come up with documents reference the real estate transactions in Florida and Oregon. The documents each have differing information. Rob’s seem to bring up questions about ownership of the homes before during and after Liz’s involvement with them and whether Kerry had some prior interest in them. Either he found a web site with some bad information on them or he did some digital forging of them, or they are accurate. If my integrity was being questioned I would demand from Rob a list of the websites he got these documents from (he says that they are all public information sites) so I and the rest of the beneficiaries could judge for ourselves the accuracy or inaccuracy of the information; and if the information is inaccurate, so I could take steps to correct it.

As far as the sale of the Deland house, I assumed that maybe we were getting what we could out of the house (although I doubted the realtors marketing efforts- any open houses held? Doubtful). That is until I read the email exchanges between Rob and the broker who said, “Well heck! I had made friends with the lovely lady who lived there (even though I can’t for the life of me remember her name) even sending flowers when she got sick. I was surprised I did not get the listing (and a little pissed). It should have sold at about $135k.” and “all it needed was that awful paneling down in the living room!!!!! Terrific bones with a strong history!!!” and of course, “What a steal”. This until she realized who Robert Burtis was and all of a sudden went into serious damage control mode.

Maggi e-mailing Kerry:

“I’m stunned that Robert Burtis, someone whom I thought was a potential buyer of historic homes, used my emails to stir up trouble for your family and especially my excellent agent, Ann Nehrig. Robert began emailing me early in the year after the 503 N. Clara house went on the market. He appeared to be interested in historic properties, especially that house. His questions led me to believe he was a serious buyer so obviously I always answered his questions.”

I’m guessing the initial phone conversation to Kerry went something like this:

Maggi: “Kerry? Hi, Maggi Hall here. Kerry, I think I stepped on it big time. Why? Well apparently your brother Robert was posing as a potential buyer for the house. Granted he used his real and full name in the emails but I’m a busy woman. I just figured it was a coincidence that that a totally unrelated Burtis was interested in buying the house. So I say he was posing as a buyer. But anyways I told him the house should have sold for $135k, and that it had terrific bones with a strong history. Those are just meaningless real estate terms we use to try and impress buyers. Anywho, I now realize I screwed up and spoke to my realtor Ann Nehrig who hasn’t closed a sale in over three months. She told me she was low balling the price and basically ignoring the appraisal to get a quick sale and a quick commission check. Not a bad idea on her part as she realizes that when the buyer does some cosmetic work on the house he will turn around and flip it in six months when real estate prices have started to rebound and will most likely use her as the listing agent earning her another commission (and I as her broker would of course share in that commission Winking smile emoticon). I figured if Robert was an actual potential buyer I could start a bidding war, even though the house is still under contract. I realize this is against Florida real estate laws and could cause me to lose my license, but what the hell. Money is money.

Anyway Kerry, I just feel awful. Let me know what I can do to make things right. Maybe I could do a little back pedaling in an email and make it look like I knew what I was doing and was just playing Robert.”

Both Kerry and Rob have used the same argument reference choosing sides. In this they are in complete agreement. Kerry says if you say nothing then you must believe Rob and all of his accusations. Rob says if you say nothing then you agree with and support him. For the most part I have a feeling those of us who have not responded have been watching from the sidelines of this tennis match watching the volleys back and forth with curiosity and a little amusement. Those who have spoken up have felt the “Wrath of Rob” (see responses to Larry and Scott’s input) and have been drawn into the battle of the emails with him. I assume mine are forthcoming.

At the end of our phone conversation on Saturday Kerry requested that I send out an email with my feelings and beliefs to explain to the other beneficiaries my opinions. So, here they are:

Kerry-

I think Kerry thought he was doing the right thing in most instances. He had had successes in other real estate transactions (house flipping) and figured he could help both Liz and himself out again. Then the real estate market collapsed and he lost both of them a lot of money. I also believe he thought he was doing what he thought was best for Liz, basing some of his decisions on Liz’s Alzheimer’s fueled claims of abandonment and mistreatment by Charles and Katherine without investigating the claims to find out how accurate they were. In my job I have dealt with many “wanderers” as victims in the latter stages of Alzheimer’s are often referred to, when they have walked away from their homes without anyone’s knowledge. Putting her in a “Home” the last month of her life was done for her own safety and comfort. In the end she spent the remaining months of her life comfortable, secure and loved which I believe is most important.

Rob-

I believe Rob took up this cause in a sincere search for the truth and some answers which Kerry did say he would be more than willing to provide us. Rob’s minimal amount of trust proceeds eliminates financial greed as a reason for his crusade. I do think that there are other issues between the two of them that came up shortly before the estate problem that have fueled his fervor, but that is between the two of them. As far as Rob’s email campaign against Scott. I disagree with it. I think Scott was honestly just trying to put forth some ideas in reference to the Deland house, although the use of the phrase “Rob so kindly provided us”, was an unfortunate choice of words. Attacking Scott accomplishes nothing. Scott and his family are dealing with stresses Rob, Kerry & I should pray we never have to deal with. On this topic I say, back off, Rob.

In conclusion:

Kerry you wanted a response from me and there it is. Sorry it wasn’t sent sooner. I asked you during our conversation why you don’t just provide the information that Rob has requested. I also said that if I was in your shoes and I had done nothing wrong I would provide everything I possibly could and would stick it in Rob’s face and ask him, “What you got to say now, Rob?” Given accurate, truthful documentation, what would he have to say? He would be forced to back down. Your response to me was, “Nothing will ever be good enough for Rob. He will find something wrong with it or say that it’s not enough. Nothing’s going to make him happy or satisfy him.” That’s your answer for not providing the information? If that is all that’s stopping you from providing the information then you don’t give the rest of us beneficiaries enough credit. If we could see the information and were satisfied with and understand the answers then I think we can decide for ourselves. If Rob is not satisfied then that is his problem and I think we would all tell him to give it a rest and let us all get on with our lives. But refusing to provide the answers/information he’s asking for only makes us wonder. Do the right thing and provide the information so we CAN all get on with our lives and start healing.

Just my opinion (which Kerry asked for).

P.S. Eden Rose Brown and Freeman intentionally omitted as recipients in an effort to save money.

It is time for Kerry P. Burtis to either resign or be forcibly removed as the Trustee of the Liz McGuinness trust.

Kerry has repeatedly abrogated and violated his legal obligations and responsibilities as the Trustee of the Liz MvGuinness estate. His insults, ad hominem attacks, emotional rants, and now his demand that certain beneficiaries “Pick a side” demonstrate he is no longer qualified or competent to fulfill his role as Trustee. Kerry is fully aware of his legal responsibility to treat all beneficiaries equally and said as much in his previous correspondence:

“To protect myself, I have been advised to treat all beneficiaries equally, so as to not appear to be side-barring or communicating improperly with any one individual and/or select group of beneficiaries. Thus, my silence.”

Kerry’s Manic-Depressive Flair for Drama & Histrionics

In truth and fact, Kerry did NOT “treat all beneficiaries equally” and was frequently “side-barring” with selected brothers and sisters, “communicating improperly” and making phone calls to some, meeting in person with some, exchanging private e-mails with others in which he discussed aspects of his trust management, expressing his opinions of me and explaining his decisions to a limited number of beneficiaries, while ignoring my requests for information and refusing to respond to any of my personal and public e-mails. These were not simply chatty and non-partisan conversational phone calls and e-mails – Kerry was aggressively attempting to influence the opinions and actions of certain beneficiaries towards support of his position.

If Eden Rose Brown had any respect for the law she would have removed Kerry from his position as Trustee a long time ago, but since her law firm has colluded with him right from the start – and since she retroactively resigned from her assignment as “Trust Protector” (saying she never accepted the job in the first place) – there is no one in a position to remove Kerry. The “Revocable Trust Agreement” has NO “Trust Protector”. Well done, Eden Rose!

In our discussions with David Streicher, the Portland attorney, he estimated it might cost us more than $25,000 to force disclosure of the estate accounting information Kerry has said repeatedly he was willing to provide, but never has. And even then, Mr. Streicher was not be certain we could work around the Section 1.07 Information to Beneficiaries Not Required that Eden Rose Brown cleverly installed in the Trust Agreement to protect Kerry and cover their rear ends.

Now that Kerry has gone off the deep end with his demands that certain beneficiaries “Pick a side” and his targeted phone calls and private e-mails and meetings with some beneficiaries and not others, there is a clear evidentiary basis for moving forward with a legal action that would ask a Marion County court to forcibly remove Kerry P. Burtis as Trustee. If Eden Rose Brown will not do her legally mandated job, I am quite confident we can get an appropriate judge in an Oregon court to do it for her.

As such, I am discussing our options with a different Portland attorney who specializes in these matters and he is asking for a $5,000 retainer – which I will be providing – to move forward with a legal action to relieve Kerry of his duties as trustee. Gloria is second in line to assume the role of Trustee, but once a judge reviews the evidence, testimony, and documentation of Kerry’s inappropriate behavior and bad faith, it’s not likely that he will assign the job to Kerry’s wife (especially when Gloria has already said publicly that she thinks the Burtis family members are all “wack jobs”).

Once a qualified Trustee is assigned, we will have full access to the information we have asked for and I am also confident that the new Trustee will deem my incurred legal expenses to be an appropriate and reimbursable trust management expense.

If any of the other beneficiaries would be willing to assist me in providing the retainer mentioned above, I would welcome and appreciate your participation and assistance.

But if I have to go it alone, I shall. Kerry’s behavior, decisions, attitude and actions as Trustee have been inappropriate and even outrageous, and a judge will easily see that he is neither qualified nor competent to remain Trustee of the Liz McGuinness trust.

Kerry’s brother  has finally begun to speak out regarding Kerry’s mismanagement of the Liz McGuinness’  trust and his collusion with the Eden Rose Brown law firm. While he often times disagrees with the tactics of this blog’s author, he has strong opinions about the issues that are discussed herein.

I had written in an e-mail to all beneficiares:

“…and most of his brothers and sisters have nothing to say, preferring to keep the peace no matter how serious the crime.”

To which Kerry’s brother replied:

Kerry is not going to experience an epiphany and start spilling his guts just because you or anyone else demands or thinks he should do so.

On the other hand however, ERB does have something to lose – their own reputation.  Kerry’s deal is done and he’s got the money.  ERB hopes to do more business in the future.  Including Kerry’s picture and other info on the website gives ERB the opportunity to tell people who ask about it that it’s nothing more that one disgrunteled relative.

in rationalizing his actions Kerry has simply displaced morality (what I did was obviously wrong and dishonest) with moral relativism (because of my devotion to Liz, I am right to do as I wish with Liz’s assets and hide the truth from everyone, even though I know it is morally wrong) which has allowed him to free himself from any feelings of pressure or guilt.  He’s got the money and could care less what you or anyone else say’s about him which is why “the rest of his brothers and sisters” are not inclined to spend their time putting useless and ineffective “pressure” on him.  It has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting you.  It has teverything to do with admitting the obvious.

Kerry has obviously done some bad (evil) stuff and all of the beneficiaries have been quite aware of that fact for some time.

Regardless of Kerry’s misdeeds, repeating over and over what was already known sometime ago starts to look like an attack of the entire family from the outside.  There’s so much more involved beyond “objectively” stating and presenting the facts and evidence.   Laying out the facts and evidence once makes perfect sense.  Individuals can examine the facts and evidence and draw their own conclusions.  As far as I can tell, everyone has come to the same conclusion – Kerry did something very wrong.  At this point however, after repeated presentation of essentially the same information, it is futile and harmful (to the family as a whole - legacy, history, etc) to try and make Kerry appear anymore guilty than he already is.

Family members and beneficiaries of the Liz McGuinness trust are probably as tired of receiving my e-mails as I am of writing them.

What began as a simple request for information based on a meeting between Steve, Kerry and myself on January 24th in which Kerry welcomed inquiries and encouraged us to contact the estate attorneys, has escalated into an endless array of unanswered questions, name-calling, bad feelings, damaged family relationships, and legals fees that continue to eat away at what little remains of Liz’s estate.

In the hopes of ending this standoff and perhaps healing and rebuilding family relationships, I am offering this proposal and submitting it to all beneficiaries, Kerry, and the principals at the Eden Rose Brown law firm. While many of the beneficiaries have chosen to not be involved in the process, they are each and every one affected by the outcome and I would ask that each individual seriously consider this proposal and respond to it by communicating with each other and especially with Kerry and his attorneys.
______________________________

Freeman

P. Freeman Green, J.D.

Law Office of Eden Rose Brown

This is characteristic of his attitude over the past few months. He is condescending, patronizing, and his arguments are sophmoric and self-serving. Listen as he explains the reasoning behind his refusal to explain the advice he has given Kerry Burtis over the past two years:

” I believe that a satisfactory answer to your questions would require a technical legal explanation, and for me to attempt such an explanation would amount to rendering you legal advice in violation of Oregon ethics rules… I know this answer is frustrating to you, but I am bound by the ethics rules.”

So if P. Freeman Green were to actually answer any of our questions about actions he has already taken, he would be giving us “legal advice”. Of course, he has already given the trustee a great deal of legal advice and we were simply requesting that he explain the reasoning behind such advice previously given. But that would go against “Oregon ethics rules” which forbid P. Freeman Green from ever explaining his actions or recommendations. What a great way to avoid all accountability and responsibility!

Looking for legal advice and services in the Salem, Oregon, area?

This is an example of what you will find if you choose to retain P. Freeman Green and the lawyers at the Eden Rose Brown law firm.