Main Date: 21 Mar 2008 23:00:02 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 As every chess player knows, Ruth V. Cardoso, the South American Woman's Chess Champion, was the constant companion of Grandmaster Pal Benko. They were together for thirty years from 1970 until her death in 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Volgl_Cardoso Although Ruth Cardoso spent six months out of every year in New Jersey or New York, she retained a dual residence in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Ruth Cardoso died on February 11, 2000 leaving everything to Grandmaster Benko in her will, including her brokerage accounts at Citibank, 120 Broadway, New York NY. After her death, Grandmaster Benko presented the will to her Citibank account officer, who informed him that he would have get a court order from New York Surrogates Court before the bank could hand over the money. Benko accordingly applied to the New York Surrogates Court for letters of administration. However, the court has an unusual rule that when a person dies without relatives, any person claiming under a will must prove to the satisfaction of the court that there are no living relatives. However, since it is impossible to prove a negative, the applicant must detail the steps that have been taken to locate any possible relatives of the deceased person. Although Ruth Cardoso had been born in Brazil and was a citizen of Brazil, she had been trapped in Nazi Germany during World War II and grew up there. All of her relatives had died in the war except for her mother who had died two years before Ruth died. Accordingly, Benko was required to search for any possible relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In the course of this required search, Benko contacted Wolfgang Roddewig, who was the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, where Ruth Cardoso had died. Roddewig informed Benko that Ruth Cardoso had left no relatives and no significant assets in Brazil when she died. However, upon learning from Benko that there was a proceeding in New York Surrogates Court, Roddewig applied to the courts of Brazil to be appointed executor of her estate in Brazil. This was routinely granted by that court. Roddewig then contacted the Citibank offices in Salvador, Brazil and demanded that the funds that Ruth Cardoso had on deposit in Citibank New York be transferred to him, even though Roddewig had no relationship with Ruth Cardoso. This happened in mid-2003, more than three years after Ruth Cardoso had died. Benko, being completely unaware of what Roddewig was doing in Brazil, went through the procedures required by the New York Surrogates Court, which included publishing a legal notice in the New York Law Journal for four consecutive weeks in November and December 2003. Following the publication of the legal notices, the New York Public Administrators Office demanded that the witnesses to the will be produced to testify that Ruth Cardoso was of sound mind and body when she made out her will. However, the attorney assigned the task by the New York Public Administrator was John Reddy, who then delayed seven months and only issued his report after the Benko Family complained to the court that he was not doing his job. As a result of these delays by John Reddy, it took seven months until July 2004, before he issued his report. The same day that he issued the report, the New York Surrogates Court, Judge Roth, issued letters of administration in favor of Grandmaster Benko. Benko then went to Citibank at 120 Broadway to collect the $70,000 that Ruth Cardoso had left to him, only to be told that Citibank did not have the money any more. They refused to reveal what had happened to the money. However, from other sources, Benko eventually was able to find out that in May 2004, Citibank had given the $70,000 to Wolfgang Roddewig in Brazil. Benko then filed a “Miscellaneous Proceeding” in New York Surrogated to recover the money, arguing that Citibank had made a mistake in giving the money to the wrong person, ignoring the legal notices that had been published in the New York Law Journal in December 2003, months before Citibank had sent the money to Brazil, and also charging Attorney John Reddy as being culpable by delaying seven months when by statute he is required to complete his proceedings within ten days. This case was argued and submitted before the newly elected Surrogates Judge Krestin Booth Glen in May 2005. Judge Glen had just become a judge under controversial circumstances. The New York Bar had rated her as “unqualified”. Nevertheless, she had defeated a “highly qualified” candidate for judge in one of the dirtiest election campaigns for a judicial post in recent memory. After the case was argued and submitted, Judge Glen sat on the case doing nothing for nearly two years until yesterday when she issued an 8-page decision in favor of Citibank and Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision by Judge Glen which is attached is obviously wrong. First and foremost, she fails to mention that a legal notice was published in the New York Law Journal for four consecutive weeks in December 2003. She implies that in May 2004 when Citibank paid the money to Roddewig, a man who was not named in any will and who had no relationship with Ruth Cardoso, they did not know that there was a case pending in New York Surrogate's Court. However, they did know. Not only was the required legal notices published, but Benko repeatedly over the period of four years and visited the Citibank Offices at 120 Broadway and spoke to her account executive, Eric Mark, about the progress of the case. The problem arose when it was not Erik Mark but another branch of Citibank who took the money out of the Cardoso account and gave it to Wolfgang Roddewig. Eric Mark was never notified of this. Another problem with Judge Glen's decision is that it implies that there is a “Brazil Will” that postdates the New Jersey Will. However, no such Brazil Will has ever been produced, nor has any document signed by Ruth Cardoso in Brazil been produced. What Citibank did submit to the court was a document signed by another person stating that there is a will in Brazil. No copy of the alleged will was provided to the court. These are just two of the many things wrong with the decision of Judge Glen. In addition, Judge Glen is asking Judge Roth to vacate her decision appointing Grandmaster Benko as the Administrator of the Cardoso Estate. It seems unlikely that Judge Roth will be willing to do this because both Judge Roth and Grandmaster Benko followed all of the required steps and procedures, and if this decision by Judge Glen is allowed to stand, the procedures that the New York Surrogate's Court has been following for decades will have to be changed. Another question concerns the fact that Wolfgang Roddewig was able to use his position as Honorary Counsel of Germany to Salvador, Brazil to grab $70,000 that did belong to him. Perhaps the Government of Germany can be held responsible for the acts of its errant representative and made to pay back the $70,000 that Wolfgang Roddewig stole. Sam Sloan http://www.samsloan.com/cardoso-glen.pdf   Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:51:55 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 Paul C. Benko 204 Passaic Avenue, # 10 Belleville NJ 07109 Tel: 973-751-0614 April 16, 2008 Hon. Renee R. Roth New York Surrogate's Court 31 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Estate of Ruth V. Cardoso, File No. 2546 / 2002 Dear Surrogate Roth, Perhaps you are aware of the decision of Judge Kristin Booth Glen in this case dated March 17, 2008 in which she states that she will ask you to overturn and vacate your prior decision and order in this case. I am now writing to ask you not to vacate your prior order. My daughter and I fulfilled all the required and long established procedures of the New York Surrogates Court. We followed the required rules and the letter of the law exactly. For example, we published legal notices in the New York Law Journal on four successive weeks in ober and November 2003 at a cost of $2700. A hearing was held before you in December 2003. Citibank, although under legal notice, did not appear and answer at that hearing. As a result, their claims were extinguished. They cannot be allowed to come into this court now five years later and say that by the way there was another will in Brazil. Citibank still to this day has failed to produce the so-called "Brazil Will". From Judge Glen's decision one would imagine that she was holding the will in her hands. Actually, the will has not been produced, not even a photocopy thereof. At a conference before Judge Eva Preminger in 2005, Citibank was given 30 days to provide a copy of the will. Thirty days passed and Citibank provided nothing. Nothing was filed with the court either. At the oral argument on the motion for summary judgment in May 2006, Counsel for Citibank stated that they had never agreed to provide the will. They had only agreed to provided the documents on the basis of which they had paid the money to Wolfgang Roddewig in Brazil. Those documents consisted entirely of documents that Wolfgang Roddewig had sent to Citibank in connection with his demands for the money. Those documents were entirely self-serving. This court has yet to receive any certified documents from the Widows and Orphans Court of Brazil. We do not even know that such a court exists. A motion for summary judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. For example, was there a will, who signed it, and what does it say. According to documents received from Wolfgang Roddewig, Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink of death. She was so ill that she could not sign the will. In addition, according to a letter received from Brazil which is in the court file, the so-called "Brazil Will" only gave articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to the friends and neighbors of Ruth Cardoso in Salvador, Brazil. It did not give any money. Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the will. He got into this case merely by being appointed as the Executor of the Estate by the Widows and Orphans Court of Salvador Brazil. He has stated that he intends to donate the money to the poor people living in the slums of Brazil. If you believe that, there is a large bridge perhaps you have seen just outside the door to your courthouse that I would like to sell you. After this case was argued orally and submitted in May 2006, it took Judge Glen 22 months until March 2008 to decide the motion. This may set a record for taking a long time to decide a motion. I believe that this decision by Judge Glen is clearly erroneous and must be set aside. Accordingly I ask you not to make any changes or modifications in the order you signed in July 2004 until this can be done. I enclose a copy of a petition for a rehearing I have filed in this case. Very Truly Yours Pal C. Benko Copy to: Barry R. Glickman Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP Counsel for Citibank 575 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10022 John Reddy The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy 85 Worth Street New York NY 10013   Date: 18 Apr 2008 12:20:12 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK __________________________________________x In the Matter of the Estate of Ruth V. Cardoso, Deceased FILE NO. 2546/2002 PETITION FOR REHEARING __________________________________________x The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated March 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. This decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact. 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the motion for summary judgment. 2. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a “Brazil Will”. However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogates Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will. 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the deceased. 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier. This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil. 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. 7. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V. Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. 8. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to “prove” the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report. 9. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will. 10. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig. Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court. 11. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. 12. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the account executive, who was Eric Mark. 13. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. 14. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been completely stonewalling on this subject. 15. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for summary judgment. WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17, 2008 should be set aside and reversed. _______________________ Pal C. Benko     Date: 18 Apr 2008 15:08:45 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 On Apr 18, 4:56 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > I was just wondering if Benko had much chance of winning his case. > If Sam's involved, his chance is somewhere between slim and none. The main point right now is that every chess player on this group knows that Grandmaster Pal Benko and Ruth Cardoso were boyfriend- girlfriend and lived together for 30 years. They often traveled together and played in chess tournaments together. Nevertheless, due to an error or mistake by Citibank, the inheritance money was paid to an obvious con-man or swindler named Wolfgang Roddewig who lives in Brazil and thus there is no legal way to get the money back. Right now, I am hoping to embarrass Citibank and make them realize that by cheating Grandmaster Pal Benko out of his rightful inheritance, it is going to cost Citibank a lot more than just the $70,000 the bank lost by paying the money to the wrong person. Sam Sloan     Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:56:50 From: Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 On Apr 18, 12:55=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote: > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT), ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > =A0Sam, are you representing GM Benko in this matter, or does he have > >other counsel? > > Don't answer that. :-) I was just wondering if Benko had much chance of winning his case. If Sam's involved, his chance is somewhere between slim and none.     Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:08:16 From: Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 Sam, are you representing GM Benko in this matter, or does he have other counsel? On Apr 18, 8:20=A0am, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote: > SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK > COUNTY OF NEW YORK > =A0__________________________________________x > > In the Matter of the Estate of > > Ruth V. Cardoso, > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Deceased > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 FILE > NO. 2546/2002 > > PETITION FOR REHEARING > > =A0__________________________________________x > > The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing > of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated March > 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous > findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge > Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. This decision cannot be > allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to > support these claims and these are triable issues of fact. > > 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no > mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December > 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New > York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish > all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the > time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained > silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the > motion for summary judgment. > > 2. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a =93Brazil Will=94. > However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a > photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from > somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is > not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified > translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the > deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we cannot even > examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the > signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter > from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to > Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and money left > by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador > Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogates > Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident > that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed > Brazil Will. > > 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the > Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is > followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will > but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner > must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the > Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find > relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence > concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. > > 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim > Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery > where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that > person knew of any relatives of the deceased. > > 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in > Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier. > This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner, > following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable > Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the > cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the > Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner contacted > Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, > because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. > Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in > Brazil. > > 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry > that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then > ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador > Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He > then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in > Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. > > 7. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes > Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V. > Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than > three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court > in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. > > 8. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome > proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to > =93prove=94 the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the > signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the > Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices > in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of > $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in > December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take > depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven > months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report. > > 9. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in > New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to > Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to > produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will > has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It > is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain > articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in > Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will. > > 10. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in > the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply > overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as > late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig. > Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the > Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, > who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark > still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time > petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments > in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved > out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York > Surrogates Court. > > 11. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required > court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark > discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out > of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. > > 12. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security > system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and > thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often > do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own > supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador > Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it > was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived > six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of > Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the > account executive, who was Eric Mark. > > 13. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. > > 14. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a > failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all > happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right > thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their > claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's > and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there > is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will > and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the > oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During > that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements > which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on > the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to > whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the > money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been > completely stonewalling on this subject. > > 15. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time > honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have > to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and > claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown > and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices > were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to > stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of > this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in > the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those > notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished > their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no > information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for > summary judgment. > > WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a > rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17, > 2008 should be set aside and reversed. > > _______________________ > > Pal C. Benko       Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:55:14 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT), ttk5079@gmail.com wrote: > Sam, are you representing GM Benko in this matter, or does he have >other counsel? Don't answer that. :-)   Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:54:18 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK __________________________________________x In the Matter of the Estate of Ruth V. Cardoso, Deceased FILE NO. 2546/2002 PETITION FOR REHEARING __________________________________________x The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated March 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge Glen in effect granted summary judgment to Citibank. This decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact. 1. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a “Brazil Will”. However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No document signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogates Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will. 2. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. 3. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the deceased. 4. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier. This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner asked Sr. Roddewig if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil. 5. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then ran down to the local Widow's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. 6. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V. Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. So, Sr. Roddewig waited more than three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. 7. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to “prove” the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report. 8. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will. 9. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as late as May 2004. They had not given it to Wolfgang Roddewig yet. Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved out of the account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court. 10. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. 11. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived six month of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the account executive, who was Eric Mark. 12. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. 13. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Widows and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been completely stonewalling on this subject. 14. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time honored procedures followed by the New Yorks Surrogates Court will have to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have ended the case. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no information until May 2006 when petitioner filed his motion for summary judgment. WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17, 2008 should be set aside and reversed. _______________________ Pal C. Benko   Date: 17 Apr 2008 20:21:06 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK __________________________________________x In the Matter of the Estate of Ruth V. Cardoso, Deceased FILE NO. 2546/2002 PETITION FOR REHEARING __________________________________________x The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated March 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge Glen in effect granted summary judgment to Citibank. This decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact. 1. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a =93Brazil Will=94. However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No document signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogates Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will. 2. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. 3. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the deceased. 4. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier. This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner asked Sr. Roddewig if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil. 5. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then ran down to the local Widow's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. 6. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V. Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. So, Sr. Roddewig waited more than three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. 7. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to =93prove=94 the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report. 8. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will. 9. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as late as May 2004. They had not given it to Wolfgang Roddewig yet. Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved out of the account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court. 10. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. 11. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived six month of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the account executive, who was Eric Mark. 12. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. 13. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Widows and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the oral argument that took place before this court in May 2003. During that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been completely stonewalling on this subject. 14. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time honored procedures followed by the New Yorks Surrogates Court will have to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have ended the case. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no information until May 2006 when petitioner filed his motion for summary judgment. WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17, 2008 should be set aside and reversed. _______________________ Pal C. Benko   Date: 18 Apr 2008 03:14:59 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK __________________________________________x In the Matter of the Estate of Ruth V. Cardoso, Deceased FILE NO. 2546/2002 PETITION FOR REHEARING __________________________________________x The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Boothe Glen dated March 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Judge Glen made numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Judge Glen in effect granted summary judgment to Citibank. This decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to support these claims and these are triable issues of fact. 1. The decision of Judge Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No document signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who states that he intends to donate and money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogates Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will. 2. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. 3. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department, that he must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the deceased. 4. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died a few years earlier. This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner asked Sr. Roddewig if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil. 5. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then ran down to the local Widow's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. 6. We know that this is what happened because as the court notes Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in May 2003. Ruth V. Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. So, Sr. Roddewig waited more than three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. 7. Meanwhile, Petitioners was going through the lengthy and burdensome proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to "prove" the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogates Court in December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report. 8. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain articles of furniture and jewelry to various friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will. 9. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as late as May 2004. They had not given it to Wolfgang Roddewig yet. Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved out of the account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court. 10. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. 11. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived six month of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the account executive, who was Eric Mark. 12. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. 13. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Widows and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the oral argument that took place before this court in May 2003. During that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been completely stonewalling on this subject. 14. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time honored procedures followed by the New Yorks Surrogate's Court will have to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have ended the case. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no information until May 2006 when petitioner filed his motion for summary judgment. WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17, 2008 should be set aside and reversed. _______________________ Pal C. Benko     Date: 20 May 2008 03:06:23 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 The hearing in this case is set for tomorrow, May 20, 2008, at 10:00 AM in courtroom 503 of the New York Surrogate's Court, 31 Chambers Street, New York NY before Judge Kristin Booth Glen.     Date: 20 May 2008 01:26:21 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 The hearing in this case is set for tomorrow, May 20, 2008, in courtroom 503 of the New York Surrogate's Court, 31 Chambers Street, New York NY before Judge Kristin Booth Glen. Grandmaster Benko will argue his own case. He has flown in from Hungary just for this case. He will ask Judge Glen to reverse her prior decision. Chances are never good in that sort of motion. This is a preliminary for an appeal. However, Grandmaster Benko has one Ace in the Hole so to speak. This is that Judge Glen in her decision asked Judge Renee Roth to reverse her July 2004 decision that made Grandmaster Benko the Administrator of the Ruth Cardoso estate. However, Judge Renee Roth has not vacated her prior decision. The two decisions are in conflict with each other. It would seem that either Judge Roth has to vacate her decision or Judge Glen has to vacate her decision. Both cannot stand. Judge Roth has been on the bench for nine years and is highly respected. Judge Glen is a new judge. This would seem to improve Grandmaster Benko's chances somewhat of winning before Surrogate Glen tomorrow.     Date: 17 May 2008 00:52:27 From: Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 On May 4, 5:54 am, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote: > --- chesspr...@aol.com wrote: > > > I assume that GM Benko is actually pleased to have people know about the > > case -- this is an instance where the louder the shouting, the more likely justice will be done. > > > ECJ > > > In a message dated 5/3/2008 5:33:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > daver...@aol.com writes: > > > Sam: I realize these are public records but why are you sending them to me and hundreds of other people? > > This is not any of my business. Just because you can does not mean you should. > > > David Spigel Sam is not sending them to people. He is posting them in Usenet discussion groups. If you choose to receive all the messages in a Usenet discussion group, that is your choice, not Sam's. > > This is a legitimate question. The answer is that, as you can see, > this case has been going on for a long time. All this time, > Grandmaster Benko assumed that it was just a matter of time before he > received his rightful inheritance and thus he was patiently waiting > and saw no reason to make this case openly public. > > However, he is completely shocked by the decision by Surrogate Glen, > who by the way is a new judge who was rated as "Unqualified" by the > Bar Association when she ran for election in 2005. She was strongly > opposed by the legal establishment. You can still find some references > to her 2005 election campaign on the Internet where she claimed to be > the champion of the "little guy" against the big monolithic > corporations. This is quite ironic in view of her recent decision. > > Every chess player and regular reader of these groups will know that > Woman's International Master Ruth Cardoso and Grandmaster Pal Benko > were constant companions for 30 years and every time in those 30 years > that Grandmaster Benko came to a major chess tournament or visited a > local chess club he was always accompanied by Ruth Cardoso and visa > versa. Thus, we will all know that it is impossible that she would > have left her money to the "poor people living in the slums of Brazil" > or to a previously unknown German Consular Officer named Wolfgang > Roddewig. I have been wondering whether the Nation of Germany can be > held responsible for this misconduct by one of their consular > officers. If he is an honorary consul. I believe the main responsibility of his position is to assist German nationals rather than the poor people living in the slums of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. If he himself is a German national, he may have misused his position to interfere in the affairs of a Brazilian national, and ought to be prosecuted under German law. > Incidentally, right after receiving the money, Wolfgang Roddewig was > involved in a serious auto accident in Brazil. Although he barely > survived the accident, he is now said to be an invalid in a wheelchair > and is not able to respond to these motions (or to give back the > money). Given the circumstances, one might suspect that Roddewig had a more urgent use for the money himself. If Grandmaster Benko does not succeed against Citibank, Roddewig's claimed injury may be all the satisfaction he can get. Citibank ought to realize that Benko is an esteemed figure in Hungary, and that publication in Hungary of their carelessness harming Benko must reflect badly on their ability to conduct business internationally. I wonder if Metro publishes in Budapest. > Sam Sloan David Ames     Date: 03 May 2008 19:40:34 From: Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 help bot wrote: > > A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of > > phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought > > to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie > > down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if > > Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank. > > > What I want to know is, who is "Paul C. Benko"? > > > -- help bot It's a more realistic transliteration of his Hungarian name than "Pal." Perhaps he spells it that way on official documents. A pretty trivial point.     Date: 03 May 2008 18:58:33 From: help bot Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 > A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of > phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought > to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie > down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if > Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank. What I want to know is, who is "Paul C. Benko"? -- help bot     Date: 03 May 2008 18:21:48 From: Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 Sam Sloan wrote: > SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK > COUNTY OF NEW YORK > __________________________________________x > > In the Matter of the Estate of > > Ruth V. Cardoso, > > Deceased > FILE > NO. 2546/2002 > > NOTICE > OF MOTION > > __________________________________________x > > PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko > and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned > will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting > a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of > this court dated March 17, 2008 which granted summary judgment in > favor of Citibank. > > PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy > of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the > return date of this motion. > > Yours, etc. > > > > > _________________________ > Paul C. Benko > April 30, 2008 > To: > > Barry R. Glickman > Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP > 575 Lexington Avenue > New York NY 10022 > > John Reddy > The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy > 85 Worth Street > New York NY 10013 > > > > SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK > COUNTY OF NEW YORK > __________________________________________x > > In the Matter of the Estate of > > Ruth V. Cardoso, > > Deceased > FILE > NO. 2546/2002 > > MOTION > FOR REHEARING > __________________________________________x > > > The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing > of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated March > 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made > numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision > of Surrogate Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. A motion for > summary judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of > fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This > decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even > presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable > issues of fact. > > 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no > mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December > 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New > York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish > all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the > time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained > silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the > motion for summary judgment. > > 2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil > Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not > even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from > somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is > not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified > translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the > deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file > states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink > of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed > will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. > Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who > is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that > he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor > people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed > by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was > received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not > named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will. > > 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the > Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is > followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will > but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner > must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the > Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find > relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence > concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. > > 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim > Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he > must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out > who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the > deceased. > > 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in > Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years > earlier. This was because her mother was a German National. > Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of > this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and > learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, > because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. > Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any > relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to > probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no > relatives nor any money in Brazil. > > 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry > that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then > ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador > Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He > then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in > Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. > > 7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes, > Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in March 2003. Ruth V. > Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than > three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court > in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. > > 8. It was in March 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the > Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim > Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular > Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased. > Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate > Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian > Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they > knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate > Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase > except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was > the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my > contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had > by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the > pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was > pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court > that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts > to grab the money for his own benefit. > > 9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able > to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to > Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the > 111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided > to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of > the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said > that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr. > Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport > or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a > long time to comply and then only after several letters had been > exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that > there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this > time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money > had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice > the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal. > > 10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome > proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to > =EF=BF=BDprove=EF=BF=BD the will. This involved bringing in all the witnes= ses to the > signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the > Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices > in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of > $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in > December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the > opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it > took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions > and writing his report. > > 11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings > in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to > Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to > produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will > has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It > is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain > articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various > friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under > this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in > this supposed will. > > 12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in > the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply > overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as > late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig. > Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the > Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, > who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark > still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time > petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments > in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved > out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York > Surrogates Court. > > 13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required > court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark > discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out > of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. > > 14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security > system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and > thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often > do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own > supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador > Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it > was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived > six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of > Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the > account executive, who was Eric Mark. > > 15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. > > 16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a > failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all > happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right > thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their > claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's > and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there > is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will > and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the > oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During > that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements > which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on > the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to > whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the > money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been > completely stonewalling on this subject. > > 17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time > honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have > to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and > claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown > and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices > were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to > stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of > this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in > the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those > notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished > their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no > information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for > summary judgment. > > WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a > rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17, > 2008 should be set aside and reversed. > > > > _________________________ > Paul C. Benko > > April 30, 2008 > > > VERIFICATION > > I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition, > being duly sworn, says: > > I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the > contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as > to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and > belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true. > > > > _________________________ > Signature of > Petitioner > > On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko > to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the > foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before > me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same. > > > _____________________________ > NOTARY PUBLIC > > > > > Copy to: > > Barry R. Glickman > Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP > 575 Lexington Avenue > New York NY 10022 > > John Reddy > The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy > 85 Worth Street > New York NY 10013 A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank.       Date: 04 May 2008 14:16:00 From: Brian Lafferty Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 jkh001@aim.com wrote: > > Sam Sloan wrote: >> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK >> COUNTY OF NEW YORK >> __________________________________________x >> >> In the Matter of the Estate of >> >> Ruth V. Cardoso, >> >> Deceased >> FILE >> NO. 2546/2002 >> >> NOTICE >> OF MOTION >> >> __________________________________________x >> >> PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko >> and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned >> will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting >> a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of >> this court dated March 17, 2008 which granted summary judgment in >> favor of Citibank. >> >> PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy >> of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the >> return date of this motion. >> >> Yours, etc. >> >> >> >> >> _________________________ >> Paul C. Benko >> April 30, 2008 >> To: >> >> Barry R. Glickman >> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP >> 575 Lexington Avenue >> New York NY 10022 >> >> John Reddy >> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy >> 85 Worth Street >> New York NY 10013 >> >> >> >> SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK >> COUNTY OF NEW YORK >> __________________________________________x >> >> In the Matter of the Estate of >> >> Ruth V. Cardoso, >> >> Deceased >> FILE >> NO. 2546/2002 >> >> MOTION >> FOR REHEARING >> __________________________________________x >> >> >> The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing >> of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated March >> 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made >> numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision >> of Surrogate Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. A motion for >> summary judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of >> fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This >> decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even >> presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable >> issues of fact. >> >> 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no >> mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December >> 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New >> York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish >> all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the >> time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained >> silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the >> motion for summary judgment. >> >> 2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil >> Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not >> even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from >> somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is >> not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified >> translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the >> deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file >> states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink >> of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed >> will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. >> Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who >> is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that >> he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor >> people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed >> by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was >> received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not >> named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will. >> >> 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the >> Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is >> followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will >> but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner >> must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the >> Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find >> relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence >> concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. >> >> 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim >> Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he >> must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out >> who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the >> deceased. >> >> 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in >> Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years >> earlier. This was because her mother was a German National. >> Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of >> this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and >> learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, >> because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. >> Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any >> relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to >> probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no >> relatives nor any money in Brazil. >> >> 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry >> that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then >> ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador >> Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He >> then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in >> Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. >> >> 7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes, >> Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in March 2003. Ruth V. >> Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than >> three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court >> in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. >> >> 8. It was in March 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the >> Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim >> Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular >> Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased. >> Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate >> Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian >> Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they >> knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate >> Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase >> except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was >> the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my >> contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had >> by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the >> pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was >> pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court >> that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts >> to grab the money for his own benefit. >> >> 9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able >> to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to >> Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the >> 111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided >> to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of >> the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said >> that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr. >> Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport >> or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a >> long time to comply and then only after several letters had been >> exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that >> there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this >> time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money >> had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice >> the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal. >> >> 10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome >> proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to >> �prove� the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the >> signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the >> Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices >> in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of >> $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in >> December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the >> opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it >> took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions >> and writing his report. >> >> 11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings >> in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to >> Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to >> produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will >> has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It >> is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain >> articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various >> friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under >> this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in >> this supposed will. >> >> 12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in >> the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply >> overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as >> late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig. >> Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the >> Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, >> who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark >> still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time >> petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments >> in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved >> out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York >> Surrogates Court. >> >> 13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required >> court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark >> discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out >> of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. >> >> 14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security >> system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and >> thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often >> do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own >> supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador >> Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it >> was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived >> six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of >> Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the >> account executive, who was Eric Mark. >> >> 15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. >> >> 16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a >> failure of the internal security systems of Citibank that this all >> happened, they come to this court claiming that they did the right >> thing. However, they have produced no evidence in support of their >> claims. They have not even submitted documents from the Succession's >> and Orphans Court of Brazil. We are told just to trust them that there >> is such a court, that it has jurisdiction, that there is another will >> and so on. The only presentation made by Citibank was verbal at the >> oral argument that took place before this court in May 2006. During >> that oral argument, the representative of Citibank made statements >> which I know to be untrue. Also, note that Citibank has been silent on >> the subjects of how much money they paid, when they paid it and to >> whom. I have learned from other outside sources that they paid the >> money to Wolfgang Roddewig in May or June 2004. Citibank has been >> completely stonewalling on this subject. >> >> 17. If the present decision is allowed to stand, all of the time >> honored procedures followed by the New York Surrogates Court will have >> to be changed. This means that someone can come in years later and >> claim that there was a will in some other country previously unknown >> and everything will have to be undone. This is the reason that notices >> were required to be published in the New York Law Journal, so as to >> stop the shenanigan performed by Wolfgang Roddewig. The decision of >> this court makes no mention of the fact that notices were published in >> the New York Law Journal and that Citibank did not respond to those >> notices. Once they failed to appear, that should have extinguished >> their claims. Instead, Citibank filed nothing and provided no >> information until May 2006 when petitioner submitted his motion for >> summary judgment. >> >> WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this petition for a >> rehearing should be granted and the order f this court dated March 17, >> 2008 should be set aside and reversed. >> >> >> >> _________________________ >> Paul C. Benko >> >> April 30, 2008 >> >> >> VERIFICATION >> >> I, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition, >> being duly sworn, says: >> >> I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the >> contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as >> to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and >> belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true. >> >> >> >> _________________________ >> Signature of >> Petitioner >> >> On the 30th Day of April, 2008 before me personally came Paul C. Benko >> to me known to be the person described herein and who executed the >> foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument before >> me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same. >> >> >> _____________________________ >> NOTARY PUBLIC >> >> >> >> >> Copy to: >> >> Barry R. Glickman >> Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP >> 575 Lexington Avenue >> New York NY 10022 >> >> John Reddy >> The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy >> 85 Worth Street >> New York NY 10013 > > > A lot of this reads like Sam Sloan helped write it. (Similar turns of > phrase, similar rambling irrelevancies.) If so, someone really ought > to explain to Benko why this is a bad idea. Simply put, if you lie > down with dogs, you're going to end up with fleas. I don't know if > Benko has a case, but what he needs is a lawyer, not a litigious crank. Glenn is going to deny the motion anyway. This is really setting the stage for an appeal. I appeared before Glenn when she was sitting as a Supreme Court Justice in Part V (matrimonial). [Her ex-husband taught NY CPLR at NY Law School for years] IMO, she was one of the worst judges in NYS. She was eventually transferred out of Part V. A blessing given the havoc she spread there. How she ever got herself elected Surrogate is a mystery. Her decision here is typical of the way her reasoning works, which is to say it doesn't. I expect she will be reversed on appeal.     Date: 03 May 2008 20:41:37 From: Sam Sloan Subject: Re: Citibank Cheats Grandmaster Benko out of $70,000 SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK __________________________________________x In the Matter of the Estate of Ruth V. Cardoso, Deceased FILE NO. 2546/2002 NOTICE OF MOTION __________________________________________x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Paul C. Benko and upon all of the papers and proceedings had herein the undersigned will move this court on the 20th day of May 2008 for an order granting a rehearing of the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen of this court dated March 17, 2008 which granted summary judgment in favor of Citibank. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Petitioner demands service of a copy of all opposition papers to this motion at least five days before the return date of this motion. Yours, etc. _________________________ Paul C. Benko April 30, 2008 To: Barry R. Glickman Zeichner, Ellman & Kraus LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10022 John Reddy The Law Firm of Bekerman & Reddy 85 Worth Street New York NY 10013 SURROGATES COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK __________________________________________x In the Matter of the Estate of Ruth V. Cardoso, Deceased FILE NO. 2546/2002 MOTION FOR REHEARING __________________________________________x The undersigned petitioner Paul C. Benko hereby moves for a rehearing of the the decision of the Honorable Kristin Booth Glen dated March 17, 2008 on the grounds that the decision by Surrogate Glen made numerous findings of fact, all of which are in dispute. The decision of Surrogate Glen granted summary judgment to Citibank. A motion for summary judgment can only be granted if there are no triable issues of fact. In this case, there are many triable issues of fact. This decision cannot be allowed to stand because Citibank never even presented evidence to support their claims and these are triable issues of fact. 1. The decision of this court is clearly erroneous because it makes no mention of the fact that a hearing was had in this case in December 2003 after the publication of four weeks of legal notices in the New York Law Journal. The purpose of those legal notices was to extinguish all claims by anybody else. If Citibank wanted to object, that was the time to do it. Instead, Citibank did not appear. Citibank remained silent on this entire matter until 2006 when petitioner filed the motion for summary judgment. 2. The decision of Surrogate Glen repeatedly refers to a "Brazil Will". However, no such will has ever been produced in this court, not even a photocopy thereof. All that has been produced is a letter from somebody in Brazil stating that there was such a will. The letter is not written in English. It is written in Portuguese. No certified translation has been provided to this court. No document signed by the deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, has been produced. A letter in the file states that Ruth Cardoso was seriously ill, in bed, and on the brink of death. Thus, we cannot even examine a photocopy of the supposed will to see if it resembles the signature of Ruth V. Cardoso. Petitioner is in receipt of a letter from one Wolfgang Roddewig, who is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil, who stated that he intended to donate any money left by the decedent to the poor people living in the slums of Salvador Brazil. This letter was filed by the petitioner with this Surrogate's Court back in 2003 when it was received. This letter makes it evident that Wolfgang Roddewig was not named as a beneficiary of the supposed Brazil Will. 3. It is obvious what really happened: Under the Rules of the Surrogate's Court of New York County (it is not clear if this is followed in other counties as well) if a person dies leaving a will but has no living relatives down to first cousins, then the petitioner must search for any possible relatives and must demonstrate to the Probate Department that all possible efforts were made to find relatives. Petitioner must file an affidavit and other evidence concerning the efforts that were made to find these relatives. 4. Based upon this rule, Petitioner was instructed by Tim Amerist,Clerk of Probate Department of this Surrogate's Court, that he must contact the cemetery where the deceased was buried and find out who buried her and if that person knew of any relatives of the deceased. 5. The Deceased, Ruth V. Cardoso, was buried in the German Cemetery in Salvador Brazil next to her mother, who had died there a few years earlier. This was because her mother was a German National. Petitioner, following the instructions of the Probate Department of this Honorable Court, accordingly contacted the German Cemetery and learned that the cemetery is under the control of Wolfgang Roddewig, because he is the Honorary Consul of Germany to Salvador Brazil. Petitioner contacted Sr. Roddewig and asked if he knew of any relatives of Ruth V. Cardoso, because this information was needed to probate her estate. Sr. Roddewig replied that she had left no relatives nor any money in Brazil. 6. We now know what happened next. Upon learning through this inquiry that Ruth V. Cardoso had left some money in Citibank New York, he then ran down to the local Succession's and Orphan's Court in Salvador Brazil and got himself appointed as the executor of her estate. He then contacted the local branches of Citibank which has two offices in Salvador Brazil and demanded that the money be paid to him. 7. We know that this is what happened because, as the court notes, Wolfgang Roddewig says that he was appointed in March 2003. Ruth V. Cardoso died on February 11, 2000. Thus, Sr. Roddewig waited more than three years after Ruth Cardoso had died before approaching the court in Brazil. In short, this was an obvious scam. 8. It was in March 2003 that pursuant to instructions given by the Probate Department of this court under the supervision of Mr. Tim Amerist of this court, Petitioner was told to contact the Consular Officer of Brazil to find out any possible relatives of the deceased. Petitioner wishes to emphasize that the clerks in the Probate Department specifically directed Petitioner to contact the Brazilian Embassy or the Brazilian Office in the United Nations to see if they knew of any relatives of Ruth Cardoso. In short, the Probate Department sent Petitioner on what would have been a wild goose chase except that as a result Petitioner contacted Wolfgang Roddewig who was the Honorary Consul of Brazil. Upon realizing the purpose of my contacting him, Sr. Roddewig realized that there was money to be had by claiming the money for himself. Petitioner has filed all of the pertinent documents with this court and it plainly obvious that it was pursuant to the directives of the Probate Department of this Court that I was required to notify Sr. Roddewig and he then started efforts to grab the money for his own benefit. 9. In August, 2004, after I discovered what had happened, I was able to track down the person at Citibank who actually paid the money to Sr. Roddewig. This person is a Portuguese speaking staff member at the 111 Wall Street office of Citibank. She told me that she had decided to treat this as a foreign or overseas account especially in view of the fact that the account had lain dormant for four years. She said that it had taken Citibank a long time to pay the money to Sr. Roddewig because Citibank kept asking him for a copy of his passport or other documentation to prove his identity and it had taken him a long time to comply and then only after several letters had been exchanged. The Citibank official told me that she had had no idea that there was a case pending in the New York Surrogate's Court all this time regarding these same funds. In short, she admitted that the money had been paid to Sr. Roddewig simply because they had failed to notice the legal notice published in the New York Law Journal. 10. Meanwhile, Petitioner was going through the lengthy and burdensome proceedings required by the rules of the New York Surrogates Court to “prove” the will. This involved bringing in all the witnesses to the signing of the will to testify before Mr. John Reddy, Counsel for the Public Administrator. Petitioner also published four required notices in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003 (at a cost of $2700) and then a hearing was held in New York Surrogate's Court in December 2003 in which the Public Administrator requested the opportunity to take depositions of the witnesses. Unfortunately, it took Mr. Reddy seven months to get around to taking the depositions and writing his report. 11. All this time that Petitioner was going though these proceedings in New York, Wolfgang Roddewig down in Brazil was writing letters to Citibank demanding that the money be paid to him. He did not have to produce a will, much less prove it, and indeed until this date no will has been produced. We only know what the will is said to contain. It is said that under the supposed will Ruth V. Cardoso gave certain articles of furniture and jewelry plus her apartment to various friends and neighbors in Salvador Brazil. No money was given under this supposed will and no mention of Wolfgang Roddewig was made in this supposed will. 12. It is apparent that when the required notices were published in the New York Law Journal in ober and November 2003, Citibank simply overlooked and missed those notices. Citibank still had the money as late as May 2004. They had not yet given it to Wolfgang Roddewig. Petitioner knows this because he regularly visited the office of the Citibank Account Executive who was handling the Ruth Cardoso Account, who was Eric Mark of the 120 Broadway Branch. Incidentally, Mr. Mark still works at that branch and still sits at the same desk. Each time petitioner visited Mr. Mark to inform him of the latest developments in the case, Mr. Mark assured him that the money would not be moved out of the Ruth Cardoso account without an order of the New York Surrogates Court. 13. Thus, Petitioner was shocked when he finally obtained the required court order in July 2004 and provided it to Mr. Mark and Mr. Mark discovered that only a few weeks earlier the money had been moved out of the Ruth V. Cardoso account without notice to Mr. Mark. 14. What happened is an obvious failure in the internal security system of Citibank. Citibank has offices all over the world and thousands of employees. It has become clear that the employees often do not talk to each other. Eric Mark probably only talks to his own supervisor. The people working in the Citibank Offices in Salvador Brazil probably only talk to their supervisors. I have learned that it was because Ruth Cardoso used a Brazil address even though she lived six months of every year in New Jersey that the Foreign Department of Citibank took over the Ruth Cardoso account without informing the account executive, who was Eric Mark. 15. In other words CITIBANK MADE A MISTAKE. 16. Now, rather than admit that is was due to a bank error or a failure of the internal security sy