issue 1



Trusts emanated from English common law during the Crusades.  It seems those owning fiefdoms would go off to Crusades leaving their fief in the hands of a “reliable entrusted” individual.  Upon return, many of those Crusaders found their fiefs were converted by the “reliable entrusted” individuals and their families to their own possession, control and eventually title. There were many accusations causing a furor against those profiting from the devious fief conversions. They were called heathens and heretics who should be drawn and quartered or burned at the stake.  Crusaders petitioned the King who became sensitive to the turmoil and the need to right the wrongs done by the fief conversions. The King favored the Crusaders who had gone to the Holy Land to protect Christian ideals at his beckoning.

Within the United States this estate conversion is now more prevalent than yesteryear.  Instead of Crusaders we have honest, religious and forthright citizens suffering the indignities of this conversion process, especially the elderly. The heathens and heretics have been replaced by unethical lawyers, accountants and associated fraudsters who pilfer estates of the unknowing and vulnerable at will.  Trusts are simple for any United States citizen to understand.  It is only when fraudulent acts are created within them that they look complicated.


A United States trust is an artificial legal entity basically created by wealthy to avoid taxes, law suites and control recipients. Trusts are generally either self-explanatory   revocable or irrevocable.   We will not get into the intricacies or jargon since simple explanations   are readily available on the Internet.   We do want to show how a trusts original intent can allegedly be abused or misused by using the New York State generated Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust as our first example.

Accountability of Trustee

The law imposes strict obligations and rules on trustees including a duty to account for any benefits the Trustee may have gained directly or indirectly from a Trust. This goes beyond fraudulent abuse of position by a Trustee.

There is a basic rule that a Trustee may not derive any advantage directly or indirectly from a Trust unless expressly permitted by the Trust.  If the trustee is a professional Trustee the Trust provides specifically for a right to make reasonable charges for services. However, full disclosure of the basis and amount of charges is required.

Duty of Trustee is to Obey Trust Document for Benefit of Beneficiaries

The most important rule relating to the duties of a Trustee is that requiring them to obey the directions in the Trust deed both with regard to the interests of the Beneficiaries and with regard to the administration of the Trust. Trustees are also subject to very strict standards as to the way in which their powers and discretion may be exercised.

Fiduciary Relationship of Trustee

The courts regard a Trust as creating a special relationship that places serious and onerous obligations on the Trustees. Thus the law regards the special “Fiduciary” (see issue 1 Robert W Sheehan case) relationship of a Trust as imposing stringent duties and liabilities on the person in whom confidence is placed – the Trustees – in order to prevent possible abuse of that confidence. A Trustee is therefore subject to the stringent regulations:

No private advantage – 

A Trustee is not permitted to use or deal with Trust property for private direct or indirect advantage. If necessary the court will hold him personally liable to account for any profits made in breach of this obligation.

Best interests of Beneficiaries – 

Trustees must exercise all their powers in the best interests of the Beneficiaries of the trust.

Act prudently – 

Whether or not a Trustee is remunerated he must act prudently in the management of Trust property and will be liable for breach of Trust if, by failing to exercise proper care, the Trust fund suffers loss.

The law imposes on a professional trustee a higher standard of care.   Failure to exercise the requisite level of care constitutes a breach of trust for which the Trustee will be liable to compensate the Beneficiaries.

Avoid lawyers and accountants as sole trustees without scrutinizing overseers.   They have the capability of tacking on fees and other unknown charges.  Lawyers use their courthouse of preference where they can have a judicial special relationship.  Need we say more!


Valarie Hing Curtis Mallet partner

Synopsis of Kevin J Collins New York Revocable Trust as Created by Curtis Mallet Partner Professional Trustee

We will now deal with the reality of case study.  The disclosed documents will speak for themselves.  The reader will be able to ascertain whether or not international law firm Curtis Mallet is abiding with legal regulations, as upheld by the state of New York and United States of America Government, from whence the Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust was created.   The controversial Courthouse of Curtis Mallet preference is allegedly located in the Wall Street area.  Both Kevin and Louise were domiciled in (citizens of) Palm Beach, Florida.  At the time this trust was created, Kevin was near bedridden in Palm Beach suffering a terminal brain tumor, while his wife Louise was in intensive care at Mt Sinai Hospital in Miami.  Neither Kevin nor Louise had children or relatives to scrutinize their estate assets.  Both relied upon the Curtis Mallet partner as a “reliable entrusted” legal servant.  This has proved to be a grievous mistake.

Curtis Mallet successfully removed Kevin’s accounting firm, investment firms et al without any written authorization to do so.  All of Kevin’s estate supporting entities is now under the complete in-house control of Curtis Mallet and Robert W Sheehan family members “in perpetuity”.  How did a Curtis Mallet partner go from working against Louise’s interests to representing her interests, without incurring conflict of interest? How could Curtis Mallet partner Robert W Sheehan’s family members become trustees of the Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust?  How did a Curtis Mallet partner and his family take over complete possession and control “in perpetuity” of the Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust without the mandatory judicial scrutiny?  Who in the New York State Wall Street area Courthouse made the mandatory approval of alleged questionable documents without the mandatory written authorization from Louise Collins?  Where are the due diligence judicial overseers of such behavior?

We have cut short some of the United States Internal Revenue Code and trust regulations for brevity sake. The point is to mention Trustee obligations and regulations.   If readership would like to read the applicable noted Codes they may research it on the Internet.


A. Following the death of the Grantor (Kevin), the Trustees shall hold all trust property directed to be held … in a separate trust and shall pay or apply so much or all of the net income thereof as least quarterly, to or for the benefit of the Grantor’s said wife (Louise) during her life.  In addition, the Trustees may distribute to Grantor’s said wife, at any time and from time to time, such amounts from the principal of the trust, as the Trustees deem advisable for her health, support and maintenance.  The authority hereby granted to the Trustees may be exercised in the sole discretion of the Trustees and shall include the power to thereby terminate the trust.


B. Although the trust may continue in perpetuity … .  The Trustees are authorized, in their absolute discretion, to terminate the trust at any time if they feel that by so doing, the best charitable use will be made of the trust property.

C. (2) no Trustee may engage in any act of self-dealing as defined in Section 4941(d) of said Code (United States Internal Revenue).

E. No part of the net earnings of the trust shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributed to, any Trustee or any private individual, except that the Trustees shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation and commissions for services to or for the trust, … .


A. Robert W. Sheehan, as Trustee, may at any time by written instrument designate any individual or corporation as a co-trustee to act with him.

B. As long as Robert W. Sheehan is acting as a Trustee hereunder, he, alone, may designate by written instrument an individual or corporation to act as successor trustee to fill any vacancy occurring as a result of the death or resignation … .

C. Any Trustee at any time acting hereunder may resign from said office without necessity of prior accounting or judicial approval … .

E. The trustees are authorized, at any time and from time to time, by a duly acknowledged instrument to change situs (jurisdiction) and governing law of any trust created under this Agreement to a jurisdiction to be selected by the trustees.

Seventh Trustees Powers to Continue

All of the rights, powers, privileges, discretion, exemptions and immunities granted to as well as the duties and obligations imposed upon the trustees by law or by this Agreement shall continue after the death of the Grantor until the complete distribution of the principal.

Eighth Indemnification of the Individual Trustees

Each individual Trustee … shall be fully indemnified … for any liability or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by or damages assessed against the Trustee in respect of the Trustee’s services as such, for acts or omissions of the Trustee including, but not limited to, actions with respect to the establishment, administration, investment, management or distribution of such trust, except to the extent such liability, expense or damages are finally adjudged to have been caused by the Trustee’s gross negligence, fraud or willful misconduct.  (Curtis Mallet and Robert W Sheehan partner must be held to a higher standard by law since Sheehan is a professional trustee.)

Ninth Miscellaneous Provisions

The situs (jurisdiction) of the trust created hereunder is the State of New York.  The Trustees may move any trust hereunder from one jurisdiction to another and, by written instrument, may from time to time remove the situs of any trust created thereunder to any other jurisdiction as Trustees may, in their sole discretion, deem advisable.


Alleged Fiduciary Conflicts of Interest by Curtis Mallet

We are presenting but a few of the Curtis Mallet and other revealing documents exposing a series of dubious acts leading to USA Federal, New York and Florida violations. Again, the documents speak for themselves.   At very least, there is an alleged deliberate intent to deceive in the alleged unlawful conversion of the Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust. There can be neither mistake nor inadvertence. The acts allegedly portray a well-defined strategy to enrich Curtis Mallet, its partner Robert W Sheehan and his family “in perpetuity”.   How could Curtis Mallet allegedly circumvent either USA Federal or New York/Florida state laws and regulations in order to accomplish this fete?  Who are the judiciary and regulators allegedly allowing mandatory trust documents to be successfully processed without the required signatures, notarized or otherwise?


Eliot Lauer Curtis Mallet partner

Michael S. Schwartz, partner at Curtis Mallet

Daniel Dykes, partner at Curtis Mallet


As sons of Curtis Mallet partner Robert W Sheehan, Thomas V Sheehan  and William B Sheehan were unilaterally appointed as successor Trustees of the Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust by Curtis Mallet despite self-serving violations.  Neither terminally ill Kevin nor intensive care Louise gave written authorization to any of the continuing  self-serving violations  noted within this newsletter.


Winta Jarvis Curtis Mallet partner

This self-explanatory sophomoric dumb-down letter is but one of many written by a Curtis Mallet partner. It is an affront to Louise’s intelligence.  This pattern seems to be increasing among “reliable entrusted” United States lawyers allegedly representing the interests of elderly clients.  Nonetheless, Curtis Mallet went forward without any written authorization from Louise.  Kevin J Collins estate stock assets have been shifted from WP Stewart > Inverness Counsel to Round Oak Capital,  without mandatory written authorization from either Kevin or Louise.  Curtis Mallet violated  law by ignoring the mandatory USA Federal and New York State regulations.  Again, what does Curtis Mallet predicate their dubious actions?   Why does Curtis Mallet willingly aid and abet the alleged conversion of a Client Kevin J Collins estate to the possession and control of partner Robert W Sheehan and his family members, in perpetuity (forever)?   The sinister event is that Curtis can use Client victims assets to defend itself from criminal violations it has allowed/committed.  In this case, it is to  end with transfer of victim client assets to Curtis Mallet partner’s family in perpetuity.  Why does Curtis Mallet jeopardize their total client good will within the international legal marketplace for paltry seamy questionable fees?________________________________________________

Larry Goodman Curtis Mallet partner


Thomas Vietor Sheehan’s start-up limited liability investment firm Round Oak Capital.  Thomas V Sheehan was attempting to have Louise G Collins give him “power of attorney” over prior husband Kevin’s assets.


According to authorities,  Round Oak  has allegedly one Management figure Thomas V Sheehan.  Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust is alleged to be the only substantial investor, approximately $8,000,000.  It is a limited liability company  (LLC)  making Curtis Mallet, and the Sheehan family members impervious to the future  legal actions when the assets are unaccounted.   In other words, when the Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust assets are lost or otherwise disappear as happened, neither Curtis Mallet,  partner father Robert W Sheehan nor son Round Oak Capital sole “Management” Thomas V Sheehan were to be held liable.  Kevin J Collins Revocable Trust stock assets were unilaterally placed into this recently created allegedly rigged investment scheme by Curtis Mallet,  partner Robert W Sheehan and Thomas V Sheehan.   Louise G Collins never signed the mandatory written authorization from Schwab.   Louise Collins only found out the notarized signature or lack thereof was ignored by Curtis Mallet partner Robert W Sheehan and his son Thomas V Sheehan when Louise started receiving JP Morgan statements from Thomas V Sheehan’s start-up Round Oak Capital.  These are both USA Federal as well as New York/Florida state criminal violations of the law.


Susan Pollack Curtis Mallet partner


This dumb-down letter alludes to the mandatory Florida/New York State and Federal trust regulations requiring Louise’s notarized signature.   It also speaks of Louise naïvely releasing Curtis Mallet liability.  We will see Curtis Mallet partner and his son Thomas Vietor Sheehan did not declare these criminal violations to New York Attorney General’s office when successfully asking for a contrived release from their crimes.   Again, Louise never signed this Curtis Mallet document. Somehow, the USA Federal and New York State regulators are allowing these continuing series of USA criminal violations of the law.  Curtis Mallet has to base their continuing pattern of questionable behavior on something, else they would have been prosecuted.


Lynn Harrison Curtis Mallet partner


For many years Curtis Mallet made grave errors in not doing due diligence upon the Kevin J Collins, Meadow Lane, Southampton property.  This negligence by Curtis Mallet professional trustee Robert W Sheehan resulted in substantial tax overpayments.  Wife Louise G Collins has a  real estate friend  who brought to Louise’s attention that the Meadow Lane, Southampton estate had tax irregularities.  The real estate advisor gave Louise the name of a highly respected Southampton real estate lawyer  who would rectify the matters brought to Louise’s attention.    Upon hearing of the dilemma, Curtis Mallet insinuated themselves between Louise and the Southampton real estate lawyer.  Curtis Mallet then had the gall to charge substantial fees to rectify their negligence.  Oh yes, do you see any grammatical errors in this letter?  How can Curtis Mallet allow such a confusing if not devious letter to be sent on its letterhead?  The Curtis Mallet partner uses “our” in two different contexts, leaving the Louise and involved others perplexed as to whom these “our” are.  It had to be devious since this Yale graduate must have taken core course English 101, at very least.  Perhaps he is rattled at transparency of the dubious Curtis Mallet behavior!


June 29, 2011

David Laughlin, President
Inverness Counsel LLC
845 3rd Ave #801
New York, NY 10022-6628

Dear President Laughlin:

My wife Weezie (Louis G Collins, prior wife of deceased Kevin J Collins) and I are concerned about the Kevin J Collins Trust (herein KJCT) assets which are/were held with Inverness Counsel LLC (herein Inverness). My wife is/was quite comfortable with the capabilities of Inverness and has never seen any reason for   anyone destabilizing that relationship. Weezie has not been endeared to any one employee as much as the Inverness recognized competence as a whole.

I have been given power of attorney by my wife Weezie to seek, find and deal with the KJCT   assets.  Some if not all of these KJCT assets have been entrusted to Inverness. I have researched KJCT document archives and found them disturbing (Exhibit H).  Let me explain.

Weezie has been given the impression Thomas Sheehan works part-time with Inverness, using their administrative support while beginning his Round Oak Capital LLC start-up (Exhibit G). I saw this as not the usual but a conflicting business arrangement.  It seems KJCT assets could have been shifted from Inverness to a Round Oak

Capital LLC start-up without any mandatory written authorization from my wife Weezie to do so.  I further saw that mail sent to Thomas Sheehan was returned (Exhibit F). These incidences do little to continue confidence in the management of the KJCT, in particular the trust assets.

At this time we are perplexed as to particulars of the KJCT assets.  We ask for your cooperation in clarifying this awkward matter for both Weezie and Inverness.  We would like any pertinent documentation as soon as possible, especially regarding any shifting of KJCT assets.

Herb Mallard

101 Worth Avenue
Palm Beach, FL   33480

This self-explanatory registered letter was written to the Inverness Counsel President.  There has not been a reply.


Daniel Lenihan Curtis Mallet partner


Letters to Director:

It frightened both of us when the lawyers told us we had to talk through them and not speak to each other.  We knew then and there the fix was in. They were going to bleed us dry.  They started talking to each other and sending use canned legal material we saw word for word  on the Internet. We decided to renew our wedding vows.
The Goldmans

Dear Director:
You guys are everywhere.  We have Googled many names and you guys are there.  How do you get so much internet exposure?  We became so curious we read all your issues.  Once you start you can’t put it down.  I am doing a class paper on your site.  When is your next issue?  This guy went to Yale! — 
Pre-law U of P

Lawyers are like sharks. If they can’t find any clients to eat, they will eat each other at the smell of blood. Curtis certainly has made a meal of this elderly couple.  The managing partner is a real doofus to let this one linger.   You certainly have provided blood to lawyers on this one.  It will be only a matter of time until Curtis clients will be informed of your site by competing law firms, then Curtis will be eaten.
Competing law firm partner

Dear Director:
Our law firm has read your site and want to congratulate you on your work.  The legal system should be rid of such attorneys.  We would like to assist you in getting the word out. Can you give us any names of lower level personnel working for Curtis Mallet or  clients?  This would help us tremendously in assisting you.
— Partner

We want to inform you this guy at Curtis Mallet was in the New York Times Sunday Magazine “super lawyer” list a few weeks ago.   Attorneys all know the list is a bunch of advertising bullshit.  I think you should contact the Times for an article showing their super layer in action.  How much worse can the legal profession get, especially in New York City.
New York Attorney


Dear Readership:

In our brief existence we have received many favorable comments on the issues as presented.   The Readership has just read USA Federal and Florida/New York State criminal violations of a Curtis Mallet partner and his son. Again, we will  later see New York Attorney General’s office release all from criminal violations through a scheme to successfully threaten Louise Collins into signing an unenforceable release predicated on criminal documents.  There will be further inclusions later to satisfy readership demands.   We have eliminated most of the questionable legal jargon so our non-legal readership can understand the verbiage.  It is imperative other Curtis Mallet clients do not suffer the same disparaging behavior when entrusted by their international clientele.   Curtis Mallet is not alone in this pattern of behavior.  They just got caught by revealing documents.

We are allowing the readership to make up their own minds as to how such imperfect documents successfully travel through judicial institutions unscathed from due diligence,  scrutiny or prosecution.

Comments are closed.