1. III experiencing ongoing identity theft
2. II diagnosed but doing the best he can. Pressure from son C and M, fighting, and debt that C has caused company to carry, forcing II to work instead of rest.
3. II dies February 10, 2010. Didn’t want to, but was told he was ‘too sick.’ III only one who DID NOT enter room for last visit. III wanted to wait to see if he would recover, as he did in past…
4. III right back to life. Middle of a snow storm.
5. Couple of weeks pass. D, J and Fd begin closed meetings. Insist III should just trust them.
6. Paperwork drawn up, III was called on Cell Phone in the middle of life, after another snow storm. The crisis was that III needed to sign paperwork because ‘People won’t get paid if you don’t SIGN. You have to trust us, why would you go against the family.’ III hangs up. III wants a second opinion. III was told there was no time, J and D leave Fd’s office and return with paperwork. They called a couple of more times. Frustrated, III stopped what he was doing, drove to the office at 1059 M and entered. No one was present, just the paperwork. Against logic but wanting to do ‘the right thing,’ III signed, sight unseen. III didn’t even know a lawyer who would look at the agreement anyway, and who would think that the family wouldn’t have his best interest in mind. Further, it was described as just a stock consolidation, and III thought there would still be will a hearing, so on and so forth.
7. April or Early May, D calls III into his office. Makes an agreement to pay III $1,000 NET, $1,365 GROSS, and $$$$ after 40 hours. III agrees. They work the entire 2010 season.
8. During the 2011 snow season III’s truck becomes repeatedly vandalized. III gets strange phone calls, his computer is repeatedly hacked, and unknown people were parked out in front of his house, often seen taking notes.
9. They return to work for the 2011 season. A few weeks go by, and much to everyone’s surprise, III is still gainfully employed. A worker TJ remarked to III one morning ‘you still have your insurance?, she said you were supposed to lose your insurance.’ III has no idea what this guy is talking about, but then again, he looked at III one day and remarked ‘you killed me.’ His son (C R) also crashed his car in front of the shop previous to this, and on TJ’s first day of work when III asked who hired him TJ stated ‘I hope to finish my career here.’ No other response. This is an example of the prevailing attitude. “Just ignore III, and logic, he isn’t really important…”
10. J and D show up on a job on RT 5 in Wallingford and tell III that he needs to go to a CRISIS CENTER. In the middle of a working day. III was very confused and stated that III was at work to work. They leave the job site.
11. A few days later, III asked his brother if he had any awareness of his ongoing identity theft. C said III should stay home and he would just send III his check. No one tried to stop this. III made a decision that C looked ready to physically defend himself [start to fist fight], and III only wanted to know if C could help solve the identity theft issue. Not wishing to fight, III turned around, got in his car and left.
12. As Discussed, III was paid to stay home for five months. Another contractor did work on J’s driveway, GP. J thought maybe III would finish the season with him. III’s brother C refused to allow GP Sr. use any of ‘his’ paving equipment. Talks fell through, and III has been sent away to work for other contractors before. The ‘managers’ never really liked III’s logic or question asking.
13. Finished the 2011 season. Did not work all winter. No calls, no explanations.
14. 2012 season commences. Brought back on the payroll. Same deal. Stayed home. Paperwork filed for cars, etc. Couple meetings with Attorney TF. III paid TF’s asked fees. It was in a meeting in TF’s office where III was surprised by the path taken by Attorney Sk. Strange words…
15. Regardless, III signed the paperwork again, under the impression there would be a final meeting. When II first died, III purchased some CT Probate Law books. Every night, J and III would go over sections of the book. Until C’s lawyers took over.
16. III continued to receive the same check, each week, for $1,365 gross, $1,000 NET each week NO CHANGES.
17. 2012 season ends and III was dropped for seasonal lack of work. Collected unemployment all winter, no other work.
18. 2013 season, III was told that III couldn’t be paid the same amount. There would have to be reductions. III has a house and a mortgage, and after watching how much everyone is spending, III needs the piece of mind. Can’t be bounced around from contractor to contractor, and can’t be paid inheritance in working hours. III decided he would take the pharmacist assistant exam, as discussed with the State DOL.
19. The Next update:
- Last correspondence I received from North Branford Probate Court DID NOT list Judge F as acting Judge, it showed Town of Branford as Adjudicator. I realize my compliance with the determination of my mom as executrix is critical to her concept of order, but no oversight has detailed the pressure she has been put under, the inequities displayed the lack of clear and accurate financial reporting, or the failing decisions and council she has been given by attorney Sk. Attorney Sk is not listed AT ALL as an expense to the estate, and I have witnessed Mr. Sk’s payment after hearings.
- No personal bias against Judge. F, but he was the person placed in charge of oversight, and No Wise Oversight has been displayed to my eye. In fact, when presented with the discrepancies and failing health of the business, Judge F told me ‘Dunn and Bradstreet is not a reliable source of information.’ Any Judge who would seek to rule this information as ‘ex parte communication’ rather than as a red flag should be classified as ineffective.
- I have not been included in probate process, have very little clarity as to inner workings of the trust, and do not have similar opinions as management or estate attorneys. Ultimately, it appears to me to be a clear case of Nepotism.
- The basic trust outlines myself and my brother only to be directly provided for through the trust. Because my brother was chosen by my mom as the operating officer of daily activities, and it is not in his best interest to reduce his compensation or directing ability, the terms have not nearly come close to being followed. I asked my brother if he was aware of my ongoing identity theft three years ago, and he refused to answer and told me to stay home. I discussed pharmacy technician training, which I paid for previous to this discussion, with estate attorney Sk, and he told me the estate didn’t have the money. My mom wrote me a check this past August to cover expenses, including to rebuild a hacked computer, after I passed the test. But the trust is clear that I don’t need to beg or claim inequality. The estate should flow through her as executrix to cover equal disbursements to myself and my brother, UNLESS SHE SPECIFICALLY GIVES CAUSE OR REASON. I have not heard any such need.
- The business is being engineered to appear failing, so that any future requests that I might make will be non-payable because of financial crisis. Unfortunately for the business management staff, the application of this concept to business creditors has landed the business in court; according to my mom. Judge F stated to me the extra profits from the business should fund the trust, but being in the type of industry that it is in creates the situation of perpetual non-profitability. If this is the case, then the estate will never pay a cent because I do not directly work for the business in any capacity. This was the lawyers’ construction.
- My mom feels shut out from her grandchildren [my brother and sister-in-law] and therefore obligated to appease whenever possible to earn visitation rights. My sister-in-law has hacked my Gmail account attached to my cell phone , I bought the hardware, company provided data plan [email attached to and set up with new number generation attached to hardware device]. She reassigned my number to a different employee, no notice no chance to stop it. This created emotional duress when I found out and I was forced to react quickly, cancelling everything, while on my way to a funeral. My mom found out over a year later HER personal cell phone was hacked by Megan as well, through my brother’s telling. My brother and sister-in-law hacked each other’s phones, GPS, call lists, text contents, contact lists, etc. The family attorney L, W and Sk have provided no direction, neither Judge F. Their Facebook page recently displayed harassing statements, including my sister-in-law threatening to sue my Mom [as told to her by my Uncle Dante, the corporation’s secretary]. Incidents always occur timed with my life events; the week I wrote Judge F citing his oversights, my brother and sister went to lawyers to get divorce paperwork. Three weeks ago I was told about the Facebook Commentary, after I was discharged from the first job I obtained since my father’s passing. I have that DOL hearing this coming Monday, October 28, 2013. The DOL is claiming it was my ‘performance.’ Maybe Great Performance, or great acting by the dismissing employer, but that’s another discussion…
- I have received no reassurance of anyone’s custodial or fiduciary duties toward me. Two payroll economic stimulus packages ago, I was denied receipt of the extra 2% employee rebate. My father was still alive, and he rectified the situation after a couple of months. This past 2011 2% rebate program, I received no increase Net or Gross earnings. I told my mother, and my uncle. My uncle told me ‘just kidding, but this happened to you because you voted for Barak Obama.’
- The company, as told to me, is going through tough times. I have not been represented in this case. I have had great difficulty in getting representation AT ALL throughout this process. The one lawyer I retained, was unable to clarify to me why I needed to sign the agreement initially granting my mom consolidation, when there was supposedly a clear transition outlined in Attorney St’s documentation. The second question was why I needed to sign over ownership of my father’s personal vehicles when they should have been correctly placed into the St Trust Container. This past August 2013 I was told to buy my car that I paid for, from my mom for $1. Her boyfriend prepared the paperwork. It would be my duty to re-register the vehicle because she wanted to eliminate the “MAISANO BROS or MAISANO BROS” from the State DMV Database. How this construction was created or why it persisted was never explained to me, but I hope this is NOT a dissolution of inheritance not discussed BUT PROVIDED TO ME IN SOME UNDISCLOSED DOCUMENT.
- THE ONLY ITEM GIVEN DIRECTLY TO ME BY MY FATHER IS A MOBIL GAS CARD, PAID FOR THROUGH MAISANO BROS INC. I use approximately $50 per week in gas. In late July early August this card was ‘Temporarily Cancelled’ without my notice. In fact, I was aware of the card’s expiration date months earlier, and asked my mom if it would be renewed. She answered affirmatively YES. ON MY BIRTHDAY NIGHT, APRIL 13TH 2013, she told me the other direct passage item, a Home Depot Card that my father gave to me so that I could always perform repairs to my house, was reported ‘Stolen’ to the Home Depot Credit Company. When I called to clarify the situation, Home Depot Credit told me it was reported Stolen, though it may have been lost. I was holding the card in my hand. It always is a situation of prepare the people against me to act strong and take bold steps to control me or force me to lose something. When they are confronted, the opposition switches to a meeker disposition, offering to ‘help me out.’
- I shouldn’t have to lose my house. In fact, many of the deeds at the town halls, once showed Anthony Maisano only or Anthony Maisano and Joan Maisano second. This included the property where my Brother and Sister-in-Law reside. Ownership transfer aside, the sources of confusion, and the complexity of how to deal with my personal share of inheritance have been made clear to me. There is no inheritance for me.
- My brother used Attorney L in cases when my father was alive. Soon after my father’s death, my brother Chris told Attorney St ‘his guy would take over. I was surprised to see Attorney Sk work as the work filed to the State. This makes it appear as if I was sued and never told. My mom and the estate utilizes Attorney Sk exclusively now, after I pointed out my thoughts on conflict of interest. But Attorney Sk is Attorney L partner. St and Bd deny new work creation since the documents were created WHEN MY FATHER WAS ALIVE, then filed after I was told I needed to sign the consolidation agreement in 2010. I do feel that I have no recourse, and witnessing the dissolution of organization each time a generation dies, I have little hope for future enforcement base upon THE ETHICAL REMEMBRANCE OF THE PAST. I am aware of my mother’s place, but the free for all has been proven by landing in current bankruptcy court, and cancellation of the Asphalt Plant account with balance due. Other accounts are also un-payable, and it’s based on the lack of oversight of Judge F to attest to the correct containerization and ongoing business consideration and estate health.
Post conversation thoughts:
CT mentioned to me that the reason for Judge F asking to be removed from the case was one of his, Judge F’s, Clients, asked for his help in getting paid from Maisano Brothers Paving. He felt it was a conflict of interest, and heretofore was removed.
WHAT CLIENTS COULD JUDGE F POSSIBLY HAVE? HE IS A PUBLIC SERVANT. HOW COULD THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST POSSIBLY OCCUR?