Tag Archives: Linda Mastro

Mastro Update: Linda Mastro Files Reply Brief

Posted on by
Reply

Here is Linda Mastro’s Reply Brief. It’s very pithy, and can be summarized in three short paragraphs.

Argument 1: The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine does not apply, because it is not necessary that Linda be present for these issues to be adjudicated.  Where’s your authority on that Gossler?  No case law is cited in the brief.

Argument 2: No evidence to suggest Linda had anything to do with the missing gold, Rolls Royce shenanigan, or the missing money from the Chase account.

Argument 3: Evidence all says the jewelry was Linda’s separate property.

Finally, here’s a link to a recent Seattle Times article about Mastro’s whereabouts, and a potential criminal indictment.

Rigby Files Brief in Linda Mastro Appeal

Posted on by
Reply

The brief is well written (here it is), with two basic arguments.  First – and the lead argument – is that Linda Mastro essentially loses the right to appeal by virtue of having left the jurisdiction and taken property that belongs to the estate.  She can’t willfully refuse to obey the court, while at the same time, expect to receive relief from it.  This is called the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine.  See Wengin Sun v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2009).  It appears this doctrine is usually applied in criminal cases, but Rigby cites authority that it has also been applied in civil cases.

The second part of Rigby’s brief is simply that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the court’s judgment that the rings, gold, Rolls Royce, etc. was not Linda Mastro’s separate property, and thus is properly included in the bankruptcy estate.

Here’s what we think will happen:  The District Court will apply the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine, and affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment.  By doing this, it will not need to address whether the facts at trial supported the judgment.  If the Court gets to the issue of whether the facts support the judgment, we think Rigby is on shakier ground.  While there is a lot of contradicted testimony by Linda Mastro on the jewelry, and indeed, her credibility is lacking, a gift is a gift (and from what we’ve seen, that’s what it was), so long as it was made when Mike Mastro was solvent.  Do we really believe that Mike Mastro intended to keep an interest in jewelry he gave his wife?  The evidence that Rigby cites is Mike Mastro’s having controlled the jewelry for awhile, but that seems weak to infer that he had an interest in it.  It sounds more like a bailment, if anything.

We keep coming back to how Linda can appeal, yet also be on the lam.  If Mike Gossler is unable to reach Linda does his ethical duty require that he file an appeal on her behalf to protect her interests?  Or if she’s incommunicado, can he ethically represent her interests, without receiving her specific direction?  Or is she in communication with Gossler, directing the appeal from afar?  And is he getting paid?  If so, with what money?  Our experience opposing Mike Gossler in litigation has shown us he is good, professional and ethical.  We assume whatever the facts, he’s doing what he should do under the circumstances.

Linda Mastro Files Appeal Brief

Posted on by
Reply

Linda Mastro attorney Michael Gossler filed what looks like a hastily prepared appellate brief.  No pun intended, but it’s pretty brief – touching on community property law, prenuptial agreements, estate planning and appellate review standards, all very complex subjects, without a whole lot of analysis. (We suspect this is good evidence Gossler is not getting paid and is making his best argument with little to go on).

Recall that the trial court ruled that the jewelry was not her separate property and thus subject to the court’s jurisdiction.  Linda Mastro’s brief argues the trial court erred in this respect – and that all the evidence shows that the jewelry was her separate property.

As for the judgments against Linda Mastro related to missing property, like the rings, gold bars, and money from an LLC, she argues that was error too.  She argues there was no evidence presented at trial that she had any control or even had knowledge about any of these transactions, and that the signatures related to these transactions, which purported ot be hers, were not actually hers, but Mike Mastro signing for her.

As it stands now, Linda Mastro remains on the lam, assumedly (but not necessarily) with Mike.  Also we assumed she has possession of the jewelry (or sold it, and has the cash), which the trial court ruled is not hers.

We can’t wait to read the Trustee’s responsive briefing.

Updates: Mastro and Hazelrigg

Posted on by
Reply

TEP has a few updates to report on both of these bankruptcies. Mastro is first.  Recall that Linda Mastro (in absentia) is appealing the award of jewelry, etc. to the bankruptcy trustee. That appeal, along with three others, are all before the U.S. District Court (Western District of Washington). The trustee is seeking to consolidate them. Here’s the motion.

Now for Hazelrigg.  The petitioning creditor, Jim Rigby, the trustee in the Mastro bankruptcy, is petitioning for an “Order of Relief.”  This means he’s asking the court to go forward with the involuntary Hazelrigg bankruptcy, despite Hazelrigg’s objection that the appropriate venue is New Mexico.  TEP thinks the trustee will win this argument, based on the fact that Hazelrigg’s Washington State LLC, Centurion Financial, is also the subject of an involuntary bankruptcy – in Washington State – filed on January 6.  It does not make sense to have the two related bankruptcies in two separate venues.  The hearing is February 10.

If anyone wants to see some of Hazelrigg’s old Bellevue Lincoln Tower digs, click here.  Here’s the living room:

This condo was actually owned by one of Hazelrigg’s shell companies, ANT ONE, LLC (ANT stands for his kids’ first names, Aaron Nicole Tom).  Because Hazelrigg always claimed to rent out unit 3905, we think he lived in 4102.

Notice the Chihuly chandelier – that’s not included in the sale … Wonder why?

King County records show the condo was foreclosed.  It is now bank owned.  The Trustee’s deed shows it going to the Bank for a full credit bid of $765,000.  Pretty cheap for a $4 million penthouse.  Or the bank had senior liens against it, hence nobody else bidding on it.

Linda Mastro Appeals Judgment Giving Rings, Chihuly Glass, Gold, Cash and a Bentley to Creditors

Posted on by
Reply

The Puget Sound Business Journal is reporting here that Linda Mastro, through her attorney Mike Gossler (Montgomery Purdue Blankenship firm), is appealing the bankrupty court’s judgment that awarded a cache of pirate treasure (seriously) to Mastro creditors.  The details of the appeal have not yet been disclosed, but here’s the notice.  The Judgment she is appealing is attached to the notice.  TEP wonders how can Linda Mastro disappear with the treasure yet appeal the judgment against her relating to the very same treasure that she took with her?  …  If anyone has an answer, please tell us, and we’ll post it!