Don't hire Margaret M Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One

The Surian Spin: Part IV

Motion to Dismiss the Will Contest
Hearing on Dr. Surian's Attorneys' Fees
Hearing on Bank One's Final Accounting and Attorney's Fees

01/29/01

Bank One Trust Company, represented by Margaret M. Frisbie of Bunger & Robertson, filed its Final Accounting and Request for Attorney's Fees and Services totaling $23,972.55 (Bank One, $7,500; Bunger Robertson, $16,472.55). Of those fees and services, $23,882.55 were incurred after Bank One had been informed in writing that they were a conflict of interest. Bank One wrote 3 checks totaling $136.70. Bank One had no ward to take care of, as Katherine was dead. The estate portfolio was not changed during Bank One's tenure. The hearing for Bank One's Final Accounting and Attorney's fees was scheduled for 05/11/01.

Bank One's Final Accounting was worse than Dr. Surian's Final Accounting.

The Hilliard Lyons account included a money fund account upon which the guardian could write checks, separate from the guardianship checking account. Dr. Surian and Thomas McDonald provided periodic accountings; sometimes they provided typed lists of disbursements that had been made. When pressed for the accounting records on 08/31/99, they provided Hilliard Lyons statements and tax returns. The Hilliard Lyons statements did not list check payees. When Barnes & Thornburg took over, Dr. Surian filed his Final Accounting for the period of July 14, 1999 through April 30, 2000; no receipts were provided. Dr. Surian's system wasn't perfect; it could have been compromised, but it did provide some information.

Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One refused to provide any receipts, Hilliard Lyons statements, or any tax returns; even though they were petitioned to do so on 11/27/00, pursuant to IC 29-1-16-3 and IC 29-1-16-4. They could have been writing checks from the Hilliard Lyons account, where there was a sizable balance and incoming dividends, to Viola J. Taliaferro every month. Since they refused to produce the Hilliard Lyons statements, you couldn't tell what they were doing. They made costly mistakes on estate taxes which did not surface until after the 05/11/01 hearing for their attorney's fees.

02/09/01

The orders for the hearings on 01/18/01 were signed. The guardianship of Katherine C. Surian was now officially closed. This case now entered the "estate" phase.

02/12/01

The confidential Walsh Settlement Agreement, agreed to in principal on 01/16/01, was not signed until 02/12/01. After the 01/18/01 trials, Greg Padgett of Barnes & Thornburg tried to alter the agreement to the point that Kent Emswiller almost had to re-enter the case. Vintage Greg Padgett.

02/16/01

In a Motion for Enlargement of Time filed on 02/16/01, Gregory L. Padgett revealed that both he and Barnes & Thornburg represented Bank One Trust Co., N.A. and were potentially a conflict of interest. No wonder they never objected to Bank One being a conflict of interest. Should they not have disclosed this conflict of interest prior to the hearings on 01/18/01? This was no level playing field, this was a swamp.

Edward M. Surjan, Mike's half brother, called Diane and stated that the Walshes had inherited prior to Linda's death, which explains why the Treasury Bills were set up the way they were. He disclosed that Mike and Katherine Surian had built an addition onto the Walshes home in Roswell, Georgia in 1986 prior to Linda's death on 07/14/89. Edward Surjan got this information from Dr. Surian. Dr. Surian had concealed the fact that the Walshes had already inherited from the trial on 01/18/01. Linda was diagnosed with MS in the early 1980's. It was vintage Mike and Katherine Surian to make Linda's last years more comfortable. Edward Surjan also asked Diane for money.

Neil Walsh and his fourth wife sold the Roswell home and moved to a new home in Clarksville, Georgia in 1999. Presumably the equity from the Roswell home was used to purchase the Clarksville home. Meanwhile, Linda's son had dropped out of high school, never went to college, and was living on the streets. He was overwhelmed with grief after Linda's death, while his father Neil pursued wife # 3 and then wife #4. Linda's daughter graduated high school; went to college and paid her own way. Mike and Katherine Surian surely intended for Linda's children to benefit from their generosity, not Neil's fourth wife or Neil's eight children by other marriages.

03/19/01

Dr. Surian objected to Bank One's Final Accounting and Fees. Which was really a joke, when you read the next entry (03/26/01).

03/26/01

Irwin Union closed the Hilliard Lyons account and took possession of all the assets. Dave S. Brooks, Vice President and Trust Officer at Irwin Union Bank and Trust company, did this to enhance their Trust Department portfolio, not for the benefit of the Surian estate. This would have been a good idea only if Irwin Union saved the Surian estate excessive brokerage fees charged by Hilliard Lyons when Irwin Union ultimately sold the assets, as they were requested; they did not.

Gregory L. Padgett of Barnes & Thornburg submitted Dr. Surian's Petition for Reimbursement of $116,609.47 for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses covering the period October 1999 to February 2001. All Legal Fees and Expenses at this point in time totaled $200,641.27.

04/02/01

Motion to Dismiss the Will Contest:

On behalf of Dr. Surian, Thomas M. McDonald filed a Motion to Dismiss the Will Contest lawsuit for failure to post bond. When Kent Emswiller of Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke filed the original Will Contest complaint on 11/12/99, he neglected to post a will contest bond, as ordered by the Court on 11/18/99 and required by Indiana law IC 29-1-7-19. The Motion to Dismiss was an attempt by Dr. Surian to deprive his sister of any inheritance whatsoever on the basis of a technicality. This was a serious move. A Will Contest Bond is not easy to obtain. Few companies want to write this type of bond when a family will contest is involved because of the risk involved.

Wow:

First, Dr. Surian tried to get 100 % of the estate by having Katherine sign a will while she was incompetent. He had concealed $63,329.80 in gold coins over a period of 5 years; and then returned $44,305.30 after he was caught. He had converted all valuable personal property to his own use; he did not give his siblings so much as a photograph; he stole property promised to his sister and the gifts his sister had given to Katherine. He took the cash from his father's dead body. He robbed his sister of $74,311,12 payable to her on 08/19/94. He stole $5,000 from his parents checking account on 08/08/94. He had paid $120,000 from the estate to settle the wrongful death suit, while having in his possession a 3-page letter from Douglas P. Long which stated that the Surian estate did not owe the accident victims' family anything. See entry on 07/10/95. His poor investment decisions led to losses of between $100,000 and $150,000 in principal and losses of $13,000 on speculative stocks purchased on margin. He signed an agreement guaranteeing the Walshes payment of $150,000, knowing that they had already inherited. He knew that the T-Bills represented the intentions of Mike and Katherine Surian. He had four lawyers trying to cheat his sister, who had no lawyer, out of her inheritance. His stated objective was to bleed the estate dry so that his sister didn't get any money. See entry 11/04/99. Even after he was removed as guardian, he was trying to see to it that his sister didn't get a dime on the basis of a technicality. This was predatory; this was vintage Dr. Surian. This was the psychopath that Magistrate Taliaferro appointed as Katherine's guardian. And, Judge Taliaferro was cheering Dr. Surian all the way. She didn't require Dr. Surian to return all the money he stole or to pay damages that were known to exist or to inventory assets known to exist. Most assuredly, if Diane didn't obtain a will contest bond, Judge Taliaferro would order the will contest thrown out, whereas she should have thrown out the will; Dr. Surian would receive the entire estate, but would have to pay the Walshes $150,000 per the Walsh settlement agreement. Diane would receive nothing. And who had neglected to file the bond? Kent Emswiller of Emswiller, Williams, Nolan & Clarke.

Thomas M. McDonald would earn his bread that day on 04/02/01 by helping Dr. Surian try to cheat his sister out of her inheritance on a technicality. What a slimeball. Thomas M. McDonald's actions on 08/08/94 led to the death of Mike Surian and 3 other people on 08/09/94. On 07/10/95 Thomas M. McDonald and Dr. Surian had conned Taliaferro into approving a wrongful death settlement of $120,000 from the estate when they both knew the estate did not owe this money. Look how Thomas M. McDonald misled Irwin Union on 01/03/01. Mike Surian had integrity, something that Dr. Surian and his claque lack. There is no amount of money in this world that would have motivated Mike Surian to help a rich doctor cheat his sister. At the end of the day, Thomas M. McDonald, were all the lies you told worth the money you were paid for them?

So why did McDonald do it. He had to do everything Dr. Surian told him to do; because if Dr. Surian went down, Dr. Surian had enough evidence on McDonald to take him with. Dr. Surian and Thomas McDonald consistently said one thing in court while hiding information to the contrary.

The Motion to Dismiss issue was ultimately resolved on 05/11/01.

04/03/01

Greg Padgett admitted in a phone conversation that the Walshes had already inherited. Dr. Surian had concealed this information from the hearings on 01/18/01 and from Irwin Union.

04/09/01

Diane filed a Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Dismiss the Will Contest.

04/13/01

Greg Padgett filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Will Contest.

04/27/01

Judge Taliaferro never responded to the substance of the Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Dismiss the Will Contest; but rather filed an order showing that she doesn't understand fax machines. This was a ruse on the part of Judge Taliaferro to avoid responding to the substance of the Motion to Dismiss Dr. Surian's Motion to Dismiss. Judge Taliaferro never held Dr. Surian responsible for the damages caused by his breach of fiduciary duties; but now attacked Diane's character because Diane's fax was illegible on the courthouse fax machine that received Diane's faxes. When Diane was provided with a different fax number at the courthouse; her petitions were legible. All other parties received legible faxes.

Actually Diane had noticed at the trial on 01/18/01 that Judge Taliaferro had a really pale copy of her petition dated 12/20/00. Most likely the petitions that Diane had been faxing to Judge Taliaferro for some period of time were illegible. No one in Taliaferro's office had requested a re-transmission because the petitions were unreadable. No one cared that the petitions were unreadable; because Judge Taliaferro didn't read Diane's petitions anyway.

05/01/01

Diane filed a Request for Waiver of Will Contest Bond, attaching copies of correspondence with agencies who were unable to find a company that would write the bond. Judge Taliaferro ignored the request; which meant that if Diane were unable to obtain the bond, Judge Taliaferro would throw out the will contest (which was the lawsuit contesting the will, as opposed to throwing out the will itself).

On 07/26/99 McDonald had placed Katherine's will, which was obviously phony, into probate. See entries on 07/26/99. Katherine was of unsound mind at the time she signed the will on 08/16/94 and the will was obtained by fraud. See entry on 11/12/99. Taliaferro should have thrown out the will and reported McDonald to the Bar Association; the will should have been thrown out, not the will contest. Can you imagine what this cost the taxpayers?

Judge Judy would have looked at the petition for guardianship of Mike Surian on August 08, 1994 which states that Katherine was unable to consent to the petition "because of her physical and mental incapacity," and the petition on August 18, 1994 where Dr. Rink states that Katherine is unaware of her surroundings; and asked Dr. Surian, "Do you expect me to believe that Katherine was senile on August 8, 1994 and August 18, 1994 and not on August 16, 1994, when she signed her last will and testament?" But Judge Taliaferro doesn't read.

05/02/01

In Peggy Frisbie's written response to the objections to Bank One's Final Accounting, Ms. Frisbie stated, “Bank One was not required by its fiduciary responsibilities as Guardian to go on an aimless hunt for unknown assets.” Actually, Bank One had a serious fiduciary responsibility to collect the real and personal property of the estate. Dr. Surian as guardian had not collected assets he had stolen while he was attorney-in-fact. It was up to the successor guardian to act in the interest of the Surian estate. Peggy Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One did not attempt to collect one such asset, much less explore any property that Dr. Surian might still be hiding. Dr. Surian had admitted in his deposition of 02/19/00 and at the 03/16/00 trial that certain personal property existed and where the property was located. Ms. Frisbie billed the Surian estate for reviewing these documents. Ms. Frisbie was too lazy to collect these assets, much less investigate what else he was hiding. This woman should not be allowed to manage someone else's lemonade stand, much less someone's estate.

05/04/01

On 11/27/00, Diane had filed a petition requesting a complete verified accounting of Bank One's administration providing all receipts, statements, and tax returns pursuant to IC 29-1-16-4. Bank One filed their Final Report on 01/29/01, providing no receipts, no tax returns, no Hilliard Lyons statements, etc.

Bank One had miscalculated the 1041 Federal Taxes for Estates and Trusts for 1999 resulting in an overpayment of $10,006.00 and incurred a penalty plus interest of $2,360.30 as of April 30, 2001. Bank One made two tax errors: using the wrong tax period and creating an extra tax ID. Irwin Union hired Larry E. Nunn & Associates, CPA's, to amend returns prepared by Bank One and to attempt to get the tax penalties waived. The errors in the preparation of tax returns were concealed until 08/06/01, when Irwin Union submitted its Final Accounting. Bank One obtained their fees on 05/11/01 without revealing how they had screwed up the taxes; Irwin Union knew this on 05/04/01 but did not object, probably because David S. Brooks of Irwin Union signed the return without checking it over.

05/07/01

Irwin Union amended the 1041 Federal Estate Income Tax Return for 1999 and the Indiana Fiduciary Income Tax Return, both prepared by Bank One.

05/08/01

Irwin Union's Objections to Dr. Surian's Petition for Reimbursement of Attorney's Fees. In item number six, Thomas C. Bigley, Jr. admitted that an award of Damages on 01/18/01 would have benefited the estate. He also admitted that he was unprepared for the 01/18/01 hearings.

His comment that Dr. Surian's attorneys successfully resisted Diane Wilding's objections to Dr. Surian's final accounting is a mis-characterization. Over a period of 7 years, Judge Taliaferro approved every final accounting without questioning one line item, no matter what garbage was in the final accounting. This had nothing to do with the talent of Dr. Surian's attorneys. See entry on 10/29/01.

05/11/01

Dr. Surian's responded on 05/11/01 to Irwin Union's Objections dated 05/08/01 stating that "Dr. Surian also incurred legal fees and expenses in defending a direct claim against the guardianship, by assisting the Successor Guardian (Irwin Union Bank) in its effort to defeat Wilding's claims to have proceeds from certain Treasury bills paid to her." So, Dr. Surian admitted he had assisted Irwin Union defeat Claim #1 on 01/18/01. Actually he misled them. He had filed Claim #2, identical to Claim #1, which must have been frivolous.

1. Hearing on Dr. Surian's Petition for Reimbursement of $116,609.47 in Attorneys' Fees:

Dr. Surian's Attorney's fees and expenses were 59 pages long. The very first page in the stack was invoice number 6090 from Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman.

Double billing / Recycling invoices:

On 05/11/01, Dr. Surian was in court trying to collect $600.00 for Hall Render invoice # 6090 which he, as guardian, had already paid as a $200.00 item with guardianship funds on 01/21/00. Diane cross-examined Dr. Surian on the stand. She asked him to identify the court order to halt guardian activity dated 01/03/00. She asked whether he had written any checks after that court order. He responded no. She confronted him with Cole & Dunton's guardianship report showing that he had written a check for $200 to Hall Render for invoice # 6090 on 01/21/00, after the court order. Dr. Surian responded that the print on the report was too small to read. For $8,999.88, Cole & Dunton could have found a word processor with a larger font. Diane proved that Dr. Surian was trying to collect $600.00 from the estate for invoice # 6090, the same invoice that he had already paid with guardianship funds on 01/21/00 as a $200.00 item. This is called recycling invoices.

On 07/05/01, Judge Taliaferro issued an order denying Dr. Surian's Reimbursement of Attorneys' Fees. Dr. Surian's attorneys got paid, just not from the estate. If Thomas C. Bigley, Jr. / Sharpnack Bigley /Irwin Union had not objected to Dr. Surian's fees on 05/08/01, Judge Taliaferro would have stuck the estate with Dr. Surian's attorneys' fees. This was the first time in this seven year case that a guardian / personal representative had acted for the benefit of Surian estate.

And yet, why did Diane have to tell the court that Dr. Surian was double billing? That was Thomas C. Bigley, Jr. / Sharpnack Bigley / Irwin Union's job. If Diane had not been there, none of the high-priced help on this case would have noticed.

Motion to Dismiss the Will Contest:

Greg Padgett asked the court to dismiss the Will Contest because a Will Contest Bond had not been posted. Diane produced the Will Contest Bond defeating Dr. Surian and his attorneys' attempts to throw out the Will Contest on a technicality. No one in Bloomington Indiana would write the bond. One of the most prestigious attorneys in Indiana, disgusted with the actions of Dr. Surian, his attorneys, and Judge Taliaferro, had come to her rescue at no charge.

2. Hearing on Bank One's Final Accounting and Fees:

Objections to Bank One's Final Accounting and Fees were heard. On 03/19/01, Dr. Surian had objected to Bank One's Final Accounting and Fees.

Bank One requested fees of $23,972.55 (Bank One, $7,500; Bunger Robertson, $16,472.55). Of those fees, $23,882.55 were incurred after Bank One had been informed in writing that they were a conflict of interest. Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One may have been entitled to some payment, but surely not to $23,972.55.

When objections were made to Bank One's Final Accounting, Peggy Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One bore the burden of proof to prove that their final accounting was correct. She produced no trial brief. She responded to objections on 05/02/01, stating “Bank One was not required by its fiduciary responsibilities as guardian to go on an aimless hunt for unknown assets.” Bank One had a fiduciary responsibility to collect the real and personal property of the estate. Dr. Surian had admitted in his deposition of 02/19/00 and at the 03/16/00 hearing that certain personal property existed and where the property was located. Peggy Frisbie did not attempt to collect one such asset, much less explore any property that Dr. Surian might still be hiding. Lazy.

Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One caused so much damage to the Surian estate that the Surian estate would have been prudent to pay them not to accept the appointment as successor guardian of the Surian estate in the first place.

During Bank One's short tenure as guardian, there was no ward to care for, since Katherine was dead. The estate consisted of solely of one parcel of 173 gold coins; and one investment portfolio that was maintained at Hilliard Lyons and was not changed during Bank One's tenure. Peggy Frisbie / Bugger & Robertson / Bank One never produced accounting receipts as required by law; she made no attempt to collect assets of the estate. She spent most of her time researching the Treasury Bills, exactly what she should not have been working on, since these T-bills were the source of the conflict of interest, since Bank One had illegally accepted a check for $222,933.37 without a required endorsement.

Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One knowingly duplicated work that had already been done by Hall Render in order to reach a conclusion beneficial to Bank One, Dr. Surian, and Thomas M. McDonald, and not the Surian estate. She denied Diane's claim, refusing to give Diane the money known to belong to her, known to be in the guardianship account, and known to have been illegally deposited in the guardianship account without her endorsement. Prior to the 01/18/01 hearings, she concealed from Irwin Union the 03/16/00 transcript documenting $100,000+ in investment losses; and Doug Long's 3-page letter documenting co-ownership of the First National Bank of Chicago Heights T-bill and $120,000 erroneously paid out in wrongful death claims. She did not work on damages due the estate or objections to Dr. Surian's Final Accounting which would have benefited the estate. Peggy Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One prepared one Federal estate tax return; one state estate tax return and one inheritance tax return and turned them over to Irwin Union to file. All returns contained errors. This caused damages to the estate. Not only were there tax penalties, there were attorney and C.P.A. fees to correct the tax errors. H & R Block guarantees their work. Bank One does not. Bank One caused all of this damage and never reimbursed the estate for their mistakes.

Peggy Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One never appeared in court during their tenure, except to show up on 05/11/01 to get their money. When Ms. Frisbie took the stand on 05/11/01, she looked like she stepped out of a World War II movie; all she lacked was seams on the back of her stockings. She stated under oath that she had read Doug Long's letter.

During this hearing Ms. Frisbie / Bank One and Irwin Union concealed the fact that Bank One's miscalculations on the Federal and State Estate Income Tax Returns resulted in an overpayment of $10,006.00 and incurred a penalty plus interest of $2,360.30 (see entry 05/04/01). Diane could not object because the information was concealed until 08/06/01. Diane had requested these tax returns on 11/27/00.

Irwin Union had objected to Dr. Surian's attorneys' fees; Dr. Surian's attorneys were going to get paid by Dr. Surian, not by Katherine's estate. But, Thomas C. Bigley Jr. / Irwin Union did not object to Ms. Frisbie's / Bank One's fees, knowing the tax penalties they had caused. Apparently professional courtesy dictates that one attorney does not object to another attorney's fees; something like one doctor does not testify against another doctor. Irwin Union was supposed to be defending Katherine's estate, not Margaret M. Frisbie. But Thomas C. Bigley, Margaret M. Frisbie, and Judge Taliaferro are friends.

On 01/08/01, Ms. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One had prepared the Indiana Inheritance Tax Return with an Administrative Expense of $3,615.40 for Thomas M. McDonald's Invoice # 207 for Attorney's Fees. Ms. Frisbie didn't notice or ignored the fact that McDonald's invoice was not authorized by the court and was, in fact, padded. The woman was comatose or crooked. A complete copy of the Indiana Inheritance Tax Return did not surface until 03/18/02. See entry on 03/25/02.

Dr. Surian had foolishly purchased gold at its high. Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One had petitioned the court to sell the gold on 08/10/00 at its low. See Part II, "Financial Nitwits."

The confidential Walsh Settlement Agreement signed 02/12/01 was distributed at the end of the 05/11/01 trial.

07/05/01

On 07/05/01, Judge Taliaferro issued an order approving Bank One's Final Accounting and Fees.
This document was most likely written by Margaret M Frisbie. It says, "(Bank One) filed an inventory, inheritance return and tax return." Get your legal terms straight. Bank One didn't file an inheritance return or a tax return. They prepared them. Irwin Union filed them. Look at the entry on 05/04/01. Bank One miscalculated the 1041 Federal Taxes for Estates and Trusts for 1999 resulting in an overpayment of $10,006.00 and incurred a penalty plus interest of $2,360.30 as of April 30, 2001. Both Ms. Frisbie and Thomas C. Bigley, Jr. , attorney for Irwin Union knew that during the trial on 05/11/01. This information was concealed until 08/06/01.

Taliaferro approved payment of fees of $23,972.55 (Bank One, $7,500; Bunger & Robertson, $16,472.55) for mis-managing the Surian estate. $23,972.55 to manage an inactive brokerage account for 6 months, during which time the investments were not changed. Pricey. Even Dr. Surian's attorney, Greg Padgett of Barnes & Thornburg, had objected to these fees on 03/19/01. This was an indefensible decision. Judge Taliaferro had approved payment to Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One for work that should never have been performed (due to the conflict of interest) and for work that was less than worthless. Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One did not act for the benefit of the estate; but rather damaged the estate. Judge Taliaferro used estate money to pay Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One to damage the estate. Bank One should have been required to pay damages to the estate for the damages that they caused.

Judge Taliaferro took too much time in appointing a successor guardian after being informed that Bank One was a conflict of interest. Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One did not do work worth $23,972.55. If this were a slight overpayment that would be one thing. If Judge Taliaferro had awarded Bank One a partial amount of the fees that they had requested or acknowledged the damage that Peggy Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One had caused; she might have retained some degree of credibility. But Taliaferro is too lazy and too dishonest. She doesn't like to read or maybe she can't read. Taliaferro never gets down to the line item level. If Bank One had submitted an invoice for attorneys' fees with a line item listing $39,000 for popsicles, Judge Taliaferro would have approved it. Judge Taliaferro was going to support her buddy, Margaret M. Frisbie. Judge Taliaferro's decision was either totally incompetent or totally crooked. Take your choice.

Why would guardians / personal representatives and their attorneys behave responsibly when they know Judge Taliaferro wouldn't question one line item? Judge Taliaferro, by generously overpaying her friend Margaret Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One for less-than-worthless work, Judge Taliaferro endeared herself to the legal community and assured herself that she can appoint Bank One again when she needs another guardian - - - to the detriment of the next unsuspecting victim. In any event, Taliaferro acted to the detriment of the Surian estate; she robbed the Surian estate.

Attorneys must love Taliaferro; she greases their palms. Taliaferro must be getting some benefit from this too. The attorneys aren't going to report her to the bar association for not upholding the law when their palms have been greased. Was Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One's invoice for $23,972.55 for less-than-worthless work specifically inflated to include money for a kickback? Or did Judge Taliaferro approve the fees of Ms. Frisbie / Bank One because Ms. Frisbie invites Viola J Taliaferro to speak at various legal seminars? Thomas M. McDonald inflated his invoice (see entry 01/08/01), how many other invoices were inflated?

Judge Taliaferro's decisions were supposed to benefit the Surian estate and not the lifestyles of her friends.

What did the Surian Estate really get from Margaret M. Frisbie / Bunger & Robertson / Bank One Trust Co. for $23,972.55 in fees?