“It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties [and since then], dropouts or half-baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their minds even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you cannot change the basic perception and illogical behavior. In other words, in these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people, you need another 15 years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of the United States society.” – 1985 Interview of Yuri Bezmenov, Russian-Born, KGB-Trained Subverter Who Defected to the United States
Click here for a chart of the four stages of Soviet Ideological Subversion
Click here for a chart of movement from an open society to a closed society
Five hundred years before Christ, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu formulated the principle of subversion this way:
- Cover with ridicule all of the valid traditions in your opponent’s country.
- Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time;
- Disrupt the work of their government by every means;
- Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy’s country.
- Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens.
- Turn the young against the old.
- Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices.”
The process Yuri Bezmenov described in the mid 1980s seems to have come close to its fruition. The objective is to change societal attitudes and foment (artificially create) revolutions through which the instigating party (funding party) can gain control.
Bezmenov made no bones about his claim: the aim of Soviet (and presumably later Russian) foreign intelligence efforts was to infiltrate, influence and control the thought-leaders, the policy-makers, the intellectuals, the educators, the communicators of target enemy societies. The community organizers, the movie producers, the film/TV stars, the political party operators, the prominent college professors. Not necessarily to apply direct influence to US and Western tactical policies – or to steal military/industrial/commercial secrets (though of course those are all nice bonuses) – but to gradually, and over a long period of time, wear away at the fabric of these societies by degrading and corrupting values, morals, social cohesion. Reshape education to change the world-view and value set of entire generations of Western kids.
Did they really make such great inroads on this policy (if it truly was implemented)? Or did the ‘decadent West’ inflict this upon itself through the profit-oriented models of culture, education, child-rearing? Was the removal of personal responsibility and community engagement (to be replaced by the ever-present hand of the nanny state) truly the result of foreign meddling, or merely the outcome of the ‘natural’ progression all central states seeking more and more power and centralization?
The fact that these processes, its participants, and its intended outcome were described in such detail decades ago would suggest the former, or at least the influence thereof. Are the ‘owners’ of Western societies oblivious to these factors? Are they actively helping/abetting them in the perception that it helps THEM increase/consolidate their power? Do they imagine that THEY (and not these alleged Communist forces) would gain the upper hand (and establish total authoritarian control) in the societal breakdown and upheaval that will eventually ensue? Do they imagine that the resulting learned helplessness and degraded capacity for independence, self-sustenance, and critical thought makes for better serfs? Or is it all really being orchestrated by the same select group of über-elites in control of BOTH/ALL sides of the global power struggle?
Whatever the case, it would suggest that the recommended course of action would be to seek communities (or countries) that are more resistant to the increasingly ever-present effects of this subversion. These effects are global and escaping them altogether is increasingly impossible – but the presence of countering values in community at the local/regional level might help. Being more involved in the education of one’s kids (homeschooling, if possible); taking ‘active measures’ of one’s own by supporting church and community organizations might help. But it seems that the accumulated critical mass and decades-long headstart of the opposing side makes it a very steep uphill battle.
Click here to read more.
Romans, Chapter 5
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete Full-length Video)
Mia, Ronan and Dylan Farrow Revive 20-Year-Old Child Molestation Allegations Against Woody Allen – Authorities Declared the Accusations ‘Unfounded’ After a 14-Month Investigation, Which Concluded in 1993 (Updated 3/3/2014)
1. Although companions since 1980, Woody and Mia never married and never lived together; and by 1990 or earlier, they had grown distant from each other as each expressed concerns about the other’s relationship with their youngest children – Woody being overly devoted to Dylan Farrow (born on July 11, 1985 and adopted as a newborn) and Mia being overly focused on Satchel Farrow (Mia gave birth to him on December 19, 1987) and alienating him from Woody. Satchel’s psychologist testified during the child custody hearing in March 1993 that from his earliest years Satchel would aggressively resist Woody’s attentions: “Satchel would push him away, would not acknowledge him…. If he would try to help Satchel getting out of bed or going into bed, Satchel would kick him, at times had scratched his face. They were in trouble.”
2. Woody stayed aloof from Mia’s six children with Andre Previn, rarely even speaking to them; however, he was cordial to Moses Farrow, who Mia adopted at age 2 in 1980 (after her divorce from Previn in 1979). In 1990, Woody began acknowledging Mia’s adopted daughter with Andre Previn, Soon-Yi Previn (born on October 8, 1970 and adopted at age 7) after Mia encouraged him to take her to a professional basketball game because he had no one to go with.
3. In January 1992, Mia discovered that Woody was having a sexual relationship with 21-year-old Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi later admitted to Mia that she and Woody first had sex on his birthday on December 1, 1991 – in that same month, Woody’s adoption of two of Mia’s other children, Moses Farrow, 13, and Dylan Farrow, 6, was finalized.
4. Six months later, in July 1992, at her Connecticut country home, Mia had a birthday party for 7-year-old Dylan. After Woody retired to the guest room for the night, Mia affixed to his bathroom door a note which called him a child molester: “Child molester at birthday party, molded and abused one sister, now focused on youngest sister, family disgusted.”
5. Less than a month later, on August 1, 1992, Mia called her psychologist after having learned that Woody’s affair with Soon-Yi was continuing: she described Woody as “satanic and evil,” pleaded with her psychologist to “find a way to stop him,” and told her that a week earlier she and Woody had been discussing the possibility of getting married, which she was still considering.
6. Four days later, on August 5, 1992, Mia phoned her psychologist again: “in contrast to her agitated state in other calls,” she was “extremely calm” and told her psychologist that “Dylan had begun complaining that Woody had abused her.”
7. Also on August 5, 1992, Mia’s longtime best friend, Casey Pascal, called to tell her that, the previous day, her babysitter saw “Woody kneeling on the floor holding Dylan, with his face in her lap” after the two women had left their children in Mia’s Connecticut home with Woody and another babysitter to go shopping together. Casey also said that her babysitter claimed to have lost track of Dylan for about 15 to 20 minutes on August 4, 1992 and that they later discovered Dylan without any underwear.
8. Also on August 5, 1992, Mia was scheduled to sign custody papers: she had worked out an arrangement with Woody allowing him visitation, and he agreed to keep casting her in his movies. In addition, they’d keep going on their annual, two-week trips to Europe as a family, and to the outside world, they’d remain Woody and Mia. However, before those papers arrived, Mia called her lawyer and said something very bad had happened: Woody had taken Dylan up to the attic and molested her by touching her private parts with his finger. Mia testified: “She said he took her into the attic and that he touched her in certain places, that he inserted a finger partially” – suspiciously, a very specific observation and description from a child who just turned 7. Mia also testified that from the time Dylan was 2 1/2 or 3 years old, she feared that Woody had a sexual attachment to Dylan, but Woody’s lawyer cast doubt on her assertion that his behavior was inappropriate by showing that she had consented to his adoption in 1991 of Moses and Dylan.
9. Over the next two or three days, Mia videotaped (edited in-camera) Dylan accusing Woody of molesting her. Mia’s nanny, Monica Thompson, said in deposition that it took Mia two or three days to videotape Dylan making the accusations, and at times Dylan appeared not to be interested in the process. “I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days,” Monica said. “I was present when Ms. Farrow made a portion of that tape outdoors. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do . . . and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”
10. On August 5 and 6, 1992, Mia brought Dylan to her doctor for an exam – although there was no physical evidence of abuse, the doctor was obligated by law to report the allegations to authorities. Mia’s nanny, Monica Thompson, said in a sworn affidavit: “The day after the alleged incident, when she got to work, Mia took Dylan to the doctor. When they arrived home, Mia said Dylan had been ‘afraid to talk to the doctor.’ She took Dylan back to the doctor, and when they arrived home, Mia told me that ‘everything is OK now – everything is set’.”
11. On August 6, 1992, Mia made similar accusations of Woody molesting their 4 1/2-year-old son Satchel, but later dropped the charges because “its substance was too insane even for the instigator to stay with.” Woody said: “I hoped that despite many conflicts and much anger, that with calm and compromise I could obtain an agreement in the best interests of the children. Then, suddenly and appallingly I was accused of having molested my beloved 7-year-old daughter and hysterically the next day of molesting my dear 4 1/2-year-old son.”
12. Mia and her cohorts, her longtime best friend Casey Pascal, Casey’s babysitter, Alison Strickland, and Mia’s babysitter, Kristi Groteke, all testified to the same story at the child custody hearing in March 1993, claiming that they lost track of Dylan for about 15 to 20 minutes on August 4, 1992 while Mia and Casey were out shopping, and that they later discovered Dylan without any underwear. Alison, Casey’s babysitter, also claimed that she saw Woody with his head in Dylan’s lap, which made her feel uncomfortable (Woody testified that his head was not in her lap, but that he had knelt down to talk to her). Casey said, “I had to call Mia [to tell her about Alison's allegations] and it was so horrific – I set the wheels in motion.” Mia’s nanny, Monica Thompson (who was not present on August 4, 1992, the day of the alleged abuse, and who resigned from her position in the Farrow household on January 25, 1993), said in deposition that on August 6, 1992, Kristi Groteke (Dylan’s babysitter beginning sometime in 1991) told her something different from what she later would testify to at the child custody hearing in 1993: On August 6, 1992, when Kristi drove Monica to the bus stop, she was “very upset;” Kristi told Monica “that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen.” Monica also said in deposition that on August 6, 1992, Kristi said: “The day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes and she did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.” Kristi Groteke resigned from her position in the Farrow household sometime after testifying at the child custody hearing in 1993: she immediately wrote a tell-all book about Mia and Woody, which was published in May 1994; in 1995, the book was turned into a mini-series by Fox Television, in which Kristi played herself.
13. Monica Thompson, Mia’s nanny, charged that: “Ms. Farrow set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan. For several weeks, Ms. Farrow insisted that Mr. Allen not be left alone with Dylan and wanted me to be with them at all times.” Monica also said in her deposition: “On several occasions Ms. Farrow asked me if I would be ‘on her side.’ Ms. Farrow has tried to get me to say that I would support her with these accusations.” Monica added that almost immediately after the alleged incident, Moses indicated doubts about what, if anything, had taken place: “Moses came over to me and said that he believes that Ms. Farrow had made up the accusation that was being said by Dylan,” Monica said in the sworn affidavit.
14. After the molestation reports were filed, Mia still wanted to work with Woody on the set of ‘Husbands and Wives.’ Mia also kept on with her plans to star in Woody’s next movie, ‘Manhattan Murder Mystery,’ and placed a call to meet with the wardrobe supervisor on August 9, 1992. The lead female role was written for Mia by Woody but Diane Keaton got the part following the abuse allegations; reportedly, Mia showed up for the first day’s shooting, much to Woody’s consternation.
15. After meeting on August 13, 1992, Woody felt Mia was trying to shake him down for $7 million, so on that day (seven days after he learned about the accusations), he began an action against Mia to obtain custody of their three children, Dylan Farrow, 7, and Moses Farrow, 14 (Woody’s adoption of them was finalized in December 1991) and Satchel Farrow, 5 (Woody’s biological son with Mia).
16. At the state police barracks in Litchfield, Connecticut, Woody was interviewed for 3 1/2 hours. He denied assaulting Dylan (Woody has always vehemently denied the abuse accusations). Accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior with a child are a very serious matter. Such accusations often lead to criminal investigations and referral to a child welfare or protection agency, and can result in criminal charges against the person being accused. The initial response of the person accused can have a significant, permanent impact on this situation. This is why you should avoid making any statements to law enforcement or other public agencies until you have consulted an attorney. Even making a statement of denial can be tricky in this situation if you have not obtained legal advice. If you try to say that you did not touch a child inappropriately, the other person may misinterpret your statement. You also may make a simple statement that seems innocuous, like admitting you talked to a child at a certain time or were alone with a child, only to have the statement used against you at a later time.
17. Woody denied ever having been in the attic of Mia’s country home, explaining that he wouldn’t even have known how to get to it [he "dislikes the country" and very seldom visited the home]. It was later clarified that the attic referenced by Dylan in her molestation allegations was actually a crawl space off the closet of Mia’s bedroom where the children sometimes played – after learning about this revised detail in the allegations and that “fibers consistent with his hair” had been found in the crawl space, Woody acknowledged that once or twice he had reached into the opening of the crawl space to grab one of the children or to hand them a soda, but he vehemently denied ever entering the crawl space. [Dory Previn, who was Andre Previn's wife at the time Mia became pregnant with his twin sons, wrote a song about Mia, “Beware of Young Girls” – when asked at the child custody hearing in 1993 about the song, Mia said: "I know that it referred to me." On the same 1970 album as that song is another song written and performed by Dory, titled, “With My Daddy in the Attic,” which is about an incestuous relationship between a father and his young daughter, suggesting a possible origin of the abuse allegations in the attic.]
18. Woody agreed to a polygraph examination (lie detector test) administered by a private polygraph examiner, which he passed – his lawyer advised him against submitting to a police polygraph examination since they are conducted for purely interrogation purposes. [Mia did not take a lie detector test but it is unclear whether it was because she refused or was not asked.]
19. Two teams of experts (the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and the New York State Department of Social Services) hired by authorities during a 14-month investigation in both Connecticut (where the original abuse accusations were filed) and New York (where second abuse accusations were filed) concluded that the reports of abuse were unfounded and ruled that no abuse had occurred. Read the Yale-New Haven Hospital report by clicking here.
20. Woody was never arrested, charged or prosecuted for any crime – there was no physical evidence of abuse, authorities concluded that the reports of abuse were unfounded, and a team of experts believed Dylan’s statements had a rehearsed quality and that she was coached by Mia.
21. Faced with a lack of evidence of abuse and the strong probability of coaching by Mia, the district attorney brought no charges against Woody – it was not because Mia “agreed to drop the charges” nor was it because the district attorney wanted “to spare a fragile complainant the trauma of a court appearance.”
22. In September 1993, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District in Connecticut, Frank Maco, held a press conference to announce that, while he had “probable cause” to prosecute Woody on charges of sexual molestation of Dylan, he was “dropping the case to spare her the trauma of appearing in court.” Woody filed complaints asking the state bar counsel to disbar Maco and requested that the State Criminal Justice Commission discipline him for making an accusation without producing an indictment – Woody condemned Maco as “cowardly, dishonest and irresponsible.” The grievance panel revealed that on the same day of his press conference, Maco sent a copy of his statement to the judge in Manhattan who would decide whether to void, at Mia’s request, Woody’s adoption of Dylan and Moses. The disciplinary panel found “Maco’s handling of the child-molestation complaint against Woody was cause for ‘grave concern’ and may have prejudiced the legal battle between Woody and Mia.” A professor and expert on legal ethics criticized Maco, saying: “You don’t declare the man guilty and then say you’re not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press. It’s a violation of Allen’s constitutional rights, in my view. I can’t overemphasize how remarkable this is.”
23. In 1993, Woody lost the child custody battle: in the ruling, the judge (disgusted by Woody and his relationship with Soon Yi) forbade his seeing Dylan and Moses and allowed court-supervised visits only with Satchel.
24. Just a short time after the custody ruling, Mia refused Woody any contact with Satchel, who Mia renamed Seamus, which he later changed to Ronan.
25. On October 5, 1994, Woody lost an appeal for relief from the custody ruling. Mia refused Woody contact with all three of the children (Moses, Dylan and Satchel Farrow).
26. In April 1997, Frank Maco, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District in Connecticut, told Connecticut Magazine that, over the course of the 13 months, 7-year-old Dylan told her mother, psychologists, doctors, social workers and police that Woody touched her – with the tip of his right index finger – several times that day on August 4, 1992. Maco recalled that Dylan said: “He put his finger in my vagina. He made me lay on the floor all ways, on my back, on my side, my front. He kissed me all over. I didn’t like it. Daddy told me not to tell and he’d take me to Paris, but I did tell.” The allegation is very specific and the language used to describe the alleged abuse is very mature, well beyond the life experience and knowledge of a child who just turned 7.
27. Mia went on to adopt six more children (she remains single to this day). Woody and Soon-Yi married in 1997 and adopted two children together.
28. In 1995, Soon-Yi earned her Bachelor’s degree from Drew University; in 1998, she earned her Master’s degree in Special Education from Columbia University – she is not developmentally challenged as Mia’s camp has proclaimed.
29. On January 12, 2014, Woody was honored with the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes: during the event, Mia and Ronan published tweets that brought the 21-year-old sexual allegations back into the headlines. A few months earlier, in both October and November 2013, Mia was featured in Vanity Fair articles where she rehashed her 1992 interview with the magazine about the molestation allegations; Dylan first went public with her story in the November 2013 Vanity Fair piece and then published an open letter in the New York Times on February 1, 2014, but with many new details.
30. On February 5, 2014, Moses spoke out in defense of Woody, saying: “Of course Woody did not molest my sister. My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.” Several years ago, Moses re-established a relationship with Woody and became estranged from Mia. Woody’s other two children with Mia, Dylan (who now goes by the name Malone) and Satchel (who now goes by the name Ronan) continue to shun him.
31. One odd thing about that Vanity Fair piece in November 2013 was that the big news in the piece was supposed to be “Dylan Farrow Speaks Out” – what happened, just purely by chance, was that the news became, “Ronan Farrow May Be Frank Sinatra’s Son.” What was Dylan’s trigger for renewing the allegations 21 years later? She wanted attention, says book critic Janet Maslin: “Dylan Farrow, I happen to know this through a friend very close to the story, was very unhappy that this suddenly wasn’t about her. And I think that’s that part of why she decided to start calling attention to herself. Of all the things that have been parsed by total strangers about what went on in that family, no one has ever dared to consider the sibling rivalry issues in there. It’s just too much to think about.”
32. Mia’s friend published an opinion about the renewed allegations at “The Common Ills” blogspot [http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2014/02/mia-and-her-brood-drag-whatevers-left.html] – it is a very interesting read.
The following are excerpts from J. Ross and J. Carro’s opinion in a brief submitted to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 12, 1994 (three judges concurred with their opinions); statements on June 7, 1993 from Judge Elliot Wilk (who presided over the custody hearing); courtroom testimony at the custody hearing in March 1993; the March 1993 report issued by the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital; and information from other reports and news sources (marked with hyperlinks).
Joe and Teresa Giudice Plead Guilty to Mortgage and Bankruptcy Fraud; Sentencing Postponed Until September 23, 2014; Bankruptcy Court Says They Are Stuck Paying Off Their $13.4 Million Debt (Updated 6/19/2014)
UPDATE JUNE 19, 2014: The Giudice’s legal problems have been put on hold amid family tragedy. Following news of the death of Joe’s father, Frank, the couple’s July 8th sentencing date has been postponed, Teresa’s lawyer, Henry Klingeman, tells Us Weekly.
The bankruptcy court determined that the Giudice’s concealed assets when they filed their original petitions and subsequent amendments in 2009, so the trustee denied the discharge of their debts.
The Giudices were charged with bankruptcy fraud (among other things) in 2013, to which they pleaded guilty. With their guilty pleas, the bankruptcy case is officially closed, which means that creditors can pursue the money owed to them, said Ronald LeVine, a bankruptcy attorney in Hackensack not affiliated with the case. “So they’re in the same boat as before,” he said. “Whatever they owed, they owe now.”
“Oh, isn’t it great that the Giudices, living their life of excess off other peoples’ backs, are not inconvenienced by silly little things like restitution or punishment. SMH” – grandma cracker, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014
“Anyone who had remorse toward their victims and a conscience would tone it down and turn from the over-indulgent lifestyle they cannot afford, nor have earned on their own.” – Sami713, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014
“One thing is clear…their showy, gleeful comfort level in this gaudy display speaks volumes. Any convicted thief on their way to prison with any conscience would be embarrassed and uncomfortable with this. I hope the feds are taking notes.” – Birdie11, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014
“She should be ashamed of herself. She used other people’s money all these years, screwed over everyone, and lives high on the hog, rubbing it in everyone’s faces. She’s disgraceful!” – Lissa, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014
Teresa and her fans have been claiming for years that she is working hard to pay off their debt, but that is not the case. She has not made any attempt to pay off their debt using the millions she has earned from her Bravolebrity—she had paid back a paltry $7,500 toward attorney fees and nothing to her other creditors. Her debt has grown from $11 million to more than $13 million. The Giudices have no intention of paying anyone back. Most of the millions that Teresa’s made since filing for bankruptcy in October 2009 has been spent frivolously on superficial things.
The following is a report from NorthJersey.com on April 9, 2014:
The report comes one month after the couple pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud — criminal charges that could land them both in jail. Teresa and Giuseppe “Joe” Giudice jointly filed for personal bankruptcy in October, 2009, listing nearly $11 million in debt on their Chapter 7 petition. In a blog item addressing the bankruptcy, Teresa Giudice cited reasons for the filing as real estate deals that had gone bad in a bad economy. “We didn’t spend millions of dollars on gold toilets or private planes,” she wrote in the blog. “We bought buildings, fixed them up, and tried to help other people start their own businesses or be able to afford an apartment.”
Among the creditors listed in the report are Wachovia Bank (now Wells Fargo) for $5.3 million; the Community Bank of Bergen for $1.7 million; and the Internal Revenue Service which is owed $327,556. The couple’s listed assets include their five-bedroom home in the Towaco section of Montville, a 2007 Cadillac Escalade SUV, household furnishings, commercial real estate, and interest in several companies; though valued at nearly $2.3 million, these assets in reality amount to a net value of just $165,000, because of liens and other costs. The trustee did secure $15,000 in assets – from the Giudices – who paid for some of their furniture and other items, said LeVine.
While dealing with the bankruptcy, the Giudices were entangled in a second major issue tied to it: the criminal case in which they admitted concealing assets from the trustee. Both also admitted that they conspired to defraud banks and other lenders by submitting fraudulent applications and supporting documents in connection with nearly $5 million in mortgages, construction loans and lines of credit between 2001 and 2008.
Along with possible prison time, Joe Giudice is in jeopardy of being deported. The couple has not yet been sentenced for those crimes.
The Giudices are stuck paying back the $13.4 million they still owe to the IRS, the state of New Jersey, and various creditors, who are free to pursue them for repayment now that they have pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges (of course, the creditors will never get their money back because the Giudices will never make $13.4 million in their lifetimes). Basically, since their bankruptcy discharge was denied in 2011 (the court denied their petitions, which they both withdrew due to allegations of fraud), the Giudices have made no real attempt to pay back creditors (having only paid $7,500 toward their total debt over the past three years), and their debt has since increased by more than $2 million, for a total of $13.4 million (the bankruptcy trustee was able to secure $15,000 from the Giudices, which was used to stop the auction of their furniture and went mostly toward administrative costs).
The following is a report from the NJ Star Ledger on April 9, 2014:
The bankruptcy trustee overseeing Joe and Teresa Giudice’s finances has submitted his final report, which says the couple only satisfied $7,500 of their debts and still owe $13.4 million to their creditors, who can once again pursue the couple for repayment – that was on hold while the case wended its way through the bankruptcy system and while the Giudices fought a massive federal indictment alleging, among other things, bankruptcy fraud. (They pleaded guilty in March to several counts of financial fraud.)
The “Real Housewives of New Jersey” couple filed for bankruptcy on October 29, 2009, blaming the recession’s impact on Joe Giudice’s construction business. But when John Sywilok, their court-appointed trustee, alleged that the couple had hid assets and income, Joe Giudice in 2011 invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and agreed to a settlement in which the court denied discharge of his debts. His wife later followed suit.
Since then, Sywilok has sought to satisfy creditors via the Giudices’ homes and possessions, but they were mostly financed to the hilt. According to the final report, Sywilok had been able to secure $15,000 from the couple instead of seizing and selling off their own household goods and furnishings, but most of that went toward bankruptcy administrative fees.
The couple’s outstanding debts include $5.4 million to Wachovia, $1.7 million to the Community Bank of Bergen County, $1.3 million to Dime Savings Bank, more than $500,000 to the New Jersey Division of Taxation, and more than $386,000 to the Internal Revenue Service, according to the report.
“They are going to owe whatever they owed, as if they had not fought bankruptcy,” says Ronald LeVine, a Hackensack bankruptcy attorney unconnected with the case. “They’re completely stuck with their debt.”
The couple’s financial fraud case appeared to be triggered by the 2009 bankruptcy filing, although in addition to bankruptcy fraud, federal prosecutors alleged the couple also defrauded banks in order to obtain mortgages. They will be sentenced July 8. Joe Giudice faces a recommended sentence of 37 to 46 months, while Teresa Giudice faces up to 27 months.
“It was a terrible decision to file for bankruptcy,” LeVine says. “They might have gotten away under the radar otherwise.”
According to TMZ , the bankruptcy trustee’s final report revealed that the Giudice’s have just $140,000 in equity in their $1.7 million house and no equity in two other properties; and the report further revealed that their extensive collection, including a Maserati, an Escalade, and two go-carts, had no equity whatsoever (however, they valued their dogs at $600).
UPDATE MARCH 4, 2014: On March 4, 2014, Joe and Teresa Giudice pleaded guilty to federal charges of mortgage and bankruptcy fraud. Joe pleaded to five counts, which included a failure to file income taxes (he was accused of skipping out on his tax returns for five years, 2004-2008, with income totaling $996,459); Teresa entered a guilty plea to four counts. Both admitted to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud (connected to the 13 counts of fraudulent mortgage and other loan applications), plus one count each of bankruptcy fraud by concealment of assets, bankruptcy fraud by false oaths, and bankruptcy fraud by false declarations (they were charged with 22 counts of bankruptcy fraud: the couple filed bankruptcy in October 2009, but after several amendments and hearings, they withdrew their petitions two years later, in late 2011, because a federal bankruptcy court trustee filed a lawsuit claiming they both intentionally concealed assets and earnings to avoid paying back creditors). The pair was scheduled to face trial on the federal charges beginning on April 14, 2014. The couple’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 8, 2014.
After the plea hearing, U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said in a statement:
“Teresa and Giuseppe Giudice used deception and fraud to cheat banks, bankruptcy court and the IRS. With their guilty pleas, they admitted the schemes with which they were charged. Having now confessed their wrongdoing, the Giudices face the real cost of their criminal conduct.”
Joe’s attorney said it is realistic to expect that Joe will be given prison time at the couple’s July 8th sentencing, even though he said he may ask for probation. Teresa’s lawyer made it clear after the hearing that he will push hard for a sentence of only probation for Teresa, saying that she bears less responsibility than Joe for their decade of fraud and noting that the couple has four daughters who need to be cared for.
Under federal sentencing guidelines, which are not binding on the judge, Teresa faces 21 to 27 months in federal prison while Joe faces 37 to 46 months and could likely be deported. Said Federal Judge Esther Salas in accepting the pleas, after Italian citizen Joe Giudice finishes his time behind bars, he will face another hearing that will “likely result in … your being removed from the United States.”
The couple had previously requested separate trials [see story below]; however, since they were charged as co-conspirators in defrauding banks, other creditors and the bankruptcy court, the plea deal was contingent on both of them pleading guilty. The conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud to which the Giudices each pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Each of the three counts of bankruptcy fraud carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Teresa’s plea agreement requires her to pay $200,000 to the government at the time of her sentencing hearing on July 8th. The plea agreements also require the Giudices to forfeit money which they obtained via conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud, in an amount to be determined by the court at sentencing.
After the hearing, Teresa’s attorney, standing before a bank of microphones and dozens of reporters on the federal courthouse’s plaza, read aloud her statement (obviously written by her legal team as part of their strategy for dealing with the judge and the sentencing):
“Today, I took responsibility for a series of mistakes I made several years ago. I have said throughout that I respect the legal process and thus I intend to address the Court directly at sentencing. I will describe the choices I made, continue to take responsibility for my decisions, and express my remorse to Judge Salas and the public. I am heartbroken that this is affecting my family—especially my four young daughters, who mean more to me than anything in the world. Beyond this, I do not intend to speak specifically about the case outside of court, at the recommendation of my attorney and out of deference to the Government and our legal system.”
Federal prosecutors filed papers on January 29, 2014 (click here to read the 46-page document at RadarOnline), opposing a bid by Teresa and Joe Giudice to be granted separate trials on money fraud charges. Earlier in January 2014, the Giudices asked a U.S. district judge to grant them separate trials, arguing Joe has evidence of his wife’s innocence, but he would not take the witness stand if they are forced to stand trial together. Teresa, likewise, has expressed a desire to testify on her own behalf at a separate trial and to not testify against her husband.
From the report at NorthJersey.com:
The Giudices maintain they are entitled to separate trials to avoid forcing Teresa Giudice to choose between her right to testify in her own defense and her marital privilege to refrain from testifying against her husband, and to allow her husband to provide evidence of his wife’s innocence while preserving his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
Prosecutors countered that the couple provided no details about what their testimony might be or how it might exculpate or incriminate either of them. They also said the spousal privilege is not a fundamental right that warrants severance.
In his motion filed earlier in January, Joe Giudice maintains that his wife “had no knowledge of any misrepresentation” made in loan and mortgage applications or lines of credit, and that she was not aware that various properties and businesses were acquired or owned in her name. Prosecutors argued that was an inadmissible opinion regarding her state of mind and therefore not exculpatory at all.
Joe Giudice also said that he, his attorney, and his business partner signed her name on numerous occasions without her knowledge or authorization, and that others, including bank representatives, knew that she had not signed various documents. That testimony is “only minimally exculpatory, if at all,” the prosecutors said, noting it is unclear if any of those documents are related to the alleged fraud.
More importantly, prosecutors said that the Giudices “obtained many other fraudulent mortgage loans with Teresa’s direct participation, including instances in which Teresa signed the fraudulent loan documents herself, and it is on the basis of those loans that she is charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and loan application fraud in the indictment.” Prosecutors also argued Joe Giudice has provided false testimony under oath on multiple occasions and, as a result, his testimony in this case could be easily impeached, especially if he were to be tried first and convicted.”
The Giudices are scheduled to stand trial on April 14. If convicted, they could face lengthy prison terms, and Joe Giudice, who is an Italian citizen, could face deportation.
Concerning Joe’s claim in the motion filed earlier in January 2014 that Teresa “was not aware that various properties and businesses were acquired or owned in her name,” prosecutors certainly have obtained footage (video below) from season 2 episode 11, taped around the time the Giudices filed bankruptcy, where Teresa says in an interview segment (TH): “I own a lot of properties in my name.”
In the court filing, federal prosecutors wrote that Joe “has provided false testimony under oath on multiple occasions,” and that “his marriage to Teresa and status as the father of her four children provides grounds for impeachment in the severance context because these relationships alone suggest bias as a motive to fabricate.” Prosecutors cited a written finding by U.S. bankruptcy Judge Morris Stern regarding Joe’s testimony in a case filed by his former business partner that was tried in November/December 2009:
“Giuseppe’s testimony was ‘thoroughly unconvincing’ and he was ‘unbounded as a prevaricator in spinning a tale’ with a ‘say-anything, do-anything’ attitude on the stand (Judge Stern went on to hold that the ‘extraordinary web of lies and misrepresentations woven by Giudice to implement and cover his misconduct reflects on his approach to business matters and suggests his disregard for legal restraints which would bind others’).”
Federal prosecutors also wrote that Teresa was directly involved in many of the fraudulent mortgage loans, including instances in which she signed the fraudulent loan documents herself or she authorized Joe to sign her name:
“It has been long known to both the government and the defense that, in some instances, the Giudices obtained fraudulent mortgage loans in Teresa’s name by having someone else sign for Teresa at closing – either Giuseppe, with Teresa’s authorization, or his business partner or attorney, with Giuseppe’s authorization. However, it is also true that the Giudices obtained many other fraudulent mortgage loans with Teresa’s direct participation, including instances in which Teresa signed the fraudulent loan documents herself, and it is on the basis of those loans that she is charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and loan application fraud in the Indictment.”
Also regarding the severance of their trials, federal prosecutors wrote that because Joe and Teresa were participants in the same conspiracy, the loan fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts were properly joined since “the defendants, through the use of false statements and false tax returns, induced [the victim] to loan them money and then filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in an effort to avoid having to pay it back”:
“Teresa and Joe appear to share the hope that each might have ‘a better chance of acquittal in a separate trial.’ This, however, is not a sufficient basis to sever two defendants who are both charged as participants in the same conspiracy and fraudulent scheme. Under this standard, the mortgage fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts are properly joined.
“Counts 1 through 13 allege that Defendants fraudulently incurred large amounts of loan debt by making false statements on loan applications and supporting documents. Counts 14 through 36 allege that Defendants then attempted to fraudulently discharge that debt by making additional false statements during the bankruptcy process. Furthermore, in many cases, the properties the Defendants acquired with fraudulent loans were the same properties that Defendants either failed to disclose their ownership of or concealed income from during the bankruptcy process.
“Because the conduct charged in counts 1 through 13 provided the impetus for the conduct charged in counts 14 through 36, and because there is factual overlap among the counts, therefore, the counts are properly joined. See United States v. White… finding loan fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts to be properly joined because ‘the defendants, through the use of false statements and false tax returns, induced [the victim] to loan them money and then filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in an effort to avoid having to pay it back’.”
In season 4 episode 14, Teresa and Joe taped a scene with their bankruptcy attorney, James Kridel, regarding the fraud case filed against them by Joe’s former business partner, Joe Mastropole. During an interview segment (TH), Teresa addressed the fact that Joe had forged Mastropole’s name on mortgage documents. Believing Joe’s admission to forgery was the reason for the judgment in favor of Mastropole (Joe Giudice was ordered to pay $260,000 still owed as part of their business divorce agreement), Teresa said: “See! You gotta lie!” (click here for the clip). Apparently, Teresa lied when she testified in the case, which cleared her of any responsibility for paying off Mastropole even though she also signed the business divorce agreement.
The following is a synopsis of Mastropole v. Giudice (bankruptcy Judge Morris Stern concluded that the money owed to Mastropole should be excepted from the Guidice’s bankruptcy discharge).
Teresa also was named in the fraud case filed by Joe Mastropole and was called to testify because she had signed the business divorce agreement which obligated the Giudices to pay Mastropole a total of $586,000 — $300,000 immediately with an ultimate payoff by December 1, 2007. The Giudices breached the agreement by failing to pay off the balance owed of $286,000; instead, they included it in their bankruptcy petition filed on October 29, 2009 as debt to be discharged. Mastropole filed a lawsuit to prevent the debt from being discharged.
During testimony at the proceeding in Mastropole v. Giudice on November 19, December 14 and December 15, 2010, Teresa was not implicated in any of the actual business affairs between Mastropole and J. Giudice, other than she had been a titleholder to certain property and had signed the business divorce agreement.
Attorney John Testa took the witness stand and said he represented the Giudices in the business divorce litigation with Mastropole, which was to have culminated with the June 13, 2007 settlement agreement. Testa identified the personal guarantee in the settlement agreement appeared to have been signed by Teresa and Joe Giudice and witnessed by himself. As to his witnessing the Giudices’ signatures, Testa said that J. Giudice signed in his presence, but Teresa’s signature was already on the guarantee when her husband brought it to him. Testa said he “would not accept that that way,” and said he telephoned Teresa to question her about the document. Testa said he went through it with her “and made sure that was, in fact, her signature.”
Teresa confirmed that she did not work in her husband’s real estate business or with Mastropole-J. Giudice business ventures. “I was not involved in their business,” as she put it. She said she recently became aware that her name was “on” certain real estate. She testified that she never met Testa and that she did not recall the guarantee nor any telephone conversation with Testa about the guarantee.
Wrote Judge Morris Stern: “Teresa was vague throughout most of her testimony, and particularly so in this regard. The singular area of Teresa’s testimony which was firm and emphatic was as to her purported signature on the personal guarantee. She said she did not sign the document.”
On cross-examination regarding Teresa’s signature on the guarantee, J. Giudice said: “I might have signed that . . . I don’t know.” He also said he did not know if Testa had called Teresa about the guarantee. J. Giudice also confirmed that he didn’t tell Testa about the Mastropole discharge of mortgage.
When the plaintiff’s case ended and the defense moved for dismissal, the court denied the motion as to J. Giudice; however, the court dismissed the case against Teresa in its entirely based upon the total absence of evidence connecting her (other than as a spouse) to her husband’s real estate business affairs, not because they believed her testimony.
UPDATE MAY 5, 2014: NJ.com reported on May 5, 2014, that a Bergen County Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit against Teresa, saying she played no role in a fraud perpetrated by her husband against his former business partner Joseph Mastropole:
Judge Robert Polifroni also dismissed much of Mastropole’s case against Joe Giudice, although he left the door open for Mastropole to seek punitive damages against his former partner for forging his name on documents related to the discharge of a mortgage on an East Orange apartment building, part of their so-called “business divorce” in 2007. Mastropole’s name was taken off the mortgage, and Joe Giudice refinanced the property without paying him the $260,000 Mastropole was due.
The case predates the Morris County couple’s rise to fame on “Real Housewives,” but it became part of the show’s drama as Mastropole filed suit to have the debt excluded from the couple’s 2009 bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Morris Stern sided with Mastropole, saying the debt should be excluded from the bankruptcy due to the forgery and calling Joe Giudice “unbounded as a prevaricator in spinning a tale,” and that “the extraordinary web of lies and misrepresentations woven by Giudice to implement and cover his misconduct reflects on his approach to business matters, and suggests his disregard for legal restraints which would bind others.”
The Giudices later withdrew their bankruptcy application amid accusations that the couple hid assets and income, and were indicted in 2013 for bankruptcy and bank fraud. They reached a plea deal earlier this year in which Joe Giudice faces up to nearly four years in prison and Teresa Giudice as much as 27 months. The couple still owes $13.4 million to various creditors.
In his ruling, Polifroni reasoned the debt was eventually paid to Mastropole via a foreclosure on the property, and ruled against Mastropole’s request for attorney’s fees, which exceed the actual amount of the original debt. Polifroni also sided with Teresa Giudice, saying Stern had made a detailed a review of her involvement and found an absence of evidence connecting her to her husband’s real estate affairs.
Michael DeMarco, who represents the Giudices, says he is “extremely pleased” with Polifroni’s ruling, but Mastropole’s attorney William Michelson says he will likely appeal Polifroni’s ruling and seek punitive damages against Giudice for the mortgage fraud.
UPDATE MARCH 7, 2014: Joe Mastropole told RadarOnline in January 2011 that when Teresa took the stand in Mastropole v. Giudice she acted as if she was clueless about their financial affairs, even stating that she did not sign their bankruptcy petition. And under cross examination, when asked about her beach house, she acted befuddled, saying, “Is that in my name?”
However, according to Mastropole, Teresa was at every real estate closing. Mastropole told ibuysss.com:
“She knew every mortgage and attended every closing on all properties in her name and paid by way of her American Express card. Who is she kidding?” [Mastropole named Fred Roughgarden as the closing attorney.]
In season 3 episode 8, Teresa and Joe’s bankruptcy attorney, James Kridel, said both Teresa and Joe signed the bankruptcy petition, and although they filed it jointly, the court had chosen to handle the resolution for each of them separately (clip here for a recap; click here for the clip).
The following is a December 16, 2010 report by the New York Post on Teresa’s testimony in the fraud case filed by Mastropole against the Giudices.
Befuddled and broke “Real Housewives of New Jersey” star Teresa Giudice told a federal judge yesterday she had no clue she declared bankruptcy until well after papers were filed — and her shady husband admitted he forged her name on everything from their mortgage to his business documents.
“I’ll sign my name right now; it’s not my signature,” said Giudice after being questioned on a slew of documents — including the mortgage to the family’s New Jersey mansion and a handful of investment properties — purporting to bear her loopy John Hancock.
At one point, she was asked during cross-examination if she signed the mortgage to the couple’s Jersey Shore beach house. She gulped, “Is that under my name?”
She said she left all matters up to her husband, Joe, who later claimed that he and others stuck her name on all kinds of documents that she knew nothing about.
He also copped to forging his business partner’s signature, in addition to that of a notary and an employee.
“My husband, if he had to tell me something, I’m sure he would,” Giudice said.
The couple — who are almost $11 million in debt — declared bankruptcy last spring.
The clueless cable-TV star — who once declared she was “too pretty to work” — even had to turn to her husband for help when the lawyer asked her what year they got married. “1999?” she said, looking at her husband. “I’m drawing a blank.”
Giudice was in court for a hearing on a lawsuit filed by her husband’s former business partner.
During a break from testifying, Giudice’s famous temper erupted at the wife of the ex-business partner’s lawyer. She accused Monica Ciccone [who later changed the spelling of her last name to Chacon] of spreading rumors about her.
“You’re violating ethnics!” screamed Giudice, who’s famous for her malapropisms.
Her husband’s former partner, Joe Mastropole, has sued the Giudices and accused them of forging his name on mortgage documents in order to pocket $1 million.
Yesterday’s hearing stemmed from a related case, in which Mastropole is trying to get back $260,000 he says that Joe Giudice owed him before he went bankrupt.
Mastropole testified that he didn’t believe Teresa Giudice was ignorant of her husband’s machinations. He called her a “good actor.”
A defiant Joe Giudice took the stand and blatantly admitted to a slew of forgeries. “Everybody does it,” he said, adding he “didn’t think it was a big deal.”
Joe Mastropole also told RadarOnline in January 2011 that he’ll never recover any debt because Teresa’s the one with the money (Teresa herself has proclaimed that “I do work hard and make my own money” and that “my money is mine and Joe’s money is mine,” which must mean that Joe can’t use “her” money to pay off the debt):
“I’m disappointed because she’s [Teresa] the one making income and his money is fraudulent, untraceable and untaxed. She’s the only one bringing money in right now… You can’t really go after him. Even though I’m an exception to his discharge, I think his money is untraceable so it will be hard for me to recover any debt.”
During the reunion special for season 3, Andy Cohen asked about the case and whether they paid off Mastropole. Teresa said he’s paid in full and declined to comment further. However, in the wake of the Giudices’ federal indictment on money fraud, Mastropole told RadarOnline in August 2013 that the Giudices still have not paid him the balance due:
“I never received a penny from them.”
Public records show that the $255,000 owed to Joe Mastropole (the initial judgment of $260,000 was reduced to $255,000 by the court) is still an open judgment against Joe Giudice.
According to reports at ibuysss.com, the Giudices were never well off — the true source of their income was flipping mortgages. They would refinance or get second and third mortgages well over the values of their properties and basically use money from the new loans to make payments on the old ones loans. Then, on some of the properties, they would stop making payments and let them go into foreclosure (the apartment buildings, in particular). It was essentially a mortgage Ponzi scheme where they committed mortgage fraud over and over again.