HOMELESS DOGS ROBBED of TRUST FUND MONEY

Its no secret that Leona Helmsley loved dogs. She loved them so much that she wanted to leave ALL her money to the cause of helping them.
She created a trust fund with the intentions that her entire fortune, estimated to be over five (5) billion dollars,  would be disbursed to organizations dedicated to the welfare of dogs. Mrs. Helmsley passed away in 2007
-----------------
The trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
announced today that they are awarding a total of $136-million in
the foundation's first round of grants.

The announcement is significant not only because of the large amount,
but because only $1-million is going to support dogs and other animals,
which goes against Ms. Helmsley's wishes that the bulk of her estate
be directed to the care and welfare of only dogs.

Of the 54 grants announced, one-year donations of $100,000 apiece
are going to benefit nine canine groups, and one group that benefits all
animals ( ASPCA). That is a total of 1 million out of a 5 billion dollar fund.

In February, a New York judge ruled that the trustees did not have to
limit the distribution of their grants to charities focused on the care
and welfare of dogs, a wish Ms. Helmsley stated
in a mission statement she signed in 2004. In that document, Ms.
Helmsley stated that she wanted the bulk of her estate worth an
estimated $5.2-billion, to go toward the care and welfare of dogs.
When her estate is settled, the foundation she created is widely expected
to become one of the biggest foundations in the United States.

That mission statement revoked a previous document she signed in 2003
that said she wanted her foundation not only to benefit dogs, but also
to support "medical and health-care services for indigent people with
emphasis on providing care to children."

But the judge, Troy K. Webber, found that the document that originally
established the charitable trust does not require that the trustees refer
to the mission statement, and that it grants them "sole discretion" to
give money to any charity they choose.

Jusge Webber wrote in his decision that the trust document, "makes clear
that the trustees discretion to apply trust funds for charitable purposes
is not limited by any mission statement."

That ruling may have set a precedent for charitable bequests since it
raised questions about how closely trustees of estates are legally bound
to distribute donors' bequests to the causes they designated.The bulk of
the (first round $136-million) is going toward conservation, education, health and medical research, and human services. The three largest grants include $40-million to NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center for a center for digestive diseases; $25-million to Mount Sinai Medical Center for a center for electrophysiology; and $10-million to
Mount Sinai School of Medicine for an inflammatory bowel disease
center.  All three institutions are in New York, and all use animals for medical research experiments,....INCLUDING DOGS! 

Criticism From Animal Groups

The trustees' decision to give only $1-million to animal groups in this
first round of grants has caused dismay among some animal charity
leaders. Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United
States called the amount "trifling" and said it was inconsistent with Ms.
Helmsley's stated charitable intentions.

"These resources could do tremendous good, as Mrs. Helmsley wanted,
in promoting shelter adoption and spay-and-neuter programs, stopping
puppy mills and dogfighting, and other programs to help dogs. We've
been in touch with interested parties and hope for a constructive
resolution," said Mr. Pacelle in a written statement.

But the trustees see their decision differently.

"We are continuing the philanthropic legacy of Mr. and Ms. Helmsley.
Throughout their lives, the Helmsleys were committed to helping others
through the innovations of medical research, responding to those in
need during critical times, and in other areas. We now have the privilege
of continuing their good works by providing support where we think it will make a difference," said the trustees in a news release.

The five trustees are John Codey, an adviser to Ms. Helmsley; Sandor
Frankel, her lawyer; David Panzirer and Walter Panzirer, two of Ms.
Helmsley's grandchldren; and Alvin Rosenthal, Ms. Helmsley's brother

Until today, all five have been silent for more than a year about their
intentions for the foundation.
--------
Below, a Word from the Trustees' in Defense of what they did, and our comments in bold;

Message From the Trustees Regarding Leona Helmsley and Dog Charities

In April 2009, the Trust announced the first grants since Leona Helmsley's death, totaling $136 million; the vast majority went to health and medical research for humans, and $1 million went to dog-related charities. One or more dog-related charities undertook a publicity campaign, claiming that the Trustees had acted improperly and ignored Mrs. Helmsley's instructions, a claim widely reported in the media.

Did Leona Helmsley intend for this charitable trust to focus on the care and help of dogs, rather than people? Absolutely not. (Well now, that depends on what the LAST document she signed said. The latest document voids all others) That is basic "Wills, Trusts & Estates Law"  101.) Have the trustees of this vast fortune acted improperly and ignored Mrs. Helmsley's instructions? Again, absolutely not.(Well now again,..that depends. WE dont know what the latest document actually says. Can you post a copy of it on your website?)

These are the facts:

Mrs. Helmsley died on August 20, 2007. Her will left nearly her entire fortune to The Leona M. And Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, which she had established in 1999. Until her death, Mrs. Helmsley was the sole trustee of the Trust.

Between 1999 and her death, Mrs. Helmsley signed a number of documents relating to the Trust, including several amendments and two so-called "mission statements." The totality of these documents clearly provided that the trustees, in the language of the document establishing the Trust, "may, in their sole discretion, distribute the net income and principal of the Trust Fund to and among such one or more Charitable Organizations (Again, it is NOT the "totality" of the documents that matters. It is what the LAST document says. Of course, if this is indeed the actual language of the trust or whatever, perhaps the "charitable organizations" it speaks of was meant to mean "canine-welfare" charities. Who knows? We only know what you are telling us....) and in such amounts or proportions as the Trustees, in their sole discretion, shall determine."

That is the language of the Trust itself,  not a characterization. Moreover, numerous other provisions of the Trust documents fully supported our belief that Mrs. Helmsley had entrusted her successor trustees with,
in the twice-stated language of the Trust itself, "sole discretion" to distribute the Trust's money to charities the trustees consider worthy. (Ah, again, was she meaning "canine charities" or did you just take it to mean "any" charity? Hummm. )

Yet we chose instead to act not simply on our reading of the operative language, but with the full imprimatur of the law. There is a procedure under New York law that allows trustees to present weighty issues to the Surrogate's Court, and to seek that court's guidance,  or what the statute calls the court's "advice and direction." We did precisely that, filing a petition in Surrogate's Court, asking that court to review and confirm our reading of the documents. (Of course, you didnt go to Surrogate Court to "make sure" you could get away with doing as you damned well pleased & planned for the money? Were the documents really so confusing that you had to seek clairification through the courts? Comon. Like I said, read only the last filings. That should simplify things for you. All prior writings are null and void.)

The petition disclosed and presented to the court every conceivably relevant document,  the original Trust instrument, the amendments, the "mission statements," and others. The petition presented a detailed analysis of the documents, leading inescapably to the conclusion that the "sole discretion" granted by the Trust to the trustees should be honored. (Yeah, sole discretion to give to any organization you wanted to give to, as long as it was canine.) Before filing the petition, we served a copy on the Attorney General of New York State,  the legal authority charged with assuring that charities function with integrity to their intended purposes. Before the court ruled, the Attorney General submitted a written response to the petition, agreeing with us. (and whats in it for them? What favorite charity of theirs are you contributing too? Can you spell K-I-C-K-B-A-C-K-? ) The Surrogate's Court upheld our position, unambiguously ruling: "[T]he court finds that the trustees may apply trust funds for such charitable purposes and in such amounts as they may, in their sole discretion, determine."

Until the court ruled, we made no grants. In the interim, because of the high probability that the court would rule that the Trust's language means what it says, we undertook extensive due diligence regarding a variety of charities, so that once the court ruled we could hit the ground running. And, indeed, we did. The Trust's grants to hospitals, medical research efforts, other healthcare facilities, and organizations providing food and shelter to people in dire need, and other grants, will substantially alleviate human suffering and create healthier and more fulfilling lives for millions of people across the globe. (but the robbery will continue & prolong the suffering of homeless dogs and CREATE new suffering for the animals that will be used on medical experiments in these places) And the billions of dollars the Trust will continue to donate will multiply that impact enormously.

One final thought. Mrs. Helmsley was not known for reticence. Here, her actions spoke as clearly as the words of the Trust documents. In the eight years between the formation of the Trust and her death, Mrs. Helmsley contributed (as the sole trustee of this Trust and otherwise) over $55 million to charitable causes; of that amount, she made only one gift to a dog-related charity, for one thousand dollars.

Even more telling is this: The claim that the Trust was established for dog-related purposes relies on a document entitled "Mission Statement" signed by Mrs. Helmsley in 2004. Between her signing that document and her death, during which time she alone controlled the Trust, Mrs. Helmsley and the Trust gave over $29 million to charities; of that, the amount she and the Trust gave to dog-related charities was exactly zero. (Maybe that is exactly why she wanted the entire remainder of her trust to go to the cause of the dogs - the "human needs" having already been met?)
---------
And here is something else that happened in Surrogates Court you aint sayin much about;   

Leonas dog "Trouble"  gets robbed of 10M, --disinherited
grandchildren get his money;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367257,00.html

Signers, below is a link to the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Trust Fund Site; Be sure to check it out to see where all the dogs money is going.

The Trust Site:
http://www.helmsleytrust.org/the-trust/leona-and-harry/

Please contact Howard Rubenstein, the Trust Funds PR guy, and let him know what you think about how the trust was handled. His telephone number is on the website but I will give it to you again here; (212) 843 - 8080

Please also contact Judge Troy K. Webber of the New York City Surrogates Court, who made the terrible ruling; Here is a link to his website with his contact info there, including his phone number which I will give to you here; (718) 618-3000

Be sure and give him a piece of our collective minds!

Judge Webbers page;
http://www.nycourtsystem.com/Applications/JudicialDirectory/Bio.php?ID=7025257

We need to make a BIG noise over this and somebody needs to sue, just like we did in the "Dancing Star Sanctuary"  breach of trust case; 
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/animal-sanctuary-becomes-killing-field

and an interesting article about the Helmsley Breach of Trust in the New York Times; The Majority Opinion in this case is FOUL PLAY!

Article: NYT; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/nyregion/26helmsley.html

Thanks for caring.  






http://legal-eaze.blogspot.com/2009/04/breech-of-helmsley-trust-angers-animal.html