Home | Podcasts | Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 13 (Part 2): Sit Down With Justice Charles Thomas, Former Justice of the Supreme Court Queens County

Pulling Back The Legal Curtain Episode 13 (Part 2): Sit Down With Justice Charles Thomas, Former Justice of the Supreme Court Queens County

Nov 7, 2023

TRANSCRIPT:

Paul Edelstein:
Hello. Welcome to pulling back the legal curtain. I am your host, Paul Edelstein. I’ll have my partner Glenn Faegenburg with me most of the time. This podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, “What the hell is going on in courts?” It seems like every day we have these kind of questions and get asked them. So, on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there and hopefully give you some answers, some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain.

Back with Judge Thomas. Judge Thomas, you’re now sitting in the Bronx Supreme Court. You told us all about that in part one. Well, and Criminal Court at that, right?

Charles Thomas:
Criminal court, yeah.

Paul Edelstein:
All right. How long did you sit in Criminal Court in the Bronx?

Charles Thomas:
I was there for two years.

Paul Edelstein:
After that, where did you go?

Charles Thomas:
Before I go to that, I’d like to tell you an interesting story from the Criminal Court, okay? A couple of years ago, I went to a fundraiser for retired basketball players from the NBA and [inaudible 00:01:31] and whatever. I forgot the organization that ran it, but it was a wonderful little event to see all these old time guys who I knew by name only. There was a fellow sitting in the corner all by himself, and I asked who was this guy, and they told me his name is Freddie Crawford. He used to play for the Knicks. Now, I knew that Freddie Crawford was the guy from the Bronx, and I was from the Bronx. Anyway, he was all alone. I went over there, and I sat down, and we started to chat.

I said, “Well, tell me something, Fred. Who was the best ball player you ever played against in the NBA?” He said, “No question about it, Kareem. Kareem was absolutely the best.” I said, “Well, how about in high school?” I knew he went to Gompers High School. He said, “I don’t know.” He says, “High school?” He says, “I don’t remember anybody from high school.” I said, “Well, I’ll tell you who I thought was the best player I ever saw in high school. It was Herman Taylor from Commerce High School.” He says, “Herman Taylor?” He says, “He’s a good friend of mine.” I said, “Well, whatever happened to him?” He says, “Well, he went to LIU for a while. He was a Harlem Globetrotter. He’s known as Honey Taylor.” Oh, boy, very impressive. I said, “Okay. Now, that’s your Herman Taylor. I’ll tell you my Herman Taylor.”

Now, we’re back to reality. I’m sitting in the Bronx, and it’s in arraignments, and they call out a guy from the pen, and he comes out, Herman Taylor. I look up, and I have a whole audience full of people, and they’re all sleeping. They’re not paying attention. I said, “Herman Taylor.” I said, “Are you Herman Taylor that used to play for Commerce High School?” He said, “Yes.” He looks, and now everybody’s attention. I have them all listening now. I said, “Wow.” I said, “Are you the Herman Taylor who was really one of the finest ball players of his era?” He looked out. He didn’t answer. He mumbled. I said, “So this is what it’s come to, Herman? This is what it’s come to?”

I was getting sentimental about the whole thing because, hey, this was a guy who I really looked up to. Anyway, the attorney says, [inaudible 00:03:54]. He comes up. I said to the attorney, “You know who your client is?” I said, “He was spectacular.” He says, “Yeah, he may have been a good basketball player, but he’s a lousy gambler.” So then I knew it was a gambling… He was probably picked up on a crap game. We’re not talking about a murder case here, okay? So I said, “Okay,” and we took care of the case. I don’t even remember the disposition at all, all right?

Now, let’s go back to Freddie Crawford. Then, years later, I told him the story. We’re laughing about it. A couple of weeks later, my phone rings at home. “Hello, George Thomas?” “Yes. Who is this?” “This is Herman Taylor.” “Herman Taylor? You’re calling?” “Yeah. Oh, Freddie told me the story.” He said, “I remember that so well.” He says, “Oh, how are you, Judge? How are you doing? How’s your family? Tell me about yourself.” He’s interested in me. I couldn’t believe it. I think he’s still around. He was a hell of a ball player. That’s just a side story, but-

Paul Edelstein:
It’s a good one.

Charles Thomas:
To me, that was a perk of the job. It was something really interesting.

Paul Edelstein:
That sounds like it. Any other celebrities come in front of you? That was like a celebrity to you.

Charles Thomas:
Yeah. Well, I had Al Sharpton on an appeal situation. That wasn’t much, although Al Sharpton can be very funny. Al Sharpton is a close relative to a judge on the bench right now, and he was at our swearing-in ceremony. He came in, he said, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time I ever went into a courthouse through the front door.” I thought that was pretty amusing. You said other celebrities? An original rapper. “These are the breaks.” You know that guy that said, “These are the breaks?” Whoever that guy was. Do you know who that was?

Paul Edelstein:
I got to look it up.

Charles Thomas:
“Pick them up, pick them up, these are the…” Anyway, he’s been around quite a while.

Paul Edelstein:
You’re going to sing the song? Lovely. You’re going to sing it? You could actually sing it?

Charles Thomas:
That’s how I know the guy.

Paul Edelstein:
All right.

Charles Thomas:
No. Otherwise, I can’t think of any other celebrities offhand. They always have too many celebrities in Queens.

Paul Edelstein:
Well, I know that’s where you sat for a long time, right? Is that the progression?

Charles Thomas:
Yeah. Oh, yeah, that was it. After the Bronx, then I went to Criminal Court in Queens for a couple of years. I was a Civil Court judge at the time, and then I was Acting Supreme for a while, and then I went to Supreme, and when I was in Supreme, I did Criminal for about six or seven years, and then I was doing both Criminal and Civil, which I thought was really the best way to go. I loved that idea, to judge it-

Paul Edelstein:
Why?

Charles Thomas:
Oh, you get the variety. You really get the variety, and every day’s exciting. You don’t know what it’s going to be. The case comes in it. It made life interesting.

Paul Edelstein:
It’s funny that you say that like you said it because it’s clear that you loved your job and you say, “Wow, it’s very exciting. Every day was interesting.” But I’ve been doing this for 29 years, and most of the time, when I go in front of judges, not every judge, but most of the judges I go in front of, I don’t get the idea that they think it’s very exciting and very interesting. You know what I mean?

Charles Thomas:
I know what you mean, especially when you do the same thing every single day. Frankly, I was getting bored hearing my own voice sometimes. When I was picking juries, I only wanted to do it once with one panel. I didn’t want to go through a couple panels to hear my voice again. But then I got involved in the guardianship world, Article 81, and that was extremely rewarding because you really can make a difference in that part.

Paul Edelstein:
So you and I both know what that is, obviously. But maybe somebody other than my mom who may listen to this doesn’t know what that is. Why don’t you explain that?

Charles Thomas:
We have a guardianship law which provides for people who have functional limitations, and if they can’t perform the basic functions of everyday living, somebody can come in and step in and petition to be their guardian to make these decisions, either financial or personal. They come to court, they make an application, they prove their case. They prove that the person, we call them an AIP, an allegedly incapacitated person, does not have the capacity to function correctly. Maybe they were being exploited. Maybe there’s a mental issue. There are a lot of situations why you would get one and be a guardian, and you make that determination. You send out an investigator, a court evaluator, come back with a report, you have a hearing on the matter, and then you make a determination whether or not the person needs the guardian, number one, or, number two, who should be the guardian.

Paul Edelstein:
Oh, that’s pretty cool stuff. Let me see if I could summarize it. So, essentially, when you became the judge in this guardianship part, people are coming to you and they’re saying, “Hey, Judge Thomas, we think we’ve got someone here that needs representation that can’t function on their own and needs somebody in there.” Oftentimes, there’s someone on the other side saying, “Well, maybe not,” right? You’re the one that decides, hey, whether this person should or shouldn’t have a guardian appointed, and oftentimes there’s a fight over that, right?

Charles Thomas:
Absolutely. Usually, in the family situation, it’s very common as to who loves mama the most which child wants to take care of mama, which one doesn’t, things of that nature. You’re dealing with the human condition, the very basic human condition, which reminds me, if you’d like to hear an interesting story, I got one for you.

Paul Edelstein:
That’s what I’m here for. That’s what I’m [inaudible 00:09:50].

Charles Thomas:
Okay. This is a case that came up in the guardianship world early on in my career. It made an impression that I’ve never forgot this matter. Just picture this. It came to me… A very rich Chinese woman died with a lot of jewelry, and she had a guardian, and she also had a lot of relatives, and she did not have a will. She had two groups of relatives. One group of relatives said they wanted her jewelry. The other group said, “We don’t want her jewelry.” She wanted to have her jewelry buried with her, and she was being held… They weren’t burying her until this was settled. So this is an odd situation. Bury your jewelry.

Okay. So the first thing I did was I did a little research. I Googled Chinese burial customs, and it turned out that it is a custom in certain situations that people wanted their jewelry buried with them. The word was if they liked their jewelry. That was the word. If they liked their jewelry. I then asked my administrative judge, who happened to be Chinese, Randy Yang, a terrific guy. He became PGA of the Appellate Division, Second Department. I said, “Randy, what do you think?” He said, “Well,” he said, “If they liked their jewelry…” He said the same words. “If they liked their jewelry, it happens. They ought do that.”

Okay. So now we have a hearing, and we have the guy on the stand, the guardian on the stand. He doesn’t know what to do. I said to him, “Well, suppose you take a picture of the jewelry and put it in.” “Oh, no, no, that won’t work at all.” I said, “Well, you know what’s going to happen? If you put those jewels in the coffin and bury them, when you walk out of that cemetery, someone’s going to come back with a shovel and come dig it out.” He said, “If that happens, bad things will happen to them.” I said, “Well, that’s not good enough for me because if I let that happen, bad things will happen to me.” So what do I do? What do I do? Well, you’re the lawyer. What do you think I did?

Paul Edelstein:
Oh, boy, you’re putting me on the spot?

Charles Thomas:
Yeah.

Paul Edelstein:
I don’t know. Replica jewelry? I don’t know.

Charles Thomas:
I thought of that. I thought of that. I even mentioned that. No, they didn’t want that. I’ll tell you what I did. I said to the group that wanted the jewelry, that wanted to bury them, I said, “You want to bury the jewelry? Okay, but you’re all part of the estate.” “You’re right.” There was no will. They’re all beneficiaries. They’re all distributees, I should say. I said, “Well, you buy the jewelry. You buy the jewelry, give me the money, and then you can take the jewelry and do anything you want with it. But now we still have the estate.” That’s how we settled it out.

Paul Edelstein:
Did they go for that? Did they-

Charles Thomas:
They went for it, absolutely. They went for it. I didn’t go to the funeral. I should have lost jurisdiction because when somebody dies, it goes to the Surrogate’s Court, not the Supreme Court, but I just was winding down the guardianship. So I don’t know how it eventually ended up, but I know that was the solution, and they seemed to be happy with it.

Paul Edelstein:
That’s a great story, a different take on the old Solomon-esque-

Charles Thomas:
Yeah. Yeah.

Paul Edelstein:
… allegory with the baby, right? Wow.

Charles Thomas:
Exactly. Yeah, exactly.

Paul Edelstein:
That’s pretty interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything quite like that.

Charles Thomas:
I never saw one like that before myself. It was fascinating. Well, there were a lot of little stories like that. Do you want stories? I’ll give you a story.

Paul Edelstein:
Yes, let’s hear stories.

Charles Thomas:
All right. We had an old lady who lived in a house with a big fence around it, and she had a daughter that lived in the house with her and a daughter that lived down the street. So we had an in daughter and out daughter. The in daughter and the out daughter were fighting all the time as to who loves mama the most, who’s going to do this, who’s going to do that. The in daughter, by the way, was the guardian, and she was not letting her sister, it was her sister, come and visit. So, one day, when the in was not around, the out daughter came along, jumped the fence, went in, and saw her mother and had to break a window to get in. The other one came back, called the police, and the police came and she told them a story and they arrested the sister for breaking into the house.

They took her to the police station. They held her overnight and let her out in the morning. She came back to the house, and she found that mama had died in the night. So what did she do? The first thing she did, took a camera and took pictures of mama in the bed with her bed sores, horrible-looking pictures. Now, it’s all in front of me right now, a [inaudible 00:15:49] story in any event. But now we have a hearing about the whole thing. She was fighting about it with the sister. You know what? I don’t even remember what they were fighting about anymore, but they were fighting. It was in front of me, and I had to wrap up the whole thing and terminate the guardianship. We had a hearing, and a cop came in to testify that he had arrested the out sister. The cop came in wearing a pair of shorts. I had never seen that before in a courtroom, the cop comes in in shorts. He gets on the stand, and he tells a story.

He made it sound like the sister from outside was terrible and the one on the inside was right, and as he walked by… When the testimony was over, the sister was sitting in the courtroom, the out sister. She looked up and says to him, “You lying son of a bitch.” I had never heard that in a courtroom either, frankly, between people. Okay. They walked out, and I found… Oh, now I remember why I was there. It was a contempt citation against the in sister for not letting the out sister visit. So I was holding her in contempt because I had given her the right to visit, and this sister number in, the in sister, I gave her a week in jail as a contempt, which on the weekend I knew she’d only do two or three days. Meanwhile, the out sister went out into the hall and had an epileptic fit, and they had to call an ambulance. It was a lot of drama. That was just an exciting day.

Paul Edelstein:
It sounds like, in that position, the position you were in in that guardianship part for all those years, that you got to see the family dramas really played out in a public fashion. Every one of us has these family dramas we all go through. I know you’ve had your own and you know some of mine, but you see it really just splayed out in court, huh?

Charles Thomas:
Absolutely. The human condition laid out in front of you, which makes it so interesting. It really does. To my mind, that was much more interesting than the negligence cases, than the guy saying, “It hurts. Give me money.”

Paul Edelstein:
How in the world does that not affect your demeanor? You are the same just happy, open-minded, energetic, passionate… I see judges, I say, “Wow, this judge, he’s a little jaded and he’s tired of doing this.” Your demeanor has never changed, even now, all these years later, despite hearing all those stories all that time. That’s pretty amazing

Charles Thomas:
Nature of the beast. What can I tell you? I love the job, and it’s the best job in the world.

Paul Edelstein:
Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we’re always going to be here in front of and behind the legal curtain doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.Paul Edelstein:

Hello. Welcome to pulling back the legal curtain. I am your host, Paul Edelstein. I’ll have my partner Glenn Faegenburg with me most of the time. This podcast is for all of you out there who have ever read about a court case, seen a court case, been involved in a court case, went to court, thought about court, and wondered, “What the hell is going on in courts?” It seems like every day we have these kind of questions and get asked them. So, on this podcast, we will pull back the curtain on the mystery that sometimes surrounds the court and what happens there and hopefully give you some answers, some interesting, some humorous, some surprising. Stick with us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain.Back with Judge Thomas. Judge Thomas, you’re now sitting in the Bronx Supreme Court. You told us all about that in part one. Well, and Criminal Court at that, right?Charles Thomas:Criminal court, yeah.Paul Edelstein:All right. How long did you sit in Criminal Court in the Bronx?Charles Thomas:I was there for two years.Paul Edelstein:After that, where did you go?Charles Thomas:Before I go to that, I’d like to tell you an interesting story from the Criminal Court, okay? A couple of years ago, I went to a fundraiser for retired basketball players from the NBA and [inaudible 00:01:31] and whatever. I forgot the organization that ran it, but it was a wonderful little event to see all these old time guys who I knew by name only. There was a fellow sitting in the corner all by himself, and I asked who was this guy, and they told me his name is Freddie Crawford. He used to play for the Knicks. Now, I knew that Freddie Crawford was the guy from the Bronx, and I was from the Bronx. Anyway, he was all alone. I went over there, and I sat down, and we started to chat.I said, “Well, tell me something, Fred. Who was the best ball player you ever played against in the NBA?” He said, “No question about it, Kareem. Kareem was absolutely the best.” I said, “Well, how about in high school?” I knew he went to Gompers High School. He said, “I don’t know.” He says, “High school?” He says, “I don’t remember anybody from high school.” I said, “Well, I’ll tell you who I thought was the best player I ever saw in high school. It was Herman Taylor from Commerce High School.” He says, “Herman Taylor?” He says, “He’s a good friend of mine.” I said, “Well, whatever happened to him?” He says, “Well, he went to LIU for a while. He was a Harlem Globetrotter. He’s known as Honey Taylor.” Oh, boy, very impressive. I said, “Okay. Now, that’s your Herman Taylor. I’ll tell you my Herman Taylor.”Now, we’re back to reality. I’m sitting in the Bronx, and it’s in arraignments, and they call out a guy from the pen, and he comes out, Herman Taylor. I look up, and I have a whole audience full of people, and they’re all sleeping. They’re not paying attention. I said, “Herman Taylor.” I said, “Are you Herman Taylor that used to play for Commerce High School?” He said, “Yes.” He looks, and now everybody’s attention. I have them all listening now. I said, “Wow.” I said, “Are you the Herman Taylor who was really one of the finest ball players of his era?” He looked out. He didn’t answer. He mumbled. I said, “So this is what it’s come to, Herman? This is what it’s come to?”I was getting sentimental about the whole thing because, hey, this was a guy who I really looked up to. Anyway, the attorney says, [inaudible 00:03:54]. He comes up. I said to the attorney, “You know who your client is?” I said, “He was spectacular.” He says, “Yeah, he may have been a good basketball player, but he’s a lousy gambler.” So then I knew it was a gambling… He was probably picked up on a crap game. We’re not talking about a murder case here, okay? So I said, “Okay,” and we took care of the case. I don’t even remember the disposition at all, all right?Now, let’s go back to Freddie Crawford. Then, years later, I told him the story. We’re laughing about it. A couple of weeks later, my phone rings at home. “Hello, George Thomas?” “Yes. Who is this?” “This is Herman Taylor.” “Herman Taylor? You’re calling?” “Yeah. Oh, Freddie told me the story.” He said, “I remember that so well.” He says, “Oh, how are you, Judge? How are you doing? How’s your family? Tell me about yourself.” He’s interested in me. I couldn’t believe it. I think he’s still around. He was a hell of a ball player. That’s just a side story, but-Paul Edelstein:It’s a good one.Charles Thomas:To me, that was a perk of the job. It was something really interesting.Paul Edelstein:That sounds like it. Any other celebrities come in front of you? That was like a celebrity to you.Charles Thomas:Yeah. Well, I had Al Sharpton on an appeal situation. That wasn’t much, although Al Sharpton can be very funny. Al Sharpton is a close relative to a judge on the bench right now, and he was at our swearing-in ceremony. He came in, he said, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time I ever went into a courthouse through the front door.” I thought that was pretty amusing. You said other celebrities? An original rapper. “These are the breaks.” You know that guy that said, “These are the breaks?” Whoever that guy was. Do you know who that was?Paul Edelstein:I got to look it up.Charles Thomas:”Pick them up, pick them up, these are the…” Anyway, he’s been around quite a while.Paul Edelstein:You’re going to sing the song? Lovely. You’re going to sing it? You could actually sing it?Charles Thomas:That’s how I know the guy.Paul Edelstein:All right.Charles Thomas:No. Otherwise, I can’t think of any other celebrities offhand. They always have too many celebrities in Queens.Paul Edelstein:Well, I know that’s where you sat for a long time, right? Is that the progression?Charles Thomas:Yeah. Oh, yeah, that was it. After the Bronx, then I went to Criminal Court in Queens for a couple of years. I was a Civil Court judge at the time, and then I was Acting Supreme for a while, and then I went to Supreme, and when I was in Supreme, I did Criminal for about six or seven years, and then I was doing both Criminal and Civil, which I thought was really the best way to go. I loved that idea, to judge it-Paul Edelstein:Why?Charles Thomas:Oh, you get the variety. You really get the variety, and every day’s exciting. You don’t know what it’s going to be. The case comes in it. It made life interesting.Paul Edelstein:It’s funny that you say that like you said it because it’s clear that you loved your job and you say, “Wow, it’s very exciting. Every day was interesting.” But I’ve been doing this for 29 years, and most of the time, when I go in front of judges, not every judge, but most of the judges I go in front of, I don’t get the idea that they think it’s very exciting and very interesting. You know what I mean?Charles Thomas:I know what you mean, especially when you do the same thing every single day. Frankly, I was getting bored hearing my own voice sometimes. When I was picking juries, I only wanted to do it once with one panel. I didn’t want to go through a couple panels to hear my voice again. But then I got involved in the guardianship world, Article 81, and that was extremely rewarding because you really can make a difference in that part.Paul Edelstein:So you and I both know what that is, obviously. But maybe somebody other than my mom who may listen to this doesn’t know what that is. Why don’t you explain that?Charles Thomas:We have a guardianship law which provides for people who have functional limitations, and if they can’t perform the basic functions of everyday living, somebody can come in and step in and petition to be their guardian to make these decisions, either financial or personal. They come to court, they make an application, they prove their case. They prove that the person, we call them an AIP, an allegedly incapacitated person, does not have the capacity to function correctly. Maybe they were being exploited. Maybe there’s a mental issue. There are a lot of situations why you would get one and be a guardian, and you make that determination. You send out an investigator, a court evaluator, come back with a report, you have a hearing on the matter, and then you make a determination whether or not the person needs the guardian, number one, or, number two, who should be the guardian.Paul Edelstein:Oh, that’s pretty cool stuff. Let me see if I could summarize it. So, essentially, when you became the judge in this guardianship part, people are coming to you and they’re saying, “Hey, Judge Thomas, we think we’ve got someone here that needs representation that can’t function on their own and needs somebody in there.” Oftentimes, there’s someone on the other side saying, “Well, maybe not,” right? You’re the one that decides, hey, whether this person should or shouldn’t have a guardian appointed, and oftentimes there’s a fight over that, right?Charles Thomas:Absolutely. Usually, in the family situation, it’s very common as to who loves mama the most which child wants to take care of mama, which one doesn’t, things of that nature. You’re dealing with the human condition, the very basic human condition, which reminds me, if you’d like to hear an interesting story, I got one for you.Paul Edelstein:That’s what I’m here for. That’s what I’m [inaudible 00:09:50].Charles Thomas:Okay. This is a case that came up in the guardianship world early on in my career. It made an impression that I’ve never forgot this matter. Just picture this. It came to me… A very rich Chinese woman died with a lot of jewelry, and she had a guardian, and she also had a lot of relatives, and she did not have a will. She had two groups of relatives. One group of relatives said they wanted her jewelry. The other group said, “We don’t want her jewelry.” She wanted to have her jewelry buried with her, and she was being held… They weren’t burying her until this was settled. So this is an odd situation. Bury your jewelry.Okay. So the first thing I did was I did a little research. I Googled Chinese burial customs, and it turned out that it is a custom in certain situations that people wanted their jewelry buried with them. The word was if they liked their jewelry. That was the word. If they liked their jewelry. I then asked my administrative judge, who happened to be Chinese, Randy Yang, a terrific guy. He became PGA of the Appellate Division, Second Department. I said, “Randy, what do you think?” He said, “Well,” he said, “If they liked their jewelry…” He said the same words. “If they liked their jewelry, it happens. They ought do that.”Okay. So now we have a hearing, and we have the guy on the stand, the guardian on the stand. He doesn’t know what to do. I said to him, “Well, suppose you take a picture of the jewelry and put it in.” “Oh, no, no, that won’t work at all.” I said, “Well, you know what’s going to happen? If you put those jewels in the coffin and bury them, when you walk out of that cemetery, someone’s going to come back with a shovel and come dig it out.” He said, “If that happens, bad things will happen to them.” I said, “Well, that’s not good enough for me because if I let that happen, bad things will happen to me.” So what do I do? What do I do? Well, you’re the lawyer. What do you think I did?Paul Edelstein:Oh, boy, you’re putting me on the spot?Charles Thomas:Yeah.Paul Edelstein:I don’t know. Replica jewelry? I don’t know.Charles Thomas:I thought of that. I thought of that. I even mentioned that. No, they didn’t want that. I’ll tell you what I did. I said to the group that wanted the jewelry, that wanted to bury them, I said, “You want to bury the jewelry? Okay, but you’re all part of the estate.” “You’re right.” There was no will. They’re all beneficiaries. They’re all distributees, I should say. I said, “Well, you buy the jewelry. You buy the jewelry, give me the money, and then you can take the jewelry and do anything you want with it. But now we still have the estate.” That’s how we settled it out.Paul Edelstein:Did they go for that? Did they-Charles Thomas:They went for it, absolutely. They went for it. I didn’t go to the funeral. I should have lost jurisdiction because when somebody dies, it goes to the Surrogate’s Court, not the Supreme Court, but I just was winding down the guardianship. So I don’t know how it eventually ended up, but I know that was the solution, and they seemed to be happy with it.Paul Edelstein:That’s a great story, a different take on the old Solomon-esque-Charles Thomas:Yeah. Yeah.Paul Edelstein:… allegory with the baby, right? Wow.Charles Thomas:Exactly. Yeah, exactly.Paul Edelstein:That’s pretty interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything quite like that.Charles Thomas:I never saw one like that before myself. It was fascinating. Well, there were a lot of little stories like that. Do you want stories? I’ll give you a story.Paul Edelstein:Yes, let’s hear stories.Charles Thomas:All right. We had an old lady who lived in a house with a big fence around it, and she had a daughter that lived in the house with her and a daughter that lived down the street. So we had an in daughter and out daughter. The in daughter and the out daughter were fighting all the time as to who loves mama the most, who’s going to do this, who’s going to do that. The in daughter, by the way, was the guardian, and she was not letting her sister, it was her sister, come and visit. So, one day, when the in was not around, the out daughter came along, jumped the fence, went in, and saw her mother and had to break a window to get in. The other one came back, called the police, and the police came and she told them a story and they arrested the sister for breaking into the house.They took her to the police station. They held her overnight and let her out in the morning. She came back to the house, and she found that mama had died in the night. So what did she do? The first thing she did, took a camera and took pictures of mama in the bed with her bed sores, horrible-looking pictures. Now, it’s all in front of me right now, a [inaudible 00:15:49] story in any event. But now we have a hearing about the whole thing. She was fighting about it with the sister. You know what? I don’t even remember what they were fighting about anymore, but they were fighting. It was in front of me, and I had to wrap up the whole thing and terminate the guardianship. We had a hearing, and a cop came in to testify that he had arrested the out sister. The cop came in wearing a pair of shorts. I had never seen that before in a courtroom, the cop comes in in shorts. He gets on the stand, and he tells a story.He made it sound like the sister from outside was terrible and the one on the inside was right, and as he walked by… When the testimony was over, the sister was sitting in the courtroom, the out sister. She looked up and says to him, “You lying son of a bitch.” I had never heard that in a courtroom either, frankly, between people. Okay. They walked out, and I found… Oh, now I remember why I was there. It was a contempt citation against the in sister for not letting the out sister visit. So I was holding her in contempt because I had given her the right to visit, and this sister number in, the in sister, I gave her a week in jail as a contempt, which on the weekend I knew she’d only do two or three days. Meanwhile, the out sister went out into the hall and had an epileptic fit, and they had to call an ambulance. It was a lot of drama. That was just an exciting day.Paul Edelstein:It sounds like, in that position, the position you were in in that guardianship part for all those years, that you got to see the family dramas really played out in a public fashion. Every one of us has these family dramas we all go through. I know you’ve had your own and you know some of mine, but you see it really just splayed out in court, huh?Charles Thomas:Absolutely. The human condition laid out in front of you, which makes it so interesting. It really does. To my mind, that was much more interesting than the negligence cases, than the guy saying, “It hurts. Give me money.”Paul Edelstein:How in the world does that not affect your demeanor? You are the same just happy, open-minded, energetic, passionate… I see judges, I say, “Wow, this judge, he’s a little jaded and he’s tired of doing this.” Your demeanor has never changed, even now, all these years later, despite hearing all those stories all that time. That’s pretty amazingCharles Thomas:Nature of the beast. What can I tell you? I love the job, and it’s the best job in the world.Paul Edelstein:Thanks for joining us on Pulling Back the Legal Curtain with Paul and Glenn. Because we get so many questions over so many years about what goes on behind the legal curtain in the legal world, we tried to put this together so that it would be entertaining and interesting and hopefully educational. If you liked it, come join us again or visit our website at edelsteinslaw.com. Either way, we’re always going to be here in front of and behind the legal curtain doing the only thing that we know how to do, which is proceed. Take care.