By Norman G Finkelstein
On 30 October 2017, Dr Rudolph Baldeo filed a motion to vacate the “stipulation” (agreement) that Allyson Burger and Michael Chetkof had blackmailed him into signing.
Allyson Burger submitted a reply on 5 November 2017. Amidst her meandering drivel, Burger dragged in my name at several junctures. I will soon have my day in court, an occasion I relish as it will enable me to expose in full public view and before a jury this wretch’s squalid, smarmy, sordid, sleazy modus operandi, as I personally witnessed it over a 16-month period.
However, one point in Burger’s sludge demands instant reply.
On 24 August 2017, after the stipulation was signed, Dr Baldeo appeared in court to sign over his assets. In his 30 October motion to vacate, Dr Baldeo recapitulated the ensuing scene—
When we appeared in Court on August 24, 2017 . . . , wherein I was requested to sign over certain assets, I stated on the record:
Please, your Honor. This is the first time I address you. I plead, I ask them to give me ample time to sign all these documents, to review all these documents, to read them when I’m in a stable mind and so forth. Today is the first time I’m presented with all these documents to sign. One second from now, one second, that, that is the first time I’m hearing about this.
. . . and if I may say this, this is exactly what happened with the stipulation. At the end of the day when I was working, and with all I heard was sign, sign, sign, the judge is in her robe, and the reporter is ready, I need a signed copy. Hurry, I need a signed copy, at 4:30 in the afternoon. Within 5 minutes I had to sign and initial 300 pages, and I did not get a chance to look at the stipulation and read it. I did not understand why.
In her 5 November 2017 reply, Burger also referred back to this 24 August climactic moment: “Defendant began to read a statement to the Court (curiously penned by his friend, Norman Finkelstein, post-judgment) feigning insufficient time to review the Agreement.”
It’s no mean endeavor unpacking and rationally parsing the putrid concoctions of a congenital liar. Herewith, and holding my nose, is an attempt by yours truly:
First, arguendo, let’s assume I did write this statement. It’s cause to wonder, worry, and interrogate Burger at my trial, how she came to know this.
Second, what difference would it make even if I did write it—isn’t the only pertinent question whether the statement is true or false?
Third, it’s obvious from the text that Dr Baldeo was speaking extemporaneously, in the heat of the moment, after a batch of property deeds was thrust in his face. The brazenness of Burger flabbergasts. She dares assert Dr Baldeo was reading a prepared statement written by me and was “feigning” his desperation, even as Hon. Judge Stacy D. Bennett herself asseverated before the courtroom after he spoke that Dr Baldeo’s words had been “stated under oath.” Would Judge Bennett have thusly weighed in if Dr Baldeo were faking a rehearsed grief? Does the one-trick pony really imagine she can dupe Judge Bennett into believing that Baldeo “read” from a scripted text when he transparently didn’t? It would appear that Burger owes Judge Bennett an apology for insulting her intelligence.
It’s not without hesitation that I probe a contaminated mind in the absence of protective prophylactics. But the pathological racism that informs Burger’s latest screed must further be noted. She literally can’t conceive that a dark-skinned half-Muslim immigrant was capable of a literate utterance unless surreptitiously coached by someone.
Still, it needs to be conceded that herein Burger has a point.
In the course of his academic career, Dr Baldeo accumulated a piddling five degrees. (Although admitted on full scholarship to a PhD program in Columbia University’s biology department, Baldeo opted instead to pursue medicine.)
Whereas, Burger boasts on her website that she “graduated cum laude from Lehigh University,” which it must be granted is a signal distinction, on the order of “the tallest building in Wichita, Kansas.”
Indeed, who can match Burger’s inimitable grasp of the English language? Here’s a random sample from her latest blast to the court:
There is no doubt that my insurmountable legal fees have been caused to mount.
The sheer fact that the Defendant attaches to his proposed motion papers – for the first time – a individual 2016 tax return (Defendant’s Exhibit “D”) reveals that Defendant is in further violation of Article XVI as same is incorporated by virtue of the parties’ September 8, 2017 Judgment of Divorce insofar as he has refused to cooperate in amending his deliberate individual filing to a joint 2016 filing.
Defendant’s choices were of his own machination.
Curiously (if I might borrow Burger’s locution), her prose always reads as if translated by Google from Martian.
21 November 2017