Withdrawal Letter-Rudy Bilawski

Ruediger V. Bilawski says, “auf wiedersehen,”1 and while doing so, he decides to make Arnold A. Sheuerman, Jr., M.D., my, for the most part, erstwhile psychiatrist, part of the case.2, 3


Rudy Bilawski’s withdrawal and attendant letter is apparently the first in a string of three or four occurrences known to me that took place on September 28, 1984. (There may be more that I have yet to discover. In fact, you can bank on it) Some kind of a deal was struck on this day. There is virtually no question about it. (See Timeline at 09/28/84, “Haig Berberian’s Will” and 09/28/84, “Proof of Service by Mail,” in addition to the present 09/28/84 posting, “Withdrawal Letter-Rudy Bilawski.” See also, 09/28/88, “Probate Files-Haig Berberian.” Same month and day, exactly four years later. Being that I didn’t pick the date, it remains another unexplained curious “coincidental” move by another barrister of mine later on down the line. Yes, he was part of the same subject conspiracy, although he never admitted to knowing my former attorneys, Rudy Bilawski or Larry Drivon) Apparently there is/was a coordinated conspiratorial, in all likelihood, statutorial maneuvering or pivoting taking place on September 28 in 1984 and then again in 1988. There is very little if any question about this either. It was agreed-upon by attorneys on both sides. No question again. And if there was a third or fourth party involved representing a different angle or aspect in the matter, it, he, she, and/or they, were in on it too. I also know (and now, from looking at the Timeline, you do too, unless you believe that you’ve got lying eyes), Rudy Bilawski was privy and perhaps party to said agreement. (His withdrawal was no coincidence nestled among the other 09/28/84 “happenstances,” as the powers that be would have you look upon them. The only synchronicitous occurrences in the Berberian v. Berberian & Wells Fargo Bank archives are barrister-engineered) Who the other parties and privies were and just what the agreement was about, I haven’t a clue. But it existed and continues to exist in real time herein. Looking at the Timeline, one can see it and to me, it stinks to high heaven and smells like hell) I do not know the chronology of the various parts of this September 28, 1984, so far three-pronged puzzle with a 1988 appendage on the same, same month. This string of happenings could have been sparked by Bilawski’s withdrawal. How so? If “sparked by” rather than “agreed-upon by,” then my phone could’ve been tapped, meaning that Bilawski may not have known in advance that Haig’s will-signing, etc. was going to take place on this day. There is also a possibility that the signing was set to go when Haig Berberian’s lawyers got the signal that Bilawski had withdrawn. It was a planned event between colluding parties. Exactly when Bilawski’s withdrawal would take place was the only question. At the time, he already had one foot out the door. (See Timeline at 09/13/84, “Interrogatories”) Bilawski knew I’d eventually give him a reason to make his formal exit. (See how a paranoid mind works? Footnote 1 contains some of the unexplained ingredients of this “crazy” thinking of mine) By the way, I am without embarrassment when saying that a conspiracy existed and my phone may have been bugged. As I have said elsewhere in this exposé, this case is/was that explosive. I was dealing with a man and an estate worth up to a billion dollars today and a multi-multi-billion dollar bank. There were dirty-dealing men in black robes involved as well. All have and had their precious reputations at stake. The quality of  the lawyers involved on both sides demands such an assumption, even though I was the odd man out and wasn’t any perceived threat to those conspirators and their reputations. And this weirdo wasn’t supposed to discover and put together this September 28, 1984 timeline stream that you see (and conspiracy, the foul odor of which wafts up my nose). But I did. And I want the whole world to see (and smell) it as well. Another reason for the existence of Berberian Mystery Theatre. (And perhaps more encouragement for those who may be thinking that I’m nuts)

1 Rudy Bilawski’s cover letter to the September 13, 1984 Interrogatories assembled by him (accessible from the Timeline at that date) put me in a particularly bad mood when I read it. Rudy would be the one to depose Haig Berberian according to said counsel since the very beginning. But also, in Dr. Sheuerman’s estimation, deposing Haig would be Rudy’s job. (The Doctor even said that he’d like to be there when Rudy deposed Haig and Haig’s accountant, Peter Jeppson. This was a couple of years before I myself filed suit. Dr. Sheuerman was speaking in the present tense) I think that it is evident why Rudy’s letter to Larry Drivon would anger me. Without good reason, he had already essentially quit the case, unless he intended to do any “further work” on the case as indicated in his 09/13/84 letter, free of charge. On September 28, 1984 (the day that I received a copy of the 09/13/84 letter accompanying the Interrogatories), I called to confront Bilawski. During our phone conversation, Rudy stated his intention to withdraw his affiliation with my case altogether. He said this after I told him that it was bullshit that, “because we’re not ready to do so,” Haig Berberian’s deposition was not being taken. (Larry Drivon would tell me the same thing several months later) Right before the end of our short discussion, Rudy said: “I do not want to hear any more of your ‘malarkey.’” (That’s funny. I thought it was blödelei that he was hearing) My last words to him were: “You owe me.” He cut me off before I could add, “some answers.” He stated that he owed me nothing before hanging up. Folks, my lawyers never had any intention whatsoever of deposing Haig Berberian. It would have been quite difficult to take the deposition of someone who was unaware that he had been sued. Berberian Mystery Theatre is showcasing the answers that Bilawski felt he didn’t owe me as well as the “malarkey” to which he was referring.
2 I was no longer under Dr. Sheuerman’s care (or “watch,” as the case proved to be) when Rudy Bilawski withdrew from my case and sent a courtesy copy of his withdrawal letter to The Doctor. Nevertheless, a quarter century hence, I am raising Bilawski’s hand with Berberian Mystery Theatre. (For clarification of this part of the matter, see Timeline at 04/26/88 & 07/06/96, “‘The Jig is Up’ Letter to Rudy Bilawski” & “The Hypocratic Doctor” respectively) 
3 Dr. Sheuerman is since deceased.-September 11, 1997.

Click here to view the Withdrawal Letter