SOMETHING FISHY IN EAST HAMPTON
Raoul Felder

A case for Sherlock Holmes ("Eliminate the impossible, and whatever is left, no matter how improbable is the answer")? Perhaps one for Joe Friday ("Only the facts, Ma'am)? No, this seems a job for Detective Sipowitz, that grumpy, skeptical, street-wise, living embodiment and daily practitioner or Philip Marlow's observation that "Everybody's got something to hide," quintessential New York cop (but strangely sporting a Chicago accent) w ho is the trust nobody-count the cards-always get-your-man mainstay of NYPD Blue.

The cast of characters in this drama is straight out of Dashiell Hammett by way of James M. Cain with soupcon of F. Scott Fitzgerald for atmosphere.

Daniel Pelosi, a character that makes Joey Buttafuoco look like Cardinal Spellman; Generosa Ammon, beautiful in a go-to-hell way certain women are for fifteen minutes before they fade, spawned from the droppings of the demimondes, dabbler in this and that, and whatever got her through the nights, and Ted Ammon, 6'4", handsome and unspeakably rich, embarked on a trajectory of doom from the moment he walked upon the stage, finally becoming a necessary—as all corpses are—but irrelevant actor, in a morality play that enfolded across a landscape of East Hampton summer lawn parties where the perfume of the ladies in pastel colored gossamer dresses overwhelmed the roses, fox hunts on English country sides (Where else?) and East Side town houses that are redecorated with each new owner.

In an infelicitous law practice I have frequently been involved with divorces wherein the wife was a type: too rich (or at least married to a rich man), too bored, days spread out before her like yawning chasms, filling up the time vacuum with too many hours spent looking at herself in front of mirrors, macramŽ, arranging flowers, fashion shows or playing the two-backed beast with the horse trainer, gardener or electrician. Muscles, the sweatier the better and tattoos.

Generosa, on the wrong side of forty—that decade when men and women begin to subtract rather than add years with each birthday Ð was, after the usual arm wrestling about money, homes and inflicting as much emotional damage as possible on the former object on one's affections, about to inter her long dead marriage with Ted. She had hooked up with an ex-con, electrician Danny Pelosi, whom she had hired to do construction work on her east side town house. Pelosi had jumped aboard a gravy train, not to mention Generosa.

On October 19, 2001, Ted while alone in his East Hampton mansion, became the stuff of detective banality: no sign of forced entry; death caused by beating with blunt instrument.

There was no need to risk cholesterol poisoning in a dinner with Nero Wolfe in order to name the chief suspect in the murder. A call to central casting would have produced Dan Pelosi. However, between "suspecting" or even "knowing", to actually proving it in a courtroom is a quantum leap.

No sooner was Pelosi divorced from his wife, than on January 10th of 2002, he married Generosa. An obvious question presents itself: what is the point of buying the cow when all the milk is available free for the asking? The answer Ð Spousal Privilege Ð which has its roots deep in Anglo-Saxon law. A wife cannot testify against a husband! By marrying Generosa, Pelosi insured that Generosa could not testify against him in the murder case. However, the Spousal privilege is a porous one. While a wife cannot show up at the courthouse to testify against her husband, if so mischievously inclined, she certainly can, without leaving her fingerprints on the information, meet with the prosecutors and give them the evidence necessary to convict her husband. Famed white-collar defense lawyer Gustav Newman tells me, "It happens al the time." This fact of legal life leads to a possible explanation for a seemingly explicable act.

On July 1st, Generosa, dying of cancer—she would pass away on August 22nd—executed a post-nuptial agreement with Pelosi giving him two million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money? Not so. In the State of New York, even if a couple is separated, even if the dogs of war were let slip between them, a husband could "elect" against his wife's will and receive outright one-third of her estate. Previously under New York law this one-third "elective" share could be semi-defeated by a spouse, angry enough even in death, who would put the "third" into a trust. This meant that all the survivor would receive would be the income on the one-third and never be able to get their hands on the principal. This loophole has now effectively been closed, and the one-third is paid outright, regardless of the deceased's wishes.

Whether Generosa's estate, which basically was what she inherited from her murdered husband, was $100 million or $300 million, or something in between, or even less than $100 million—one-third of the estate would certainly be more than two million dollars.

Churchill, when asked to explain Russian national policy, said, "it is a puzzle, inside an enigma, wrapped in a mystery. But the key is Russian self-interest." Here, too, it may reasonably be thought that the only reason why Pelosi would take two million dollars, as opposed to $30 or $100 million, was because it was in his self interest to do so. It is likely that Generosa made him an offer he could not refuse. She was prepared to supply the prosecutors with information that would have sent him up the river for her husband's murder. She had nothing to lose even if she were a co-conspirator, since she was on her death bed. Pelosi suggested publicly that the two million dollars was for his legal defense, and that she wanted to make sure he had enough money to pay the lawyers. Since I am a member of the union, I certainly don't begrudge Pelosi's lawyers getting paid. But such an explanation is patent nonsense. If she wanted to make sure the lawyers were paid she had but to write a check. There would be no reason to enter into a post nuptial agreement.

Criminal law is the only legal occupation in which it is considered as asset to be associated by name with a criminal. In this regard, Gerald Shargel, Pelosi's counsel, besides being a first class lawyer, because he represented John Gotti, has the ultimate pedigree.

When I spoke to Shargel, he told me they are considering going to court to attempt to set aside the agreement that Pelosi signed in order to receive the two million dollars. There is about as much chance of this happening as for Yasser Arafat to show up at a Great Neck Bar Mitzvah.

Shargel, being the smart lawyer he is recognizes that, putting aside any question of lack of mental capacity or failure to understand by Pelosi, there is the obstacle of "estoppel" that would prevent a successful attack on the agreement. This is a legal principle that dictates, if you knowingly performed an act, you are basically prevented from now denying that act. A simple example is if a man procures a defective divorce, he then cannot successfully come to court claiming that the divorce is defective and he is still married. Having affirmatively moved to obtain the divorce, he would be "estopped" from attacking it. Of course, he could always claim he was coerced into signing the agreement. However, the only possible coercion that Generosa could work upon Pelosi would be a threat of exposing him as a murderer. But that certainly would not be an area into while Pelosi would want to venture.

Generosa and her late husband had adopted two 13 year old twins, Gregory and Alexa, imported from the Ukraine. Ordinarily, Pelosi, as a stepfather, would be first in line to obtain custody of the children, along with the control of their funds. However, Ammon's sister, Sandy Williams, and her husband, who have standing before the court, are now engaged in a process in which they seek to obtain custody of these two children. They have retained first class matrimonial counsel, Stephen Gassman, and they have an excellent case. Gassman tells me "They are the only blood relatives and the most morally and legally fit custodians for these children."

Years ago, I tried a highly publicized case involved the battling Pikuls. Joseph Pikul was a homicidal lunatic who murdered his wife (my client) and had been indicted for this crime. Clothed in the constitutional presumption of innocence, he sought continued custody of his children opposing his murdered wife's cousins who sought the same relief. We were successful in obtaining custody for them, even before Mr. Pikul was not, as yet, convicted of murder. The courts are simply not prone to leave children in the hands of murderers or even someone who might be a murderer.

Pelosi, with his particular petty criminalities—the latest being a charge that he bled electricity by by-passing his meter and not paying the Long Island Power Authority—would have been the darling of those lawyers that used to hang out in the corridors of the lower criminal courts in search of "pick-up" cases. Knowing prosecutors, the electricity exploits, must have driven them into a feeding frenzy. A Grand Jury has already been convened to consider the murder charge against Pelosi. Shargel indicated he feels it less than certain that there will be an indictment. "Convened but confused" he said to me regarding the Grand Jury.

Pelosi, meanwhile, continues to provide tabloid fodder by his outlandish actions. On August 26th he brought a small cardboard box containing Generosa's ashes to the Stanhope Hotel bar to have a farewell drink with her. Or maybe, it was just to keep an eye on her to make sure she didn't spill the beans.