The following has been taken from Federal Bankruptcy Court documents filed January 3, 2011, pertaining to Giuseppe Giudice and Teresa Giudice, Case No. 09-39032MS, Mastropole v. Giudice.
It seems as though Teresa, Mrs. ‘I don’t know anything’ Juicy Joo-dice swore to her own attorney that she DID sign documents:
“The Giudices filed their Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on October 29, 2009. Mastropole filed the immediate adversary proceeding on January 29, 2010. Between those two dates, the standard § 341(a) meeting of creditors was held in the Giudices bankruptcy case. J. Giudice testified under oath regarding the June 14, 2007 discharge of the Mastropole mortgage.
Plaintiff’s witnesses were Mastropole, Testa, Ms. Gomez (the purported notary on the contested mortgage discharge), Ms. Rodriguez (the witness on the same mortgage discharge), and Teresa Giudice. Defendants called only J. Giudice.
Mastropole clearly, consistently and firmly denied authorizing J. Giudice to execute the critical discharge of mortgage on his behalf. He stated that he was unaware of the discharge until it came to light in 2008 litigation brought on by his attorney to enforce the June 13, 2007 settlement. This witness, a licensed real estate broker, was plainly outraged by what he believed was J. Giudice’s forging of his name. In this court’s view, Mastropole’s overall testimony, angry and aggressive in tone, was uncoached, from his “viscera,” ringing with indignation, and truthful.
It is noted that Mastropole and J. Giudice were in close proximity to one another at all times relevant, with Mastropole being in his first floor office and J. Giudice being in separate offices in that same building on the second floor. There is no logical explanation by J. Giudice for not obtaining the actual signature of the nearby and readily available Mastropole, if Mastropole had truly agreed to the mortgage discharge in June, 2007.
Juicy and Tree Joo-dice
Mastropole did not implicate Teresa Giudice in any of the actual business affairs between himself and J. Giudice, other than that she had been a titleholder to certain property (not part of the East Orange multifamily developments).
Carolina Gomez testified she had worked for J. Giudice, starting in January 2006 while in high school. She worked in real estate management for him until March 2007. She was a notary public. Her seal and purported signature acknowledging the “Mastropole” signature appears on the critical June 14, 2007 discharge of mortgage (Exhibit P-6).
The witness categorically denied acknowledging Mastropole’s signature on Exhibit P-6 or affixing her seal to the document. She was not employed by J. Giudice on that date. In fact, J. Giudice admits to having affixed her stamp and seal and signing the former employee’s name as if she had acknowledged the Mastropole signature.
Ms. Gomez testified that she had called J. Giudice some time after her March 2007 departure from J. Giudice’s employ, asking him about her notary stamp and seal which she had left in her desk. J. Giudice told her he had thrown everything out.
Ms. Gomez testified that by her observation Teresa Giudice was not actively involved in the Mastropole-Giudice real estate ventures.
Attorney Testa took the witness stand on November 19 and December 14 and 15, 2010. (Witness Rodriguez testified between segments of the Testa testimony.) Testa said he represented the Giudices in the business divorce litigation with Mastropole, which was to have culminated with the June 13, 2007 Settlement Agreement (Exhibit P-4, executed by Testa on behalf of his clients).
It’s lookin’ bad, Joe
Testa’s initial testimony about the events surrounding the June 13, 2007 Settlement Agreement confirmed that he made some changes in a draft provided by Mastropole’s counsel, and had it retyped with his firm’s “header.” He identified the personal guarantee (Exhibit P-5 required by the settlement), appearing to have been signed by Teresa and J. Giudice and witnessed by Testa.
As to his witnessing the Giudices ’ signatures, Testa said that J. Giudice signed in his presence, but Teresa’s signature was already on the guarantee when her husband brought it to him.
The attorney said he “would not accept that that way.” Testa said he telephoned Teresa. He questioned her about the document, went through it with her, “and made sure that was, in fact, her signature.”