SECTION 1:
Drafting attorney Forster Friedman prepared three trusts and wills for both of my parents. In each instrument, he positioned himself in sweeping control of my inheritance: he named himself executor, principal trustee, and controlling authority over the trust. He then notarized his own documents, wrote in provisions that exonerate him from any and all responsibility to me as beneficiary, and stripped away even basic obligations of transparency or accountability. In my father’s trust, although I, Valerie Gagnon, am the sole beneficiary, he “may” make disbursements to me at his discretion, may change the terms of the trust without informing me, and is explicitly excused from providing even bi-annual accountings or disclosing the amounts, terms, or recipients of any sales of my late parents’ properties. He reserved the power to change the trust’s location at will. Finally, he drafted a no-contest clause stating that if I, the sole beneficiary, challenge either him as trustee or the trust itself, I forfeit my inheritance entirely. How can an instrument this one-sided and self-protective be treated as lawful in a democracy?
SECTION 2:
That question has a clear answer — and it is a damning one. Documents like this exist in a legal gray zone that the system rarely polices on its own. Trust law in Virginia gives a drafting attorney enormous latitude once a settlor has signed a notarized instrument; courts generally presume that a competent adult who signed understood and intended every word. No-contest clauses are fully enforceable in Virginia. Trustee discretion clauses — the “may distribute” language — are common, and courts almost never override them absent proof of outright bad faith. Self-dealing rules exist on paper, but they are only triggered when a beneficiary files a formal legal challenge. The burden falls entirely on the person harmed — not on the attorney who caused the harm.
And yet the law does draw lines. The Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.8, prohibit an attorney from drafting an instrument that confers a substantial benefit on himself from a client. Naming himself trustee, executor, and sole controlling authority — while simultaneously stripping the beneficiary of accountability rights — is a textbook conflict of interest. An attorney who notarizes his own instrument, in which he holds a direct financial interest, is acting improperly and potentially voids the notarization under Virginia law. A no-contest clause designed to silence the sole beneficiary from challenging the trustee — not merely the trust’s terms — is arguably unconscionable and challengeable as against public policy.
So how can it be treated as lawful? Because the system only corrects it when someone fights back. And this document was engineered, deliberately, to make fighting back as ruinous as possible. That is not the same as being just. That is not the same as being beyond challenge.
And now, the ground itself has finally begun to shift in a way that matters — and it shifted before this document was ever put in front of an elderly man to sign. In 2022, Virginia changed the law so that the burden of proof no longer falls on the challenger to prove undue influence in the dark; it now falls squarely on the drafting attorney, who must affirmatively prove his own good faith. That was the year Foster S.B. Friedman rewrote the trust of Pierre Paul Gagnon. He did not write this self-serving instrument in the fading shadow of the old regime; he drafted it after the new scrutiny standard was already in place, in the very year the General Assembly announced that lawyers who draft instruments for elderly clients would be held to a higher, examinable standard of conduct. He cannot claim confusion about the rules or shelter in prior practice. He operated in open defiance of the new law’s command that his choices, motives, and relationships be subject to proof and examination, not blind deference. This was not a technical oversight but a direct collision with a structural rebalancing of power in favor of beneficiaries like Valerie — a hard-edged, fully effective legal reform that makes his conduct a central, testable question under Virginia Code § 64.2-454.1 (will contests) and Virginia Acts of Assembly, 2022 Session, Chapter 265 (trust contests). This is not background detail. It is the core of the accusation: that when the law finally shifted to scrutinize exactly this kind of abuse, he went ahead and did it anyway.
SECTION 3:
What does this mean going forward? It means the fight has changed shape entirely.
On February 26, 2020, under the old rules, Valerie Gagnon faced a nearly impossible task: her father’s trust was drafted and signed at a time when she was expected to prove, from the outside, with limited access to documents and no right to an accounting, that a licensed attorney had manipulated an elderly man into signing away his daughter’s rights. The no-contest clause was the final lock on the door — challenge anything and lose everything.
Foster S.B. Friedman wrote that document knowing the law placed almost all of the burden on the person cut out. He drafted it as Pierre Paul Gagnon’s attorney, his sole trusted legal advisor, the man who held the pen — and he named himself trustee, executor, and notary while stripping the beneficiary of her right to a basic accounting. That conflict of interest was a violation of Rule 1.8 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct when he did it, and it remains a violation now; professional ethics do not grandfather in self-dealing.
In 2022, Virginia changed the rules. The new burden-shifting statute does not rewrite the past, but it governs the present: it applies to active trust disputes and to the ongoing administration of trusts like the Pierre Paul Gagnon trust that continue after 2022. Once Valerie establishes that a confidential relationship existed between her father and Foster S.B. Friedman — and it did — the presumption of undue influence now attaches automatically to this kind of transaction.
That means the burden has shifted. Today, under the law in force now, it is Friedman who must prove, affirmatively, in open court, that everything he is doing — and has continued to do — as trustee is in good faith. That he has no conflict of interest. That his self-appointment as trustee, executor, and notary was appropriate. That his continuing refusal to provide full, transparent accountings is reasonable. That the no-contest clause he drafted in 2020 was not designed to silence a challenge he already anticipated, and that invoking it now is not an effort to shield his own conduct from scrutiny.
He has to prove all of that. Not Valerie.
The no-contest clause does not disappear — but its power is dramatically diminished when the law itself has already identified this kind of fiduciary relationship and transaction as requiring scrutiny. A clause designed to punish the act of filing a challenge carries far less weight when the filing of that challenge is precisely what the legislature contemplated and protected, especially where the trust is still being administered and the trustee continues to withhold transparency in the post-2022 landscape.
This is not a desperate case. It is a case the law finally has the tools to hear. The question now is not whether the abuse happened — the document proves it, in its own words. The question is whether the people responsible for enforcing the law will do their jobs.
THE QUEBEC WILL: PROOF SHE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE TRUST
On August 29, 2023 — before the final revision of the Gaetane Gagnon Trust — which Friedman had Gaétane sign on June 27, 2024 — she appeared before two Quebec notaries and signed a formal notarial will. In it, she bequeathed “all her property, movable and immovable” to her daughter Valérie Gagnon as her sole universal heir.
There is one problem. She owned nothing. Every asset she had ever held had already been transferred into the Friedman-drafted Virginia trust. Gaétane Riverin Gagnon had no property left to bequeath.
She didn’t know that.
What the Quebec Will Says
The will is a notarial testament — the most rigorous testamentary form in North American law. Quebec law requires that the notary read the entire document aloud to the testator, who then declares, on the record, that it reflects her true wishes. A second notary must be present as witness. Gaétane went through every step of that solemn procedure.
Key facts from the document:
— Signed: August 29, 2023, Saint-Jérôme, Quebec
— Minute No. 10,696
— Instrumenting notary: Me Timothée Bentault-Davidson
— Witness notary: Me Caroline Béland
— Testatrix: Gaétane Riverin Gagnon, born 02/07/1935, died 15/07/2025
— Universal legatee: Valérie Gagnon (sole heir to all property)
— Liquidator: Valérie Gagnon; alternates: Katia Riverin, then Monique Riverin
— If Valérie cannot inherit: estate splits equally among Katia, Monique, and Louise Riverin
— All prior wills revoked
The Barreau du Québec search certificate — issued February 9, 2026 — confirms the result: AUCUNE INSCRIPTION. No registered will existed before this one. This was her only will.
The Contradiction That Cannot Be Explained Away
Gaétane formally bequeathed property she did not legally own. She sat before two notaries, heard the document read aloud, and declared it expressed her true wishes — while the assets she believed she was leaving to her daughter had already been stripped from her ownership by the Gaetane Gagnon Trust, revised and signed on June 27, 2024, a trust she did not understand.
This is not a clerical error. This is not a drafting oversight. This is evidence — contemporaneous, notarized, and sworn — that Gaétane Riverin Gagnon did not understand what she had signed when Friedman revised and re-executed the Gaetane Gagnon Trust on June 27, 2024.
Two Conclusions. Both Destroy the Trust.
The Quebec will forces one of only two conclusions:
ONE: Gaétane was never told that signing the Friedman trust meant she no longer owned her assets. She signed a document whose central legal consequence — the transfer of her ownership — was never explained to her. That is not informed consent. That is a void instrument.
TWO: She was told she still owned her assets when she did not. That is misrepresentation by the drafting attorney. That is fraud.
Either way, the Gaetane Gagnon Trust cannot stand.
How to Use This in Probate Court
Introduce the Quebec notarial will as evidence that Gaétane lacked informed understanding of the Friedman trust at the time it was revised and signed on June 27, 2024. The argument is straightforward: a grantor who does not understand she has transferred ownership of her assets has not given legally valid consent to the trust instrument. No valid consent — no valid trust. This applies to the revised 2024 trust with particular force, because Friedman had years to explain the instrument and chose not to.
The 2023 Quebec will is not ancient history. It was signed less than a year after the trust revision in June 2024, and only months before Gaétane’s death on July 15, 2025 — meaning Gaétane went to her grave believing she still owned her property despite the Friedman trust revised just the year before. That belief, formalized before two notaries under oath, is the most powerful evidence available that Friedman’s revised instrument in 2024 was never understood, never consented to, and should never have been enforced.
SHALL vs. MAY — The Word That Exposes Everything
The observation cuts to the heart of Friedman’s strategic drafting: in the Gaetane R. Gagnon Trust, he wrote the word SHALL (mandatory) rather than MAY (discretionary) when describing income and principal distributions to Valerie. The Trustee SHALL distribute ALL net income quarterly. The Trustee SHALL distribute 5% of trust property every January 15th. Only when addressing additional principal distributions did Friedman permit himself the shelter of the word MAY. That distinction was not accidental. It was deliberate. It was a choice.
The strategic reason becomes clear when set against Virginia’s 2022 burden-shifting law. Discretionary MAY language would have exposed Friedman to a devastating vulnerability: under the new scrutiny standard, every withheld distribution—every time he chose not to exercise his discretion—would have required him to affirmatively prove good faith. The law now demands that an attorney who benefits from an instrument he drafts for an elderly client justify every exercise of fiduciary power. MAY would have been a legal trap. Every decision to withhold would demand proof. Friedman appears to have understood this risk. So he chose SHALL instead, believing he had found the escape route: by making distributions mandatory rather than discretionary, he could avoid having to justify each individual decision. The logic was clear, if corrupt: remove the discretion, remove the scrutiny.
But the strategy backfired with a force that may prove catastrophic. By using SHALL, Friedman did not escape accountability—he hardened it into concrete, measurable, documented form. Every missed quarterly income distribution is now a separate, identifiable breach of fiduciary duty. Every January 15th that passes without a 5% principal payment is another violation, clearly marked, undeniable. He cannot hide behind trustee judgment. He cannot claim he exercised discretion reasonably. He removed his own defense. The mandatory language he chose to protect himself from scrutiny has instead become the clearest evidence of his breach. The document does not permit ambiguity. It does not allow for discretionary silence. It demands action, and the absence of that action is recorded and traceable.
The deeper implication is that Friedman was sophisticated enough to identify and attempt to avoid the legal trap the 2022 law set for him. He understood the burden-shifting standard well enough to understand the risk that MAY would pose. And yet in avoiding that trap, he walked directly into another one—one that may be more lethal because it is more tangible. The mandatory SHALL language he drafted to protect himself from discretion scrutiny is now the most concrete, most provable evidence that he is in breach. He was lawyer enough to see one danger and dodge it. He was not lawyer enough—or his self-interest was not constrained enough—to see the greater danger he created in its place.
This is not speculation. This is not inference drawn from circumstantial detail. This is the document working directly against the man who wrote it. The words he chose in 2020, after the new law was already in place, create an obligation he cannot satisfy and a breach he cannot explain away. The very mechanism Friedman believed would shield him from accountability has become the mechanism that documents and proves his guilt.
MAÎTRE OLIVIER MORIN: AN ATTORNEY’S SWORN OBSERVATIONS THAT GAÉTANE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRUST
Gaétane Riverin Gagnon spoke no English. The Friedman trust was drafted in English, in Virginia. To understand what she had signed, she hired a Quebec attorney — Maître Olivier Morin of Les Avocats Morin et associés Inc., 30 rue de la Gare, Saint-Jérôme, Québec — and paid him $15,000 out of her own pocket. That retainer, and what Morin subsequently observed, is now part of the evidentiary record.
The Retainer Agreement
Gaétane signed a formal Convention de Mandat et d’Honoraires Professionnels (Mandate and Professional Fees Agreement) with Maître Morin — executed in both French and English. The three mandates she hired him to perform were:
1. Assist Gaetane Gagnon AND advise Valérie Gagnon concerning a warrant for arrest and detention in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S.A.
2. Assist and advise on drafting and establishing a power of attorney in case of illness for Gaetane Gagnon during her stay in Quebec.
3. Obtain all documentation and detailed clarifications from WADE-GRIME-FRIEDMAN-MENKEN & LEISCHVER PLLC relating to the Pierre Paul Gagnon Trust.
Professional fees: $350/hour OR flat amount for opening 3 criminal nature files — to be established with the client. Advance on trust upon signing: $15,000 + applicable taxes (GST and QST).
The Check — Paid From Alexandria, Virginia
Gaétane paid the $15,000 retainer by personal check — Check No. 1128 — drawn on her Burke & Herbert Bank account, 511 Princess Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. The check is dated August 28, 2024. It is made payable to Les Avocats Morin et associés Inc. and signed by Gaetane Claire Gagnon. The memo line reads: “for James fees.”
This check is proof that Gaétane — an elderly francophone woman living in Virginia — spent $15,000 of her own money trying to understand documents that should have been explained to her by the attorney who drafted them: Foster S.B. Friedman.
Maître Morin’s Letter to Kerby — October 24, 2025
After Gaétane’s death on July 15, 2025, Maître Morin wrote a formal letter to Mr. Kerby, Valérie Gagnon’s Virginia legal counsel. Subject: Estate of Gaetane Gagnon (Deceased) — Observations Concerning the Trust Formation and the Settlor’s Understanding.
Key facts from that letter:
— Morin was first introduced to Gaétane on or about June 27, 2023, in connection with a civil matter concerning her real estate holdings.
— He successfully assisted her in recovering properties that had been at risk of being transferred to third parties.
— Between 2022 and late 2024, he met with Gaétane on several occasions at his office in Quebec, often in the presence of her daughter Valérie.
— Throughout those meetings, he observed SIGNIFICANT MISUNDERSTANDINGS on her part regarding key aspects of the trust instrument.
— He states: “I am concerned that Mrs. Gagnon may not have fully appreciated the legal implications of the trust she executed.”
She finally obtained a copy of the trust in February 2023 — the same month she had to physically pound Friedman’s desk to get the car titles transferred into her name. Those two events are not a coincidence. They happened in the same month because they were the same fight: a woman trying to understand, for the first time, what had been done to her.
Think about what that means. Gaétane revised and signed the Friedman trust on June 27, 2024 — just 13 months before her death on July 15, 2025. Yet even in its final revised form, she had been living under its terms without ever fully understanding what had been done to her. She had lost ownership of her assets to Friedman’s absolute discretion, subject to his control over distributions and trust administration. In the months remaining to her, she never grasped the full scope of what that trust meant. When her family finally hired notaire Maître Olivier Morin to help her understand the document, they discovered years of misunderstandings about her own property. She believed she owned everything. She paid $15,000 to obtain clarification on documents that Friedman never explained to her. She hired a Quebec lawyer because she spoke no English and could not read the trust that bore her name. Even in her final year, even after the trust had been revised again in 2024, she remained in the dark about what controlled her life. And Friedman still refused to provide her — or her family — with a full certified copy of the revised instrument itself. Neither Gaétane nor Valerie could read the terms they were bound by, because the man who drafted them would not hand them over. You cannot understand a document you are not permitted to see.
Morin’s Specific Findings
1. OWNERSHIP MISUNDERSTANDING: Gaétane repeatedly stated that she “owned everything,” appearing to believe she retained full control over the trust assets and could dispose of them freely — particularly with respect to the property located in Alexandria.
2. BANK ACCOUNTS: She often confused her personal bank accounts with those of the trust and appeared unaware of the access restrictions or the actual amounts held.
What This Proves
This letter is not speculation. It is the contemporaneous, professional observation of a licensed Quebec attorney who met with Gaétane multiple times between 2022 and 2024 — years after she signed the Friedman trust — and watched her repeatedly assert ownership over assets she had legally transferred away.
She believed she owned everything. She paid $15,000 to understand documents that Friedman never explained to her. She hired a Quebec lawyer because she spoke no English and could not read the trust that bore her name.
That is the definition of a trust executed without informed consent. That trust must be challenged.
There is one more fact that seals this argument. Friedman refused to provide Gaétane — or her family — with a new certified copy of the trust document itself. Neither Gaétane nor Valérie could read the terms they were bound by, because the man who drafted them would not hand them over. You cannot understand a document you are not permitted to see.
This is not negligence. An attorney who drafts a trust instrument, installs himself as sole trustee with absolute discretion, and then refuses to provide the grantor with a certified copy of that document has done something deliberate. He has made certain she cannot learn what he took from her. He has made certain she cannot get a second opinion. He has made certain she cannot fight back. That is not estate planning. That is a scheme — and Gaétane Riverin Gagnon paid for it with everything she owned.
THE CAR TITLES: SHE DIDN’T KNOW FRIEDMAN CONTROLLED EVERYTHING
In February 2022, Pierre Paul Gagnon’s car collection — stored in Quebec and valued at upward of $300,000 CAD — was at imminent risk of theft. The storage facility owner had a criminal record and was physically threatening attorneys, agents, and family members who tried to retrieve the vehicles. Quebec Provincial law required that the car titles be registered in Gaétane Gagnon’s name before law enforcement could act to confiscate and protect them.
Gaétane went to her trustee — Foster S.B. Friedman — and asked him to put the titles in her name. She believed those cars were hers. She did not know that as sole trustee, Friedman had absolute discretion over whether to transfer them at all.
A Year of Delay, Lies, and Endangerment
Maître Olivier Morin, hired as criminal counsel, contacted Attorney Foster Friedman dozens of times requesting the title transfer. Friedman ignored him. When Friedman finally responded, he:
— Lied about his intentions, creating diversions to buy time
— Attempted to have Gaétane forge her late husband’s signature on documents
— Claimed the U.S. Post Office had lost his DMV request to Virginia
— Remained “impervious” to the tremendous pressure being exerted on him by outside attorney Olivier Morin, notary Catherine Bélan, car-sales agent Pierre Bilodeau, Gaétane, and Valérie Gagnon
It was not until February 2023 — a full year after the crisis began — that Friedman finally transferred the car titles into Gaétane Gagnon’s name. And only after Gaétane, critically ill, physically pounded his office desk demanding action.
The Financial Damage Friedman’s Inaction Caused
By blocking the family’s concerted efforts for a full year, Friedman:
— Depleted Gaétane’s personal bank accounts of $20,000 in unnecessary legal fees
— Never offered to reimburse a single dollar of that expense
— Jeopardized the physical safety of Maître Morin and car-sales agent Pierre Bilodeau, who had to deal personally and verbally with a storage owner who was physically threatening
— Caused Gaétane, critically ill, tremendous and harmful stress
The complaint states directly: “This was not only gross negligence from attorney Foster Friedman but his actions were calculated. Attorney Foster Friedman wanted to be in charge himself of the cars’ sales. Testimony and affidavit of all available.”
What This Proves About Her Understanding of the Trust
This episode is the most concrete proof in the entire record that Gaétane Riverin Gagnon did not understand what she had signed.
A woman who understood the Friedman trust revised in 2024 would have known she had no power to demand anything. She would have known the cars were trust assets, that Friedman controlled them, and that he had absolute discretion as sole trustee to do — or refuse to do — whatever he wished. She would never have gone to him asking for the titles as if they were simply hers to collect.
Instead, she spent a year fighting for titles to cars she believed she already owned. She had to pound his desk. She had to hire a criminal lawyer. She had to spend $20,000 of her own money. And she went to her grave not knowing why it had been so hard to get what she thought was already hers.
That is not a woman who understood a trust. That is a woman who was never told what she had signed.
The Concealment That Made Everything Possible
Friedman never told Gaétane — not when she signed the trust, not during the car title crisis, not ever — that he held absolute discretion over every trust asset. That single omission is not a technicality. It is the engine of the entire fraud.
Had Gaétane known that Friedman could simply refuse to transfer her own cars into her name — legally, unilaterally, with no obligation to explain himself — she would never have signed that trust. She would have sued him the moment he refused the first car title request. Instead, she spent a year pleading, hiring lawyers, spending $20,000, and ultimately pounding his desk in person — because she believed she was the owner and he was simply being obstinate.
That belief was not irrational. It was the direct result of Friedman’s failure to disclose what he had drafted. An attorney who places ‘absolute discretion’ language in a trust instrument — and then never explains to the grantor what those words mean — has not drafted a trust. He has set a trap.
The question for probate court is simple: if Gaétane had been told, in plain language, that Foster S.B. Friedman would have the legal right to refuse her any asset, any transfer, any request — for any reason or no reason at all — would she have signed? The answer is written in everything she did afterward. She would never have signed. She didn’t know. And Friedman made sure she didn’t know.
THE TRUST REVISION OF JUNE 27, 2024: A PANIC MOVE
The timeline tells the story better than any witness could.
Gaétane signed her Quebec notarial will on August 29, 2023 — naming Valérie Gagnon as her sole universal heir to all her property. At some point after that, Gaétane told Friedman directly about the Quebec will. She had no idea what she had just handed him.
On June 27, 2024 — eleven months later — Friedman had Gaétane sign a revised version of the Gaetane Gagnon Trust. Thirteen months after that, on July 15, 2025, she was dead.
What the Timing Proves
Friedman had years to revise this trust. He chose to do it eleven months after Gaétane herself told him about her Quebec will — in which she had named Valérie as her sole universal heir. That is not coincidence. That is a drafting attorney protecting his instrument against a threat he had just been handed by the very person he was supposed to protect.
A trust revision triggered by the grantor’s own will — signed without the grantor’s full understanding of what she was agreeing to — is not estate planning. It is an attorney acting in his own interests, not his client’s.
The Full Timeline — Three Dates That Tell the Whole Story
— August 29, 2023: Gaétane signs her Quebec notarial will before two notaries, bequeathing “all her property” to Valérie as her sole universal heir. She does not know she owns nothing — it has all been placed in the Friedman trust.
— June 27, 2024: Eleven months later, Friedman has Gaétane sign a revised Gaetane Gagnon Trust — after she herself told him about the Quebec will. She still does not understand that this document controls her property or that Friedman holds absolute discretion over everything she thought she owned.
— July 15, 2025: Gaétane Riverin Gagnon dies. Thirteen months after signing a revised trust she did not understand. Twenty-two months after making a Quebec will she believed reflected her true wishes. She went to her grave not knowing what had been done to her.
That is the case. Three dates. One pattern. No valid consent.
FRIEDMAN’S LEGAL DUTY TO VALÉRIE GAGNON — AND HIS DELIBERATE REFUSAL
Valérie Gagnon was a named beneficiary of the Pierre Paul Gagnon Trust. That is not a minor detail. Under Virginia Code § 64.2-775, a trustee is legally obligated to provide every qualified beneficiary with a copy of the trust document upon request, annual accountings of all trust assets, income, expenses and distributions, and reasonable information about how the trust is being administered.
Foster S.B. Friedman never provided Valérie Gagnon with a copy of the Pierre Paul Gagnon Trust while Gaétane was alive — not when Pierre Paul died, not when she asked, not ever. It was only after Gaétane’s death on July 15, 2025, that Valérie finally received a copy — and it did not come from Friedman. It came from Burke & Herbert Bank, the trust’s financial institution. Friedman, the sole trustee, never handed it over himself.
What She Was Legally Entitled To — And Never Received
— A certified copy of the Pierre Paul Gagnon Trust document
— Annual accountings: every asset, every dollar of income, every expense, every distribution
— Reasonable ongoing information about trust administration
— Notice of any material changes to the trust
She received none of it while her mother was alive. Instead, Gaétane had to spend $15,000 hiring Maître Olivier Morin, who then retained fiscal lawyer Maître Saucier, specifically to try to force Friedman to produce an accounting of the Pierre Paul Gagnon Trust. He never produced it. The accounting was never provided. And when Valérie finally did receive a copy of the trust — after her mother’s death — it came from Burke & Herbert Bank, not from Friedman. The trustee responsible for administering that document never once chose to share it with the people it was supposed to protect.
This Is Not a Technicality — It Is a Standalone Violation
A trustee who refuses to provide a beneficiary with a copy of the trust document, refuses to account, and refuses to disclose how trust assets are being managed is not simply negligent. He is in breach of his fiduciary duty — full stop. That breach is grounds, on its own, for his removal as trustee under Virginia law.
Friedman had absolute discretion over the Pierre Paul Gagnon Trust assets. He exercised that discretion in secret, without accounting to anyone, while refusing to hand over the very document that would have told Valérie and Gaétane what rights they had. That is not estate planning. That is a trustee operating without oversight — by design.
THE UNPAID TAXES: A SCHEME TO STEAL 511 PRINCESS STREET
In approximately 2022 — shortly after Pierre Paul Gagnon’s death — the city taxes on 511 Princess Street, Alexandria, Virginia were not paid. Then they went unpaid a second time. The penalties accumulated to the point where Gaétane and Valérie Gagnon received an emergency notice: pay $12,000 by certified check within one day, or incur the full penalty.
They had no idea the taxes had not been paid. No one had told them. The only reason they found out at all was because Valérie’s attorney happened to check the legal ownership of the property — and discovered the unpaid taxes by chance during that search.
Angel Thomas Was Responsible
Angel Thomas was the person handling basic accounting and bookkeeping for the trust. The city taxes on 511 Princess Street — a trust asset — were her responsibility. She failed to pay them. Twice. And she never told Gaétane or Valérie that the taxes had gone unpaid, that penalties were accumulating, or that the property was at risk.
Foster S.B. Friedman, as sole trustee, was legally responsible for supervising the administration of all trust assets — including ensuring property taxes were paid. He failed in that duty. Whether the non-payment was Angel Thomas’s negligence or something more deliberate, the legal responsibility for the consequences rests with the trustee.
What Valérie Believes — And Why
Valérie Gagnon does not believe this was negligence. The pattern is too consistent, too convenient, and too deliberate to be explained by carelessness.
The theory: let the city taxes go unpaid. Let the penalties accumulate. Let the City of Alexandria move toward seizing the property for non-payment. Then — with the property at risk of city seizure — Burke & Herbert Bank, acting as executor with no obligation to inform Valérie of anything, could step in and acquire 511 Princess Street for pennies on the dollar.
Burke & Herbert Bank had no legal obligation to inform Valérie Gagnon of their intentions. Friedman had no legal obligation to explain his decisions. And Angel Thomas — who inserted herself into Gaétane’s life as a confidante, who handled the trust’s finances, and who later filed a formal remuneration demand with Burke & Herbert Bank after Gaétane’s death — had every incentive to ensure that Valérie never found out until it was too late.
They almost succeeded. It was only by chance that Valérie’s attorney found the unpaid taxes in time. One day. A certified check. $12,000. That is how close 511 Princess Street came to being gone.
Evidence Needed — And Where to Get It
The property tax payment history for 511 Princess Street is a public record available from the City of Alexandria at alexandriava.gov. It will show the exact dates the taxes went unpaid, the penalty amounts assessed, and the date payment was finally made. That record, combined with Angel Thomas’s formal remuneration demand filed with Burke & Herbert Bank after Gaétane’s death, will complete this chapter of the evidentiary record.
ANGEL THOMAS LIED — $1,400,000 AND A STOLEN CHECKBOOK
When confronted about the trust finances, Angel Thomas told a simple, direct lie: there was no money in the trust. Nothing. Empty.
She was holding Gaétane Gagnon’s personal checkbook at the time.
The trust held approximately $1,400,000.
This Is Not a Misunderstanding
There is one more fact that makes her lie indefensible. Angel Thomas came to 511 Princess Street once a week to pick up the mail. The City of Alexandria does not simply stop collecting taxes without notice — it sends warnings, notices of delinquency, and penalty notices by mail. Angel Thomas was collecting that mail every week. She saw those notices. She chose to say nothing.
That means the unpaid taxes were not an oversight. They were a choice. Every warning the city sent went through her hands. Every notice of accumulating penalties passed through her possession before it could reach Gaétane. She had Gaétane’s checkbook. She could have paid the taxes at any moment. Instead she let them accumulate — while picking up the evidence of that accumulation from the mailbox every week — until the penalties reached $12,000 and the property was one step from city seizure. Angel Thomas was a highly trained accountant who would have known exactly what happens to properties whose taxes go unpaid; tax forfeiture and city seizure are basic, first-year concepts for any accounting professional, making any claim of ignorance or inadvertent oversight facially implausible.
Angel Thomas was not confused about the balance. She was not mistaken. She had physical possession of Gaétane’s personal checkbook — meaning she had direct, hands-on access to the very account she claimed was empty. You cannot hold someone’s checkbook and not know what is in the account it draws from. What she told the family was a deliberate lie, made to their faces, while she controlled the instrument that proved it was false.
What the Checkbook Proves
That Angel Thomas had Gaétane’s personal checkbook is not a minor detail. It means:
— She had been given control over Gaétane’s personal finances, not just the trust bookkeeping
— She could write checks on Gaétane’s account
— She had access to the account balance at all times
— She chose to lie about it when confronted
This is not negligence. This is not a bookkeeping error. This is financial fraud — a person entrusted with an elderly woman’s checkbook telling that woman’s family that the money doesn’t exist, while holding the proof that it does.
The Pattern Is Complete
Taken together, Angel Thomas:
— Failed to pay city taxes on 511 Princess Street twice, generating a $12,000 emergency penalty
— Had physical possession of Gaétane’s personal checkbook
— Lied directly to the family about $1,400,000 in trust funds
— Filed a formal remuneration demand with Burke & Herbert Bank after Gaétane’s death — claiming to be owed money for her “services”
That is not a bookkeeper. That is a financial predator embedded inside an elderly woman’s life — inserted there, by all appearances, to serve Friedman’s interests, not Gaétane’s.
Leave a comment