|   ABOUT US  |  CONTACT  |  WHY THE KAISERPAPERS  |
Why the thistle is used as a logo on these web pages

 kaiserpapers.com/robynlibitsky

Robyn had been an employee of Supervisor Yaroslavsky.   The manipulation for control of Robyn's Estate was done by one of his employees.  Supervisor Yaroslavsky's office had previously stated that what his employees, even politically powerful ones do on their own time, whether ethical or not, whether legal or not has nothing to do with their job. 

The California Fair Political Practices Commission has fined Susan Nissman for Statement of Economics Interest Violation.  You can read the Order/Stipulation/Fine here:  NOTE:  This is a pdf file.

Here is a summation of the two Susan's and their activity in gaining control of Robyn Libitsky and her estate in a written e-mail to Los Angeles Times Reporter, Jack Dolan, written on October 3, 2010.

Here is pdf file RN 09 25698_Willsandtrusts which is the authors copy of California SB 105.

Here is coorespondence between Ms. Levy, the DOJ, the Cancer Society and Steven Ebbers, Senior Director, Legal - ALSAC/St. Jude Children's Research Hospital pertaining to the actions of the two Susan's and their activities in taking Robyn's Arbitration Award.  The American Cancer Society and St. Jude Hospital also suffered financially from Suji and Probate Attorney, Harvey Glaser and Therapist Susan (Suji) Gelerman as they took advantage of Robyn's estate in probate court.

Here is some documentation clearly demonstrating Susan Nissman taking control of Robyn's estate during government work hours. (recent photograph to the left is of Susan)

Here is further documentation;  While Robyn was in the hospital, receiving an IV of Dilaudid she signed over to her co-worker Susan Nissman, Power of Attorney. Robyn also gave her morphine to her conservator.  While in the hospital, Robyn signed a will that was later lost and she also turned over power of her financial matters to a co-worker.

Robyn never mentioned any of this to her family that was caring for her.  It makes you wonder if she even remembered that it had happened.  Her family found out about this after her death.

This was presented to county agencies as well as all Supervisors at the January 9, 2007 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors meeting that is shown below and on You Tube.

On January 9, 2007, Hillarie spoke before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors during the public comment time period explaining how one of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's employees, along with her friend manipulated Robyn and took over her Estate.

Hillarie spoke before the Board of Supervisors and they apparently didn't like hearing what their employee had done.  So they simply broke the law and refused to allow her to speak again.  The Brown Act section explains what has taken place.  Click here to learn more.

Here is the coorespondence that shows the lack of concern by the County of Los Angeles regarding  how government employees conduct themselves and how the County of Los Angeles appears to be more concerned about avoiding a lawsuit than protection of constituents. 

You may read the letters Mrs. Levy has received regarding this issue from government representatives below.  They are listed most recent first:

On March 15, 2007, attorney/lobbyist, Neil Papiano of Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano and Hatch wrote to Mrs. Levy.  He was responding to Mrs. Levy's January 2007 speech (displayed above) at the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Board Meeting .
You can read it here.

On July 13, 2006, the following two page letter was sent to Mrs. Levy from J. Tyler-McCauley of the office of Auditor-Controller for the County of Los Angeles.  J. Tyler-McCauley stated that Susan Nissman is an exempt salaried employee, based on her assigned duties and responsiblity.  Due to the fact that Susan Nissman is in a category where the number of hours per week  worked vary this alleged crime is considered to not have taken place during the scope of her employment.  Even though it did take place during normal working hours, she is exempt.  J. Tyler-McCauley further stated that the County of Los Angeles does not have the authority to investigate.  This person did contact Kaiser to question witnesses but Kaiser would not allow it.  This office also closed the file.
You can read the two page letter here.

On March 23, 2006, Sandra K. Taylor, Human Resources Manager  and Michael J. Henry, Director of Personnel for the County of Los Angeles wrote to Mrs. Levy in response to her contacting their offices regarding Susan Nissman's conduct.  These two government officials closed the file on this matter.  You can view the letter by clicking here.

On March 7, 2006 a letter want written and sent to Mr. Guy Zelinski of the Department of Auditor-Controller, Office of County Investigations which was in turn sent to Mrs. Levy.  This letter was written by Steve Cooley, District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles.  Mr. Cooley wrote that because Susan Nissman conducted herself off the job in such a a manner he feels that the County of Los Angeles has no need to investigate.  He goes on to state that the Public Integrity Division is responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by public officials and public employees during the scope of their official duties.  Although Susan Nissman's alleged conduct took place during working hours, Mr. Cooley feels that this is not the type of crime that his division investigates.  You can read the letter by clicking here.

On January 20, 2006 Kathryn Barger-Leibrich Chief Deputy, Fifth District, Michael D. Antonovich's Office for the County of Los Angeles wrote to Mrs. Levy explaining how they are only concerned with being sued and feel that their employee's off the job conduct makes them immune in this type of instance.  Click here to view the letter.

On June 8, 2005 Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel for the County of Los Angeles wrote to Mrs. Levy explaing how what government employees do outside their job is their business and their's alone.  Click here to view the letter.