Month: October 2026

October 13, 2026

Testimony at Dukes Country Probate Court,

Edgartown Massachusetts

 

This “Record of Death” for Marie-Louise Rouff was employed by Mr. Coogan to close her bank accounts, liquidate her possessions, and otherwise prepare for probate. The report from the Massachusetts State Police indicates, however, that as of July 17, 2026, her death had not been reported to the state of Massachusetts, or to the Martha’s Vineyard Hospital, no permit for her burial had been issued, no autopy had been conducted, and a funeral home was asked (by someone) to process worksheet describing her death supposedly filled out by a doctor at Martha’s Vineyard Hospital, by hand, even though that funeral home had played no role in the disposal of the body.

 

 

 

Emanuel Pastreich’s memorandum submitted to Dukes Country Probate Court for hearing of October 13, 2026

 

 

DOCKET NO.: DU26P0078EA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF

MARIE-LOUISE JEANNE ROUFF

Emanuel Pastreich

Objector/Heir

“Opposition to Motion to Strike”

 

Dukes County Probate and Family Court

 

         DOCKET NO.: DU26P0078EA

October 13,  2026

 

Evidence supporting the opposition to the motion to strike

 

General Argument

 

This hearing is concerned with the suitability of Mr. Coogan to serve as special personal representative for the Estate of Marie-Louise Rouff and all attention should focus on that topic.

The central issue is Mr. Coogan’s lack of standing to address this court. First, he did not serve as the lawyer of Marie-Louise Rouff when he drafted the current will. Ms. Rouff had formally dismissed him as her legal representative on November 23, 2024 and she never reappointed him. She was forced to follow his orders as part of the criminal conspiracy of elderly abuse of false imprisonment to which she was subject. There exists no document reappointing Mr. Coogan as her legal representative.

Secondly, Mr. Coogan took actions from May 15, 2026 claiming that he was Ms. Rouff’s personal representative such as managing the estate, spending the estate’s funds, distributing possessions when in fact no legitimate death certificate had been issued and Ms. Rouff’s body had been buried illegally without a permit following her death (most likely by homicide). Mr. Coogan employed “Copy of Record of Death” supposedly issued by the Town of Oak Bluffs (see appendix) which was created using the Chapman Funeral Home as the authority that handled the body when in fact it played no role.

For Mr. Coogan to proceed with probate and the division of possessions and other legal actions without an autopsy, using ann inaccurate death certificate, while perhaps drawing the pension money from Ms. Rouff’s retirement account after her death (as she was not legally reported as deceased) was improper. That disqualifies him from playing any role in probate court. These matters are documented in the Affidavit in support of a search warrant” (June 12, 2026) filed by the Massachusetts State Police with the district court (see appendix).

Thirdly, Mr. Coogan made an emergency motion to be appointed as special personal representative on June 17 to represent the estate in opposing the exhumation of Ms. Rouff’s body for an autopsy to determine cause of death as part of an investigation into criminal activity. For a lawyer charged with defending the rights of the estate to oppose an investigation to determine whether she was the victim of foul play is an indication of unsuitability.

In point of fact, the autopsy report issued by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner this month indicated “blunt force torso injuries” as the cause of injury leading to death, signs indicative of a violent attack, and not a slip in the bathroom. This report offers evidence that Mr. Coogan had good reason to oppose the exhumation, but his actions were diametrically opposed to the interests of the Estate.

In addition, Mr. Coogan misinformed Ben, the objector’s son, claiming that needed Ben’s approval to oppose this exhumation because it violated Ms.  Rouff’s wishes for a green burial. The truth was that 1)  Mr. Coogan was obligated to have the “assent and waiver of notice” form signed by the objector, and not an approval from his son, in order to proceed; 2) Mr. Coogan stated to Ben, and to others, that the autopsy was required because of bureaucratic mistakes at Martha’s Vineyard Hospital when in fact it was the failure to submit a death certificate, the illegal and secretive burial without a permit, and the fact that the objector had formally reported to the West Tisbury Police on May 6 that Ms. Rouff feared for her life from her live-in “nurse” just three days before her mysterious fall and subsequent death, that had led the Massachusetts State Police to ask for the warrant.

Mr. Coogan was representing the estate of Ms. Rouff when he filed his “motion for appointment of Geohan Coogan as special personal representative with request for emergency hearing” (June 15, 2026), stating “This exhumation is in direct conflict with the Decedent’s wishes (for a green burial).”  In fact, the exhumation and autopsy did not in any way violate Ms. Rouff’s desire for a green burial. The problem was that the signatures of both sons were required in order have the body returned for burial. It appears that Mr. Coogan did not want the objector (Emanuel), an heir whom Coogan was obliged to notify, to learn about this autopsy.

Mr. Coogan’s duty as a special personal representative for the estate was to make the contents of the request for a warrant public and to start his own inquiries into the criminal activities against Ms. Rouff which has resulted in her death.

He did not do so. Instead, he misused the funds of the estate to launch a legal defense for himself, Michael, and Mathea which continues to this day.

Mr. Coogan, and later Mr. Brown, refused to answer all questions from the objector concerning Ms. Rouff’s finances, and other legal developments, making it impossible for the objector to get any of Ms.  Rouff’s financial records. The interests of the estate were complete transparency regarding the estate towards all heirs.

The points made here, all of which are easily verified without need of discovery, are more than sufficient to summarily end Mr. Coogan’s role as special personal representative, remove him from the position of personal representative, and move the venue for all future debate to a more appropriate criminal court. Mr. Coogan has no standing before the court.

In the meantime, the objector proposes that funds and all possessions improperly distributed must be returned to the estate. The payments for legal services employed for the legal defense of Mr. Coogan and some of the heirs must be returned to the estate as well.

All the funds of the Estate should be held in escrow, inaccessible to any of the heirs, until the report of the Massachusetts State Police is released. Only when that report is made public, a proper death certificate issued, a complete audit of Ms. Rouff’s finances since the death of her husband Paul Levine is conducted by a neutral third party, and the full extent of the abuses she suffered is documented, can we again return to probate court.

 

Evidence of unsuitability as special personal representative

 

The mass of evidence, including but not limited to, emails received from Mr. Coogan and the other heirs, the eyewitness accounts of the objectors, and others, is not included in this memorandum. Much of the evidence is readily accessible to the court without need of formal discovery through the reports submitted by the objector to the Massachusetts State Adult Protective Services Program of the Executive Office of Aging & Independence (May, 2025), to the West Tisbury Police (August, 2025 and May, 2026), and to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (June, 2026). The critical points in those reports by the objector are corroborated by Massachusetts State Police Officer Dustin Shaw’s “Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant” (June 15, 2026) included as an appendix.

 

• Actions related to the emergency appointment of Mr. Coogan as special personal representative on June 18, 2026 that demonstrate unsuitability.

 

The criminal conspiracy of elderly abuse carried out against Ms. Rouff until her death carried on is beyond the purview of this court. The wrongful death, illegal burial, creation of a death certificate through improper means, and the failure to conduct an autopsy or get a permit for burial also indicate that Mr. Coogan lacks suitability.

The nature of the emergency appointment as special personal representative to represent the estate is relevant to this case. Mr. Coogan claimed he was concerned with Ms. Rouff’s wish for a green burial when in fact he was trying to avoid informing the heir Emanuel (the objector) about this autopsy when it was his duty to do so and to get a form of assent for his appointment as special personal representative. He purposely hid any discussion of the true purpose of the warrant from official records, and from the objector’s son, violating his responsibility to represent the interests of the estate, and not his interests and the interests of other heirs.

It is important to note that the heir Greg also refused to assent to the appointment as special personal representative. That means that only three of the five heirs assented to his appointment and one of them had been named as a suspect.

If Mr. Coogan had been concerned about Ms. Rouff’s estate he would have spent the following months doing everything in his power to learn what possible criminal actions had been taken against her and who might have wanted her killed, and for what reason.

If a special personal representative took interests of the estate as the highest priority, he or she would have demanded a complete investigation to rule out any possibility of wrongful death or homicide and a discussion of the material aspects of the crimes among all the heirs.

If Mr. Coogan had been looking out for the interests of the estate, he would have circulated the information about the criminal investigation to all heirs and taken out an advertisement in the newspaper to seek out witnesses. Instead, he tried to suppress the entire incident.

Mr. Coogan managed to get the objector’s son Benjamin to agree to his appointment as special personal representative by arguing that this was a matter of defending Ms. Rouff’s wishes for a green burial. He did not mention anything the warrant from the Massachusetts State Police for a criminal investigation and he did not state that the objector’s signature, not his son’s consent, was required.

 

 

• Actions by Mr. Coogan as special personal representative that demonstrate unsuitability.

 

The inaccurate claims put forth by Mr. Coogan in his “Motion for appointment of Geohan Coogan as special personal representative with request for emergency hearing” (June 15, 2026) that his concern was for a “green burial” and not for obstructing a criminal investigation that might implicate himself and other heirs demonstrates his unsuitability. This text Mr. Coogan drafted makes no mention of the Massachusetts State Police, the possibility of criminal activity, or the fact that the problem of green burial could have been easily solved by simply asking the objector for his signature.

It was Michael who had insisted that Ms. Rouff must have a green burial in numerous meetings with her before her death. His insistence on this point suggests that green burial was not entirely her wish, but also a method for making sure her body would be disposed of with minimum amount of accountability to the government.

 

• Actions by Mr. Coogan as personal representative that demonstrate unsuitability.

 

Mr. Coogan demonstrated extreme bias towards the objector even before he filed a memorandum of objections. When Mr. Coogan sent an email to all the heirs on May 15, two  days  after  Ms. Rouff’s death, he did not include Emanuel (the objector) at all and only forwarded him a copy of it later. That was a continuation of Mr. Coogan’s policy of not communicating with the objector since November, 2024, in direct violation of Ms. Rouff’s wishes and his responsibility as a personal representative. Since that time, Mr. Coogan has not informed the objector, or his son, of any of the financial details concerning Ms. Rouff’s estate. After June 18, Ben ceased to represent the objector in any way. Yet Mr. Coogan, and Mr. Brown refused to answer any questions by email from the objector concerning the distribution of possessions and the financial status of the estate. The decision as to what questions to answer, and which not to answer were determined by the legal interests of Mr. Coogan and Michael, and not by the interests of the estate.

The fact that the objector has raised objections to Mr. Coogan’s actions DID NOT entitle Mr. Coogan to be biased against the objector in sharing information about the estate, or including him in all correspondence with other heirs, which is his duty as personal representative.

 

 

• Decision of Mr. Coogan to represent Ms. Rouff’s estate and all the heirs, except the objector, at this hearing in spite of the fact that the heir Michael Pastreich was clearly identified as a suspect in the affidavit submitted to the Edgartown District Court.

 

 

The decision of Mr. Coogan to claim to represent the estate, and also to represent Michael, Mathea, Jason, and Greg, is typical of his biased behavior. Michael had been named by the Massachusetts State Police as a possible suspect. If Mr. Coogan was representing the estate, he could not possibly also represent a suspect in the abuse and wrongful death of Ms. Rouff, mainly her son Michael, at the same time.

Mathea, Jason, and Greg also have interests that are at odds with those of the estate. The fact that Mr. Coogan somehow managed to get them all to agree to let him represent them and the estate is a legal feat, but it does not give that odd configuration legitimacy.

Mr. Coogan wished to create the appearance that all the other heirs are united against the objector, but that act was clearly not in the interests of the estate.

 

• Actions by Mr. Coogan as legal representative to Ms. Rouff that demonstrate improper behavior suggesting unsuitability.

 

Mr. Coogan demonstrated outright contempt for Ms. Rouff while she was alive, refusing to meet with her in spite of her requests dictating to her what she had to do over her objections.

As the objector has detailed in the previous memorandum, a medical diagnosis was created by a doctor at Martha’s Vineyard Hospital designating Ms. Rouff as suffering from dementia. The diagnosis was scientifically inaccurate and was not supported by the facts. Video interviews recorded by the objector with Ms. Rouff just weeks before her death demonstrate that she was not suffering from any form of dementia.

Nevertheless, Michael mailed this medical diagnosis to Mr. Coogan without Ms. Rouff’s permission and Mr. Coogan used it as an excuse to refuse to meet with Ms. Rouff because she was suffering from dementia. Mr. Coogan also claimed that Ms.  Rouff had supposedly said she wanted to meet with Mr. Coogan only with her son Michael present which Mr. Coogan interpreted as an unalterable declaration that she could not change later when she asked to meet him alone. Ms. Rouff said that she never made such a request.

When the objector, with the full support of Ms. Rouff, contacted Mr. Coogan concerning his illegal possession of this flawed medical report, he asked Mr. Coogan to destroy this letter, and to tell the objector how to request from the hospital that the diagnosis be questioned formally.  Mr. Coogan responded to that polite request by saying he was insulted and would never speak to the objector again. He did so in spite of the requests of Ms. Rouff that he communicate with her two sons.

Then came the improper exercise of power of attorney when Marie-Louise Rouff was of sound mind and not suffering from dementia. This egregious action took place following a routine visit to the hospital by Ms. Rouff on August 28, 2024. The medical records did not indicate any change in Ms. Rouff’s state of mind or body. Nevertheless Mr. Coogan and Mathea told Ms. Rouff that she had to accept a live-in nurse otherwise the hospital would not release her. Thereafter, Ms. Rouff was subject to false imprisonment and blocked from using her own funds.

These matters are more appropriate for a criminal trial, but they do indicate a tendency to ignore Ms. Rouff’s interests that suggest unsuitability.

 

• Evidence that Mr. Coogan compelled Ms. Rouff to sign a will that did not reflect her intentions

 

There is extensive evidence that Ms. Rouff was forced to sign a will that went against her intentions. That material is best presented at a criminal trial. Here we limit our discussion to the wording of the Last Will and Testament signed on July 14, 2024. “I appoint GEOGHAN E. COOGAN, Esq., as Personal Representative of this will. In the event GEOGHAN E. COOGAN, Esq., shall fail or cease to serve as Personal Representative of this Will, then in that event I appoint the EDMOND G. COOGAN LAW OFFICE, P.C. as Personal Representative of this Will.” As Mr. Coogan is the only lawyer in his firm, this phrase means that there is no alternative possible to Mr. Coogan as personal representative. This bizarre phrase could only have been made up by a lawyer. It is impossible that Ms. Rouff came up with such a request on her own. At the time, she had openly discussed several possible executors, but never had mentioned Mr. Coogan.

 

• Evidence that Mr. Coogan was not Ms. Rouff’s legal representative at the time the will was drafted and at the time that she passed away and he became personal representative.

 

The court assumes that Mr.  Coogan was the legal representative of Marie-Louise Rouff when the current will was drafted and at the time of her death.

It may well be that Mr. Coogan was appointed as Ms. Rouff’s lawyer after the death of her husband Paul. The objector has never seen any documentation to prove that.

What is clear is that after November 27, 2024, Mr. Coogan was not her legal representative.

Mr. Rouff and her husband Paul Levine employed a trusted lawyer Martin Tomassian to handle all their legal affairs for years. At the time of Paul Levine’s death (exact date not certain) suddenly and inexplicably Mr. Coogan became Ms. Rouff’s legal representative.

Marie-Louise Rouff stated on several occasions to friends, and to the objector, that Mr. Coogan had always been the trusted lawyer of herself and her husband. She made no mention of Mr. Tomassian.

When the objector came to live with her for two months (from October 16 to December 12, 2024), she confided in him that her true lawyer was Mr. Tomassian, and that she wanted to have him back.

The objector cannot explain why Ms. Rouff claimed Mr. Coogan had always been her lawyer when he had not been. But granted the fact that Ms. Rouff had been subject to death threats, and the objector witnessed her being threatened by an anonymous phone call, it is not hard to understand why she felt compelled to claim that Mr. Coogan had always been her lawyer.

After Mr. Coogan repeatedly refused to meet with Ms. Rouff in 2024 because she was supposedly suffering from Alzheimer’s, she met Mr. Tomassian on November 23. The two conducted a one-on-one discussion of her legal affairs for two hours. They agreed then and there that Mr. Tomassian would serve as her legal representative. That decision was formally confirmed the same day in an email exchange that included Mr. Coogan, Emanuel, and Michael.

Suddenly, without any explanation, Mr. Tomassian announced on November 27 that he could no longer serve as legal counsel to Marie-Louise Rouff. We can only guess as to the reason Mr. Tomassian ceased to represent her.

Thereafter, Ms. Rouff gave up seeking other legal advice. She did what she was told to do by Mr. Coogan, while occasionally making requests, most of which were rejected.

There is no evidence that Ms. Rouff ever reengaged Mr. Coogan as her legal representative after November 27, 2024. No document indicating his reinstatement exists. Mr. Coogan claiming that he was her legal representative does not make it a fact. He was dismissed and never was rehired.

The fact that Mr. Coogan not only ignored all requests made of him by Ms. Rouff regarding the content of the will, but also was clearly not a legal representative, brings into question the legitimacy of the will itself and also Mr. Coogan’s assumption of the role of personal representative after Ms. Rouff’s death.

 

APPENDIX

 

Massachusetts State Police Officer Dustin Shaw

“Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant” (June 15, 2026)

 

“Record of Death” Marie-Louise Rouff

Town of Oak Bluffs (May 18, 2026)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This “Motion for Appointment of Geoghan Coogan, Esq. as Special Personal Representative with Request for Emergency Hearing” was submitted to the Dukes Probate Court on June 17, 2026, by Mr. Geoghan Coogan who represented the estate of  Marie-Louise Rouff. He claimed that he had to oppose the request for an exhumation of her body for an autopsy because it violated her wishes for a “green burial.”

He failed to mention in the motion that the exhumation was requested by the Massachusetts State Police for an autopsy to determine cause of death, that the autopsy was requested because of evidence of criminal activity and the failure to conduct an  autopsy or obtain a burial permit, and that Marie-Louise Rouff had told her son Emanuel Pastreich just days before her mysterious fall, and subsequent death that she feared for her life and that Emanuel had reported that concern to the West Tisbury Police. When the police visited her home to try to meet her, no one answered the door. Nobody would see her alive again. Some claim they saw her in the hospital  in an unconscious state, but there is reason  to  question whether she was ever admitted to the hospital  because there was no  record filed of her death at the Martha’s Vineyard Hospital. Moreover, the body could have easily been returned for burial after the autopsy, but that would have required the signature of both her sons. Mr. Coogan wished to avoid asking for the signature of Emanuel Pastreich because he did not want Emanuel to know about the autopsy and the actions of the Massachusetts State Police.

 

This is the “Cease and Desist Threatened Defamation” letter I received from Mr. Peter Brown, a lawyer who is serving as the effective legal defense for Mr. Geoghan Coogan using the funds from my mother Marie-Louise  Rouff’s estate. I am told that I cannot discuss how Mr. Coogan and my brother conspired to abuse my mother, and then have her murdered because that would be defamation. In fact, as of October 22, 2026, I had not written anywhere in the media, or in social media, about the elder abuse, false imprisonment, and murder of my mother. I had circulated three texts to approximately 15 people over the last few months: my original report to the West Tisbury Police of May 21, 2026, the request for a warrant issued to the Edgartown District Court of June 15, 2026, and my memorandum prepared for the October 13, 2026 hearing at the Dukes County Circuit Court. Those texts are in the public record as far as I am concerned.

—