Report

 

elderly abuse of marie louise rouff may 25, 2026

Correspondence with Mathea Morais concerning Marie-Louise’s unnecessary hospitalization.

This exchange shows how Marie-Louise’s closest friend and supporter was pushed out of her life and how a minor visit to the hospital that Marie-Louise did not request was used as a means to declare her incompetent and to take over her finances and render her a prisoner in her own home. Most significant is the explanation given:

“As I let you know in my email last week (there was no email), while Nouche was in the hospital, the doctor invoked the Healthcare Proxy, which meant that she was deemed unable to make her own medical decisions and that this responsibility fell to me. The doctor also informed me that she wouldn’t release Nouche until we could show that 24/7 care was in place and that her bedroom was moved downstairs, OR that she was placed in a facility. We were told that if they released her and we did not obey this order, they would be forced to file with Elder Protective Services.”

There is no evidence that the doctors said any of these things. The medical records  give no such instructions. Maria-Clara was still  able to find another person Tamara who was entirely capable of caring for her in a human, and inexpensive, manner at home. The threat that Marie-Louise could not leave the hospital without being placed in a facility, or having a live-in nurse, was made up to intimidate.

——————————————-

On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 10:26 PM Emanuel Pastreich <epastreich@protonmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mathea

I do appreciate your detailed response and I can understand much better now what happened.

I do want to tell you, however, that I have told Michael formally on several occasions that I do not wish to interact with him at all about anything related to my mother,or to my children. So when he told you he would reach out to me, he was fully aware that I do not wish to interact with him.

I hope that you can make it clear,as I have tried to, that concerning my mother’s health, or any other matters, I should be contacted immediately. If it were up to me,in light of Michael’s previous actions towards my mother, my children and my deceased wife, I would block him from having any role. He has repeatedly acted in an unethical and illegal manner.

Whether it was his designating my daughter as an abandoned youth without my permission so that he could get government subsidies and control, or sending a medical record designating my mother as suffering from dementia to her lawyer without her permission, these actions were both illegal and unethical.

But sadly I am not in a position to do stop him.

I will write to Kanta and Beth again. But I would like you to recognize that concerning my mother’s affairs my brother should never enjoy a privileged status. He must be watched like a hawk.

Thank you for your kind efforts on my mother’s behalf.

With my appreciation

Emanuel

Emanuel Pastreich

President
The Asia Institute
(Washington D.C., Seoul, Tokyo)
asia-institute.org

1 (650) 563-2847 USA

81 (0)80 4940 8782 (Japan)

epastreich@protonmail.com

Proton Mail Android から送信

——————————————

 

On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 9:35 PM Emanuel Pastreich <epastreich@protonmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mathea

I hope this note finds you well.

I learned through a note sent to my daughter from my brother that my mother had been sent to the hospital. I was deeply disturbed by this. Not only was I concerned for her health, but I was also concerned that she was being sent to the hospital in violation of her own explicit request not to be sent to the hospital.

More importantly, I was not notified, nor was Maria Clara. That is to say that the two people closest to my mother were not informed.

Somehow I system remains in place in which my brother is notified and involved in the decision making process and I am not.

Although my mother is extremely diplomatic about Michael ‘s role, it is no secret that she trusts me and Maria Clara on all critical matters.

As you are the medical proxy, I would like to speak with you as soon as possible concerning this matter.

Much appreciate your kind attention.

Best from Tokyo

Emanuel

——————-

2025/08/25 11:10、mathea morais

Hi Emanuel!

Thanks for your email. I think the first important thing to share with you is that Maria Clara decided a couple of weeks ago that she could no longer continue as Nouche’s caregiver. She wants to continue to see Nouche as a friend but isn’t able to continue working for/with her.

Secondly, what happened today is that when Kanta came to pick up Nouche to go to meditation, she noticed that she was leaning far to her left. When she asked Nouche why she was leaning Nouche didn’t know what she was talking about, she thought she was standing up straight.

After meditation, others also noticed it and were concerned. Kanta reached out to Michael, Beth, myself, and Rachel who is Nouche’s medical advocate.

The advice from Rachel’s team was that either Nouche go to the ER and have some imaging done or she go home but that we arrange for her to not be alone for the remainder of the day. Kanta presented those choices to Nouche who opted to go to the hospital so Kanta took her.

She was very concerned that you be informed about what was going on and asked Kanta to make sure you were notified. Michael responded that he would reach out to you via email and WhatsApp and also reach out to Rachel in case she was still with you.

Once in the ER they did a CAT scan and recommended she have an MRI done. They also suggested she stay overnight for observation and so she could do the MRI tomorrow morning. She again was given the choice of whether to stay or leave and she chose to stay.

I arrived at the hospital as she was being brought to her room. She was lively and in great spirits and very grateful for the care she’d been getting. She was completely on board with being there, staying the night, and doing the MRI in the morning.

I understand your concern about her being in the hospital when that is something she’s expressed to all of us she does not want to have happen. However, she was given multiple opportunities to choose not to go/choose to leave and she opted to go there, stay there, and have the tests run.

As you know, in my role as her health care proxy, I am to step in when Nouche is no longer capable of making medical decisions for herself. However that’s not the case at this time. If and when that time arises, I will follow the directive that she and I wrote and shared with everyone last year.

I will not be able to go to the hospital tomorrow as I start back to school meetings in the morning. However I know folks are organizing about who will be with her in the morning, who will take her home, etc. As always she will be surrounded and supported by her friends.

She has her cellphone with her so hopefully you two can connect directly in the morning eastern time.

 

Sending love.

M

 

 

On Tuesday, August 26th, 2025 at 4:16 AM, Mathea Morais <matheamorais@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Emanuel,

Today the hospital invoked your mom’s health care proxy. Here is a copy of the text I sent to her care team:

I just got off the phone with the case manager and then to Jane Vanni who is the PA taking care of ML.

My understanding is that they want to keep her there one more day so that they can do a cognitive evaluation and an EKG. They want to do the EKG bc this is the 2nd time in 2 weeks that there has been a reason to admit ML and so they want to rule out anything having to do with her heart.

They also are recommending 24 hour care as they are concerned about her falling. I let them know that we are in the process of putting that type of care in place and outlined the care we’ve already coordinated for her. Both the case manager and the PA felt that this should be fine as long as there are assurances that 24 hour care is being arranged asap. They both said that additional equipment may be recommended based on her mobility/cognitive abilities.

I stressed that Sandie is directly involved and that anything that can be communicated to her directly should be to avoid me needing to translate.

I also stressed that as ML’s healthcare proxy my main concern was honoring her health directive which specifically states she wants to be at home and not in the hospital. The PA seemed very confident that she’d be able to release ML first thing tomorrow as soon as they were able to complete the EKG and cognitive evaluation.

I will continue to keep updated as things evolve.

 

Best,

M

 

Mathea Morais

She/Her/Hers

@MatheaMorais

 

 

——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: Mathea Morais <matheamorais@gmail.com>
Date: On Monday, September 1st, 2025 at 2:32
Subject: Re: from Emanuel
To: Emanuel Pastreich <epastreich@protonmail.com>

Hi Emanuel,

 

Thanks for reaching out. I have addressed each of your concerns below.

 

On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 10:45 AM Emanuel Pastreich <epastreich@protonmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mathea,

 

I do hope that this mail finds you well and that we can set up a time to talk this week.

 

I have been talking to my mother on a daily basis and she seems quite well.

 

Yes, she is doing much better. And tells me you have a new job and that things are going well for you, too. That’s wonderful!

 

She tells me that she has people from this company Horizons with her all day now at her home.

Yes, there is a woman named Bernadette living with her now who provides 24/7 care through Horizon Health Care.

 

She told me that she did not order them and does not need them. I completely agree. I also worry about the expense of having people there 24 hours a day against my mother’s wishes.

As I let you know in my email last week, while Nouche was in the hospital, the doctor invoked the Healthcare Proxy, which meant that she was deemed unable to make her own medical decisions and that this responsibility fell to me. The doctor also informed me that she wouldn’t release Nouche until we could show that 24/7 care was in place and that her bedroom was moved downstairs, OR that she was placed in a facility. We were told that if they released her and we did not obey this order, they would be forced to file with Elder Protective Services.

 

All of this was explained to Nouche, and she was very clear that she wanted to go home and have 24/7 care, and, as you know, being at home was her clearly stated wish in the healthcare directive that she wrote last year. Therefore, to honor her wish and to follow the doctor’s orders, I arranged for 24/7 care so that she could go home and stay home. She is right that she didn’t order them, but she most definitely understood — both when we were in the hospital discussing her options, and when I was with her on Friday at home, that this was what was necessary in order for her to be at home.

 

I do not think we have discussed this arrangment at all, as far as I can remember.

 

You are right, and I apologize. It was a whirlwind of a week, and once the Healthcare Proxy was invoked, I was dedicated to getting her home and situated. I was also starting my school year, which meant that I was only able to respond to you now.

 

I was not informed about anything concerning this service and if it is not economically viable, we should find a cheaper solution.

There is no other solution that would cost less and allow her to stay in her home.

 

Please do let me know exactly what the cost of this service is and how exactly it is being paid for. My mother does not seem to know who is paying her bills or how much is being paid to whom at this point. I would like to know exactly who is doing so so that I can get copies of everything.

 

When the Healthcare Proxy was invoked by the doctor, it meant that the Power of Attorney was automatically invoked. This means that Geoghan Coogan is now in charge of Nouche’s finances. He will be paying her bills and making any additional financial decisions on her behalf going forward. He and I will meet this week to discuss how to pay for Nouche’s care.

 

We can discuss these matters when we talk, but regarding the medical care for my mother, It is critical that I speak with you.

 

I would love to talk as well. Perhaps it would be best if we talk when I am with Nouche next week, so that we can clear up any of the inconsistencies in what she is saying to you vs what she is saying to me. We are getting together on Saturday around 10 am. Please let me know if that works for you.

 

Thanks so much

 

 

Emanuel

 

 

 

 

 

This email exchange from December, 2024 concerned Emanuel’s request for 1) a means to challenge on a scientific basis the diagnosis of Marie-Louise Rouff as suffering from Alzheimer’s when it was so clear to him, living together with her for two months, that she was not, 2) that Mr. Coogan destroy the copy of this diagnosis that Michael had given to him  without his mother’s permission, 3) that Marie-Louise be allowed to  meet her own lawyer when she wished to.

Coogan denied her all such rights and stated in closing

“You Emanuel, have attacked my character and professionalism. I do not wish to have any further communication with you. I will keep any and all communication through Michael and Marie-Louise.”

Thus ending all ability of Emanuel to discuss the most  critical parts of Marie-Louise’s case. The exchange reveals just how deeply involved in the conspiracity Coogan was.

 

Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2024 9:19 PM
To: Geoghan Coogan <cooganlaw@gmail.com>; Michael Pastreich <michaelrpastreich@gmail.com>; Marie-Louise Rouff <mlrouff@gmail.com>
Subject: legal issues for my mother

 

Dear Mr. Coogan,

Thank you for your kind attention to my mother’s affairs and legal rights.

I do hope we can engage in a discussion of the solution to a variety of legal matters concerning my mother that sadly have caused unnecessary confusion.

The first and foremost concerns your policy, based on a conversation with my mother and my brother, of holding that you cannot meet with my mother unless my brother Michael Pastreich is present.

It is clear that my mother does not agree with this policy and my brother did not suggest in our conversations that there was some absolute need for him, and only him, to be with my mother when she speaks with you.

She says that she may well have made such a comment at the time, but it was not meant to be an absolute rule. In fact, she has proven herself to be entirely capable of meeting with experts on her own and discussing complex issues.

My mother has said repeatedly that she wishes to have the right, as should obvious, to meet with her lawyer at any time, alone, or accompanied by whomever she should desire. This request seems entirely rational and legally justified.

Please do be so kind as to inform us of what steps my mother would have to take in order for you to change your policy. I assume that you can draft a letter in her name that fully empowers her that she can sign and mail to you. She can have it notorized if necessary.

In addition, I understand that you have a copy of a diagnosis by a neurologist Dr. Absar of the Martha’s Vineyard Hospital which suggests that my mother suffers from alzheimer’s disease. This diagnosis is inaccurate and as I spent an hour with this doctor, I have grave doubts about her professional abilities. This diagnosis can in no case be used as grounds for questioning my mother’s compency. If the decision that she cannot meet you unless accompanied by my brother Michael is based in any degree upon that diagnosis, I request that you make that argument explicit so that I can respond.

My mother and her friend Maria Clara told me that this diagnosis was sent to you without my mother’s consent by my brother. My brother tells me that my mother fully approved the sending of this letter. I have no proof of anything, but my mother does not understand why it was sent and I do not either.

I would like to propose that you read through a letter that I will draft with the intention of sending to Martha’s Vineyard Hospital challenging the two diagnoses and give me your advice as to how the letter should be framed, and to it should be addressed.

I also have some questions regarding the Will, Power of Attorney, and medical proxy but those matters are far less pressing than restoring my mother’s basic rights as a client of yours.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Most respectfully.

Emanuel Pastreich

President

The Asia Institute

(Washington D.C., Seoul, Tokyo)

asia-institute.org

1 (650) 563-2847 USA

81 (0)80 4940 8782 (Japan)

epastreich@protonmail.com

 

On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 11:11 AM <michaelrpastreich@gmail.com> wrote:

Emanuel,

 

My suggestion is that neither you nor I ever meet with Mr. Coogan without him inviting the other to attend the meeting. In my proposal, meetings would need to be set several days in advance and both you and I can choose whether or not to attend, but that we both would be invited with due notice. My assumption is that is possible with the use of Zoom.

I agree that Maman should be able to meet with Mr. Coogan alone any time she wishes, but should never sign legal papers without me being present, you being invited, and the two of us having a chance to review the document in advance.

Mr. Coogan, is that possible?

Michael

——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: Geoghan Coogan <cooganlaw@gmail.com>
Date: On Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024 at 1:22
Subject: Re: legal issues for my mother
To: michaelrpastreich@gmail.com <michaelrpastreich@gmail.com>
CC: Emanuel Pastreich <epastreich@protonmail.com>

Emanuel,

You have misunderstood any “policy”. When Marie-Louise last visited me, she was accompanied by Michael and Maria Clara. At that meeting Marie-Louise was explicit that she not sign any legal documents without Michael being physically present.

I am happy to meet with Marie-Louise on her own. If she wishes to do so, I would simply like to know what the topic of discussion is to be prior to that meeting. I am very concerned about her diagnosis and her cognitive ability to change any testamentary documents. If that were a request of hers, then an additional meeting with an independent third party (Maria Clara for example) would be warranted. I do not agree with your statement that the Doctor’s diagnosis is incorrect, or that the care service around her is inept. I myself have had several meetings with Marie-Louise and her cognitive decline was evident in those meetings. My job is to protect her and her alone.

When she met with Attorney Tomassian, she did not even know she had done the complete set of documents that were done in my office, and which had been worked on since 2014. So your statement that she does not have any mental health concerns, is frightening to say the least.

The client I have right now is Marie-Louise. I had advised Michael to simply cc me on any communications regarding her care so that there is a written record of the actions taken on her behalf.

You Emanuel, have attacked my character and professionalism. I do not wish to have any further communication with you. I will keep any and all communication through Michael and Marie-Louise.

 

—

Geoghan E. Coogan, Esq.
Edmond G. Coogan Law Office, P.C.
4A Causeway Road
P.O. Box 1639
Vineyard Haven, Ma. 02568
Ph: 508.693.3200
Fax: 508.693.7316
Email: cooganlaw@gmail.com

 

 

 

This autopsy for Marie-Louise Rouff was conducted on June 19, 2026, more than a month after she was buried without a permit, without a report of her death to the State of Massachusetts, and without a record of her death at the Martha’s Vineyard Hospital where she was taken after supposed her fall in the bathroom. The body was considerably decomposed, but the “blunt force torso injuries and left hip fracture” and other injuries are hard to  explain from a simple slip in the bathroom when accompanied by a live-in maid. The autopsy was conducted only because the Massachusetts State Police demanded it, and the lawyer representing her estate, Mr. Geoghan Coogan demanded emergency appointment as special personal representative to oppose the exhumation of the body.

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.

—