Menu
Login
I sent the CBRE Palo Alto office a CBRE co-brokerage contract (twice) which had been requested by Mr. George Fox of the Palo Alto office unethically said he was sending me the signed contract once it was modified for our joint work on expanding operations (new offices In a Costa Rica tax free zone office park. The contract was never returned or signed but we did have a verbal agreement to split any monies earned 50-50. This has now extended past 7 years of criminal prosecution regarding a civil complaint, I retained 50% of the money earned, CBRE received their 50% $1.3 million. Can we end this false accusations against me and my Son, CBRE seeks 20 years in prisión against me and my Son in a third world prison. The dispute arises when I had two transactions being prepared for signatures, an $8 million lease and a sale of a building for $26,000,000 but George called me right before the signi g of these contracts, insisting I lower my portion to 30% and then Align decided to buy a 2nd building and George insisted I accept 8% and 92% for CBRE . He coerced me into writing emails that I agreed when obviously I did not. Please help me if you can, I have provided services to CBRE for 15 years, working through Robert Gilmore ;( John Kartman
Claimed loss: I have only lost 10% of my retire years, soon turning 71, Palo Alto claims tgey want the $1.3 million I earned
Desired outcome: Stop the lawsuit and make a settlement for my loss of income reputation and suffering
• Nature of Dispute:
Criminal prosecution for Apropiación y Retención Indebida — fundamentally a civil commission dispute over real estate brokerage fees (SABP1, SABP2, La Lima lease).
⸻
II. Key Timeline
• 2016: Original 50/50 commission agreement established (confirmed by emails and Align Technology broker designation).
• 2017–2018: CBRE attempts to modify split to 70/30 and fixed $125K for SABP2 under pressure.
• 2018–2020: Payments made (SABP1, La Lima first tract). CBRE claims 70% retention; Kartman maintains 50% rightful share.
• 2020: Sobreseimiento definitivo (dismissal) initially granted.
• 2023: New hearings; request for preliminary audience; interpreter issue for John.
• 2024: Opening to trial; pending debate date.
⸻
III. Main Legal Arguments
A. Criminal vs Civil Nature
• Dispute is a commission disagreement, not a criminal act:
• Payments made to Kartman in property, not custody — no “bienes ajenos” element (Art. 223 CP).
• Title from La Lima & SABP is commission payment for brokerage services, not a trust or deposit.
• Obligation to share with CBRE is contractual/civil (Pacta Sunt Servanda), not criminal.
B. Jurisdictional & Procedural Defenses
• Statute of limitations: Over 7 years since initial acts; CBRE attempted to extend by embedding civil action in criminal case.
• Contract clauses: La Lima lease (Clause 29 & 39) establishes broker commission and arbitration in Costa Rica — waiving criminal venue.
• Interpreter denial: John denied interpreter for years; violation of due process and fair trial rights (Art. 8, American Convention on Human Rights).
C. Federal & Human Rights Angles
• CBRE is a U.S. corporation — possible federal jurisdiction for violations (due process, cross-border corporate misconduct).
• Human Rights Court in San José — grounds:
• Unjustified criminalization of civil dispute.
• Denial of language rights.
• Procedural delays (over 7 years without resolution).
⸻
IV. Supporting Evidence
1. Written Agreements
• Align Technology designation (Nov. 8, 2016) naming Kartman & CBRE co-brokers.
• Emails confirming 50/50 split (Global Park, SABP1).
• La Lima lease naming Kartman & Associates sole broker (Clause 29).
I would appreciate any legal comments or similar cases with this particular office. Thank you
