Now I suppose someone will feel sorry for this guy

One of biotech's early superstars accused of being a "deadbeat dad"

By Maureen O'Hagan and Sheila Farr

Seattle Times staff reporters

PREV of NEXT



THE SEATTLE TIMES / 1996

Robert Nowinski said to owe almost $125,000


At one time, he was a high-flying CEO whose companies promised help for
cancer patients. He had a Picasso hanging in his Edmonds home and owned
one of Seattle's swankiest art galleries.

The day before Thanksgiving, Robert Nowinski was arrested on federal
charges of failing to pay child support. Once among the most important
players in the Seattle biotech world, Nowinski has allegedly become, in
the parlance of child-welfare workers, a "deadbeat dad."

Federal prosecutors say he fell nearly $125,000 behind on his
child-support payments, and have charged him in a two-count criminal
complaint.

Nowinski says he's broke.

If Nowinski's fall appears abrupt, his rise to the top was just as
dramatic.

It was clear from his arrival in Seattle in 1975, as a brash young
scientist at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, that he had a
rare combination of skills: the mind of a scientist but the instincts
of a businessman.

"He was able to articulate the dream and get people to put money into
it," said Bruce Montgomery, CEO of Corus Pharma, who used to work at
one of Nowinski's companies.

After just a few years, he helped found a new biotech company, a field
that was in its infancy.

In all, he founded four publicly traded biotech companies over the
course of about a decade: Genetic Systems, which worked to develop
antibodies for use in cancer treatment, Icos, PathoGenesis and VaxGen.
He also helped found another biotech company, Primal.

Bill Gates put millions into Nowinski's dream, as did Paul Allen. Even
outside investors, who at that time shunned the unproven field of
biotech, were won over by Nowinski's vision.

"If you took the 15 largest biotechnology companies of the 1980s, we
founded three of them," he bragged to a Seattle Times reporter in 1990.

In each case, however, he got out rather quickly - often winding up
with millions. Genetic Systems, for example, was bought by
Bristol-Myers Squibb, making Nowinski's stock options worth $10
million.

Nowinski's knack for coming out on top earned him the nickname
"No-lose-ski."

In the mid-1990s, Nowinski dove into the art world, renting a
5,000-square-foot space in Pioneer Square, doing an elegant remodel and
installing a high-tech interactive "virtual gallery" so clients could
project big-screen images of available artworks.

The opening show at Meyerson & Nowinski was called "Picasso and
Friends." His partner was Ronnie Meyerson, a New York art dealer.

Nowinski spoke enthusiastically to reporters about his plans to bring
the work of internationally acclaimed artists to Seattle and his
expectations for becoming a nationally recognized gallery. Less than
three years later, the gallery closed, leaving many Seattle-area
artists without representation.

Around the time of his art adventure, Nowinski's marriage was
dissolving. In 1996, Connie Nowinski filed for divorce. The pair had a
prenuptial agreement in which Connie was to get 70 percent of communal
property and Robert was to get all of the property he brought into the
marriage, court documents say.

Under the terms of the settlement, Robert was to pay Connie $9,200 per
month for two years. He also agreed to give her $2.25 million broken
into several lump-sum payments. Meanwhile, Robert kept various
investments; stock accounts in his name; their fine-art collection,
which included a Picasso worth nearly $1 million; and other items.

Within four years, Connie filed suit, claiming he had hidden certain
assets from her during the divorce. A judge determined he owed her
180,000 shares of VaxGen stock.

In 2003, Nowinski was hit with another lawsuit. This one claimed he had
raided a trust fund he had set up for his three children, ages 15, 14
and 11. He admitted in a deposition to "borrowing" from the fund, which
contained $500,000 worth of biotech stock, and selling it, court
documents state.

"At no time since taking this 'loan' have the funds ever been repaid,
although Mr. Nowinski testified that he has been in possession of funds
in excess of several million dollars in the intervening period," a
guardian appointed to safeguard the children's financial interests
wrote in a report to the court.

A judgment of $1.2 million was entered against him in connection with
the trust-fund case. He told the guardian that before the divorce, he
had "$20 million" and "now I have nothing."

Nowinski, who is on pretrial release, couldn't be reached to comment
for this story. His defense lawyer in New York declined to comment.

About the time of Connie Nowinski's lawsuit, Robert Nowinski left
Washington abruptly without telling the family, essentially
disappearing for several months, the guardian's report said. It turned
out he had moved to New York and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. As
part of the bankruptcy, his fine-art collection - which included
works by Picasso and Matisse, among other noted artists - was
liquidated.

This fall, Nowinski told The Seattle Times he had been trying to broker
a billion-dollar deal with a local biotech company on behalf of some
major investors. He said he had designs on taking over the company as
well.

The old Nowinski, the media-savvy deal-maker, appeared to be back.

But in October, he was accused of failing to make his $5,300-a-month
child-support payments. According to the charging documents, Nowinski
stopped paying in 2003, about the time his ex-wife remarried.

By August 2005, he was nearly $125,000 in arrears. And yet "From
(Connie Nowinski's) observations, he never seems to have a lack of
money," the investigating agent, Michael Nichols, wrote.

Jeff Sullivan, chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's
Office, said federal prosecutors here file only about a half-dozen
child-support cases a year, and then only when there's a good chance of
collecting.

He noted that while Nowinski could face jail time if convicted, their
foremost concern is getting the delinquent child support.

Seattle Times staff reporters Christopher Schwarzen and Ben Romano and
news researcher Miyoko Wolf contributed to this report.

Maureen O'Hagan: 206-464-2562 or

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of biotech's early superstars accused of being a "deadbeat dad"

Here's the deal LLL.

After a high profile divorce the money transfers go in at least four
directions - CS, SS, attorney fees, and the property settlement. You should
note the ex-wife is not claiming any shortages in SS, attorney fees, or the
property settlement. All of her allegations are regarding not making CS
payments.

Most states have laws that stipulate the first money paid is applied to CS
and subsequent money is applied to the other [payment categories of SS,
attorney fees, and property settlement.

It is a common ploy for divorced mothers to claim all the SS, attorney fees,
and property settlement items have been satisfied, but CS payments remain.
This tactic allows the women to use CS collection laws and enforcement
tactics to collect the amount of money really owed for SS, attorney fees, or
the property settlement.

Art work, stock assets, and the other allegations fall outside the original
pre-nup so this woman's arguments are moot UNLESS she can get a court to
rule the payment shortfall is CHILD SUPPORT. To do this she will have to
get a judge to rule the shortfall is CS and not a payment in some other
decree related payment category.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of biotech's early superstars accused of being a "deadbeat dad"

Here's the deal LLL.

After a high profile divorce the money transfers go in at least four
directions - CS, SS, attorney fees, and the property settlement. You
should
note the ex-wife is not claiming any shortages in SS, attorney fees, or
the
property settlement. All of her allegations are regarding not making CS
payments.

Most states have laws that stipulate the first money paid is applied to CS
and subsequent money is applied to the other [payment categories of SS,
attorney fees, and property settlement.

It is a common ploy for divorced mothers to claim all the SS, attorney
fees,
and property settlement items have been satisfied, but CS payments remain.
This tactic allows the women to use CS collection laws and enforcement
tactics to collect the amount of money really owed for SS, attorney fees,
or
the property settlement.

Art work, stock assets, and the other allegations fall outside the
original
pre-nup so this woman's arguments are moot UNLESS she can get a court to
rule the payment shortfall is CHILD SUPPORT. To do this she will have to
get a judge to rule the shortfall is CS and not a payment in some other
decree related payment category.

The only thing I would add to Bob's observations is that it is also a common
ploy to lump NON-C$ amounts together, and with the stroke of a pen, a judge
can make them become C$ debt instantly. So beware of this ploy!! My X's
attorney did it to me and a $900 C$ arrears instantly became a $9000 C$
arrears!! So watch out!!

So, when in front of ANY judge, make the amounts in question so absolutely
clearly defined as to what they are that even a 4 year old can understand
it!

And if it gets right down to it, there's always Bankruptcy Court to handle
all the NON-C$ monies involved.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of biotech's early superstars accused of being a "deadbeat dad"

Here's the deal LLL.

After a high profile divorce the money transfers go in at least four
directions - CS, SS, attorney fees, and the property settlement. You
should
note the ex-wife is not claiming any shortages in SS, attorney fees, or
the
property settlement. All of her allegations are regarding not making
CS
payments.

Most states have laws that stipulate the first money paid is applied to
CS
and subsequent money is applied to the other [payment categories of SS,
attorney fees, and property settlement.

It is a common ploy for divorced mothers to claim all the SS, attorney
fees,
and property settlement items have been satisfied, but CS payments
remain.
This tactic allows the women to use CS collection laws and enforcement
tactics to collect the amount of money really owed for SS, attorney
fees,
or
the property settlement.

Art work, stock assets, and the other allegations fall outside the
original
pre-nup so this woman's arguments are moot UNLESS she can get a court to
rule the payment shortfall is CHILD SUPPORT. To do this she will have
to
get a judge to rule the shortfall is CS and not a payment in some other
decree related payment category.

The only thing I would add to Bob's observations is that it is also a
common
ploy to lump NON-C$ amounts together, and with the stroke of a pen, a
judge
can make them become C$ debt instantly. So beware of this ploy!! My X's
attorney did it to me and a $900 C$ arrears instantly became a $9000 C$
arrears!! So watch out!!

So, when in front of ANY judge, make the amounts in question so absolutely
clearly defined as to what they are that even a 4 year old can understand
it!

And if it gets right down to it, there's always Bankruptcy Court to handle
all the NON-C$ monies involved.

I got so frustrated with this game I darn near ended up in jail. Either the
judge was stupid or he just didn't care about what was going on. I finally
told him there was no way I could defend myself against all the allegations
if he allowed my ex to change her allegations on the fly. And he was not
happy when I told him in front of a large group of backed-up cases that he
was moving the goal posts so often I could never defend myself.

The problem is the shell game where money due and money paid moves back and
forth between columns. Here's how it worked in my case:

At the first hearing I was current on CS but owed some attorney fees. My ex
claimed the money not paid was a CS arrearage. The judge ruled the payment
shortfall was CS and issued a CS arrearage order. That allowed the CS
enforcement mechanisms to kick-in.

At the second hearing I had paid the lump sum arrearage of CS from the first
hearing. My ex claimed I owed her CS and the lump sum I paid was for
attorney fees and not CS. The judge moved the CS payment to an artificial
date behind the prior order, without ruling whether it was actually CS or an
attorney fee payment, so I could not count it as a current CS payment.

At a third hearing I tried to show all the maneuvering of money due and
money applied between columns had caused me to overpay my total
CS/SS/attorney fee obligations by $13,000 and I wanted a refund for the
overpayments. The judge refused to look at my payment records using the
judicial logic said I had already had my day in court on those issues and I
couldn't re-litigate them. I was ordered to pay additional attorney fees
for trying to bring the issue to the court.

These stories are all so compelling are you sure that is what happened
to this guy. Especially as he clearly had high powered attorneys to
help him?

"LLL" wrote in message
ups.com...
These stories are all so compelling are you sure that is what happened
to this guy. Especially as he clearly had high powered attorneys to
help him?

No, the stories are what happened to hard working, "run of the mill" guys.
We had the balls to try to get ahead and try to pay off kourt ordered
extortion. And the system failed us. Then they screwed us for trying to
make a difference in our children's lives.

If there was a thing called "justice", then it's long gone and forgotten by
our "family court" system.

I'm just biding my time, waiting for the revolution to start....

"LLL" wrote in news:1134621107.714994.317510
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

One of biotech's early superstars accused of being a "deadbeat dad"


Robert Nowinski said to owe almost $125,000


At one time, he was a high-flying CEO whose companies promised help
for
cancer patients. He had a Picasso hanging in his Edmonds home and
owned
one of Seattle's swankiest art galleries.
[snip]

He noted that while Nowinski could face jail time if convicted, their
foremost concern is getting the delinquent child support.




You know... I do feel sorry for him. It appears he has an ex with the
typical "axe to grind".

This guy was an investor, a risk taker, a businessman and so on. The ex-
wife had no issue with the lifestyle when things were good. Now, when
things are bad, it is the standard take, take, take. Of course, the
difference is she is divorced from him. If they were together, they
would suffer and get through it together. But she is divorced. Her
lifestyle is frozen in time. He already gave her millions, a large
amount of support. But it looks like support was not stopped when he hit
the skids. And the support was given to help her, an amount they settled
on, under certain asumptions... now she remarried and still wants more
and more. I know they are his kids, but they came up with an agreement
under certain terms, and now she changed those terms (remarriage, more
stock options, lawsuit). Yet she still wants the original agreements and
more, all when the guy makes less!

I love this line: "From (Connie Nowinski's) observations, he never seems
to have a lack of money," Lets hang the Guy! The ex "observed" and
"thinks" he has money. Yup. He should be burned at the cross. Yet this
stuff drives cases all the time. And they win since the guy must be a
*******.

I've seen it so many times before and live that life every day. My ex
had suspicions about money all the time. Takes me back to court at the
drop of a hat. Yet her laywer and the judges have never found anything
to be not consistent with all information I have provided. Not
surprisingly, the judges never scold the ex. They just encourage her
behaviour. Back again and again. For this and for that. I am waiting
for the day some judge says "I'm increasing your support payment by $500
per month just because I don't like you". Honestly, that type of ruling
would not even phase me anymore.

Whether the guys makes 10,000 or 10 million, it all the same bull****. I
hope the guy takes off to some country, makes a billion dollars and
screws them all over.

Oh, and about the kids. Yup, I too notice how no one talks about THE
KIDS.

H.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of biotech's early superstars accused of being a "deadbeat dad"

Here's the deal LLL.

After a high profile divorce the money transfers go in at least four
directions - CS, SS, attorney fees, and the property settlement. You
should
note the ex-wife is not claiming any shortages in SS, attorney fees,
or
the
property settlement. All of her allegations are regarding not making
CS
payments.

Most states have laws that stipulate the first money paid is applied
to
CS
and subsequent money is applied to the other [payment categories of
SS,
attorney fees, and property settlement.

It is a common ploy for divorced mothers to claim all the SS, attorney
fees,
and property settlement items have been satisfied, but CS payments
remain.
This tactic allows the women to use CS collection laws and enforcement
tactics to collect the amount of money really owed for SS, attorney
fees,
or
the property settlement.

Art work, stock assets, and the other allegations fall outside the
original
pre-nup so this woman's arguments are moot UNLESS she can get a court
to
rule the payment shortfall is CHILD SUPPORT. To do this she will have
to
get a judge to rule the shortfall is CS and not a payment in some
other
decree related payment category.

The only thing I would add to Bob's observations is that it is also a
common
ploy to lump NON-C$ amounts together, and with the stroke of a pen, a
judge
can make them become C$ debt instantly. So beware of this ploy!! My
X's
attorney did it to me and a $900 C$ arrears instantly became a $9000 C$
arrears!! So watch out!!

So, when in front of ANY judge, make the amounts in question so
absolutely
clearly defined as to what they are that even a 4 year old can
understand
it!

And if it gets right down to it, there's always Bankruptcy Court to
handle
all the NON-C$ monies involved.

I got so frustrated with this game I darn near ended up in jail. Either
the
judge was stupid or he just didn't care about what was going on. I
finally
told him there was no way I could defend myself against all the
allegations
if he allowed my ex to change her allegations on the fly. And he was not
happy when I told him in front of a large group of backed-up cases that he
was moving the goal posts so often I could never defend myself.

I just read in the newspaper this judge had a heart attack and died at the
airport a few hours after I wrote this. His obituary made it sound like he
was a wonderful judge who specialized in family law because he believed so
strongly in families.

I will never understand the thinking behind praising people who break-up
families and force arbitrary rulings on fathers as being pro-family.

Of course, all the favorable comments came from judicial insiders like the
county DA and fellow judges, not attorneys or the people like me who had
their lives impacted by his arrogant decisions.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

Of course, all the favorable comments came from judicial insiders like the
county DA and fellow judges, not attorneys or the people like me who had
their lives impacted by his arrogant decisions.

Yes, too often it becomes all about their career and has nothing to do with
solving real life problems for people!

"DB" wrote in message
om...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

Of course, all the favorable comments came from judicial insiders like
the
county DA and fellow judges, not attorneys or the people like me who had
their lives impacted by his arrogant decisions.

Yes, too often it becomes all about their career and has nothing to do
with solving real life problems for people!

Where on Earth did you get the idea that anyone goes to law school, gets
their degree, passes the bar exam and goes on to practice law because they
want to '[solve] real life problems for people"? Like any other profession,
they do it because they have an interest in the law (not necessarily in
people, but in the law), and because they can earn a living that way.