Upload
nanci-meek
View
116
Download
7
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Our response to stepmother Elizabeth Asanuma Meek petition to have her removed as trustee and Arkansas judgment she caused against the estate
Citation preview
Trustee of the Elvin R Meek Family Trust Dated 1996 Filed August 14,
2009 for the following reasons:
I. BACKGROUND
The objections to Elizabeth’s misreprentation of the trust
intentions have been previously described in our Petition
Declaring the 1st Amendment to be Invalid (filed August 14,
2009) and Answers thereto filed November 12, 2009).
II. ARGUMENT
In her answers to our Petition Elizabeth Meek sets forth her
reasons for denying our Petition for her removal and we will
address those arguments accordingly:
A. Elizabeth and Her Attorney Have Been
Noncommunicative During the Last Five Years of
Litigation
These arguments have been previously addressed in our
Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the
1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)
B. Wes Stewart’s Hearsay Letter and Affidavit
These arguments have been previously addressed in our
Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the
1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009) Elizabeth’s
claims that the Affidavit prepared by Attorney Richard Diehl and
signed by Wes Stewart are false and baseless. The Affidavit
1
notarized and signed has been submitted to the court several
times.
C. Nanci’s April 2002 Meeting with Elvin Meek
These arguments have been previously addressed in our
Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the
1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009). Elizabeth was
present at that time and was well aware of the pending
dissolution of the relationship between my father and herself.
Any claims otherwise are baseless and without merit and merely
a vehicle for Elizabeth Meek to justify her actions isolating our
father from his friends and family. As confirmed by the
Accounting prepared by East West Wealth Management
Elizabeth Meek withdrew $182,000 from a joint account held by
herself and my father on the morning before he passed away,
October 19, 2003. Her phone records show she contacted
several of her friends and family on this date, however did not
contact anyone in our family including my father’s brothers in
California, myself, Elvin’s son Melvin, nor his granddaughter
Nicole Kusley.
D. Arguments in Nanci’s Petition for Declatory Relief
1. Physical appearance of the First Amendment
We stand by our suspicions regarding the First Amendment
based on recent forensics and Elizabeth Meek’s own admission
that the 1st Amendment signed in California does not bear her
2
signature. According to Reed Hayes, the forensics expert with
whom we consulted, unaligned paragraphs, contrasting fonts etc
is a legitimate basis to invalidate a document and thus basis to
remove Elizabeth as Trustee.
2. Nanci admits that Elvin Meek executed a document on
September 16, 1997
As presented to the court by my own admission, I spoke with
notary Susan Strong and obtained a copy of her notary book
showing an entry reading simply “customers of Heidi Trust
document” dated September 16, 1997. The pages introduced
by Attorney Robert Jones, the same attorney who by his own
admission and contradicing his 2005 Affidavit stated he made an
“erroneous Assumption” regarding what we have proven
through forensics to be a fraudulent signing of the Amendment
in California. The pages on both 1st Amendments are not
numbered and the 21 pages are out of alignment with each
other, leading us to conclude that both the 1st Amendment
signed in California as well as the document supposedly signed
in Hawaii are not the operative document. We are of the opinion
there was a 1st Amendment however it is not the same document
introduced to the court by Attorney Robert Jones.
3. Eliabeth and Bank of Hawaii as trustees
We stand by our original argument that our father would not
have appointed the Bank of Hawaii as co-trustee only 1 and a
3
half years after executing his original 1996 trust. Our father
being an attorney and responsible for executing the documents
of others, was fully aware that Elizabeth after living in the United
States for over 23 years was not an American Citizen. Having
been an accountant before becoming an attorney, my father was
well aware of the tax consequences involved and the need to
appoint as co-trustee a United States Citizen to assist Elizabeth
in dissolving properties. However, both my brother and myself
are United States citizens. Therefore it is inconceivable he would
have enlisted a financial institution to briefly act as trustee as
was the case with the Bank of Hawaii. The Bank of Hawaii
accepted appointment as trustee of the Exemption Trust and the
Qualified Domestic Trust at the request of Attorney Robert
Grigger Jones. Given the background and many allegations of
fraud currently tied to Attorney Robert Grigger Jones it is our
contention that Attorney Jones crafted the 1st Amendment as he
has introduced it to the court after our father’s death in an effort
to support his intentions.
4. The 1996 Trust Agreement does not mention QDOT
Trust
I apologize for my error. The 1st Amendment as drafted by
Attorney Robert Grigger Jones mentions the QTIP and not the
QDOT Trust. Attorney Robert Grigger Jones set into motion
litigation in the California courts in September of 2004 to
4
establish the QDOT Trust. I recognize as will the court the
similarities to the QDOT and QTIP provisions within a trust
designed to eliminate tax consequences.
5. The California “probate”
Attorney Robert Jones did in fact file a probate proceeding in San
Bernardino, California while attempting to sell the properties in
Rialto, California and we believe in anticipation of selling the
properties in Big Bear, Crestline and Hesperia, California.
Attorney Jones also opened a probate in Arkansas preparing to
sell the property which rendered a judgment against the estate
(see Exhibit “A”) as outlined in the Affidavit of Russel Nowell,
who has been and is currently acting as the legal instrument for
the Havens estate. Attorney Robert Jones is only licensed to
practice law in California. While Elvin Meek passed away in
Hawaii and had been a resident of Hawaii since 1996 we suspect
attorney Robert Jones proceedings in the California courts are
suspicious and self serving. Also Robert Jones was fully aware
that Elizabeth Meek began immigration proceedings with
Attorney Jim Stanton which would enable her to obtain United
States citizenship prior to Robert Jones filing the QDOT provision
motions in California. It should be noted the law firm of Clay
Chapman was hired by myself after the litigation was moved
from California to Hawaii in September of 2005. Clay Chapman
were partners with Attorney Jim Stanton and 8 months after
5
filing our civil complaint the conflict of interest was revealed and
thus Clay Chapman had to withdraw as my representation.
6. The sale of California properties
As to Elizabeth’s arguments that the properties were sold
without informing myself or my brother are false and baseless.
Attorney Jones has never contacted myself or my brother
regarding the sales of any or the properties listed in our father’s
estate. Furthermore, Attorney Robert Jones initiated contact with
the City of Rialto as far back as September of 2004 as is
evidenced in the minutes of the City of Rialto council meeting
previously submitted to the court. The property was sold
undervalue and property comparatives already submitted to the
court have already proved the property in Rialto, the property in
Hesperia as well as the property at the Waipuna were sold
undervalue. This issue has been raised in the past and is
documented. Attorney Robert Jones and Elizabeth Meek have
been determined to have the estate remain undervalue in an
effort to avoid paying taxes on the estate. The Respondent and
her attorneys have maintained value of the estate to be
between $2.7 and $2.8 million plus the $1 million Exemption
trust which they assert at times has already been funded and at
times admit the $1 million Exemption trust was never funded. It
is this inconsistency which again leads us to believe Elizabeth
6
Meek’s has not been forthright and honest in administering the
estate.
7. Inconsistencies in amendments
As to the Inconsistencies in the amendments addressed, we
would have to argue that Elizabeth Meek while acting as trustee
had a responsibility to be truthful and forthright with respect to
the validity of the 1st and 2nd amendments, by isolating family
members, assisting our father who was proven by medical
forensics expert Suzanne Kelb, Phd. to have been 100 %
incapacitated during the signing of the 2nd Amendment and the
pour over Will, with full knowledge of his terminal and weakened
condition. and by colluding with Attorney Robert Grigger Jones,
not admitting the 1st Amendments were false and fraudulent
documents until after we had the documents scrutinized by
Reed Hayes, a qualified document forensics expert is enough to
have her removed as trustee of the estate.
8. Elizabeth is not sufficiently communicative
This argument has been addressed in the Response to
Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the 1st
Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)
9. Robert Jones is not sufficiently communicative
This argument has been addressed in the Response to
Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the 1st
Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)
7
10. Letter and affidavit of Wesley Stewart
This argument has been addressed in the Response to
Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the 1st
Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)
11. Nanci’s April 2002 meeting with Elvin Meek
This argument has been addressed several times, most recently
in the Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition
Declaring the 1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009).
Elizabeth was present at that meeting/dinner in San Bernardino,
California.
III. CONCLUSION
The arguments included in Elizabeth Meek’s Response to our Petition
for Removal of Elizabeth Meek as trustee are baseless, false and self-
motivated. We argue that the facts presented before the court support
our petition to remove Elizabeth Meek as current trustee of the Elvin R
Meek 1996 Trust. We vehemently deny her assertion that we stated
we would withdraw any further efforts to contest the matter if the
document is produced. We stated we would deny any further claims if
the 1st Amendment were validated. It was not. Quite to the contrary, it
was in fact proven to be false, a fraud and Elizabeth Meek herself
asserts and agrees the signatures on the amendment signed in
California are not hers. This only leads us to question the pages
preceding the signature page from the 1st Amendment signed in
Hawaii.
8
Therefore we pray the court will do the following:
1. Remove Elizabeth Meek as current Trustee.
2. Re-Appoint Nanci L. Meek-Kusley, who was named trustee in
the original Elvin R Meek Family Trust executived June 14,
1996 , as acting trustee as set forth on page 9 Article V which
reads as follows:
5.1 Death of Trustee: In the event that the initial trustee, ELVIN R. MEEK, fails to qualify or ceases to act as a trustee, as a result of death, resignation or inability to act as trustee, then the following will act as trustees in the following order as the following property in the succession stated:NANCY LORRAINE MEEK KUSLEY as Trustee. In the event that NANCY LORRAINE MEEK KUSLEY fails to qualify or ceases to act as trustee as a result of death, resignation or inability to act as trustee, then MELVIN RAY MEEK shall act as Trustee for the purposes of administering this Trust.
3. The court acknowledge the original Elvin R Meek Family Trust
executed on June 14, 1996 as the operable and valid
instrument and allow the estate to be dissolved and
distribution to be completed as set forth on page 4 which
reads as follows:
3.02.2 Distribution of Trust Estate On the death of the Trustor, after payments made pursuant to paragraph 3.02.01 above, the successor trustee(s) shall distribute the trust estate free of trust as follows:
One share equaling 1/3 of the trust estate to NANCY LORRAINE MEEK-KUSLEY, or her issue. One Share equaling 1/3 of the trust estate to MELVIN RAY MEEK, or to his issue. One half share equaling 1/6 of the trust estate to ELIZABETH A. MEEK, or her issue. One half share equaling 1/6 of the trust estate to LOLA DEE MEEK, or her issue.
9
4. The judgment entered in Arkansas against the estate for the
wrongful sale of property by Elizabeth Meek and Attorney
Robert Grigger Jones owned by the Havens family be paid by
Elizabeth Meek and Robert Grigger Jones respectively and
independently of the trust.
5. The court order Elizabeth Meek to reimburse to the trust
monies already paid to attorneys for the Bank of Hawaii in
Hawaii (Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn and Stiffel) as well as
attorney Jane Peebles who represented the Bank of Hawaii in
California during the IRS tax audit of the estate.
6. Reimburse Nanci Meek for costs incurred as and for attorney
fees, travel expenses, and costs during the last 5 years in the
amount of $58,783.27.
DATED: November 12, 2009, Honolulu Hawaii
Nanci Meek Petitioner
Self Represented
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
IN THE MATTER OF ) T. No. 05-1-0101 )
THE ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY TRUST ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE )
10
DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED )_______________________________ )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the RESPONSE TO ELIZABETH MEEK’S MOST RECENT RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF ELIZABETH MEEK AS TRUSTEE OF ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST DATED 1996 FILED AUGUST 14, 2009 RE-APPOINTMENT OF NANCI MEEK,ORIGINAL TRUSTEE OF 1996 TRUST; EXHIBITS A-C and attachments was duly served again upon the following individuals by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows: (All parties were served from Hawaii via e mail on November 12, 2009)
LOLA DEE MEEK (REKLAI) BY MAIL and previous E mail
P.O. Box 7042Koror, Palau 96940
Lola@ palaunet.com
MELVIN RAY MEEK BY MAIL and previous E mail
1633 E Chaparral Drive Casa Grande AZ [email protected]
Robert M Jones Esq BY MAIL and previous E mail
8655 Morro Road Suite CAtascadero CA 93422Attorney for ELIZABETH A MEEK in [email protected]
DATED: Las Vegas, Nevada November 16, 2009
Nanci L Meek, in pro se
11