You are on page 1of 25

Of Counsel: In pro se NANCI MEEK 3308 Ariba St Las Vegas NV 89129 Telephone: (760) 413-5660 Petitioner in Pro

Se IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII THE MATTER OF ) THE ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996 HEARING AS AMENDED 2010, ) ) ) __________________________________) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On July 8, 2010 and July 9, 2010 the Circuit Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii an evidentiary hearing was held before Honorable Judge Derrick Chan with respect to the Amendment To Petition For Declatory Relief Declaring the 1st Amendment Invalid, filed on August 14, 2009. As instructed by Honorable Judge Derrick Chan, the following are the Petitioner’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Elizabeth Meek testified she observed Elvin Meek, in April of 2002 in the parking lot of the El Torito Restaurant in San Bernardino, California, entrusting to Petitioner, aka decedent’s daughter, Nanci Meek, a copy of the original Elvin R ) T. No. 05-1-0101 FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; ) RE: EVIDENTIARY OF JULY 8 AND JULY 9, HONORABLE JUDGE DERRICK CHAN PRESIDING;

)

1

Meek 1996 Trust Agreement not including the questionable 1997 1st Amendment. Elizabeth Meek’s testimony confirms the Petitioner’s allegations as set forth in the Amended Petition for Declatory Relief filed August 14, 2009 that the aforementioned 1997 1st Amendment as presented to the court by Elizabeth Meek and Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones has been altered and lends credibility to the allegation that the true 1st Amendment consisted of only a few pages. 2. During testimony provided by decedent’s son, Melvin Meek, he stated he believes the 1st Amendment (Respondent’s Exhibit “1”) did not exist at the time of the decedent’s death on October 19, 2003. Melvin Meek confirmed he was in attendance at the El Torito Restaurant in San Bernardino in April of 2002 when the decedent handed to Petitioner and original Trustee, Nanci Meek, a copy of the original Elvin R Meek 1996 Trust agreement in April of 2002 without any amendments, however he did not witness the exchange but was told of it later. 3. Melvin Meek further testified that during a conversation he had with his father sometime in 2001, Elvin Meek indicated he was upset having recently discovered that Respondent Elizabeth Meek had sent $5000 to her daughter Lola Dee Reklai-Meek without his knowledge and had lied to Elvin about the transaction. It was during this time according to Melvin Meek the decedent told him that Elvin and Elizabeth were “not getting along” and during a trip to Palau in 2000 Elvin Meek was going to leave Elizabeth in Palau and return to the states. 4. Melvin Meek testified upon receipt of a letter from Attorney Robert Jones dated August 2, 2004, Melvin made several requests through telephone conversations with Attorney Jones and his secretary Colleen Alexander requesting a copy of the 1st Amendment. Melvin further stated that only after several months transpired did Attorney Jones provide a copy of the 1st Amendment.

2

5. Melvin Meek testified that he was concerned with the uncaring manner in which Elizabeth Meek had not contacted him or any of the decedent’s family and friends to inform him of his father’s terminal condition. Melvin referred to a telephone call he placed to Elizabeth’s Meek’s cellular phone inquiring about his father’s condition on October 13th of 2003. Melvin stated Elizabeth advised, “Elvin is an adult and can call you himself.” During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she verified and confirmed this conversation. However, during her deposition taken on May 28, 2010 on page 61 she states she does not recall Melvin calling her on her cell phone. SBC Long Distance Phone records reflecting Melvin’s home telephone account and previously filed with the court confirm Melvin did contact Elizabeth on her cell phone on October 13, 2003. It was shortly thereafter Melvin was informed by hospital staff at Straub hospital that Elvin Meek was in and out of consciousness and likely unable to make phone calls as Elizabeth had suggested. 6. During Melvin Meek’s testimony he spoke of a conversation he had with his father, Elvin Meek during the time the decedent had signed his 2nd Amendment and the Last Will and Testament on or around September 20, 2003. Melvin indicated Elvin Meek sounded “drunk”. At the same time Melvin also stated Elvin admitted he was having trouble hearing. Melvin stated Elvin asked him to send him an e mail since his hearing was weakened. 7. During testimony of Melvin Meek he confirmed a meeting he had with another Palauan woman, Rose Tsuneo, who confided in Melvin a short time after Elvin Meek passed away that she had concerns with the manner in which Elizabeth was talking to others about Elvin’s Trust and pending events. Melvin indicated this meeting made him uneasy however he was confident that 3

he shouldn’t be concerned because his sister Nanci Meek previously had been given a copy of the original The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. Melvin stated he was confident his father, Elvin Meek, an attorney himself, had his affairs in order. 8. Melvin Meek testified regarding a conversation he had with someone from the Bank of Hawaii wherein he states he told the representative from the bank that Melvin was of the opinion the 1st Amendment was not accurate and had been fabricated after Elvin Meek had passed away. 9. Melvin Meek testified regarding his concerns over signatures on a Christmas Greeting card received from Elizabeth Meek, her daughter Lola and granddaughter Ruthie postmarked December 2, 2003. This card was received by Melvin Meek after Elvin Meek passed away with handwriting identical to his father’s. While Melvin Meek is not a handwriting expert he is the decedent’s son and comparing the signatures on the documents in question and the greeting cards composed after the decedent passed away logic will conclude Elizabeth Meek was skilled at mimicking the decedent’s handwriting. It should be noted a copy of the card and envelope were submitted as Petitioner Exhibit #H into evidence, objected by opposing counsel and sustained by Judge Derrick Chan. 10. During Jones’ testimony Petitioner introduced a copy of a letter (Received by the Court as Petitioner Exhibit “30”) executed by Robert Jones and dated September 17, 2003. During testimony Jones confirmed the letter accompanied the Last Will and Testament and 2nd Amendment for signature by Elvin Meek. This is suspect because the letter makes a request for the signed 1st Amendment indicating at the time Jones did not possess a copy of the signed 1st Amendment. This letter is 4

suspect in that this is the first time it has been presented to Petitioner for review. Given the history of the questionable 1st Amendments, the letter with the word italicized word “signed” speaks for itself. It should be noted Elvin Meek was readmitted to Straub hospital on September 16, 2003 for dehydration and complications from cirrhosis of the liver. According to Mr. Jones’ testimony supported by telephone records, it was on September 15, 2003 that Mr. Jones had a telephone conversation with someone at the Meek dwelling. 11. During testimony of Attorney Robert Jones an Affidavit identified as Exhibit #B was submitted into evidence for identification by the Court. It was objected by attorneys for Respondent and sustained. Mr. Jones’ Affidavit prepared by attorneys for Bank of Hawaii and executed on November 10, 2005, in which Robert Jones alleges the 1st Amendment was signed in California on September 19, 1997. A copy of the aforementioned 1st Amendment was presented during the Evidentiary Hearing to Mr. Jones for review. Mr. Jones admitted it was his signature and the notary signature was that of his secretary, Colleen Alexander. However Jones stated he could not recall executing the Affidavit. Further Mr. Jones admitted he wasn’t sure who had prepared the Affidavit. Mr. Jones was asked to review the heading on the Affidavit filed with the court on November 16, 2005 and was reminded Goodsill Anderson Quinn and Stifel former attorneys for the Bank of Hawaii had prepared the document. Mr. Jones further stated he did not recall executing the Affidavit. Based on Mr. Jones’ inability to accurately recall the Affidavit or the signing of it, but at the same time recognize his signature is suspect. One would expect a successful, skilled and seasoned practicing attorney would recall such a critical document and its content. 5

Reiterating, the Affidavit states the 1st Amendment was executed in Hawaii by the Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek and again by Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek three days later in California in the presence of Robert Jones. 12. During Testimony of Attorney Robert Jones, Petitioner requested to admit into evidence Petitioner’s Exhibit “D” which is the Declaration of Partial Revocation of Trust executed by the decedent on June 14, 1996 and witnessed by Attorney Robert Jones. This Exhibit outlines the Real Property and Personal Property included within the Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust. The document also removes Lola Dee Meek as the successor trustee. This document directly contradicts the testimony provided by Robert Jones wherein Attorney Jones states Elvin spoke often and fondly of Lola Meek, and was proud of her academic achievements. 13. During testimony of Attorney Robert Jones Petitioner requested to admit into evidence Petitioner’s Exhibit “X”, a letter dated September 8, 2004 addressed to Nanci Meek and Melvin Meek from Attorney Jones wherein he states “for a variety of reasons, Elizabeth has chosen not to correspond with you at this time.” When questioned about this letter Attorney Robert Jones stated during his testimony the reason Elizabeth chose not to communicate with Nanci Meek and Melvin Meek due to Nanci Meek having Elizabeth Meek’s “telephone service shut off.” Upon hearing this inaccurate and false statement, the Petitioner immediately responded that such an event did not occur. Common sense would dictate one could not terminate phone services or other utilities billed to another. During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she stated that she had Robert Jones write the letter because Nanci Meek had left several “nasty messages” on her answering machine. When 6

asked if Elizabeth could recall the nature of the messages, Elizabeth could not respond. Upon hearing this Nanci Meek denied leaving any messages which would be construed as harassment. It should be noted that Melvin Meek stated during his testimony that he had never had cross words with Elizabeth and couldn’t understand why he would receive the referenced letter. Also it should be noted that Elizabeth’s biological daughter Lola Meek was not included in the aforementioned letter. 14. During Mr. Jones’ testimony he admitted to a long term business relationship with Mr. Kelly Gearhart, a land developer. The Petitioner was informed in 2009 by Dieter Wilkomm, a field agent with the Santa Maria Federal Bureau of Investigation that both men are currently under investigation by the FBI with respect to a $400 million ponzi land development scheme. At that time Mr. Wilkomm requested Petitioner provide documents related to this litigation. During testimony Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones stated both he and Kelly Gearhart had in the past been involved with several business transactions including a corporation entitled the Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC which he testified has since dissolved. Documentation submitted to the court a year earlier will support our findings that Attorney Robert Jones has been involved in questionable fraudulent real estate dealings involving Hurst Financial corporation, the Pe Ji Ho Ta Indian casino in Central California, Jay Miller and Associates with respect to charges of fraud, mismanagement of funds and assisting in the illegal transfer and hiding of assets as well as a pending judgment of $1.5 million. (US Bankruptcy Court Eastern Division Akron, Ohio Case #09-50469 Complaint Fraudulent Conveyance – Kelly Gearhart and Tamara Lowe

7

Debtors, Harold Corzin Plaintiff vs. Robert Grigger Jones, Daniel Phillips, Chris Molina, Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC, Defendants). 15. Testimony by Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones as to the validity of the 1st Amendment signed in California by his previous admission in the aforementioned Affidavit was vague. The 1st Amendment identified as Exhibit #B was submitted into evidence for identification by the Court. It was objected by Respondent’s counsel and sustained by the Court. During this same testimony Mr. Jones reviewed Exhibit #B of the 1st Amendment signed in California, comparing the pages to the 1st Amendment (admitted by the court as Respondent’s Exhibit #1) signed in Hawaii three days earlier as if Attorney Jones were reviewing it for the first time. When questioned as to his response when the 1st Amendment was presented to him by Detective Fred Pflum of the Atascadero Police department in 2009, Mr. Jones’ responded that he could not recall the document. It should be noted the San Luis Obispo District Attorney’s office is currently reviewing the pending criminal case against Robert Jones for fraud and forgery with respect to the referenced 1st Amendment allegedly executed in California. When asked by Petitioner why Robert Jones stated in his Affidavit that the decedent Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek were in his office in California three days after executing the same document in Hawaii his response was “I don’t understand the question.” This was a basic question requiring a basic answer of which Mr. Jones stated he did not understand, adding further doubt to the credibility of Robert “Grigger” Jones’ testimony. 16. During Attorney Robert Jones’ testimony he was questioned regarding a telephone conversation with Mr. Meek in the days prior to the drafting of the 2nd Amendment and the Last Will and Testament. Mr. Jones stated Elvin Meek was clear, 8

concise, and did not sound weak or incoherent despite medical records, doctor’s reports, a medical forensics report prepared by Suzanne Gelb and previously submitted to the court, indicating during the time the telephone conversation took place between Mr. Jones and Mr. Meek, that the decedent was in a weakened condition, subject to falls, informed of his terminal condition, and 100% incapacitated. However during his testimony Attorney Robert Jones indicated, professional medical opinion notwithstanding, Elvin Meek was concise and clear as to the manner in which he desired to modify and amend his Trust as well as executing an additional Last Will and Testament. However testimony by the decedent’s son, Melvin Meek indicated the decedent by his own admission was suffering from severe hearing loss. Further testimony by the Respondent Elizabeth Meek confirmed the decedent was utilizing two hearing aids in order to hear, however she could not recall if Mr. Meek was wearing the hearing aids during the previously mentioned conversation with Attorney Robert Jones. 17. During Attorney Robert Jones’ testimony Petitioner asked his opinion as to why Mr. Meek, an attorney himself who was responsible for scrutinizing legal documents would fail to see an error on the 2nd Amendment which clearly states the 2nd Amendment is amending the 1st Amendment executed on “September ___ 1999” Mr. Jones simply stated it was an oversight on his part and there is not a 1st Amendment executed on September __ 1999. It is difficult to accept that two skilled practicing attorneys could fail to see such a glaring error. Again this is yet another component along with the weakened signatures reflecting Mr. Meek’s deteriorating condition during the executing of the 2nd Amendment.

9

18.

Attorney Robert Jones further testified that in 1996 Elvin

Meek and Elizabeth Meek were having marital difficulties and as a result met with only the decedent, drafting and executing The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. Robert Jones indicated Elvin was alone during the execution of the Elvin R Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. When Elizabeth Meek was asked during her deposition if she recalled being present during the signing of the Elvin R Meek Family Trust dated 1996 she stated she was not and a upon further questioning stated she was in fact present. Leaving the unanswered question, was she or wasn’t she present. Mr. Jones admitted the Trust removed Elizabeth Meek as the Trustee as set forth in the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust with an Amendment drafted and executed in 1994 which removed Lola Meek as the surviving trustee. Mr. Jones further stated that less than 14 months after executing the original The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996, Elvin had turned his life around and wanted to provide for Elizabeth and her biological daughter Lola Meek. His testimony conflicts with the contents of an Affidavit executed by Attorney Jones on October 2, 2007 and submitted to the court wherein Jones states during his conversation with Elvin Meek on or about September 16, 2003 Elvin expressed he was very proud of Lola and that SHE had turned her life around. Attorney Jones was detailed during his testimony when speaking about how much Elvin Meek cared about his adopted daughter Lola, yet when asked about Mr. Meek’s relationship to his biological children Nanci Meek and Melvin Meek, Attorney Jones appeared evasive and testified that Elvin Meek rarely spoke of Melvin Meek and Nanci Meek. When asked about Elvin’s granddaughter Nicole Kusley, Attorney Jones indicated he couldn’t recall Elvin speaking about Nicole Kusley either. 10 1 0

This is in direct conflict with the testimony provided by Nanci Meek who indicated she was very close with her father. She also indicated Elvin Meek was very fond of his granddaughter Nicole Kusley and found it peculiar that Elvin would not speak of her. Nanci further stated she couldn’t understand if the 1997 1st Amendment had existed prior to her father’s passing, why her father would entrust to her a copy of the original The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 in April of 2002 without the supposed 1st Amendment. Nanci Meek further testified that she does not argue a 1st Amendment exists, however she is of the opinion it is only a few pages much like the Amendment prepared in 1994 and not the 21 unnumbered pages the Respondent and Attorney Robert Jones allege is the true and operative document. 19. Attorney Robert Jones who is not licensed to practice in Hawaii opened the probate in California within five months after the decedent passed away in Honolulu Hawaii. Attorney Jones during his testimony stated his reason for opening the probate in California was to assist Elizabeth Meek to sell properties because at the time she was not an American Citizen, however when asked why he didn’t contact Elvin’s children and inform them of the pending sales of several properties Attorney Jones stated he was doing what his client wanted. 20. During his testimony Attorney Robert Jones was asked by Petitioner if he was aware that Lola Meek had in fact moved to Palau in 1999, married, had a child and went to work for her biological father Senator Johnny Reklai. Mr. Jones stated he was not aware of this. This is in direct conflict with the assertion by Mr. Jones that he and Elvin Meek maintained a close friendship. If that were true and Mr. Jones was as close to Elvin Meek as he alleges, logical reasoning would dictate that Mr. Jones would 11 1 1

have known that Lola had moved to Palau. That coupled with Elizabeth Meek stating in her deposition that she could not recall the name of Mr. Jones’ wife downing the relationship that Jones’ alleges existed. 21. Testimony by Robert “Grigger” Jones appeared vague and uncertain with his responses when questioned by Petitioner, however when questioned by Respondent’s attorney James Ashford , Mr. Jones appeared to have total recall providing certain and determined responses 22. During his testimony, Attorney Robert Jones was questioned as to the purpose of the Certification of Trust of the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust. Mr. Jones confirmed the Certification of Trust was drafted by his office and executed by the Respondent on February 20, 2004 in Hawaii four months after Elvin Meek passed away on October 19, 2003 (identified as Exhibit #C - submitted into evidence for identification by the court. opposing counsel objected and objection was sustained). Attorney Jones reviewed the Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust and denied having knowledge of the decedent’s Union Bankcal stocks admittedly valued at $646,000. However according to an Affidavit prepared and filed with the Court by the Bank of Hawaii on January 6, 2006 the purpose of the Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust was to assist Elizabeth Meek with dissolving any assets not included in The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. The Union Bankcal stocks are named as a part of The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 in the previous form of Bank of San Bernardino. It is our finding of fact that if the 1st Amendment as the Respondent is alleging existed in the form (unnumbered 21 pages) as submitted to the 12 1 2

court by Respondent, logic would conclude there would have been no use for a Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 trust and facts as presented prove that Attorney Robert Jones was not acting in accordance with the original wishes of Elvin Meek and exploited his advanced weakened condition as a result of alcohol abuse. (See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44) It should be noted The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 requests Nanci Meek-Kusley act as the trustee of the estate and therefore the Union Bankcal would not have authorized anyone but Nanci Meek-Kusley to cash out the stocks. As is reflected on page 66 – 70 of the May 28, 2010 deposition of Elizabeth Meek, Mrs. Meek had knowledge of the Union BankCal stocks, admitted Robert Jones created the Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 trust, cashed the check provided to her from the Union BankCal in the amount of $646,000 which was also made out to the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth A Meek Living Trust 1992. 23. During Attorney Jones testimony Petitioner’s Exhibit “U” was introduced and accepted. This document is an accounting prepared by Robert Jones and submitted to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court in May of 2005. Robert Jones acknowledged he had submitted this accounting which carefully valued the estate at $3.7 million with a stipulation of $1 million to be removed and placed in an Exemption Trust. The Marital, Survivors and Exemption Trusts were first introduced as part of the 1st Amendment drafted by Robert Jones. Logic may conclude that Robert Jones created the 1st Amendment as a means to control and contain the Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust to the benefit of certain parties to wit, Elizabeth Meek and Lola Meek.

13 1 3

24.

During testimony provided by Heidi Emery who identified

herself as a Customer relations representative for the Bank of Hawaii she stated she had met Elvin Meek during the late 80’s. Ms. Emery stated that on September 22, 2003, Elvin Meek was in the Bank of Hawaii and executed the 2nd Amendment in question. She further testified he appeared to be in good spirits, wanting to go to lunch with her, joking about “Viagra use” and not appearing to be in danger of falling. This contradicts the findings of fact included in the previously submitted medical forensics report prepared by Suzanne Gelb and filed with the Court several times. The aforementioned forensics report is based on the medical records and doctor reviews accumulated reflecting the period Elvin Meek was admitted and re-admitted to Straub hospital and St. Francis hospice care (8/27/03 through 10/19/03). Ms. Emery appeared to have been coached and her testimony further contradicted Elizabeth Meek’s testimony and deposition during which Mrs. Meek affirmed that Mr. Meek was utilizing a cane. Also Ms. Emery is believed to be a biased individual having stated she has known the Respondent, Elizabeth Asanuma Meek’s family for approximately 56 years and is herself a native of Palau, as is Elizabeth Meek. Heidi further indicated she was school mates with the Respondent’s sister Kei Kei Asanuma. Ms. Emery testified she socializes with Elizabeth Meek on a regular basis and has been close with her for several years. She further testified they have spent many holidays together. When questioned by Petitioner if she recalled seeing pictures of Nanci Meek or Melvin Meek within the decedent’s apartment she stated “No.” Ms. Emery appears to be biased and prejudiced her testimony should be excluded. 25. During the testimony of witness Ralph Shumway, manager at the Waipuna apartment building where the 14 1 4

decedent resided admitted to witnessing along with the recently deceased Ann Taylor, Elvin Meek signing a document. , however he was not sure of the document. The Attestation attached to the Last Will and Testament (submitted by Respondent and received by the Court as Exhibit “4 “) and signed by Ralph Shumway specifically states “He thereupon signed his Will in our presence, all of us being present at the same time.” This contradicts Mr. Shumway’s testimony stating he is not sure of the document he witnessed Mr. Meek executing. Mr. Shumway during his testimony could not recall if Mr. Meek appeared to be in a weakened state, could not recall if he was utilizing a cane, and did however testify he heard Mr. Meek had been having health issues. Mr. Shumway testified his relationship to both Elizabeth Meek and Elvin Meek was business and not social. Ralph Shumway’s testimony is speculative, contradictory and should be dismissed. 26. During testimony of witness Margo Corliss she stated she has been employed with Bank of Hawaii for over 20 years and on September 22, 2003 the day Mr. Meek was escorted to the Bank of Hawaii by Elizabeth Meek to execute the 2nd Amendment to his Trust that he appeared cognizant of his surroundings, alert, not bloated or appearing to be on any medications. This is in direct conflict with the medical assessment report prepared two days earlier by Mr. Meek’s attending physician Dr. Charles Zerez on September 20, 2003 the day Mr. Meek was discharged from Straub Hospital. The report states Mr. Meek was sleeping most of the time, was suffering from dehydration, had abdominal extension, anemia due to bleeding, suffering from Cirrhosis of the liver, chronic renal failure, recovering from a surgery performed a day before and was developing right sided conjunctivitis. The report also 15 1 5

mentions the doctor agreeing to his discharge on the condition Elvin Meek seek home hospice care. Further the 2nd page of the Patient Discharge instructions form signed by Elizabeth Meek on September 20, 2003 lists 18 discharge medications Mr. Meek was taking including: Fioricet with codeine, protonix, Proscar, MS Oxicontin, Reglan, Sodium Chloride, Flomax, Demeclocycline, Carafiate Liquid, Restoril, Synthroid, and Magnesium Oxide, and Aldactone. Ms. Corliss’s testimony was in direct conflict with Elizabeth’s deposition performed May 28, 2010 wherein Elizabeth Meek concurs Elvin was on over 18 different medications, on September 22, 2003, the day the document was signed at the Bank of Hawaii and that he was utilizing a cane as he was endanger of falling. Margo Corliss stated she could not recall Mr. Meek utilizing a cane. The contradictions in her testimony, the length of employment and current employment of Margo Corliss by the Bank of Hawaii, her testimony is biased, speculative and contradictory therefore it should be dismissed. 27. During testimony of Notary Susan Strong a former employee of Bank of Hawaii evidence submitted reflect Ms. Strong did in fact notarize an Amendment to the trust with an entry in her notary record reflecting only a notation as follows “M & M Trust document customers of Heidi”. It does not say how many pages or the actual title of the document. 28. During the deposition of Elizabeth Meek she admitted she was uncertain as to the introduction of the Bank of Hawaii as co-trustee and cannot recall who or when the subject of Bank of Hawaii as co-trustee was introduced. Elizabeth’s statements directly contradict and conflict with the Bank of Hawaii being named as co-trustee in the 1st Amendment drafted by Attorney Robert Jones as well as the Bank of Hawaii nominated in the 16 1 6

Last Will and Testament as Executor of the Will in the event Elizabeth Meek cannot serve as Executrix. Attorney Robert Jones as reflected in courtroom testimony that he was aware that Elizabeth Meek at the time of Elvin Meek’s passing had not finalized her citizenship and therefore would not be able to act as a Trustee without a financial institution assisting her in managing the Trust. Shortly before the decedent passed away the Bank of Hawaii opened a branch in Palau which is where the Respondent, a native of Palau travels frequently to visit her daughter Lola Reklai- Meek who is also a native of Palau. Elizabeth Meek during her testimony declared she filed for her American citizenship in the late 90’s and her citizenship was finalized in August of 2005. 29. Elizabeth Meek while being questioned during the Evidentiary Hearing as well as her deposition answers a majority of the questions with uncertain responses such as, “I don’t Know” “I can’t recall” “I let Grigger take care of that” “It’s the reason I use Grigger Jones”. Her inability to recall critical events is suspect as is her credibility by responding with such vagueness. 30. During the testimony of Elizabeth Meek she stated she asked Elvin’s friend of over 35 years, Wes Stewart to call both Nanci and Melvin to tell them Elvin was in the hospital. This is in direct contradiction with Melvin Meek’s testimony as well as the testimony of Nanci Meek who insist Elizabeth deliberately avoided contacting Mr. Meek’s family and friends to apprise them of the decedent’s terminal condition. Elizabeth Meek had her own agenda which consisted of isolating Elvin Meek from his biological children, Nanci Meek, Melvin Meek, his granddaughter Nicole Kusley, three surviving brothers, as well as several close friends in an effort to assert influence over him. 17 1 7

(See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44) During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she was asked if either she or Elvin had suggested having Elvin’s friend of over 35 years, Wes Stewart and his wife Nina Stewart who lived across the street from Mr. Meek in Honolulu, Hawaii, serve as witnesses to the signing of the Last Will and Testament. Elizabeth indicated she could not recall making the suggestion and that Elvin never made the suggestion. During her deposition Elizabeth Meek was asked why they did not call Wes Stewart and she replied “I don’t know”. Elizabeth testified she recalled Wes Stewart paying a surprise visit to Elvin Meek on or around the middle of September 2003. She stated she had not told Wes Stewart about Elvin’s condition because Elvin had not wanted to tell anyone. The majority of the questions posed by Petitioner were answered by Elizabeth Meek as “I don’t know” and “I can’t recall”. 31. Wes Stewart passed away in February of 2008 and during the evidentiary hearing several Exhibits including an Affidavit signed by Wes Stewart on or about August of 2007 as well as a letter addressed from Wes Stewart to Elizabeth identified as Petitioner’s Exhibit “W” were asked to be received in evidence, objected by opposing counsel James Ashford and not admitted by Judge Chan. The argument was then made by Petitioner that given the protracted nature of this litigation for six years, logic would support that key players were bound to have passed away and it should not diminish the legitimacy and the impact of the documents previously submitted to the court. Therefore any e mails, signed affidavits etc should be admitted to the court as Exhibits. The request was denied. 32. During her testimony Elizabeth Meek admitted to changing the beneficiaries of several Life Insurance Annuities 18 1 8

funded by the decedent during the previous years. The original designations agreed upon by the decedent reflected a distribution of 1/3 to Melvin Meek. 1/3 to Nanci Meek, 1/3 to Lola Meek in the event of Elizabeth Meek’s death. Elizabeth admitted that in March of 2004 she contacted a representative from Allianz Annuities and changed the contingent beneficiary to reflect ½ to Lola Reklai (aka Lola Meek) and ½ to her granddaughter Ruthie Merkll Tokii. Elizabeth Meek admitted to making the changes and phone records submitted to the Court reflect a call placed by Elizabeth Meek on November 3, 2003 to Sanford Norian who was the decedent’s insurance broker. It should be noted the aforementioned Annuities were part of the trust. This action by Elizabeth Meek speaks for itself. 33. During testimony of Elizabeth Meek she indicated she travels to Palau frequently to visit her daughter and granddaughter. She confirmed her daughter has resided in Palau since 1999 with no intention of moving back to the United States. Elizabeth testified at one time she and Elvin had discussed moving to Palau permanently. 34. During her testimony, Nanci Meek stated her reasons for questioning the 2nd Amendment and Last Will are based on the conversations with Elvin Meek’s friend of over 35 years, Wes Stewart, as well as the Forensic Pathology report prepared by Suzanne Gelb having reviewed medical records for the decedent reflecting the period of August 27, 2003 to October 19, 2003. She further affirmed Respondent Elizabeth Meek’s testimony wherein Elizabeth Meek herself stated she observed in April of 2002 in San Bernardino, California, Elvin Meek entrusting Nanci Meek with a copy of his Elvin R Meek 1996 Trust executed in Atascadero, California on June 14, 1996 without the questionable Amendments. Nanci further stated 19 1 9

the Affidavit executed by Attorney Robert Jones on November 10, 2005 is nothing more than a poor effort by Mr. Jones to further mask his questionable behavior. She stated she believed it was the intent of Attorney Robert Jones and Elizabeth Meek to dissolve the Elvin Meek estate utilizing the 1st Amendment, seizing the opportunity to take advantage of her father’s weakened condition they created and coerced the decedent into signing the Last Will and Testament as well as the 2nd Amendment to the Trust weeks before he passed away having knowledge he was terminal. (See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44) Nanci further stated she feels Attorney Robert Jones’ character is questionable as he is involved in a fraud investigation stemming from charges filed with the Atascadero Police Department regarding forgery. Nanci Meek further stated that Mr. Jones is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with respect to his past representation of Hurst Financial Group, his admitted former business partner Kelly Gearhart, and the as reflected during his courtroom testimony the Salinan Indian Casino venture entitled Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC of San Luis Obispo.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The court has been provided with factual evidence to make a recommendation declaring both of the 1st Amendments to Elvin R Meek Family trust invalid instruments. Critical components and factual evidence listed below will conclusively and without question justify such a decision being rendered. A. The 1st Amendment unnumbered allegedly executed in Hawaii on September 16, 1997 as well as the 1st Amendment

20 2 0

signed in California with Elizabeth Meek’s admittedly forged signature executed three days later in California on September 19, 1997 as reflected in Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones’ Affidavit executed November 10, 2005, is ample, sufficient and convincing proof for the court to rule the documents are invalid instruments. The Affidavit of Attorney Jones executed on October 2, 2007 and filed with the Court as an attachment to the Response of Elizabeth Meek to Petiion for Instructions, executed by Attorney Rhonda Griswold specifically states the QDOT and inclusion of Bank of Hawaii was specifically to allow Elizabeth Meek who was not an American Citizen at the time of the decedent’s death to act as Trustee. Logic would conclude Elvin Meek, an experienced attorney himself would have maintained his original intentions as laid out in his original Elvin R Meek 1996 Family trust so as to include Nanci Meek as the Trustee and avoid any inclusion of a bank or QDOT provision. B. The numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony provided during the Evidentiary Hearing by Attorney Robert “Grigger“ Jones, and Elizabeth Meek, Heidi Emery, Margo Corliss along with the testimony by Ralph Shumway and the medical records are sufficient to prove that Elvin Meek was of undue influence by Elizabeth Meek and was lacking testamentary capacity therefore the 2nd Amendment and the Last Will and Testament executed during Elvin’s final days is an invalid instrument (See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44). C. During the deposition of Elizabeth Meek taken on May 28, 2010 she consistently makes reference to having legal decisions regarding the Trust, sales of properties, 21 2 1

reformation of the Trust remain at the discretion of Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones which does not give Petitioner confidence in Elizabeth Meek nor does it affirm Elvin Meek desiring to place Elizabeth Meek in such an important position as to be the Trustee. The decedent, an attorney himself, entrusted Nanci Meek when he executed his original The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 as the Trustee knowing Nanci Meek would not violate the trust, cause harm (as is evident by the pending judgment of approximately $331,000 against the Elvin R Meek Estate arising from the Respondent and her Attorney Robert Jones’ non disclosures during the sale of the Arkansas property in 2005) Furthermore, Nanci Meek would not have ignored the fiduciary responsible which would have resulted in an audit by the IRS of the estate (evidenced by the 2007 IRS audit) performed on the Elvin R Meek Trust in 2007 as a result of the four year delay in filing a return for the estate by accountant Michael Gould as well as the Bank of Hawaii who had accepted co-trusteeship of the estate in March of 2005, also costing the trust an estimate of over $45,000 payable to Bingham McCutcheon, attorneys representing the Bank of Hawaii in Los Angeles as well over $38,000 to the law firm of Goodsill Anderson Quinn and Stifel attorneys for the Bank of Hawaii in Honolulu), nor would Nanci Meek or any other prudent and responsible individual hasten to sell properties well below market value as did Robert “Grigger” Jones Nanci Meek or any other prudent and responsible individual acting as Trustee would not have been four years late in providing the beneficiaries with an accounting, as performed by Elizabeth Meek as Trustee. The pleadings and arguments of counsel submitted during the last 6 years of litigation have 22 2 2

more than proven the 2nd Amendment executed on September 22, 2003, as well as the Last Will and Testament executed on September 23, 2003 while Mr. Meek was in a deteriorating and terminal condition should be declared invalid (See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44). Based on evidence, pleadings and arguments of counsel the Petitioner prays the Court will agree to the following: a) The decedent’s original trust document entitled The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 absent the questionable amendments, be declared the operative document. b) That Elizabeth Meek be removed as Trustee. Pursuant to Rule 34 (a) of the Hawaii Probate Rules and Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no reason for delaying the entry of a judgment with respect to the issues raised in the Petitioner’s Petition For Removal Of Elizabeth Meek As Trustee Of Elvin R. Meek Family Trust Dated 1996 filed with the First Circuit Court State of Hawaii August 14, 2009 and such a judgment shall be entered herein. c) Nanci Meek-Kusley, who was originally appointed by the decedent in his original The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 as Trustee, be re-affirmed as the Trustee of The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 . d) All assets as contained in the original Elvin R Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 without amendments, all monies accrued by the Trust after Elvin Meek died as reflected in the accountings 23 2 3

provided by East West Wealth Management inclusive of money from rental properties, interest accrued, be divided at the fair market rate at the time of Elvin Meek’s death (estimated at $4.2 million) and according to the decedent’s original intent with distribution as follows: (1/3 to Melvin Meek or his heirs <estimated at $1.4 million>; 1/3 to Nanci Meek-Kusley or her heirs <estimated at 1.4 million>; 1/6 to Lola Meek or her heirs <estimated at $700,000; 1/6 to Elizabeth Meek or her heirs <estimated at $700,000) e) That the judgment against the estate from the sale of the Arkansas property by Attorney Robert Jones and Elizabeth Meek be satisfied by Elizabeth Meek and Attorney Robert Jones relieving the Elvin R Meek 1996 Trust of any and all debt related to the Arkansas judgment. f) Respondent, Elizabeth Meek reimburse the Petitioner, Nanci Meek in the amount of $97,198.24 covering costs and attorneys fees allocated by Nanci Meek during the period of September 2004 until present. g) Respondent Elizabeth Meek reimburse the Elvin R Meek Trust for any and all costs incurred resulting from this litigation as well as legal fees paid by Elizabeth Meek from monies in the trust to Attorneys Robert Jones, Accountant Michael Gould, Attorney Jim Stanton, Law Firm of Cades Shutte, East West Wealth Management, also the law firm of Bingham McCutcheon, Goodsill, Anderson Quinn and Stifel who represented the former co-trustee Bank of Hawaii as reflected in the accountings provided by East West Wealth Management. 24 2 4

h) Pursuant to Rule 34 (a) of the Hawaii Probate Rules and Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no reason for delaying the entry of a judgment with respect to the issues raised in the Petitioner’s Amended Petition For Declatory Relief Declaring the 1st Amendment Invalid filed with the First Circuit Court State of Hawaii August 14, 2009 and such a judgment shall be entered herein.

I certify that the forgoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of Hawaii. DATED: July 22, 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada

_______________________ Nanci Meek Petitioner In Pro Se

25 2 5