NANCI MEEK 3308 Ariba Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 Telephone: (760) 413-5660 Petitioner in Pro

se FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI‘I THE MATTER OF THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996 ) TRIAL COURT CASE NO. ) T.No. 05-1-0101 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

_________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that NANCI MEEK, an interested party, acting in Pro se, pursuant to section 641-3, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, and Rule 3 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure, appeals to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawai‘i from the NOTICE OF ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF RESPONDENT ELIZABETH MEEK’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW , filed herein on SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 , and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", under Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3). Notice of Appeal in response to signed Conclusions of Law on behalf of the Evidentiary hearing held in 1st Circuit Court on July 8th and 9th before judge Derrick Chan, prepared by James Ashford on behalf of his client Respondent Elizabeth Meek filed on September 30, 2010. Petitioner and Beneficiary Nanci Meek submitted and filed our Findings of Fact on July 28, 2010 with the Court Clerk. Judge Derrick Chan during our evidentiary hearing sustained several objections raised by Attorney Ashford to our introducing crucial evidence during the evidentiary hearing. Each objection we countered and gave reason to have our evidence heard. Without consideration of the witness testimony provided by beneficiary Melvin Meek and myself, Nanci Meek, or the medical forensics proving our father was incapacitated at the time the 2nd Amendment was signed, along with the forensics provided by Reed Hayes concluding the signature on the 1st Amendment signed in California are forged, the Respondent’s testimony that the signature on the 1st Amendment was not her signature, the affidavit prepared by the Bank of Hawaii and signed by Attorney Robert Grigger Jones stating he witnessed Elvin Meek sign the 1st Amendment in California three days after signing the document in Hawaii was introduced and not admitted into evidence after Attorney Ashford objected and Judge

Chan sustained his objection, The testimony by Respondent Elizabeth Meek confirming that she witnessed the original 1996 Trust being handed to Nanci Meek in April of 2002 by the decedent Elvin Meek WITHOUT the amendments should have been enough for Judge Chan to have ruled and accepted our Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Judge Chan by evidence of the Final Judgment and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by Ashford and signed by Judge Chan on September 30, 2010 makes us question whether Judge Chan took our brief under consideration before making his ruling. It appears he just signed the document presented to him while we were not present in the courtroom. We allege Judge Chan was biased and prejudice at our acting in Pro se. Did not allow crucial evidence supporting our allegations to be introduced into court and therefore pray for an Appeal DATED: Las Vegas, Nevada October 19, 2010

________________________________ Nanci Meek, in Pro Se
HRAP Form 1 (09/10)

EXHIBIT ‘A’