Responseto Petitionfor Removalof Elizabethas Trusteeof Elvin Me

CADES SCHUTTE LLP RHONDA L. GRISWOLD JAMES H.
ASHFORD 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813-4216 Telephone: (808) 521-9200 3679-0 4743-0
FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAU FIl.ED
20II APR - 7 PH 2: 28
F. PAGAY
CLERK
Attorneys for Respondent ELIZABETH A. MEEK, as Co-Trustee IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF
T. NO. 05-1-0101
(Trust Proceeding) ELIZABETH A. MEEK'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF ELIZABETH MEEK AS TRUSTEE OF ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST DATED 1996 FILED AUGUST 14,2009; REAPPOINTMENT OF NANCI L. MEEK, ORIGINAL TRUSTEE OF 1996 TRUST; DECLARATION OF RHONDA L. GRISWOLD; DECLARATION OF JAMES H. ASHFORD; EXHIBITS "2" - "8"; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Hearing: Date: Time: Judge:
THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST,
DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED.
April 21,2011 10:00 a.m. Hon. Derrick H.M. Chan
ELIZABETH A. MEEK'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF ELIZABETH MEEK AS TRUSTEE OF ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST DATED 1996; RE-APPOINTMENT OF NANCI L. MEEK, ORIGINAL TRUSTEE OF 1996 TRUST FILED AUGUST 14. 2009 I. INTRODUCTION Nanci Meek filed her Petition for Removal of Elizabeth Meek as Trustee (the "Petition for Removal") on August 14, 2009. Elizabeth A. Meek filed her Response
(the "Response")
to the Petition for Removal on September 25, 2009. The Petition for
ImanageDB:
1621537.1
Removal has been pending since then, but is now scheduled for hearing on April 21, 2011. Since the Petition for Removal was filed, the Court resolved with finality Nanci Meek's December 2,2008 Petition for Declatory Relief Declaring the First Amendment Invalid (the "Petition for Declaratory Relief'). Accordingly, on September 30, 2010, the Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ("FOF/COL") and a Final Judgment (the "Final Judgment"), resolving all of the claims raised in the Petition for Declaratory Relief. See Exhibits "2" & "3" hereto. All of Nanci Meek's arguments asserted in the pending Petition for Removal were also raised in the Petition for Declaratory Relief; and all of those arguments were resolved and rejected with finality by this Court, via the Final Judgment. determinations The Court's
in the FOF/COL are the law of the case. Specifically, the Court has
already rejected: (i) all of Nanci Meek's arguments in the Petition for Declaratory Relief; (ii) Nanci Meek's argument that Elizabeth Meek, as a trustee, was not sufficiently communicative toward Nanci Meek; (iii) Wes Stewart's unsigned affidavit and hearsay letter; and (iv) Nanci Meek's argument that her father's purported statements at an April 2002 meeting at EI Torito restaurant have any bearing on the Elvin R. Meek Trust (the
"Trust"). Accordingly, because all of Nanci Meek's pending arguments have already
been resolved against her, her current Petition for Removal should be denied. More importantly, in resolving the Petition for Declaratory Judgment, the Court rejected Nanci Meek's claim that the First Amendment to the Elvin R. Meek Family Trust is invalid. See COL 11. Under the First Amendment, Nanci is a beneficiary of only the Exemption Trust (established under the First Amendment); and the Exemption Trust is limited to $1,000,000.00. Thus, Nanci Meek lacks standing to argue that Elizabeth
Meek should be removed as Trustee, because Elizabeth Meek's only responsibility visa-vis Nanci Meek is to fund the Exemption Trust, then distribute funds from that trust as directed by the Court. Elizabeth Meek intends to file a petition to have her final accounts and the trust funding approved and will thereafter fulfill her obligations to fund and disburse the Exemption Trust as soon as the Court determines the amount-if any-that should be distributed to Nanci Meek.
ImanageDB:1621S37.1
II.
THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE

The law of the case doctrine refers to '''the usual practice of courts to refuse to
disturb all prior rulings in a particular case, including rulings made by the judge himself.'" Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Hawai'i 48,60, 109 P.3d 689, 701 (2005) (quoting Wong v. City and County of Honolulu, 66 Haw. 389, 396, 665 P.2d 157,162 (1983»; see also 18 James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 134.20[2], at 134-51 (3d ed. 2008) ("[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Law of the case rules were "developed to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single continuing lawsuit." 18B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 637-38 (2d ed. 2002). Therefore, tithe same issue
presented a second time in the same case in the same court should lead to the same result." Jeanine B. v. Thompson, 967 F. Supp. 1104, 1108 (E.D. Wisc. 1997)
(quoting LaShawn A. v. Barrv, 87 F.3d 1389, 1393 (D.C. Cir. 1996» (emphasis added). Consequently, parties cannot escape the bar to relitigating issues already decided simply by framing the issue in a different way in later stages of the litigation. Cain, 59 Haw. 32,36-37,575 P.2d 468, 473 (1978). Cain v.
Litigants are given one opportunity to present all of their evidence in support of each of their claims and are not entitled to a second "bite at the apple." Suel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 192 F.3d 981,984-85 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[The Its
law of the case doctrine] 'ensures judicial efficiency and prevents endless litigation.
elementary logic is matched by elementary fairness - a litigant given one good bite at the apple should not have a second.'" (quoting Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 890 (Fed. Cir.1984») see also Jeanine B., 967 F. Supp. at 1108
("'[Law of the case] rests on good sense and the desire to protect both court and parties against the burdens of repeated reargument by indefatigable diehards.'" (citation omitted». Finally, parties cannot escape the prohibition on relitigation of decided issues simply by providing different evidence than they provided when the issue was previously
ImanageDB:1621537.1
before the court. See Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 683 ("Evidence that could have been presented earlier commonly is not considered, in keeping with the general rules that discourage slovenly or ill-considered approaches to the first trial.").
III.
ARGUMENT A. Nanci Meek's Arguments Are Barred by the Law of the Case Doctrine.
Nanci Meek's Petition for Removal raises four numbered arguments that purportedly support her request that the Court remove Elizabeth Meek as trustee. In
addition to the reasons set forth in Elizabeth's September 25, 2009 Response, all four of Nanci Meek's arguments are also barred by the law of the case in this action.
1.
The Petition for Declaratory Relief.
On July 8 and 9, 2010, the Court conducted a two-day Evidentiary Hearing into the issues raised in the Petition for Declaratory Relief. At the conclusion of the Evidentiary Hearing, the Court issued its FOF/COL and Final Judgment. Upon entry of
the FOF/COL and the Judgment. all issues raised in the Petition for Declaratory
Relief becamefinal. Thus, those arguments are resolved and are now the law of the
case. Nanci Meek cannot relitigate those issues at this stage and the arguments raised in the Petition for Declaratory Relief cannot be argued in support of the pending Petition for Removal.
2.
Elizabeth Meekand Her Attorney Have Allegedly Been Noncommunicative During the Last Five Years of Litigation.
a.
Nanci Meek's argument was already rejected by the Court.
This argument was also raised and rejected in the Petition for Declaratory Relief and, therefore, relitigating the issue is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Specifically: • In her Petition for Declaratory Relief, Nanci Meek asserted the
purported lack of communication by Elizabeth Meek and Robert "Grigger" Jones as one of 11 specific reasons she sought to have the First and Second Amendments to Elvin Meek's trust declared invalid. See Exhibit "4" hereto at • During the Evidentiary Hearing, Nanci Meek repeatedly elicited
116.
ImanageDB:1621537.1
testimony from other witnesses (including herself, Melvin Meek, Grigger Jones, and Elizabeth Meek), to support her contention that Elizabeth Meek and Grigger Jones did not communicate sufficiently with Nanci and her brother, Melvin Meek. • The Court considered and rejected Nanci Meek's claim that
Elizabeth Meek and Grigger Jones were noncommunicative. Thus, the issue of Elizabeth Meek's and Grigger Jones' supposed lack of communication with the trust beneficiaries has already been raised and rejected in the Petition for Declaratory Relief. Under the law of the case doctrine, this issue is resolved and should not be revisited in the form of a different Petition.
b.
Elizabeth Meek is properly circumspect in her communications with Nanci Meek, given Nanci Meek's defamatory internet postings and emails to third parties.
At the Evidentiary Hearing, the Court admitted Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 14, and 15 into evidence. Those exhibits are samplings of emails and internet postings on
various websites, in which Nanci Meek has waged a long campaign to smear Elizabeth Meek, Grigger Jones, and others. Among other things, Nanci Meek has written that she suspects Elizabeth Meek of
"trying to do severe harm to our father and maybe even had the intent of having him killed." See Exhibit 11 at 1. Likewise, she has repeatedly accused Grigger Jones
of forgery, fraud and theft. See Exhibits 9, 10, 12-15. Nanci Meek has posted two lengthy videos on YouTube, in which she accuses Grigger Jones, Elizabeth Meek, and numerous bank officers, lawyers, and others of assorted misconduct. Although she
promised to remove her YouTube and other postings from the internet, Nanci Meek has not done so. Not only have Nanci Meek's postings remained on the internet, but even after the July 2010 Evidentiary Hearing, Nanci Meek continues to post new, defamatory comments on YouTube. See. e.g., Exhibit 5 hereto, in which Nanci Meek accused the
Hawaii court system of "raping the money and the family gets nothing"; Exhibit 6 hereto, in which she stated that Elizabeth Meek's brother "is one of the biggest ice crack dealers in Palau and Hawaii"; and Exhibit 7 hereto, in which she stated: "Grigger Jones got away with committing fraud and stealing".
ImanageDB:1621537.1
Nanci Meek has also posted dozens of emails, letters and court pleadings on the internet on the website scribd.com. Her recent postings include approximately 15 new
postings since the Evidentiary Hearing was concluded, including the 284-page transcript of Elizabeth Meek's deposition taken in this case, this Court's FOF/COL, and Nanci Meek's appeal from the FOF/COL. See Exhibit 8 hereto.
Communicating with Nanci Meek inevitably leads to becoming a publicized target, and being subjected to defamatory statements in email, letters and on the worldwide web. Nanci Meek is on a witch hunt. She has repeatedly defamed Elizabeth Meek and Grigger Jones. Under the circumstances, Elizabeth Meek has communicated sufficiently with Nanci Meek. Any communication beyond what is absolutely necessary for a trustee to fulfill her duties is not required or prudent in these circumstances.
3.
Wes Stewart's HearsayLetter and Affidavit.
In her narrative direct testimony at the Evidentiary Hearing, Nanci Meek testified about Wes Stewart, including providing her recollections about Mr. Stewart's supposed observations and opinions. did not testify at the hearing. The Court struck Nanci Meek's testimony concerning Wes Stewart. The Court also refused to accept into evidence (i) Mr. Stewart's unnotarized August 2007 affidavit (Exhibit PPPP), as well as (ii) various emails between Mr. Stewart and Nanci Meek (Exhibits PPP and WWW), and (iii) Mr. Stewart's purported June 28, 2005 letter (Exhibit Mr. Stewart died long before the Evidentiary Hearing and
W).
The Court has already determined that Mr. Stewart's supposed Affidavit is both hearsay and unauthenticated. The Court also determined that Mr. Stewart's letter is
inadmissible hearsay. These are the same documents Nanci Meek now relies on in her third argument in her pending Petition for Removal. determined these documents to be inadmissible. However, this Court has already
The Court's determination that these
documents are inadmissible hearsay is the law of the case. Furthermore, Nanci Meek's purpose in offering Wes Stewart's affidavit and letter is to address Elvin Meek's supposed intentions. See Petition a~ 3 (Wes Stewart letter indicates "a conflict in our father's intentions"). Elvin Meek's intentions were relevant to they are not relevant
determining the validity of the First and Second Amendments-but
ImanageDB:
1621537.1
to determining whether Elizabeth Meek is fit to serve as Trustee.
Thus, besides being
inadmissible hearsay, Wes Stewart's affidavit and letter are irrelevant to the pending Petition for Removal.
4.
Nanci's April 2002 Meeting with Elvin Meek.
At the Evidentiary Hearing, Nanci Meek elicited testimony from herself and also from Melvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek concerning Nanci Meek's meeting with Elvin Meek at an EI Torito restaurant in April 2002, eighteen months before Elvin Meek died. See FOF/COL at FOF 157 & 158. Like Wes Stewart's affidavit and letter, this evidence could only be relevant to the validity of the First Amendment-but it is not relevant to the issue of Elizabeth Meek's
fitness to serve as Trustee today. The Court considered and rejected Nanci Meek's argument that this meeting had any significance. That ruling is the law of the case.
Nanci Meek should not be allowed to reargue this issue in a different Petition.
B.
Because the Court Rejected Nanci Meek's Claim that the First Amendment Is Invalid, Nanci Meek Lacks Standing to Seek the Removal of Elizabeth Meek as Trustee.
In its FOF/COL, the Court refused to invalidate the First and Second Amendments to Elvin Meek's Trust. See, e.g., FOF/COL at COL 11 & 52. The First Amendment completely restates the terms of the Trust. See Exhibit 2 at 1.1 Under the First Amendment, three separate trusts were created upon Elvin Meek's death-the Marital Trust, the Survivor's Trust, and the Exemption Trust. See Id.,
FOF/COL at FOF 64. The Exemption Trust shall be funded with $1,000,000.00.
FOF 65. The remainder of the Trust assets are used to fund the Marital Trust and the Survivor'S Trust. See First Amendment at Article Six
1111 C &
D.
The First Amendment also provides that the surviving spouse (Elizabeth Meek), shall have a general power of appointment to dispose of all property in the Marital Trust and the Survivor's Trust. See FOF 64; see also First Am. at Article Eight Meek has exercised that power of appointment.
11 A.
Elizabeth
See Declaration of Rhonda L. Griswold
112.
Once Elizabeth Meek exercised her power of appointment, the only Trust assets
The Second Amendment merely adjusts the distribution of the Trust assets upon the death of Elizabeth Meek, such that Nanci Meek stands to inherit 1/ 4th of the Trust estate. See Exhibit 3.
ImanageDB: 1621537.1
that Nanci Meek can have any interest is her share of the $1,000,000.00 Exemption Trust. The Exemption Trust will be funded with $1,000,000.00, irrespective of what Elizabeth Meek, as trustee, might do with the assets in the Survivor's Trust and the Marital Trust. Because Nanci Meek has no rights to the remaining Trust assets (in the Exemption Trust and the Survivor's Trust), Nanci Meek's rights are limited to her share of the $1 million Exemption Trust; and she has no standing to petition the Court to remove the Trustee. Likewise, she has no right to receive any communication from the than information as to
Trustee (Elizabeth) or any information from the Trustee-other
the status of funding and distribution of the Exemption Trust. All other Trust affairs are simply not Nanci Meek's business. Accordingly, Nanci Meek has no standing to demand communication or information from the Trustee concerning the general
administration of Trust affairs, other than the status of the Exemption Trust. Now that the Court has entered a Final Judgment resolving Nanci Meek's Petition for Declaratory Relief, Elizabeth has filed a Petition asking the Court for leave to fund the Exemption Trust and distribute the funds in the Exemption Trust, of which First Hawaiian Bank will be the trustee. Once the funding and distribution are accomplished, there will be no need for any further communication between Nanci and Elizabeth. Thus, Nanci's argument about a lack of communication is essentially moot.
IV.
CONCLUSION As the Petitioner, Nanci Meek has the burden of proof. She has offered
absolutely nothing to demonstrate any basis for the Court to remove Elizabeth Meek as Trustee. Accordingly, the Petition for Removal should be denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April ~, 2011. CADES SCHUTTE LLP
ImanageDB:1621S37.1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF T. NO. 05-1-0101 (Trust Proceeding) DECLARATION OF RHONDA L. GRISWOLD
DECLARATION OF RHONDA L. GRISWOLD I, RHONDA L. GRISWOLD, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at Cades Schutte LLP, co-counsel for Respondent
Elizabeth A. Meek, as Trustee in this action. I make this Declaration on personal knowledge in that capacity. 2. The First Amendment to the Elvin R. Meek Family Trust (the "first
Amendment") was introduced into evidence as Exhibit "2" at the July 8, 2010 evidentiary hearing in this action. Under Article Eight, paragraph A of the First Amendment, the surviving spouse has a general power of appointment to dispose of all property in the Marital Trust and the Survivor's Trust (which trusts are established under the First Amendment). As the surviving spouse under the First Amendment, Elizabeth Meek has
exercised that power of appointment. I, RHONDA L. GRISWOLD, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Hawaii that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, ~::;.. , 2011.
RHONDA L. GRISWOL
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF T. NO. 05-1-0101 (Trust Proceeding) DECLARATION ASHFORD OF JAMES H.
DECLARATION
OF JAMES H. ASHFORD
I, JAMES H. ASHFORD, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at Cades Schutte LLP, co-counsel for Respondent
Elizabeth A. Meek, as Trustee, in this action. I make this Declaration on personal knowledge in that capacity. 2. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "2" is a true and accurate copy of the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed in this case on September 30, 2010. 3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "3" is a true and accurate copy of the Final
Judgment filed in this case on September 30, 2010. 4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "4" is a true and accurate copy of Nanci Meek's
Petition for Declatory Relief Declaring the First Amendment Invalid, filed in this case on December 2,2008. 5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "5" is a true and accurate copy of a page from which I
the internet site YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgVts2xiD50)
printed on January 11, 2011. Portions of this document have been highlighted for the Court's convenience. 6. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 6'''' is a true and accurate copy of a page from PiKumEPVU) which I
the internet site YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d
printed on February 1, 2011. Portions of this document have been highlighted for the Court's convenience.
7.
Annexed hereto as Exhibit "?" is a true and accurate copy of a page from PiKumEPVU) which I
the internet site YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d
printed on January 11, 2011. Portions of this document have been highlighted for the Court's convenience. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 8" is a true and accurate copy of a page from the
internet site Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/search?language=1&limit=1 O&num pages=&page=1 &query=elvin)
which I printed on February 2, 2011. Portions of this document have been highlighted for the Court's convenience. I, JAMES H. ASHFORD, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Hawaii that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,
/J,tlrl '/
, 2011.
CADES SCHUTTE LLP RHONDA L. GRISWOLD 3679-0 JAMES H. ASHFORD 4743-0 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813-4216 Telephone: (808) 521-9200 Attorneys for Respondent ELIZABETH A. MEEK, as Trustee IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED. T. NO. 05-1-0101 (Trust Proceeding) RESPONDENT ELIZABETH MEEK'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Hearing: Date: Judge: July 8 and 9, 2010 Hon. Derrick H.M. Chan
2010 SE? 30 Ai1 8: 37
Cl.L';{
RESPONDENT ELIZABETH MEEK'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW At the Court's request, Respondent Elizabeth Meek, through counsel, submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as stated below. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 23,2010. CADES SCHUTTE LLP
EXHIBIT 2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This matter came on for evidentiary hearing on July 8,2010, and July 9,2010. Petitioner Nanci Meek ("Nanci") appeared, pro se. Respondent Elizabeth Meek, ("Elizabeth") was represented by James H. Ashford, Esq., and Rhonda L. Griswold, Esq. Nanci and Elizabeth were both present throughout both days of the evidentiary hearing. The following witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing: Robert Jones; Susan Strong; Margo Corless; Heidi Emery; Ralph Shumway; Melvin Meek; Elizabeth Meek; and Nanci Meek. The following numbered exhibits were admitted into evidence at the evidentiary hearing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37 and 38. The following lettered exhibits were admitted into evidence at the evidentiary. hearing: E, G, H, K, R, S, U, X, FF, KK, XX, DODD, and WWWW. At the completion of the evidentiary hearing on the afternoon of July 9, 2010, Nanci stated that she had no further evidence to submit; and Elizabeth's counsel, James H. Ashford, stated that Elizabeth had no further evidence to submit. The Court, having considered all of the relevant, admissible evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, and the arguments of the parties, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. T. NO. 05-1-0101 (Trust Proceeding) FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ImanagcDB: 1396838.2
I.
Elvin Meek 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. years old. 7. divorce. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. marriage. 14. 15. 16. 17.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Elvin Meek ("Elvin") was a successful plaintiffs trial attorney in Southern Before he went to law school, Elvin worked as a Certified Public Elvin was married five times. His first four marriages ended in divorce. Elizabeth is originally from Koror, Palau, but came to the United States in In 1988, Elvin married Elizabeth, who was Elvin's fifth wife. Elvin was 56 years old when he married Elizabeth; and Elizabeth was 35 Elvin was Elizabeth's second husband, as her first marriage ended in Elvin and Elizabeth remained married to one another until Elvin died on In the late 1980's, Elvin and Elizabeth moved to Paso Robles, California. Elvin continued to practice law in Paso Robles until he retired in 1996. In the summer of 1997, Elvin and Elizabeth moved to Honolulu; Hawaii, Elvin had two children from his first marriage. Those children are Melvin Elizabeth Meek has one child, DeeLola Reklai ("Lola"), from her prior In January 1991, Elvin adopted Lola as his daughter, whereupon Lola's Elvin and Lola had a very warm, close relationship. Elvin paid for Lola to attend private school in California, including the Elvin placed a high value on education and was very proud of Lola when
California for many years. Accountant in California.
1979 to attend college in San Diego, California.
October 19, 2003, at the age of 71.
where they lived until Elvin died. Meek ("Melvin") and Nanci.
last name was changed from Reklai to Meek. See Exhibit DDDD.
University of the Pacific in Stockton, California. she graduated from the University of the Pacific in May 1997.
lmanageDB: 1396838.2
-2-
18.
Elvin's friend and estate planning attorney Robert "Grigger" Jones
("Jones"), as well as Elizabeth, Nanci and Melvin all testified as to Elvin's outgoing character and strong, independent, and decisive personality. 19. Among other things, Melvin described Elvin as strong-willed, very independent, stubborn, intelligent, and as "the skipper" (indicating that Elvin was always very much in charge of whatever situation he was in). Melvin's characterizations of Elvin were supported by the testimony of Nanci, Jones and Elizabeth. Elvin's Estate Planning: The 1992 Trust 20. 21. In 1989, shortly after Elvin and Elizabeth moved to Paso Robles, Elvin met Elvin and Jones became friends, golfed together, and served in the local Jones, who practiced law in Atascadero, California, a town near Paso Robles. Rotary Club together. Other than when Elvin was in trial, Elvin and Jones visited with each other approximately once per week for the roughly eight years that Elvin and Elizabeth lived in Paso Robles. 22. 23. Jones-whose Elvin asked Jones to prepare a trust agreement for Elvin and Elizabeth. Although Elvin had some experience in estate planning, he preferred that legal practice included estate planning and real estate to a larger degree prepare Elvin's and Elizabeth's estate planning documents. In response to Elvin's request, Jones prepared the Elvin R. Meek and Elvin and Elizabeth executed the 1992 Trust on January 10, 1992, as The substantive terms of the 1992 Trust were determined by Elvin. Elizabeth and Elvin were the primary beneficiaries under the 1992 Trust. Elizabeth and Elvin were co-trustees of the 1992 Trust. Id. Lola was the contingent beneficiary under the 1992 Trust. Id. at 16. The 1992 Trust's provisions for Nanci and Melvin were more modest than The 1992 Trust provided $15,000.00 for Nanci (formerly known as Nancy
than Elvin's practice-to
24.
25. 26. 27. Id. at 1. 28. 29. 30. for Lola. 31.
Elizabeth A. Meek Living Trust (the "1992 Trust"). See Exhibit 37. witnessed by Jones.
L. Meek Kusley) to be used to complete her education and earn a bachelor of arts or
-3-
science degree within two years of Elvin's death; an additional $10,000 per year for a period up to four years for Nanci to earn her juris doctorate degree; and an additional $100,000.00 if Nanci earned her juris doctorate degree and passed the California bar examination within seven years of Elvin's death. Id. at 6. 32. The 1992 Trust provided $500.00 per month for Melvin to use to earn a bachelor of arts or science degree within four years of Elvin's death; an additional $600.00 per month for Melvin to pursue a masters of art or science degree; and $100,000.00 if Melvin earned a master of arts or science degree within seven years of Elvin's death. Id. at 6. 33. 34. year college. The 1996 Trust 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Pacific. 41. Lola did very poorly in her first year at the University of the Pacific, which led Elvin to angrily withdraw Lola from college and bring her back to Paso Robles to attend a local junior college. 42. Around the same time, Elvin and Elizabeth were going through a rough time in their marriage. Some time in the 1990's, Elvin suffered a serious back injury when he fell Elvin's back injury required hospitalization and surgery. As a result of his back injury and resulting surgery, Elvin walked with a Also as a result of his injury and surgery, Elvin was in significant pain and The pain and medication made Elvin agitated and grumpy for many After Lola graduated from high school, she attended the University of the off of his motor home. Other than the foregoing provisions regarding payment for Nanci's and Unlike Lola, neither Melvin nor Nanci ever received a degree from a fourMelvin's education, the 1992 Trust made no provisions for Nanci or Melvin.
cane for the rest of his life. was required to take substantial medication to help him cope with his pain. months after his surgery.
ImanageDB:1396838.2
-4-
43.
During the time that Elvin was angry with Lola, and that Elvin and
Elizabeth were not getting along well, Elvin asked Jones to prepare a new trust agreement to replace the 1992 Trust. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. As an explanation to Jones for the terms of the new trust that he wanted, At Elvin's instruction, Jones prepared the Declaration of Trust of Elvin R. See Exhibit 1. The substantive terms of the 1996 Trust were determined by Elvin. Elvin executed the 1996 Trust on June 14,1996, and Jones (who was The 1992 Trust named Elizabeth as the primary beneficiary, named Lola Elvin told Jones about his recent problems with Lola and Elizabeth.
Meek for the Benefit of Elvin R. Meek (the "1996 Trust").
also a California Notary Public), notarized Elvin's Signature of the 1996 Trust. as the contingent beneficiary, and appointed Elizabeth as a co-trustee. In contrast, the 1996 Trust (a) appointed Elvin as the sole trustee; (b) named Nanci and Melvin as the successor trustees; and (c) upon Elvin's death, provided that the trust estate would be distributed one-third to Melvin; one-third to Nanci; one-sixth to Elizabeth; and one-sixth to Lola. Id. at 49.
1m 5.1 & 3.02.2.

to the 1996 Trust After withdrawing from the University of the Pacific after her first year, Lola
The First Amendment
eventually focused on college and graduated from the University of the Pacific in May 1997, which greatly pleased Elvin. 50. 51. 52. 53. By that time, Elvin had retired from practicing law, Elvin and Elizabeth's Around the same time, Elvin was better able to cope with the pain and In the summer of 1997, Elvin contacted Jones and asked Jones to prepare At Elvin's request, Jones prepared the First Amendment to the Elvin R. relationship improved, and they made it through a rough spot in their marriage. medication that resulted from his back injury. an amendment to the 1996 Trust. Meek Family Trust (the "First Amendment"), which republished and restated the 1996 Trust. See Exhibit 2. 54. 55. Elvin was 65 years old at the time and Elizabeth was 44. The substantive terms of the First Amendment were determined by Elvin.
-5-
56. 57.
Elizabeth was not involved in procuring the First Amendment or Elvin and Elizabeth moved to Hawaii in 1997. Accordingly, after Jones
determining its substantive terms. prepared the First Amendment at Elvin's instruction, Jones's paralegal mailed the First Amendment to Elvin at Elvin and Elizabeth's apartment in the Waipuna condominium in Waikiki. See Exhibit 29. 58. 59. Elvin and Elizabeth executed the First Amendment in Honolulu on Susan Strong, a licensed Hawaii Notary Public, notarized Elvin's and September 16, 1997. Elizabeth's signatures of the First Amendment at the Waikiki branch of the Bank of Hawaii. See Exhibit S. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. Nanci admits that Elvin and Elizabeth signed a First Amendment to the In substance, the First Amendment was relatively similar to the 1992 The First Amendment appoints both Elvin and Elizabeth as trustees. See Elvin R. Meek Family Trust on September 16, 1999, in the presence of Susan Strong. Trust, and was quite different than the 1996 Trust. Exhibit 2 at Article One
11 A. 11 c.
Under the First Amendment, neither Nanci nor Melvin were named as Under th~ First Amendment, the Trust is to be divided into three separate
successor trustees. Bank of Hawaii is named as successor trustee, Id. Article One
trusts: a Survivor'S Trust, a Marital Trust and an Exemption Trust. Id. Article Six 11 A. Elizabeth is the sole beneficiary of the Survivor's Trust and of the Marital Trust during her lifetime. Id. Article Seven
1m Band
C. The First Amendment also gives Elizabeth a
general power of appointment over the assets in the Survivor's Trust and the Marital Trust, which means she has the right to name the remainder beneficiaries of those trusts at her death. Id. Article Eight 65.
11 A. 11 D.
At the time of
Under the First Amendment, the Exemption Trust is to be funded with an
amount that will not produce any federal estate tax. Id. Article Six
Elvin's death, that amount was $1,000,000. Under the terms of the Exemption Trust, the trustee has discretion to pay net income to Elizabeth, Nanci, Melvin, Lola, and their respective issue for their health, education, support and maintenance. The trustee of
-6-
the Exemption Trust also has discretion to pay principal to Elizabeth (but not to any of the children or their issue) for her health, education, support and maintenance. Id. Article Seven 11 F. 66. The 1992 Trust, the 1996 Trust and the First Amendment each contained a "no-contest" provision. See Exhibit 37 at 27; Exhibit 1 at 116.12; Exhibit 2 at Article Twelve 11J. In each instance, the no-contest provision was included at Elvin's insistence. Elvin's Retirement 67. 68. 69. In Hawaii and the Eventual Decline of His Health Elvin and Elizabeth lived in their apartment at the Waipuna in Waikiki from In the more than six years that Elvin and Elizabeth lived in Hawaii, neither After Elvin and Elizabeth moved to Hawaii, they traveled to California once
1997 until Elvin died on October 19, 2003. Nanci nor Melvin ever visited them in Hawaii. or twice a year until 2002, so that Elvin could have regular check-ups with his internist in California and to get dental implants. 70. Elvin and Elizabeth's trips to California typically lasted for one week. During their week-long trips, Elvin and Elizabeth would typically fly to San Francisco and visit Elizabeth's relatives in nearby Hayward, California. They would then drive to Southern California and would sometimes visit Jones. 71. Once in Southern California, Elvin would typically see his internist and attend his dental appointment. Only after those appointments were complete would Elvin instruct Elizabeth to call Nanci and Melvin and arrange for Nanci and Melvin to meet Elvin and Elizabeth at a nearby restaurant for lunch or brunch. 72. Typically, during their week-long visits to California, Elvin's and Elizabeth's interaction with Nanci and Melvin was limited to meeting for a single meal at the conclusion of Elvin's medical and dental appointments. 73. Sometime after 2000, Elvin's health began to slowly decline. Elvin had been a heavy drinker of alcohol for many years, which led to various health problems, including liver cirrhosis. 74. By 2002, Elvin was diagnosed as terminally ill.
-7-
75.
In late 2002, Elvin told his personal banker Heidi Emery that he had been
diagnosed as terminally ill; and by early 2003, Elvin told Elizabeth that he was terminally ill. 76. 77. cancer. 78. In August and September 2003, the typical routine was that Elvin's health would decline to the point that he was admitted to the hospital and, after several days of treatment, his health would improve substantially, such that he was discharged from the hospital. However, after one to three weeks, Elvin's health would decline again, requiring readmission to the hospital. This pattern endured through several separate hospital admissions in 2003. 79. Elvin never told Nanci or Melvin that he was terminally ill or that hospice care had been recommended for him. Nor did he share any other significant details about his health with Nanci or Melvin, including his pattern of hospital admission, discharge, and readmission. The Second Amendment to the 1996 Trust; Elvin's Pour-Over Will 80. 81. In mid-September 2003, Elvin telephoned Jones and asked Jones to Elvin told Jones that Elvin wanted to revise the distribution of the trust Elvin also told Heidi Emery that his doctor had recommended that he In 2003, Elvin was admitted to Straub Hospital many times. Besides liver receive hospice care. cirrhosis, Elvin also suffered from congestive heart failure, prostate cancer, and liver
prepare an amendment to the 1996 Trust. estate to provide that upon the death of the surviving spouse (between Elvin and Elizabeth), with respect to the principal of the trust estate and the accrued income, onehalf would be distributed to Lola, one-fourth would be distributed to Nanci, and onefourth would be distributed to Melvin. 82. 83. Elvin told Jones that Elvin was very proud of Lola because she had Elvin told Jones that Nanci and Melvin were financially independent. finished college, had a child, and was doing well in life.
lmanageDB:1396838.2
-8-
84.
In response to Elvin's request, Jones prepared a Second Amendment to See
the Elvin R. Meek Family Trust Dated June 14, 1996 (the "Second Amendment"). Exhibit 3. 85. Elvin. 86.
The substantive terms of the Second Amendment were determined by After discussing his estate planning with Elvin, Jones also prepared the
Will of Elvin R. Meek (the 'Will"), to provide that all of Elvin's estate would pass to the 1996 Trust, as amended. See Exhibit 4. 87. 88. 89. 17,2003. 90. The substantive terms of the Will were determined by Elvin. Jones spoke only to Elvin. Elizabeth was not part of their conversation Jones mailed the Second Amendment and the Will to Elvin on September See Exhibit 30. In the six years that Elvin and Elizabeth had lived in Hawaii since 1997,
and did nothing to procure the Second Amendment or the Will.
Jones kept in contact with Elvin. They spoke at length by telephone once or twice per year, and Elvin sometimes visited Jones during Elvin's and Elizabeth's trips to California. 91. logical. 92. Jones had no reason to doubt that Elvin had full testamentary capacity in September 2003. Similarly, Jones had no basis to believe that Elvin was acting under duress, coercion, fraud, mistake, or any other type of undue influence. 93. In his estate planning practice, Jones sometimes requires a client to consult with a medical doctor or psychiatrist to determine if the client has testamentary capacity before Jones will prepare estate planning documents for the client. Jones saw no reason to ask Elvin to see a doctor or psychiatrist, however, because Jones had no concerns about Elvin's mental capacity. 94. Jones was not surprised that Elvin chose to give a greater share of the trust estate to Lola than to Nanci or Melvin. Elvin's decision was consistent with Jones' longstanding understanding of Elvin's sentiments about Lola, Nanciand Melvin. To Jones, Elvin sounded fine and normal during their September 2003 Elvin's voice was strong and his thoughts were clear and telephone discussions.
ImanageDB:1396838.2
-9-
95.
Over the many years that Jones knew Elvin, including when Elvin and
Elizabeth lived in Hawaii, Elvin exhibited more affection and a closer relationship with Lola than with Nanci or Melvin. 96. Elvin spoke frequently about Lola and expressed great pride and joy in Lola. By contrast, Elvin rarely spoke about Nanci or Melvin, and appeared to be disappointed in Nanci and Melvin. Nor did Elvin talk about Nanci's daughter (Elvin's granddaughter), Nicole Kusley. 97. Additionally, although Jones was aware that Elvin had been unhappy with Lola and Elizabeth in 1996 around the time that Elvin asked Jones to draft the 1996 Trust, Jones had also observed that since 1997, Elvin appeared to be much happier in general, and Elvin routinely expressed great happiness with and love for Elizabeth and Lola. 98. 99. The Second Amendment that Jones prepared recited that the 1996 Trust 1999." The reference to a September 1999 amendment is erroneous. Jones is had been amended in "September _,
not aware of any amendment in 1999 but is only aware of the First Amendment in 1997 and the Second Amendment in 2003. 100. Although Elvin told Jones that Elvin and Elizabeth had executed the First Amendment, Elvin and Elizabeth did not send an executed copy of the First Amendment to Jones, so Jones did not know when the First Amendment was actually executed, which explains the Second Amendment's erroneous reference to a September 1999 amendment. The Circumstances 101. 102. 103. Public. 104. Elvin and Elizabeth executed the Second Amendment in Ms. Corless's presence, and she notarized their Signatures. of Elvin's Execution of the Second Amendment Elvin and Elizabeth received the Second Amendment and the Will in the On September 22,2003, Elvin and Elizabeth went to the Waikiki branch of At the Bank of Hawaii, they met Margo Corless, a licensed Hawaii Notary
mail from Jones in September 2003. the Bank of Hawaii to execute the Second Amendment before a Notary Public.
ImanageDB:1396838.2
-10-
105. Elizabeth. 106.
Ms. Corless engaged in a variety of polite conversation with Elvin and Elvin did most of the talking, while Elizabeth was relatively quiet. As far as Ms. Corless could observe, Elvin did not appear to be weak or
frail. Elvin walked into the bank under his own power. Ms. Corless had no idea that Elvin had previously been hospitalized or was in poor health. 107. 108. To Ms. Corless, Elvin did not appear to be medicated or drugged. Ms. Corless had no reason to doubt that Elvin had full testamentary
capacity on September 22,2003, when he executed the Second Amendment. Similarly, Ms. Corless had no basis to believe that Elvin was acting under duress, coercion, fraud, mistake, or any other type of undue influence. 109. After she notarized Elvin's and Elizabeth's signatures on the Second Amendment, Ms. Corless called Bank of Hawaii employee Heidi Emery to meet with Elvin and Elizabeth, at Elvin's request. 110. 111. In her capacity as a Bank of Hawaii employee, Heidi Emery has known From the 1980's until Elvin moved to Hawaii in 1997, whenever Elvin was Elvin since some time in the 1980's, before Elvin and Elizabeth married. visiting Hawaii, Elvin would visit Ms. Emery once or twice per week at the Waikiki branch of the Bank of Hawaii. 112. In all the years that Ms. Emery knew Elvin, Elvin merely mentioned that he had two children from a prior marriage, but he never identified Nanci or Melvin by name. Elvin never told Ms. Emery anything about those two children, other than to acknowledge he had two children from a prior marriage. 113. 114. By contrast, Elvin spoke about Lola frequently. Ms. Emery also knew Elizabeth, having met her after Elvin and Elizabeth
married. Ms. Emery and her husband often socialized with Elvin and Elizabeth after Elvin and Elizabeth moved to Hawaii in 1997. They usually spent the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays together and Lola would be included in these gatherings. 115. Ms. Emery had visited with Elvin and Elizabeth at their apartment in the Waipuna condominium. In her visits to Elvin and Elizabeth's apartment, Ms. Emery never noticed seeing any photographs of Nanci, Melvin, or Nanci's daughter Nicole.
ImanageDB:1396838.2
-11-
116. 117. 118. 119.
It was Ms. Emery's impression that Elvin and Elizabeth had a very happy In Ms. Emery's experience, Elvin handled all of his and Elizabeth's Ms. Emery met with Elvin and Elizabeth on September 22, 2003, after Prior to September 22, 2003, the last time Ms. Emery had talked to Elvin
and loving relationship, and that Elvin loved Elizabeth very much. business affairs. Margo Corless notarized the Second Amendment. was in May 2003 when she saw Elvin walking in Waikiki. At that time, Elvin explained to Ms. Emery that he was "just checking out the chicks," which Ms. Emery regarded as a typical comment from Elvin. 120. On September 22, 2003, when she joined Elvin and Elizabeth in the Bank of Hawaii, Elvin was in the process of making a comment to one of the bank's younger employees to the effect that Elvin did not need Viagra as long as he had ginseng tea. 121. 122. care. 123. visit. 124. To Ms. Emery's observation, Elvin appeared to be fine on September 22, 2003. She had no reason to doubt that Elvin had full testamentary capacity on September 22, 2003. Similarly, Ms. Emery had no basis to believe that Elvin was acting under duress, coercion, fraud, mistake, or any other type of undue influence. 125. 126. 127. 128. Ms. Emery had no reason to believe that Elvin was drugged or medicated. of Elvin's Execution of the Will On September 23, 2003, Elvin and Elizabeth visited Ralph Shumway, who Elvin asked Mr. Shumway to witness Elvin's execution of the Will. Mr. Shumway knew Elvin and Elizabeth because he worked as the The Circumstances At Elvin's request, Ms. Emery had previously arranged for Elvin and Elizabeth to meet with a notary public, so Ms. Emery already knew the reason for their Ms. Emery noticed that Elvin appeared to have lost a little weight, but that Ms. Emery knew that Elvin was terminally ill, however, because Elvin had he otherwise looked and acted the same as always. told her that fact in late 2002; and she knew that Elvin had been told to consider hospice
is the resident manager at the Waipuna condominium.
-12-
resident manager of the Waipuna, but he had no social relationship with them. 129. 130. 131. When Elvin signed the Will in Mr. Shumway's presence, Mr. Shumway Although Mr. Shumway had heard a rumor that Elvin had been ill, it did not Mr. Shumway had no reason to doubt that Elvin had full testamentary observed Elvin to appear normal, lucid and aware of his surroundings. appear to Mr. Shumway that Elvin was medicated or drugged. capacity on September 23, 2003, when Elvin executed the Will. Similarly, Mr. Shumway had no basis to believe that Elvin was acting under duress, coercion, fraud, mistake, or any other type of undue influence. 132. Mr. Shumway testified that he would not have signed his name as a witness to the Will if he had believed that Elvin was incapacitated; but Mr. Shumway did, in fact, sign his name as a witness to Elvin's execution of the Will. Elvin's Readmission 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. to the Hospital in October 2003 On approximately October 2, 2003, Elvin fell in the bathroom of his Consistent with the previous pattern in August and September 2003, Elvin On approximately October 5, 2003, however, Elvin's health took a turn for Elizabeth feared that Elvin might not improve, so she asked Wes Stewart Although Elvin's longstanding habit was to direct Elizabeth to call Nanci or
apartment in the Waipuna. Elvin was admitted to Straub Hospital the same day. initially improved during the first three or four days of his stay in the hospital. the worse and he was no longer able to eat or receive oral medications. to contact Nanci and Melvin and tell them that their father was in the hospital. Melvin if Elvin wanted to get in touch with them, in this instance Elizabeth chose to contact Nanci and Melvin on her own initiative, even though Elvin had not asked her to do so. 138. Wes Stewart was a long-time friend of Elvin's. Stewart lived in Waikiki near Elvin and Elizabeth. Stewart had known Nanci and Melvin since Melvin and Nanci were in high school in California. 139. Wes Stewart reached Nanci and Melvin and informed them that Elvin was in the hospital and was gravely ill.
lmanagcDB:1396838.2
-13-
140. 141. telephone. 142.
Neither Nanci nor Melvin flew to Hawaii to visit Elvin while he was in the Melvin's last conversation with Elvin was in mid-September 2003, by In that conversation Elvin sounded a little "spacey," according to Melvin,
hospital in October 2003.
which led Melvin to assume that Elvin probably had had a few drinks and might have been a bit drunk; particularly because his father drank frequently. 143. In the conversation, Elvin did not reveal any of his health conditions or his hospital visits to Melvin. Elvin did not tell Melvin that Elvin was terminally ill or that his doctor had recommended hospice care for Elvin. 144. telephone. 145. capacity. 146. 147. 148. Elvin died on October 19, 2003. Neither Nanci nor Melvin flew to Hawaii to attend Elvin's funeral services. and Admissions In her testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Nanci acknowledged that Elvin Nanci admitted in her testimony that, at the time of her telephone conversation with Elvin, she had no reason to doubt Elvin's mental or testamentary Nanci's last conversation with Elvin was on September 11, 2003, by
Nanci's Contentions
and Elizabeth signed a First Amendment in Honolulu, Hawaii on September 16, 1997, and that Elvin's and Elizabeth's signatures were notarized by Susan Strong. 149. Nanci asserted that after Elvin died in October 2003, Jones altered the First Amendment by removing the true pages of the First Amendment and replacing them with false pages, then attaching those false pages to the notarized signature page. 150. 151. Nanci contends that the First Amendment, as set forth in Exhibit 2, is the Nanci contends that the true version of the First Amendment was only a fraudulent document that she claims Jones manufactured after Elvin died. few pages long, although she admits that she does not know what that purported document might have contained. 152. Jones denied Nanci's assertion that he fabricated Exhibit 2.
-14-
153. 154. 155.
Jones testified that Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the First No significant evidence was offered or introduced at the evidentiary Elizabeth testified that after Susan Strong notarized her and Elvin's
Amendment that he prepared in 1997 at Elvin's request. hearing to support Nanci's assertions. signatures on the First Amendment, Elizabeth placed the signed First Amendment in a file cabinet in their apartment at the Waipuna. 156. this point. 157. 158. In April 2002, Elvin and Elizabeth had brunch with Nanci and Melvin at an Nanci testified that at the brunch, Elvin gave Nanci a copy of the 1996 EI Torito restaurant in Southern California. This was the last time that Nanci saw Elvin. Trust, but that Elvin did not give Nanci a copy of the First Amendment and never told Nanci about the existence of the First Amendment. 159. Exhibit 34 is a June 25, 2008 email from Nanci to Jones. Contrary to Nanci's testimony, in her email Nanci told Jones that: "I already have a copy of the Amendment which was signed in 1997 in Honolulu. Dad gave me a copy along with a copy of the Elvin R. Meek 1996 Trust during his visit to California in April of 2002." 160. Exhibit 35 is a June 27,2008 email from Nanci to Jones. In that email, Nanci repeated her statement that: "I already have a copy of the Amendment which was signed in 1997 in Honolulu. Dad gave me a copy along with a copy of the Elvin R. Meek 1996 Trust during his visit to California in April of 2002. 161. 162. 163. 164. Exhibit 2 is a false document. The Court rejects Nanci's assertion that after Elvin died, Jones concocted Nanci contends that Elvin lost his testamentary capacity in August 2003. Nanci contends that Elvin lost his free will due to fraud, coercion, duress the First Amendment set forth in Exhibit 2.
II
No evidence was offered or admitted to refute Elizabeth's testimony on
The Court rejects Nanci's assertion that the First Amendment set forth in
or other undue influence in August 2003.
-15-
II. 1.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
To the extent any Finding of Fact may be interpreted as a Conclusion of
Law, said Finding of Fact is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference thereto. 2. 3. The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter under H.R.S. In her Petition for Instructions filed in this action on August 30,2007,
§§ 560:1-302(a)(1) and (3) and 560:7-201. '

Nanci asserted that the Second Amendment and the Will are invalid because Elvin lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to coercion, duress, undue influence, mistake and fraud when Elvin executed the Second Amendment and the Will. See 8/30/07 Petition at 4.
1m 11-12.
In her Petition for Declatory Relief Declaring the First Amendment Invalid
filed in this action on December 2, 2008, Nanci claimed that the First Amendment is invalid because it "may have been fabricated." See 1212/08 Petition at 1. 5. Therefore, the purpose of the evidentiary hearing is for the Court to resolve Nanci's claims that (i) the Second Amendment and Will are invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, coercion, duress, mistake and fraud, and (ii) the First Amendment is invalid because Jones allegedly substituted pages in the First Amendment after Elvin signed it. The First Amendment 6. 7. As the petitioner, Nanci bears the burden of proving that that the First As the party with the burden of proof, Nanci cannot rely solely upon the Amendment (Exhibit 2) is invalid. hope that the Court will not trust the credibility of opposing witnesses to establish her case. There must be some affirmative evidence of the essential elements of her claim. See Aloha Petroglyph. Inc. v. Alexander & Baldwin. Inc., 1 Haw. App. 353, 354, 619 P.2d 518, 519 (1988). 8. The Court concludes that Jones was a credible witness, and the Court accepts as true his testimony. In particular, the Court accepts as true Jones' testimony that (a) the terms of the First Amendment were determined by Elvin; (b) Elvin amended the 1996 Trust as provided in the First Amendment because his relationship with
ImanageOB: 1396838.2
-16-
Elizabeth and Lola had improved; (c) Jones did not replace or fabricate any portions of Exhibit 2; and (d) Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the document that he prepared at Elvin's request. 9. The Court concludes that Elizabeth was a credible witness, and the Court accepts as true her testimony. In particular, the Court accepts as true Elizabeth's testimony that (a) after Susan Strong notarized her and Elvin's signatures on the First Amendment, Elizabeth placed the Signed First Amendment in a file cabinet in their apartment at the Waipuna; and (b) Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the First Amendment that she and Elvin signed on September 16,1999. 10. 11. The Court concludes that Nanci's assertion that Jones fabricated Exhibit 2 There is not sufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that the First is unsupported speculation. Amendment is invalid. Accordingly, insofar as the December 2, 2008 Petition for Declatory Relief Declaring the First Amendment Invalid, amended on August 14,2009, seeks declaratory relief declaring the First Amendment (Exhibit 2) to be invalid, the petition is DENIED. The Second Amendment & the Will A. 12. 13. ~, Lack of Testamentary Capacity Every testator is presumed to possess testamentary capacity. See In re P.2d 39, 51 (1999). As the petitioner, Nanci bears the burden of proving that Elvin lacked
Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i 443,455,979
testamentary capacity when he executed the Second Amendment and the Will. See, HAW. Rev. STAT.§ 560: 3-407. 14. To demonstrate lack of testamentary capacity, Nanci must prove that, at
the time the Second Amendment and the Will were executed, Elvin did not know: (1) the extent of his estate, (2) the natural objects of his bounty, (3) the disposition he was making, and (4) how all of these elements relate so as to form a rational plan. See Herbert, 90 Hawal'l at 455,979 P.2d at 51. 15. There was not sufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that any of the foregoing elements were met.
-17-
16.
No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that when
Elvin executed the Will, Elvin did not know: (1) the extent of his estate, or (2) the natural objects of his bounty, or (3) the disposition he was making, or (4) how all of these elements relate so as to form a rational plan. 17. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that when Elvin executed the Second Amendment, Elvin did not know: (1) the extent of his estate, or (2) the natural objects of his bounty, or (3) the disposition he was making, or (4) how all of these elements relate so as to form a rational plan. 18. making. 19. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that when Elvin executed the Second Amendment, Elvin lacked sufficient mental capacity to understand or appreciate the legal Significance of his action. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that when Elvin executed the Second Amendment, Elvin did not understand the disposition he was
B.
20.
Undue Influence
To prevail on her undue influence claim, Nanci must show the following
facts surrounding the execution of Elvin's Second Amendment and Will: (1) Elvin's susceptibility to undue influence; (2) opportunity for the exertion of undue influence; (3) disposition to exert undue influence; and (4) the result, in the Will and in the Second Amendment, of such undue influence. See Herbert at 90 Hawai'i at 457,979 P.2d at 53. 21. Further, all of these elements must be proved to have "operated as a present constraint at the very time" the Second Amendment and the Will were executed. Id. at 458,979 P.2d at 54. 22. Evidence of undue influence "must be of a clear and convincing character; indeed it is said that it must be not merely consistent with the theory of undue influence, but inconsistent with a contrary theory. Mere suspicion and conjecture are not enough."
k!.:. at 458,
23.
979 P.2d at 54. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin's
execution of the Second Amendment was the product of undue influence.
ImanagcDB: 1396838.2
-18-
24.
No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin's Coercion and Duress "Duress generally carries the idea of compulsion, either by means of
execution of the Will was the product of undue influence.
C.
25.
actual physical force or threatened physical force applied to the person (or to some near relative of the person) to be influenced. or applied to the property or reputation of such person. Coercion may include compulsion brought about by moral force or in some other manner with or without physical force." 28 Williston on Contracts § 71:12 (4th Ed.). 26. In order for duress or coercion to be found, three elements are necessary: (1) an improper threat; (2) that induces a party to assent to the coercing party's proposal; and (3) the absence of any alternative but to agree. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 175(1) (1981); see also 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 218. 27. "Undue influence must operate at the time of execution and consists of mental, moral or physical coercion, destructive of free agency, or pressure of whatever character carried to such degree that the party's free play of jUdgment, discretion or wishes is overborne." Soares v. Freitas, 38 Haw. 64, 1948 WL 6304 *2 (Haw. Terr. 1948). 28. 29. 30. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin's No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin's No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin execution of the Second Amendment was the product of coercion or duress. execution of the Will Was the product of coercion or duress. was compelled or forced, whether by physical or moral threat or fear, to execute either the Will or the Second Amendment. 31. 32. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that in had no choice but to execute either the Will or the Second Amendment. executing any of (a) the First Amendment (Exhibit 2), (b) the Second Amendment (Exhibit 3), or (c) the Will (Exhibit 4). Elvin acted in any way other than of his free will and with full mental capacity.
-19-
D. 33.
Fraud To succeed on a claim of fraudulent inducement, Nanci must establish
that: (1) Elizabeth misrepresented a material fact to Elvin, (2) for the purpose of inducing Elvin to act, (3) Elvin reasonably believed the misrepresentation to be true, and (4) Elvin relied to his detriment on the misrepresentation. 2 Haw. App. 324, 327,631 P.2d 606, 608 (1981). 34. 243,255,990 Fraud is never presumed. TSA Intern .. Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawai'i P.2d 713, 725 (1999). The party claiming fraud must provide clear and See Dement v. Atkins & Ash,
convincing evidence of every element of her fraud claim. Shoppe v. Gucci Am. Inc., 94 Hawai'i 368, 386, 14 P.3d 1049, 1067 (2000). 35. 36. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin's No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that anyone execution of either the Will or the Second Amendment was the product of fraud. misrepresented or omitted a material fact to Elvin that had any bearing on Elvin's execution of the Will or the Second Amendment. 37. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin's execution of either the Will or the Second Amendment was induced or affected by any material misrepresentation or omission. 38. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin believed any material misrepresentation or omission to be true when he executed either the Will or the Second Amendment. E. 39. 40. Mistake "The mere execution of a will creates the presumption that the testator or To upset a will on the basis of mistake, "the contestant bears the burden
testatrix knew the contents of the will." Herbert, 90 Hawaii at 456,979 P.2d at 52. of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator or testatrix was mistaken about the contents of the challenged will." Id. at 456 n.9, 979 P.2d at 52 n.9. 41. As for trusts, a trust instrument will generally not be disturbed if the settlor's intent to make the trust instrument is apparent from its face. See Afong v. Chun Tung Afong, 5 Haw. 191,1884 WL 6681 *1 (Haw. King. 1884) (,Where the intent to make an irrevocable gift is perfectly apparent, or where, even in the absence of such
lmanageOB: 1396838.2
-20-
a clear intent, a sufficient motive (such as protection against the grantor's own extravagance, or the like) for making such a gift exists, the settlement cannot be disturbed. "). 42. To obtain rescission of an instrument for mistake, a party must establish that the settlor operated under a mistake that was material to the instrument and that affected the substance thereof at the time of execution. See Emalia Haahaa Akiona Hee v. Kahiwa Hee Chung, 39 Haw. 364,1952 WL 7359 *2 (Haw. Terr. 1952) ("The jurisdiction of equity to decree the cancelation of an instrument because at the time of its execution the parties, or even one of them, labored under a mistake of fact, provided that such mistake is material to the transaction and affects the substance thereof, rather than a mere incident or the inducement for entering into it, is well recognized and frequently invoked[.]"). 43. Finally, a misunderstanding of the legal effect of a trust instrument is not grounds for its cancellation. See Cummins v. Carter, 17 Haw. 71, 1905 WL 1417 (Haw. Terr. 1905) (holding that a trust deed cannot be set aside on the grounds that the settlor did not fully realize its scope or effect where the deed was read to him and he trusted his agenfs advice that it was alright because if he could not understand the trust deed it was his duty to have it translated or explained to him). 44. 45. 46. No evidence was provided from which the Court can conclude that Elvin's The Court concludes that Emery, Corless and Shumway were credible In particular, the Court accepts as true Corless's testimony that (a) she execution of either the Will or the Second Amendment was the product of mistake. witnesses, and the Court accepts as true their testimony. had no reason to doubt that Elvin had full testamentary capacity on September 22, 2003, when Elvin executed the Second Amendment; and (b) she had no basis to believe that Elvin was acting under duress, coercion, fraud, mistake, or any other type of undue influence. 47. In particular, the Court accepts as true Emery's testimony that (a) Elvin and Elizabeth had a very happy and loving relationship, and that Elvin loved Elizabeth very much; (b) she had no reason to doubt that Elvin had full testamentary capacity on September 22, 2003; (c) she had no basis to believe that Elvin was acting under duress,
lmanagcDB: 1396838.2
-21-
coercion, fraud, mistake, or any other type of undue influence; and (d) she had no reason to believe that Elvin was drugged or medicated. 48. In particular, the Court accepts as true Elizabeth's testimony that on September 22, 2003, when he executed the Second Amendment, Elvin had full testamentary capacity and was not acting under any type of undue influence. 165. In particular, the Court accepts as true Shumway's testimony that on September 22,2003, when Elvin executed the Will, (a) Elvin was normal, lucid and aware of his surroundings; (b) Elvin did not appear to be medicated or drugged; (c) Elvin had testamentary capacity and was not lncapacltated; and (d) Elvin was not acting under duress, coercion, fraud, mistake, or any other type of undue influence. 49. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Elvin Meek possessed testamentary capacity on September 22, 2003, and September 23, 2003, when he executed the Second Amendment and the Wi". 50. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Elvin Meek's execution of the Second Amendment and the Will on September 22, 2003, and September 23, 2003, was not the product of mistake, fraud, duress, coercion, or any type of undue influence. 51. 52. DENIED. III. 1. FINAL JUDGMENT Insofar as the Petition for Instructions filed in this action on August 30, Insofar as the Petition for Instructions filed in this action on August 30, 2007 seeks a determination that the Will is not valid, the petition is DENIED. 2007 seeks a determination that the Second Amendment is not valid, the petition is
This Order fully resolves a" of the claims raised in the December 2, 2008
Petition for Declatory Relief Declaring the First Amendment Invalid, as amended on August 14, 2009, and there is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment thereon. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that final judgment on the December 2, 2008 Petition for Declatory Relief Declaring the First Amendment Invalid, as amended on August 14, 2009, be entered pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Hawaii Probate Rules and Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure.
ImanageDB:I396838.2
-22-
2.
Pursuant to Rule 34(b) of the Hawaii Probate Rules, the Court certifies as
final all of its findings and conclusions relating to the Second Amendment, including the Court's denial of the Petition for Instructions filed in this action on August 30,2007, insofar as the Petition for Instructions seeks a determination that the Second Amendment is not valid. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,
S_EP_3_O_2_01_O
1. OS·,·
10\ Ih fht. Mafl~ro~ th.t- ~"i" . M/e-~ ratt\I'I~ fnut, D4ted June-I") R ~~ohdt.flt 'aiz.abdh Meek'oS I'h~-ed ffndi~,P.p radJ and CtNaduIl'ohs
I) JmanageOB: l396838.2
of
' 'if''..As Am~."

tAW ~-
-'-
-23-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was duly served this day by United States Mail, postage prepaid, on: NANCIMEEK 3308 Ariba Street Las Vegas, NV 89129 LOLA DEE MEEK REKLAI P. o. Box 7042 Koror, Palau 96940 MELVIN RAY MEEK 1633 E Chaparral Drive Casa Grande, Arizona 85222-5825 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 22, 2010. CADES SCHUTTE LLP By E-Mail & Regular Mail T. NO. 05-1-0101 (Trust Proceeding)
By Mail
By Mail
ES H. ASHFORD ONDA L. GRISWOLD Attorneys for ELIZABETH MEEK, as Trustee
ImanageDB: 139683 8.2
CADES SCHUTTE LLP RHONDA L. GRISWOLD 3679-0 JAMES H. ASHFORD 4743-0 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813-4216 Telephone: (808) 521-9200 Attorneys for Respondent ELIZABETH A. MEEK, as Trustee IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII IN THE MATTER OF T. NO. 05-1-0101 (Trust Proceeding) FINAL JUDGMENT
FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STAlE OF HAWAIl

FILED
2010SEP 30 AM 8: 38
G. YM1AMOTO CLERK
Hearing: Date: July 8,2010 & July 9,2010 Judge: Hon. Derrick H.M. Chan
FINAL JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rules 34(a) and 34(b) of the Hawaii Probate Rules, Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which are filed concurrently herewith, FINAL JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED as to
(1) all of the claims raised in the December 2, 2008 Petition for Declatory Relief Declaring the First Amendment Invalid, as amended on August 14, 2009; and (2) all of
the Court's findings and conclusions in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which are filed concurrently herewith. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,
SEP 2 9 2010 .,
_
DERRICK H.M. CHAN JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-
IN THE MATTER OF THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED-T. NO. 05-1-0101 - FINAL JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT 3
correct copy of the 0 ..

Clerk,
lao tleleDy cartity mat tnls ISa lull, true, arr..
on file in this ofIiot.
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, DATEo'JUNE 14, 1996 AS AMENDED
29GS GEe-2 PM 4: 09
o. St\}(IMOTO
CLERK
T. No. OS-1-0101
PETITION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF DECLARING THE 1Sf AMENDMENT INVAUD; EXHIBITS A- G;
J
.)
) )
) )
)
----------------~---------)
PETITION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF COMES NOW NANCIMEEK, an interested person seeks declatory relief that the 1st Amendment to the 1996 ELVIN R MEEK TRUST dated September 16, 1997
(Exhibit "A'1 is invalid for the following reasons:
1) There appears to be evidence that would doubt the authenticity
of the
document to the extent that it may have been fabricated when upon further inspection of the copy provided after my father's death the document appears to be altered evidenced by what appears to be computer generated cuts, . pasted inserts, contrasting alignment. fonts, pages unnumbered and paragraphs out of
EXHIBIT 4
1
2) We do not question a document was signed on September 16, 1997 at the Bank of Hawaii, confirmed by my conversations with Notary Susan Strong as well as possessing a copy of the notary page wherein signatures are recorded by Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek, listing the type of document as "customers of Heidi trust agreement". 3) It is evident that the 1st Amendment as provided by Elizabeth Meek's attorney in California, Robert Jones after decedent's demise supports the Last Will of
Elvin R Meek (Exhibit "E'') signed by Elvin Meek with what is believed a weak . Signature, one day after signing the 2nd Amendment. Both documents name Elizabeth Meek and Bank of Hawaii as respective Co-trustees, contradicting Elvin Meek's original intentions as set forth in his Elvin R Meek Family Trust dated 1996 . . 4) Furthermore there is no mention of the Qualified Domestic Trust (QDOT) nor
the Bank of Hawaii in the Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust signed June 14,
1996 however several pages are devoted to handling the Qualified Domestic Trust in the 1st Amendment signed one year later with respect to the tax
advantages since Elizabeth Meek atthe time of Elvin's death was not an American Citizen. It is our allegations that Attorney Robert Jones fabricated and constructed the 1st Amendment after Elvin R Meek passed away on October 19, 2003 and a year later introduced same to the courts in California.
5) Furthermore we question Attorney Robert Jones opening the original probate in the state of California whereas Elvin Meek had resided for several years in Honolulu and died in Hawaii. Attorney Robert Jones is not licensed to practice in Hawaii. 6) We also question the hurried manner with which Attorney Robert Jones, without informing Nanci Meek or Melvin Meek, sold properties prior to having the probate introduced in California. 7) The inconsistencies in the 2nd Amendment (Exhibit "8'') constructed by Attorney Robert Jones which in the first like seeks to amend the 1st Amendment "as amended September __ , 1999". There has never been an
Amendment dated September 1999 introduced by Robert Jones and we believe his negligence is a result of the haste with which he prepared the 2nd Amendment. 8) The non-communicative manner in which Elizabeth and her attorney Robert Jones have conducted themselves during the last 4 and a half years of litigation with respect to Nanci Meek, benefiCiary, and Melvin Meek, beneflclarv. (see Exhibit "C" attached) 9) The further documented non-communicative behavior on behalf of Attorney Robert Jones when asked on numerous occasions to clarify the signing of the 1st Amendment on September 16th, 1997 and again on September 19th 1997 as per his previously filed affidavits.
10)A Letter provided to me by Wes Stewart, a close friend and neighbor of my father's for 35 years indicating a conflict in our father's intentions. (Exhibit "F'') as well as Wes Stewart's affidavit filed with the court and dated August 2007 (Exhibit "G'') 11) As set forth in my affidavit filed with the court December 15, 2005, my father approached me in April of 2002, 18 months prior to his demise, at the EITorito restaurant parking lot in San Bernardino, California and entrusted me with a copy of The Elvin R Meek 1996 Family trust. He was upset because he had recently discovered that Elizabeth Meekwas sending money as well as making deposits from his bank accounts at the Bank of Hawaii to another Bank of Hawaii branch located in Palau and in the name of her daughter Lola. He also indicated that he and Elizabeth were "not getting along". Therefore, petitioner prays: 1. That the original 1st Amendment be lodged with the Court. 2. We request that the Court require that Elizabeth Meek or her counsel respond within 30 days by providing the original First Amendment dated September 16, 1997 to Reed Hayes a qualified expert witness, allowing the document to be available for inspection and copying at the offices of Reed Hayes, forensic examiner (see Exhibit "0''), 4021 Pakahi Place Honolulu Hawaii.
3. That the court consider our allegations that the 1st Amendment to the 1996 original Elvin R Meek Family trust has been fabricated and fraudulently produced by Attorney Robert Jones after the decedent's death in an effort to support the
z= Amendment and Last Will And Testament signed by the
decedent Elvin Meek, and who according to the previously filed forensics report, forensics experts and medical consultants was declared to be incoherent and 100% incapacitated at the time these documents were executed. 4. Furthermore, common sense and prudent reasoning would dictate that opposing counsel would be eager to produce the original 1st Amendment already in their possession for forensic scrutiny as it would bevond a doubt serve to validate Elizabeth's claim to be sole Trustee until her death. Should that be the case, I would respectively withdraw any further effort to contest the matter with respect to the validity of the 1stAmendment. 5. That the Court consider the non-communicative manner in which Elizabeth and her attorney Robert Jones have conducted themselves during the last 4 and a half years of litigation with respect to Nanci Meek Kusley, beneftclarv, and Melvin Meek, beneficiary. (see Exhibit "C" attached)
6. Finally, the court recognize the original Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust
signed June 14, 1996 which names myself as the trustee and allocates a specific distribution formula of 1/3 to Melvin Meek, 1/3 to Nancy Meek Kusley,
1/6 to DeeLola Meek, and 1/6 to Elizabeth Meek, as the true document and proceed in accordance with court rules as set forth in the State of Hawaii .
I certify that the forgoing is true and correct, and that each of the attachments are true and correct copies under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of Hawaii.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII ) ) THE ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY TRUST ) ) DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED ) IN THE MATTER OF
T. No. 05-1-0101
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
------------------------)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct-copy of the PETITION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF and attachments was duly served upon the following individuals by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows: RHONDA L GRISWOLD, ESQ Cades Shutte LLP 1000 Bishop Street Suite 1200 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attorney for ELIZABETH A MEEK LOLA DEE MEEK (REKLAI) P.O. Box 7042 . Koror, Palau 96940 MELVIN RAY MEEK 1453 E Avenida Grande Casa Grande, AZ 85222 Robert M Jones Esq 8655 Morro Road Suite C Atascadero CA 93422 Attorney for ELIZABETH A MEEK BY MAIL
BY MAIL
BY MAIL
BY MAIL
DATED:
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ELYIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST
.,t;
tl
EXHIBITA
•.6
THE ELVINR.MEEKFAMILYTRUST
Elvin R. Meek, as the settlor of the ElvinR. Meek Family Trust, established on June 14, 1996, declares that this is the First Amended Declaration of Trust of said Trust. It is the intent of the Settlor to republish and restate the Elvin R. Meek Family Trust as of this date as foUow: ARTICLE ONE: TRUSTEES A ELYIN R MEEK (called the settlor or a trustee, depending on the context and sometimes referred to as spouse) declares that he has set aside and holds in trust the property described in Schedule A attached to this instrument, and that he has appointed ELYIN R MEEK and ELIZABETH A MEEK as Trustees of this Trust. B. On the death, resignation, or incapacity of either EL V1N R :MEEK or ELIZABETH A MEEK, the other shall become sole trustee. During any period that the settlor serves as sole trustee of any trust under this instrument, that trustee shall have the power to appoint an additional trustee to act as co-trustee for any trust. Any appointment of co-trustee (and revocation of appointment) shall be made in a written instrument signed by the settlor. The appointment of a co-trustee becomes effective on the new co-trustee's written acceptance of the trust and the delivery of the acceptance to the settlor. C. If at any time both trustees named in the first paragraph of this Article for any reason fail to qualify or cease to act as trustees, the following shall act as successor Trustees in the order named: The Bank: of Hawaii, Trust Department, located in Honolulu, Hawaii. D. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, each person designated or acting from time to time as a trustee of any trust(s) established by this instrument shall have the power to designate successor trustees to act when he or she becomes unable or unwilling to act as successor trustee(s) of the trust(s). Any person acting as trustee of any trust may from time to time revoke any designation of any successor to himself or herself not named in this trust and designate other persons as successor trustee(s) to him or her. All designations or revocations shall be exercised in writing and are effective on delivery to the trustee and adult beneficiaries of the trust(s) for which they are designated.
ARTICLE TWO: TRUST ESTATE All property subject to this instrument from time to time including the property listed in Schedule A is referred to as the trust estate and shall be held, administered, and distributed according
'.""
to this instrument. B. Other property acceptable to the trustees may be added to these trusts by any person, by the Will or Codicil of either settlor, by the proceeds of any life insurance, or otherwise.
ARTICLETIDmE:DffiTrurnUTIONSTOSETITnR
During the Settlor's lifetime, the trustees shall pay to or apply for the benefit of the Settlor and the Settlor's spouse as much of the net income of the trust estate as the Settlor or the Settlor's spouse demands in quarter-annual or more frequent installments, and shall accumulate and add to principal any non-distributed net income.
A.
If the trustees consider the net income insufficient to provide for the Settlor and his spouse and the proper health, education, support, maintenance, comfort and welfare of each in accordance with the standard of living that both enjoy at the date of this instrument, the trustees shall pay to or apply for their benefit as much of the principal of the trust estate as is necessary in the trustees' discretion for these purposes without taking into consideration other funds and .assets available to the Settlor and his spouse held free of this trust.
B.
ARTICLE FOUR: INCAPACfIY OF SETTLOR

A. Ifat any time, either in the trustees' discretion or as certified in writing by two licensed physicians not related by blood or marriage to either settlor or any beneficiary of this trust, either spouse has become physically or mentally incapacitated, whether or not a court of competent jurisdiction has declared him or her incompetent or mentally ill or has appointed a conservator, the trustees shall pay to the other spouse or apply for the benefit of either settlor the amounts of net .income and principal necessaryin the trustee's discretion for the proper health, support (including income tax liabilities) and maintenance of both spouses in: accordance with their accustomed manner of living at the date of this instrument until the incapacitated settlor, either in the trustee's discretion or as certified by two licensed physicians not related by blood or marriage to either settlor or any beneficiary of this trust, is again able to manage his or her own affairs, or until the earlier death of either spouse. The non-incapacitated spouse may also withdraw, from time to time, accumulated trust income and principal of community property.
,.
B.
If a conservator of the person or estate is appointed for either spouse, the trustee shall
tak-e into account any payments made for either settlor's benefit by such conservator.
ARTICLE FIVE: PAYMENTS TO OTHERS

The Settlor may at any time direct the trustees in 'writing to pay single sums or periodic payments out of the trust estate to any other person or organization, provided that such sums shall first be paid to the Settlor or to a non-trust account of the Settlor out of the trust and only then paid over to the other person(s) or organization(s). The settlor who has contributed separate property may direct the trustees in writing to pay single sums or periodic payments out of that separate property to any other person or organization in the manner described above. The settlor's power to so direct the trustees shall be personal to the settlor, except that this power may be exercised by an attorney in fact pursuant to a Power of Attorney or a duly qualified conservator to the extent that payments to one or more of the conservatee's issue qualify for the annual federal gift tax: exclusion. Any such payments to conservatee's issue shall be made only in a manner consistent with the stated desires of the conservatee.
ARTICLE SIX: SURVIVOR'S TRUST, MARITAL TRUST AND EXEMPTION TRUST

A Division into Three Trusts at First Sett10rs Death. The first spouse to die shall be
called the deceased spouse, and the living spouse shall be called the surviving spouse. On the deceased
spouse's death, the trustees shall divide the trust estate, including any additions made to the trust by
reason of the deceased spouse's death, such as from the decedent's Will or life insurance policies on the decedent's life, into three separate trusts designated the survivors trust, the marital trust and the exemption trust. B. Deferral of Division or Distribution. Whenever the trustees are directed to make a
distribution of trust assets or a division of trust assets into separate trusts or shares on a spouse's death,
the trustees may, in the trustees' discretion, defer that distribution or division until six months after the spouse's death.
....
When the trustees defer distribution or division of the trust assets, the deferred division or distribution shall be made as if it had taken place at the time prescribed in this instrument in the absence of this paragraph, and all rights given to the beneficiaries of those trust assets under other provisions of this instrument shall be considered to have accrued and vested as of that prescribed time. C. Survivor's Trust. The survivor's trust shall consist of the surviving spouse's separate property that is a part of the trust estate and the surviving spouse's interest in the Settlor's community estate included in or added to the trust estate in any manner, including any undistributed or accrued income on it. D. Exemption Trust: Marital Deduction as Residual Amount. The exemption trust shall consist of a pecuniary amount equal to the maximum sum that can be allocated to a trust that does not qualify for the federal estate tax marital deduction to any extent, utilizing the deceased spouse's unified credit to the fullest extent possible so as to minimize or not produce any federal estate tax, after taking into account: (1) All available deductions taken in determining the estate tax payable by reason of the deceased spouse's death; (2) All credits allowed for federal tax purposes, provided that no credit shall result in the disallowance of the marital deduction; (3) The net value of all other property included in the gross estate of the deceased spouse, whether or not it is given under this instrument and whether it passes at the time of the deceased spouse's death or has passed before the deceased spouse's death to any person, trust, or other entity, so that it is included in the deceased spouse's gross estate and does not qualify for the federal estate tax marital deduction. In determining the amount of the exemption trust, however, any disclaimers by the surviving spouse shall be disregarded. The marital trust shall consist of the balance of the trust estate. All state death taxes and unclaimed administration expenses attributable in whole or in part to the sutvivor's trust shall be paid from the exemption trust (regardless of any other provision either in this instrument or by applicable law allocating administration expenses or taxes). The term "unclaimed administration expenses" means administration expenses, described in Internal Revenue Code sections 2053(a)(2), 2053(b), that are eligible for deduction on the federal estate tax return, but that are not deducted on that return because
they are claimed as income tax deductions.
'.
The tru_steeshall satisfy the amount so determined in cash or in kind, or partly in each, and shall allocate to the exemption trust any assets of the deceased 'spouse contributed or added to the trust that are not eligible for the federal estate tax marital deduction. Assets allocated in kind shall be considered to satisfy this amount on the basis of their net fair market values at the date or dates of allocation to the exemption trust. Assets qualifying for the federal estate tax marital deduction shall be transferred to the survivor's trust only to the extent that the transfer reduces the federal estate tax otherwise payable by reason of the deceased spouse's death. No assets for which a credit for foreign death taxes is allowed under the federal estate tax law applicable to the deceased spouse's estate shall be allocated to the marital trust, unless that estate contains sufficient other property to fully fund the marital trust. The trustee shall select property to satisfy the pecuniary amount constituting the exemption trust, so that any appreciation or depreciation that has occurred in the value of trust property between the applicable valuation date and the date of allocation shall.be fairly apportioned between the marital trust and the exemption trust. Savings Clause. It is the settlor's intention to have the marital trust qualify for the marital deduction under Internal Revenue Code Section 2056 and the regulations pertaining to that section or any corresponding or substitute provisions applicable to the trust estate. In no event shall the trustees take any action or have any power that will impair the marital deduction, and all provisions regarding marital trust shall be interpreted to conform to this primary objective.
E.
ARTICLE SEVEN: EXPENSES AND DISTRIBUTIONS AT FIRST DEATH A Expenses. On the deceased spouse's death, the trustee, in the trustee's discretion, may payout of the trust estate the deceased spouse's debts outstanding at the time. of his or her death and not barred by the statute of limitations, Statute of Frauds, or any other provision of law; the federal or state estate and inheritance taxes, including interest and penalties, attributable to the trust estate arising because of the deceased spouse's death; the last-illness and funeral expenses of the deceased spouse; attorneys' fees; and other costs incurred in administrating the deceased spouses probate estate. Any payments for estate or inheritance taxes shall be charged to the exemption trust without apportionment or charge against any beneficiary of the trust estate or any transferee of property passing outside of the trust estate. Payments for last-illness, funeral, and other administration costs shall be charged to the exemption trust, and if the exemption trust is insufficient, to the marital trust, provided however, administration costs ailocabie to the surviving spouse's share of the community property administered
.
in the deceased spouse's estate shall be charged to the survivors trust. Payment of any deceased spouse's debts shall be made proportionately from the property of the trust estate as such property shall be liable for the debts. B. Survivors Trust. From the time of the deceasedspouse's death, the trustee shall pay to or apply for the benefit of the surviving spouse the net income of the survivors trust in quarterannual or more frequent installments. If the trustee considers such income insufficient, the trustee shall also pay to or apply for the benefit of the surviving spouse any sums from the principal of the survivors trust that the trustee, in the trustee's discretion, considers necessary for the surviving spouse's proper health, education, welfare, comfort, support and maintenance. C. Marital Trust: Distribution of Income and Principal: OTIP Provisions. From the time of the deceased spouse's death, the entire net income of the marital trust shall be paid to the surviving spouse, during the surviving spouse's entire lifetime, in quarter-annual or other convenient installments, but no less frequently than annually. Besides the net income, the trustee shall pay to or apply for the surviving spouse's benefit as much of the principal of the trust estate, up to and including the whole of the estate, as the trustee considers necessary for the surviving spouse's health, education, support and maintenance in accordance with the standard of living that the surviving spouse enjoyed on the date of the deceased settlor's death. In exercising this discretion, the trustee shall consider the surviving spouse's other resources available for these purposes and held free of this trust, excluding the personal residence and tangible personal property held for the surviving spouse's use. D. Marital Trust ProperfyRequired to be Productive. The surviving spouse shall have the power to compel the trustee to dispose of any assets in the marital trust that fail to provide a reasonable income to the surviving spouse as income beneficiary. E. Accumulated but Undistributed OTIP Income at Surviving Spouse's Death. On the surviving spouse's death, any marital trust income accumulated from the date of last income distribution through the date of the surviving spouse's death shall be distributed to the surviving spouse's estate. ,
F.
Distribution of Principal and Income of Exemption Trust. On the deceased spouse's
death, the trustee shall pay to or apply for the benefit of the surviving spouse and/or the Settlor's issue from the net income of the exemption trust all sums and in any portion that may be necessary, in the trustee's discretion, for their respective health, education, support and maintenance, in accordance with their accustomed standard of living at the date of the deceased spouse's death, in quarter-annual or more frequent installments. Any income not distributed shall be added to principal. If the trustee considers the income insufficient, the trustee shall also pay to or apply for the benefit of the surviving spouse all sums from principal as the trustee in the trustee's discretion, considers necessary for the beneficiary's proper health, education, support, and maintenance. Payments from principal to the surviving spouse shall be made first from the survivor's trust until it is exhausted, and thereafter from the exemption trust, except that all or any part or those payments may be made from the exemption trust without exhausting the survivor's trust if the trustee considers it possible. G. Authority to Pay Death Taxes. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this
instrument or in either settlor's will, federal estate taxes imposed on or by reason of the inclusion of any portion of the trust estate in the gross taxable estate of either settlor under the provisions of any federal
tax law shall be paid by the trustee and charged to, pro-rated among, or recovered from the trust estate
or the persons entitled to the benefits under these trusts as and to the extent provided by any applicable tax law or any pro-ration statute and subject to the prior application of the marital deduction and/or charitable deductions as appropriate. Except when otherwise specifically provided, state death taxes shall be paid and charged to the trust estate or deducted and collected as provided by law.
ARTICLE EIGHT: DISTRIBUTIONS ON DEATH OF SURVIVOR

A Termination of Survivor's Trust and Marital Trust. On the surviving spouse's death, if
and to the extent that the surviving spouse shall not have effectively disposed of all property of the trust estate of the survivor's trust and the marital trust through a valid and effective exercise of a power of appointment, all of the remaining assets of these trust(s) shall be distributed to the then-acting trustees of the exemption trust to be added to and form part of the assets of the exemption trust and to be thereafter held, administered, and distributed as part of the exemption trust. B. Surviving Spouse's Expenses. On the surviving spouse's death, and subject to any
power of appointment exercised by the survivor, the trustees may in the trustees' discretion payout of
the principal of the swvivor's trust, or if it has been exhausted, of the marital trust, or if it has been exhausted, of the exemption trust, the surviving spouse's debts outstanding at the time of his or her death and not barred by the statute of limitations, Statute of Frauds, or any other provisions of law; last-illness and funeral expenses; attorneys fees; other probate expenses; and estate and inheritance taxes, including interest and penalties arising on the swviving spouse's death. C. Distribution of Trust Upon Death of Swviving Spouse. On the surviving spouse's death, the trustees shall distribute the entire principal of the trust and all accrued income free of trust to the following in equal shares to the following: NANCY WRRAINE MEEK LUSLEY or to her issue MELVIN RAY MEEK or to his issue LOLA DEE MEEK or to her issue . . D. Distribution of Trust to Beneficiaries under the age of 40 . In the event that any beneficiary of the Trust is under the age of 40 years at the date of the death of the Surviving Spouse, that beneficiary's share of the trust shall continue to be.held in trust, hereinafter described as the "Trust Estate," and administered according to the provisions that follow: 8.01 The Trust Estate. The "Trust Estate" shall consist of the following property received by Trustee for administration under this Article 4 and the proceeds, investments, and reinvestment of that property: (a) Property received from Settlor's Executor;
(b) Insurance proceeds payable to Trustee by reason of Settlor's death;
(c) .Payment to Trustee from any pension or profit-sharing plan, employee savings plan, deferred compensation agreement, or other employee benefit plan; and (d) Otherproperty transferred to, and accepted by, Trustee.
8.02 Beneficiaries; Purposes. The beneficiary(s) of this Trust Estate shall be any beneficiary of this trust under the age of 40 years , or that beneficiary's issue. The trust purpose shall be to provide for that beneficiary'S health, support, maintenance and education. .
I,
8.03 Subsequent
Division and AUocation.
If such beneficiary dies before the
termination of such trust or trusts leaving issue surviving, all of the remaining property of such trust or trusts shall then be apportioned by Right of Representation to separate trusts for his issue. 8.04 Distribution to Beneficiary. Trustee shall make such distributions as Trustee Trustee shall be guided by the following
8.04.1 To Accomplish Pumose.
thinks are necessary to accomplish the trust purposes. instructions:
(a) Distributions may be made to, or for the benefit of such beneficiary and each issue of a deceased beneficiary. (b) Distribution shall be made out of net income to the extent available and the balance shall be made out of principal. (c) In determining the amount of distributions, Trustee may consider and give effect to any and all resources and support available to each beneficiary from other sources. (d) Trustee is authorized to distribute more to one beneficiary than to another provided Trustee considers the age, condition of health, talents, and probable future needs of all of Settlor' issue. (e)' Trustee 'is authorized, but not required, to provide and maintain a home for those beneficiaries. If any person designated by the last to die of Settlor and Settlor's
designees or by any court as the guardian of the person of one' or more of such issue is willing to care for them in his or her own home, Trustee may make such payments to or other arrangements with the guardian as trustee from time to time thinks necessary or desirable. This is to permit the guardian to supply housing and care without
financial loss. Trustee may payor reimburse the guardian for all costs and expenses
reasonably incurred in the performance of the guardian's duties and may compensate the guardian for service performed as guardian. 8.04.2 Additional and Financial Distribution. In addition to any distribution made to accomplish trust purposes. Trustee may distribute the property of the trust to any beneficiary at the time specified below or at such time the trustee, deems appropriate, in the trustee's absolute discretion, taking into consideration, the proper health, education, welfare, comfort, and lifestyle of the beneficiary( s) of the trust. (a) If the beneficiary is a child of Settlor, it is the desire of the Settlor that such beneficiary shall receive sufficient income from the trust to pursue courses of study in higher education, to include four year colleges and universities and post-graduate studies so long as trustee is satisfied that the course of education is leading to a degree. Thereafter, Trustee is authorized to distribute principal to such child of Settlor's as the Trustee deems appropriate taking into consideration, such beneficiary' s marital employment status. (b) If the Beneficiary is an issue of a child of Settlor, Trustee shall distribute such property; (i) To that issue of a child when he or she reaches 40 years;
(ii) Ifthat issue ofa child dies before 40 years, Trustee shall distribute such
and
property by Right of Representation to that issue of a child's then living issue, if any, or, if none, by Right of Representation to the then living issue of Settlor; provided, if Trustee is holding property in trust for any such issue, that issue's share shall be added to that trust. 8.05 Alternate Trust Beneficiaries. If property remains in any trust and no specific
directions are given for distributing the property, that trust shall terminate, Trustee shall then distribute the property as if Settlor had died without a Will at such time and according to the laws of descent and distribution of the State of California. 8.06 Rule Against Pemetuities. Any Trust which has not terminated at some earlier date shall, in any event, terminate one day earlier than 21 years after the death of the last to die of the beneficiaries living or conceived on the date of Settlor's death. Trustee shall then distribute to the income beneficiary of that trust all of its remaining property. 8.07 Duties of Trustee. 8.07.1 Annual Accountings. After the end of each income tax year for each trust,
Trustee shall prepare a statement showing how the property of the trust is invested and all transactions relating to the trust for the preceding tax year, with in sixty days after the end of the tax year, Trustee shall furnish a copy of the Statement to each adult income beneficiary of the Trust. 8.07.2 Investment. In acquiring, investing, reinvesting, exchanging, selling, and
managing the property of the trust, Trustee shall exercise the judgment
and care, under the
circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management .of their own affairs, not in regard to speculation but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds. In determining the prudence of a particular investment, Trustee shall
consider the proposed investment or investment course of action in relation to all property of the trust. 8.07.3 Income. Ifall the income of the trusts is not distributed during an income tax year, the undistributed portion shall be added to principal. ARTICLE NINE: REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT BY SETfLOR A Revocation During Settlor' Joint Lifetimes. During the Settlor' joint lifetimes, this trust may be revoked in whole orin part: with respect to community property, by a written instrument
signed by either settlor and delivered to the trustees and the other settlor; and with respect to separate property, by a written instrument signed by the settlor who contributed that property to the trust and delivered to the trustees. On revocation, the trustees shall deliver promptly to .the Settlor or their designee all or ·the designated portion of the community property trust assets. All community property delivered to the Settlor on revocation shall continue to be the conununity property of the 'Settlor and shall be held and administered as community property. On revocation, the trustees shall promptly deliver to the contributing settlor all or the designated portion of any separate property. If the Settlor revoke this instrument entirely or with respect to a major portion of the assets which are subject to the instrument, the trustees shall be entitled to retain sufficient assets in the trust in such reasonable amounts to secure payment of liabilities the trustees have lawfully incurred in administering the trust, including trustee's fees that have been earned, unless the Settlor shall indemnify the trustees against loss or expense. Amendment. The Settlor may at. any time during their joint lifetimes amend any terms of this trust by written instrument signed by both Settlor and delivered to the trustees. No amendment shall substantially increase the trustees' duties or liabilities or change the trustees' compensation without the trustees' Consent, nor shall the trustees be obligated to act under such an amendment unless the trustees accept it. If a trustee is removed as a result of refusal to accept an amendment, the Settlor shall pay to the trustee any sums due and shall indemnify the trustee against liability the trustee has lawfully incurred in administering the trust.
B.
Revocation and Amendment by Surviving Spouse. On the deceased spouse's death, the surviving spouse may amend, revoke, or terminate the survivors trust; but the exemption trust and marital trust may not be amended, revoked or terminated. On the surviving spouse's death, none of the trusts may be amended, revoked, or terminated. On revocation or termination of the survivors trust,
c.
all of its assets shall be delivered to the surviving spouse. If this instrument is revoked with respect to all or a major portion of the assets subject to the instrument, the trustees shall be entitled to retain sufficient assets reasonably to secure payment of liabilities the trustees have lawfully incurred in administering the trust, including trustee's fees that have been earned, unless the Settlor indemnify the trustees against loss or expense. Revocation and amendment shall be made in the manner provided in Article Nine, paragraphs A and B.
ARTICLE TEN: COURT JURISDICTION Probate Code sections 17000-17210, or any successor or substitute provisions of that code authorizing optional probate court jurisdiction over living trusts hereby are made expressly applicable to all trusts. After the death of Settlor, only the trustees and any adult person entitled to current income distribution or to current distribution of income or principal at the trustees' discretion may invoke the court's jurisdiction. A To carry out the provisions of the trusts created by this instrument, and subject to any additions orlimitations stated elsewhere in this instrument, the trustees shall have the following powers besides those powers now or later conferred on trustees by law: To continue to hold any property, and to operate at the risk of the trust estate any property or business that the trustee receives or acquires under the trust as long as the trustees deem advisable, the profits or losses therefrom to inure or be chargeable to the trust estate as a whole and not to the trustees;
(l)
(2) To manage, control, grant options on, sell (for cash or on deferred payments, with or without security), convey, exchange, partition, divide, improve or repair trust property; To lease trust property for terms within or extending beyondthe duration or the trust and for any purpose, including exploration for and removal of gas, oil and other minerals; and to enter community oil leases, pooling and unitization agreements;
(3)
(4)
To create restrictions easements and other servitudes on trust property;
(5) To compromise, submit to arbitration, abandon or otherwise adjust any claims or litigation ill favor of or against the trust; (6) To commence or defend such litigation with respect to the trust or any property of the trust estate as the trustees deem advisable, at the expense of the trust;
(7)
To carry, at the expense of the trust, insurance of such kinds and in such amounts as
the trustees shall deem advisable both to protect the trust estate against any damage or loss, and to protect the trustees against liability with respect to third persons; (8) To invest and reinvest all or any part of the trust estate in any common or preferred stocks, shares of investment trusts and investment companies, money market funds, index funds, bonds, .debentures, mortgages, deeds of trust, mortgage participations, notes, real estate, or other property that the trustees in the trustees' discretion select; to buy stocks or other securities on margin; and to buy or sell options, puts and calls. The trustees may continue to hold in the form in which received (or the form to which changed by reorganization, split-up stock dividend, or other like occurrence) any securities or other property the trustee may at any time acquire under this trust, it being the Settlor' express desire and intention that the trustees shall have full power to invest and reinvest the trusts funds without being restricted to forms of investment that the trustee may otherwise be permitted to make by law; and to consider individual investments as part of an overall investment strategy. The investments need not be diversified. (9) To borrow money, and to encumber trust property by mortgage deed of trust, pledge or otherwise, for the debts of the trust or the joint debts of the trust and a co-owner of the property in which the trust has an interest, or for the Settlor's debts, or to guarantee the Settlor's debts; (10) To hold securities and other property in the trustee's name as trustee under the trusts created hereunder, or in the trustee's own name or in the name of a nominee; (11) With respect to securities held in trust, to have all the rights, powers and privileges of an owner, including, but not by way of limitation, the power to vote, give proxies and pay assessments and other sums deemed by the trustee necessary for the protection of the trust estate; to participate in voting trusts, pooling agreements (whether or not extending beyond the terms of the trust); to enter into shareholder's agreements; to consent to foreclosures, reorganizations, consolidations, mergers, liquidations, sales, and leases, and incident to such participation to deposit securities with and transfer title to any protective or other committee on such terms as the trustee may deem advisable; to exercise or sell stock subscription or conversion rights; and to accept and retain as an investment any securities or other property received through the exercise of any of the foregoing powers; regardless of any limitations elsewhere in this trust relative to investments by the trustees; (12) In any case in which the trustees are required, pursuant to the provisions of the trust, to divide any trust property into parts or shares for the purpose of partial or final distribution or otherwise, the trustees are authorized, in the trustees' absolute discretion, to make the division and distribution
"
(pro rata or otherwise) in kind, including undivided interests in any property, or partly in kind and partly in money, and for this purpose to make such sales of the trust property as the trustee deems necessary on such terms and conditions as the trustees shall see fit; To lend money to any person, including the probate estate of settlor, provided any such loan shall be adequately secured and shall bear a reasonable rate of interest;
(13)
To purchase property at its fair market value, as determined by independent appraisal, by the trustees in the trustees' discretion, or at that value as finally determined for estate tax purposes, from the probate estate of either settlor;
(14)
To loan or advance the trustees' own funds to the trust for any trust purpose, with interest at current rates; to receive security for such loans in the form of a mortgage, pledge,deed of trust, or other encumbrance of any assets of the trust; to purchase assets of the trust at their fair market value as determined by an independent appraisal of those assets, and to sell property to the trust at a price not in excess of its fair market value as determined by an independent appraisal.
(15)
To employ any custodian, attorney, accountant, corporate fiduciary, or any other agent or agents to assist the trustee in the administration of trusts created hereunder and to rely on the advice .given by these agents; and to pay reasonable compensation for all services performed by these agents from the trust estate out of principal which shall not decrease the compensation to which a trustee is entitl~ ,
(16)
(17) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this instrument, or in the settlor's will, federal estate taxes imposed on or by reason of the inclusion of any portion of the trustee estate in the gross taxable estate of the settlor under the provisions of any federal tax law shaH be paid by the trustee and charged to, prorated among, or recovered from the trust estate or the person entitled to the benefits under these trusts as and to the extent provided by any applicable tax law or any proration statute. Except when otherwise specifically provided, state death taxes shall be paid and charged to the trust estate or deducted and collected as provided by law. (18) For banking purposes, only one co-trustee's signature shall be required for any account held in the name of this trust. Each co-trustee may sign for the other on any such bank account. A Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the trustees may purchase or
otherwise acquire under productive or unproductive property.
B.
The enwnerating of certain powers of the trustees shall not limit the trustees' general
powers, the trustees, subject always to the discharge of the trustees' fiduciary obligations, being vested with and having all the rights, powers, privileges which an absolute owner of the same property would have. C. trustee. trustee. . No successor trustee shall be liable for any act, omission, or default of a predecessor
Unless requested in writing within (45) days of appointment by an adult beneficiary of the The successor trustee may accept the accounting records of the predecessor trustee showing
trust, no successor trustee shall have any duty to investigate or review any action of a predecessor assets on hand without further investigation and without incurring any liability to any person claiming or having an interest in the trust.
ARTICLE ELEVEN: ALLOCATION PROVISIONS

A Except as otherwise specifically provided in this instrument, the determination of all
matters with respect to what is principal and income of the trust estate and the apportionment and allocation of receipts and expenses between these accounts shall be governed by the provisions of the California Revised Uniform Principal and Income Act from time to time existing. The trustee in the trustee's discretion shall determine any matter not provided for either in this instrument or in the California Revised Uniform Principal and Income Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of this instrwnent or of the California Revised Uniform Principal and Income Act, the trustee need not establish any reserve for depreciation or to make any charge for depreciation against all or any portion of the income of the trust estate (mcluding any income realized through use of any portion of the trust estate employed in the conduct of a business by the trusts); but the trustee shall have the power, exercisable in the trustee's discretion, to determine whether to establish such a reserve and, if so, to fund the same by appropriate charges against income of the trust estate. The reserve and charges are to be established on these assumptions and in the amounts the trustee in the trustee's discretion determines. B. Income accrued or unpaid on trust property when received into the trust shall be
treated as any other income. Income accrued or held undistributed by the trustee at the termination of any trust created under this instrument shall go to the next beneficiaries of the trust in proportion to their interest in it.
C.
Among successive beneficiaries of this trust, all taxes and other current expenses shall
be deemed to have been paid and charged to the period in which they first became due and payable. D. The trustees need not physically segregate or divide the various trusts, except when
segregation or division is required because one of the trusts terminates, but the trustees shall keep separate accounts for the different trusts.
ARTICLE TWELVE: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

A BenefiCimy Under Disability. The trustees in the trustees' discretion may make
payments to any beneficiary under disability by making them to the guardian or conservator of the person of the beneficiary, custodian under the Uniform Transfer to Minors Act, parent, or any other suitable adult with whom the beneficiary resides who has care of him or her, to a relative of the beneficiary, or by directly applying them to the beneficiary's benefit. Sums may be paid directly to minor beneficiaries who, in the fiduciaries' judgment, have attained sufficient age and discretion to render it probable that such sums will be properly expended. required of any such payee. B. Waiver of Bond. No bond shall be required of any person named in this trust as No bond or other security shall be
trustee, or of any person appointed as trustee in the manner specified here, for the faithful performance of his or her duties as trustee. . C. Trustee Compensation.
A trustee shall be entitled to pay herself or himself a
reasonable compensation from time to time without prior court order. D. Notice to Trustee of Births. etc. Unless the trustee has received actual written notice
of the occurrence of'an event affecting the beneficial interests of this trust, the trustee shall not be liable to any beneficiary of this trust for distribution made as though the event had not occurred, provided this clause shall not exculpate the trustee from liability arising from nonpayment of death or generationskipping taxes that may be payable by the trust on occurrence of an event affecting the beneficial interests of this trust. E. Perpetuities Savings Clause. Unless terminated earlier in accordance with other
provisions of this instrument, all trusts created under this instrument shall terminate (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the children of the settlor living on the date of death of the settlor. The
principal and undistributed income of a terminated trust shall be distributed to the income beneficiaries of that trust in the same proportion that the beneficiaries are entitled to receive income when the trust terminates.
If at the time of termination, the rights to income are not fixed by the terms of the trust,
distribution under this clause shall be made, by right of representation, to the. persons who are then entitled or authorized, in the trustee's discretion to receive trust payments. F. Spendthrift Clause. No interest in principal or income of any trust created under. this instrument shall be anticipated, assigned, encumbered, or subjected to creditor's claim or legal process before actual receipt by the beneficiary. G. Claims of Creditors. The trustee shall not be personally liable to any creditor or to any other person for making distributions from any trust under the terms of this instrument if the trustees have no notice of the claim of such creditor. H. Beneficiaty Survivorship Provision. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this instrument, if any person named herein fails to survive the settlor for thirty (30) days, for all purposes of this trust, the person shall be considered to have predeceased the settlor. Disclaimers. Any beneficiary shall have the right to disclaim all or any part of any interest in property to which he or she may be entitled under this instrument. Except as provided herein, ally interest so disclaimed shall be distributed as if the beneficiary predeceased the settlor. No other interest of the beneficiary shall be affected by the disclaimer, unless that interest also shall be disclaimed.
1.
No-Contest Provision. Except as otherwise provided in this instrument, the Settlor has intentionally and with full knowledge omitted to provide for his heirs.
I. If any beneficiary under this declaration of trust, or any legal heir of Settlor or any person
claiming under any of them shall contest Settlor's last Will or this declaration of trust, or shall seek to impair or invalidate any of the provisions of the Will or this trust, or shall conspire with or voluntarily assist anyone attempting to do any of those things, then in that event the Settlor specifically disinherits such contesting person and all interest given to such contesting person under the Will and this trust shall be forfeited and shall be disposed of in the same manner provided in both the Will and the trust, as if that contesting person had predeceased the Settlor without issue. The trustee is authorized to defend any contest against this declaration of trust or any of its provisions, and to pay the expenses of such defense from the trust estate.
K.
Governing Law.
The validity of this trust and the construction of its beneficial
provisions shall be governed by the laws of the State of California in force from time to time. This article shall apply regardless of any change in residence of the trustee or any beneficiary, or the appointment or substitution of a trustee residing in or doing business in another state. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the validity and construction of this trust in relation to any real property located in a jurisdiction outside the State of California shall be determined under the laws of such jurisdiction. If the situs or place of administration of the trust is changed to another state, the law of that state shall govern the administration of the trust. Issue and Children. In this instrument, the term "issue" refers to lawful lineal descendants of all degrees, and the terms "child," "children," and "issue" include adopted children who were minors at the date of adoption.
L.
The terms "issue, ": "child," and "children" include a child born out of wedlock if a parent-child relationship existed between the child and his or her deceased parent, determined under California law. "Shall" and "May": The use of the word "shall" indicates a mandatory direction, while the use of the word "may" indicates a permissive, but not mandatory, grant of authority.
N.
Headings. The headings, titles, and subtitles are inserted solely for convenient reference and shall·be ignored in any construction of this instrument. P. Statutes. Codes and Regulations. regulations shall include any successors. All references to specific statutes, codes or
o.
ARTICLE THIRTEEN: NAME OF TRUST The trusts created in thisinstrumentmay be collectively referred to as the ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY TRUST, dated September II ,1997, and each separate trust created in this instrument may be referred to by adding the name of the beneficiary or other appropriate designation.
I, ELVIN R MEEK, certify that:
1.
I am the person named as Settlor in the foregoing First Amended Declaration of Trust;
2.
I have read the foregoing First Amended Declaration of Trust and it correctly sets forth the terms and conditions under which the trustees named in it are to hold, administer, and distribute the trust estate described in it;
3.
I approve such First Amended Declaration of Trust in all particulars and request the trustees to execute it.
80"'1'
Ex~~~'
Lv!.t'; t/4iV II
:rY
__
/_~__
day of September,
1997.
ELVINR MEEK, Settl(J~ The undersigned Trustees accept this First Amended Declaration of Trust and agree to
ABETH A MEEK, Trustee
AL~PURPOSEACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF HAWAll Countyof~
)
:ss
)
OnS6.-fJr. / ~ 1997, before me, $US/9A.J srI!. Notary Public, personally appearedEL VIN R. MEEK and ELIZABE1H A MEEK, [X] personally to me OR [X] proved tome on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed thesame in their authorized capacities, and, that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my band and official seal. Notary Public. ~ . ,
knOZ .'
~~ C~
·..,
EXHIBIT A. PROPERTY OF ELVIN R. MEEK TRUST

REAL PROPERTY: 469 Ena Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 525 Hahaione, Honolulu, Hawaii 445 Seaside, Unit 3317, Honolulu, Hawaii Lot 28, Tract 5249, San Bernardino County, California (Hisperia lot) Big Bear City lot, APN # 03132021 60000 San Bernardino County, California Big Bear City lot, APN # 0312 3211 60000 San Bernardino County, California Lot 75, Block., Cedarpines Park., San Bernardino, California (Crestline) Lots 17, 18 and 19 and West 93,24 feet oflots 20 and 21, and lots 41 48, Rialto, San Bernardino County, California Lot 721, River Bend, Unit 3, Mohave County, Arizona (Bullhead City) Lots 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 813, Arizona Sun Sites, Unit 9, Cochise County, Arizona Lot 94 of Rancho Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California PERSONAL PROPERTY Provident Life and Accident Annuity Individual Retirement Account, Bank of America. Stock in Bank of San Bernardino 1971 911S Porsche Money Market Certificate, Bank of America. Accounts at Valleywide Bank, Paso Robles, California.
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 14,1996

ELVIN R. MEEK, Settlor of the ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST. dated June 14.1996, as amended September __, 1999. with reference to Settlor's reservation of right to amend this trust pursuant Section 2. hereby amends The First Amendment to the Trust as follows:
to
,.
1. Article Eight, Paragraph C. Djstnbution of Tmst 1JponD~ hereby amended as follows:
of Surviving
Spouse is
2. C. Distnlmtion ofTru.<;t Ilpon Death ofSmviving Spouse. On the surviving spouse's death, the trustees shall distribute the entire principal of the trust and all accrued income
free of trust to the following: One-half(ll2) to LOLA DEE MEEK or to her-issue; One-quarter (1/4) to NANCY LORRAINE MEEK KUSLEY or to her issue; One-quarter (1/4) to MELVIN RAY MEEK or to his issue. 3. Except as provided in this Amendment, FAMIL Y TRUST as of this date. Dated:-SEP settlor hereby republishes the ELVIN R. MEEK
2 2 2003
-ELVIN R. MEEK., S
fL.Je~/
or
We, ELVIN R. MEEK and ELIZABETH A. MEEK, Amendment to the EL YIN R. MEEK F AMIL Y TRUST, this date .
Trustees,
bereby
accept
this
. ~A-~
EL VfN R. MEEK, T~
v 1
''..,t? 'i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
SlATE OF HAWAII)
CO~OF
ttVNO
LulPv~ss.
....
,.
. On SEP 2. 2 2003 before me,'i'ARQQ COBI 5&~ • Notary Publfc, pemonally appeared EL YIN R. MEEK and ELIZABETH A. MBEK [ ] personally .known to me OR rA] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names ate subsai'bed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in theii- authorized capacities, and that by their signa.rures on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the per-son acted, executed the instrument
Robert
M. Jones
ROBERT M. JONES
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 8655 Morro Road, Suite C Atascadero, California 93422
AttonJey at Law
Tdepbone
(805) 466-4422
Fa~e
WebSite: e-mail:
(805)~1267
bttp:llwww.robertmjones.com grigga@robertmjooes.com
Colleen
Alexander
Legal Assistant
September 8, 2004
Nanci Meek 31200 Landau Blvd Apt. #1806 Cathedral City, CA 92234
Melvin Meek 1453 E. Avenida Grande Casa Grande, AZ 85222
Re: ElvinR. Meek Family-Trust
Dear Mr. Meek and Ms. Meek: I am in receipt of your letter to my client Elizabeth Meek of August 26,2004. Elizabeth has requested that I respond to your letter instead of her. Unfortunately, and for a variety of reasons, Elizabeth has chosen not to correspond with you at this time. There may bea time in the future when she feels more comfortable in. communicating directly with you. However, in the mean time, such is not the case. I therefore strongly suggest that if you desire to communicate with Elizabeth, that you do so directly through this office. I thank you in advance for your sensitivities in this matter.
Very truly yours,
._---------7
~:
---r-_
ROBERl-'M. JONES Attornev. -Ell-btt"W
RMJ:ca cc: Elizabeth Meek
--
----,.}
--;1
_-\BOl'r
C\
FORMAL TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION 2006

Re-certifled, 2005 Graduate, National Association of Document Examiners
Questioned·
Document
oourse,
American
Institute
of Applied
Science
2001 Certified, National Association of Document examiners, Crawley (London), England. MOCk trial presided over by Sir Michael Davies, former High Court Judge, United Kingdom . 1995
UICKLINKS
Graduate,
Andrew
1993
nAdvanced Training Bradley IiAssociates,
in Questioned Denver, CO.
Document
Problems"
,Board Certified
Graduate,
in Behavioral
Profiling,
American
Board
of Forensic Examiners
Andrew
"Forensic Document Examination" Bradley &. Associates, Denver, CO.
ADDI110NAL
TRAINING
CONTINUING
Examiners
EDUCATION
Conference, Tucson, AZ
2007 National Association 19 hoors training 2002 National Association 21 hours training
of Document
of Document
Examiners •
Conference,
Ann Arbor,
MI
2001 National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Crawley 16 hours training plus formal written and oral examinations 2000 National Questioned Document Association 14 hours training plus proficiency testing
(1,00000),
England
Conference,
Dallas, lX
1999
British Institute of Graphologists 16 hours training 1997 National Association 18 hours training Symposium, Wadham College, OXford, England
of Document
Examiners
Conference,
Las Vegas,
NV,
Laboratory for Scientific 32 hours training 1996 Independent Association 27 hours training
Interrogation
I ScientifIC
Content
Analysis,
San FranCiSCO, CA,
of Questioned
Document
examiners
Conference,
Honolulu,
Hi,
http://www.reedwrite.comfcv.html
t(
9/16/2008
Impact Semimus, Inc. (Michael J. Schingle, Esq.) 7 hours training "Courtroom Survival Techniques: Power & Control of the Witness Stand," 1995 Association of Forensic Document Examiners Symposium, London, Ontario, Canada. 25 hours American Board of Forensic Examiners Regional Seminar, Honolulu, HI 7 hours training. Expert Witnessing 1994 Association of Forensic Document Examiners Symposium, Las Vegas, NV 18 hours training. British Institute of Graphologists Symposium, King's College, Cambridge, England 1991 British Institute of Graphologists Symposium, King's College, Cambridge, England 1985 Advanced Questioned Document Examination, International Graphoanalysis Society Congress and Institute of Resident Training, Chicago 6 hours training 1974 Questioned Document Examination Fundamentals, International Graphoanalysis Society Congress and Institute of Resident Training, Chicago 6 hours training TESTIMONY Daniel Creitz.v. Robert Leeson District Court, 1St Circuit (Honolulu, HI) 3/6/08 Judge: Hon. Gerald H. Kibe . Attorney: Richard C. F. Chun, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Marion Reyes-Burke, Esq. Cecil Loran Lee v. Leonard George Horowitz, et al., Civil No. 05-1-0196 3rd Circuit Court (HI) 2/14/08 Judge: Hon. Ronald Ibarra Attorney: John S. Carroll, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Dan O'Phelan, Esq. Leonard Meyerv. Donald S. Meyer, et al., Ovil No. 04-1-000930 1st Orcuit Court (HI) 5/31/06 Judge: Hon. Victoria MarkS All parties pro se Social Security Administration v. Susan Gail laFayette Office of Hearings and Appeals (Honolulu, HI) 5/05/06 Judge: Hon. Henry M. Tai Attorney: Rochelle Sparko, Esq. Terry Lee, et al. v. Joycelyn Wanda undano, et al., Civil No. 04-1-0349-01 (RKOL) 1st Orcuit Court (HI) 3/15/06 Judge: Hon. Randal K. O. Lee Attorney: Robert E. Chapman, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Gary Hartman, Esq. Andrew W. Marshall v. Marilyn Sue Lard, Civil No. 04-1-0183(3) 2nd Orcuit Court (HI) 1/17/06 Judge: Hon. Joseph E. Cardoza Attorney: James H. Fosbinder, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Philip H. Lowenthal, Esq. Jan Michael Weinberg v. BrendaDkkson-welnberq, 1st Orcuit Court (Hawaii) 10/28/05 Fe-D. No. 04-1-3936
http://www.reedwrite.comlcv.html
9/16/2008
Judge: Hon. Karen Radiu? Attorneys: Charles T. K1eintop, Esq. & Dyan M. Medeiros, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Everett Cuskaden, Esq. State of Hawaii v.George V. Jemison Cr. No. 04·1-01112 1st Orcuit Court (Hawaii) 6/7/05 Judge: Hon. David lo . Attorney: Bryant Zane, Esq., Deputy Public Defender Opposing Counsel: Dwight Nadamoto, Esq. Lales v. Lales, FC-D No. 02-1-3738 1st Orcuit Court (Hawaii) 3/23/04 Judge: Hon. Nancy Ryan Attorney: Darren U Wu, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Sara R. Harvey, Esq. State of Hawaii v. [Defendant], Cr. No. 96-0220 1st Orcuit Court (Hawaii) 4/5 & 4/6/02 Judge: Hon. Derrick H. M. Chan Prosecutor: Christopher T. VanMarter, Esq. Foo v. Foo, T. No. 97-0106 & The Estate of Evelyn Siu Foo, P. No. 99-0648 1st Orcuit Court (Hawaii) 11/13 & 11/14/01 Judge: Hon. Virginia Lea Crandall Attorney: John S.EdmundS, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Jeffrey P. Crabtree,Esq. & Margery S. Bronster, Esq. RosaC. GonzaleS v. Edith Jamon fI<a Edith Maddagan, Civil No. 1RC97-4900 Pearl Oty District Court (Hawaii), 7/17/98 Attorney: Meloclie R. Aduja, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Allan Y. Okubo, Esq. Manguchei v. Nansay Hawaii, Inc. 5th Orcuit Court (Hawaii) Arbitration Hearing, 6/16/94 Attorney: Charles M. Heaukulani, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Andrew Winer, Esq. In the Matter of Dieter Thate 1st Orcuit Court (Hawaii) 1/27/98 Judge: Hon. James Atona, Jr. Attorney: Robert L. S..Nlp, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Michael C. Webb, Esq. MidPac Discount Brokers v. Shawn McKay Civil No. ~7-1480, 1st Circuit Court (Hawaii) 8/18/97 Judge: Hon. Bambi Eden E. Well Attorney: Marshall D. Chinen, Esq. Peter C. Aguato v. Ronald Perry, M.D. MCCPNo. 9~106, MCCPHearing, Honolulu, Hawaii, 12/16/97 aient: Peter C. Agualo, pro se Arbitrator: Karen A•.Essene, Esq. Opposing Counsel: Thomas E. Cook, Esq. PUBUCATIONS "FOrensic Handwriting Examination: A Definitive Guide" (book), 2006 "Investigation and Analysis of Anonymous Writing," Journal of the National Association of Document Examiners, Spring 1997 "Examination of Computer Generated HandWriting," Journal of the World Association of Document Examiners, September 1995 "Deciphering Sun-Faded Thermal Paper Facsimiles," Journal of the National Association of Document Examiners, Fall 1995 "Written in Crime: An Overview of Criminal HandWriting," The Write Approach, Honolulu, HI,1995
9/1612008
"Between The Lines: Understanding Yourself and Others Through Handwriting Destiny Books, Rochester, VT, 1993 "Guide To Children's Handwritingi' (co-author: Mary H. Delapp,
Analysis"
MA, MGA), 1991, 1988
CONSULTANT ''The Diary of Jack the Ripper," (Book and video production), London, England, July-September 1993 Book project: Alexander Joy cartwright, Hawaii), 2005 RESEARCH 1994-1995, Computer-Generated
Duocrave, Ltd., '
Jr. diary (housed at Bishop Museum, Honolulu,
Handwriting
and Documents
1987-1990, "Facilitating Assessment of Dangerousness In Psychiatric Patients Using Handwriting Characteristics," Hawaii State Hospital, Kaneohe, HI. (With Kimon Iannetta, CGA; James Crane, PhD; Dennis Mclaughlin, PhD) MEMBERSHIP National Association of Document Examiners National Questioned Document Association Analysis Foundation
The American Handwriting
UBRARY Approx. 150 handwriting examination document examination titles
and analysis publications,
induding
all standard
Journal of World Association of Document
Examiners, 1980-2000 Examiners, 1983-2005 Examiners, 1995-1997 1993-2002
Journal of National Association of Document International Journal of Forensic Document
The Forensic Examiner (Journal of Amer. Board of Forensic Examiners),
PARTIAL CUENT UST Melodie R. Aduja, Esq., Honolulu, HI Hayden Aluli, Esq., Wailuku, HI Charles L. Anderson, Esq., Vancouver, BC, canada Mary Ann Barnard, Esq., Honolulu, HI Scott I Batterman, Esq., Bendet Adell sakai &. Lee, Honolulu, HI Belt Collins HI, Ltd., Edean Hayashida, Exec. Admin., Honolulu, HI Joshua S. Berger, Esq., White PierceMailman&.Nuttlng.saipan. Northern Mariana Islands Bradford F. K. Bliss, Esq., Lyons Brandt Cook &. Hlramatsu, Honolulu, HI Chartes H. Brower, Esq., Honolulu, HI Body Glove Cruises, Kailua-Kona, HI Trevor Brown, Esq., Chun Kerr Dodd, et aI., Honolulu, HI Thomas Bush, Esq., McCorriston Miho Miller, et al., Honolulu, HI Edward J. Bybee, Esq., Honolulu, HI Ionescu carmen, Bucharest, Romania John S. carroll, Esq., Honolulu, HI Central PacifIC Bank, RIta Flynn, Human Resources, Honolulu, HI Robert E. Chapman, Esq., Clay Chapman Crumpton, et ai, Honolulu, HI Julie China, Esq., Alcantara &. Frame, Honolulu, HI Marshall D. Chinen, Esq., Honolulu, HI Stanley M. Chow, Esq., Char Hamilton campbell &. Thorn, Honolulu, HI Richard C. F. OIun, Esq., Honolulu, HI Dan A. Colon, Esq., Honolulu, HI William F. Cooper, Esq., State of HI, Dept. of Attorney General Stuart M. COwan, Esq., Honolulu, HI Robert J. Crudele, Esq., Crudele Delima &. Shiroma, Hilo, HI Paul Cunny, Esq., Honolulu, HI Everett Cuskaden, Esq., Honolulu, HI William J. Deeley, Esq., Deeley King &. Pang, Honolulu, HI
http://www.reedwrite.comlcv
.html
9/16/2008
Brian J. De Lima, Esq., Hilo, HI Shirley A. Devaris, Esq., Kailua, HI Richard J. Diehl, Esq., Diehl & Weger, Honolulu, HI DynAir Corporation, Bill Lane, Dir. Operations, Honolulu,
HI HI
Douglas Daley, Esq., saipan John S. Edmunds, Esq., Edmunds Maid Verga & Thorn, Honolulu, Randall H. Endo, Esq., Cadsmltn, Ball, et al., Wailuku, HI Duocrave, Ltd., Paul Feldman, Owner/CEO, London, England Brian A. Duus, Esq., Honolulu, HI Finest Kind, Inc., capt. David Hudson, Lahaina, HI Rrst Hawaiian Bank, Margarita P. Dayao, Ass't Vice President,
Trust & Investments
Div.,
Honolulu, HI Fletcher PacifIC Construction Co., Honolulu, HI James H. Fosbinder, Esq., Wailuku, HI Fujiuchi Investigations, Inc., Lihue, HI T. Anthony Gill, Esq., Gill & Zukaran, Honolulu, HI GMP Associates, Inc., Peter B. Melnyk, PhD., Executive Vice President, Tamuning, Adelbert Green, Esq., Dwyer Imanaka, et al., Honolulu, HI Jeffrey A. Griswold, Esq., Lyons, Brandt Cook & Hiramatsu, Honolulu, HI Tom Griswold, Esq., Wailuku, HI Stephen T. Hioki, Esq., Honolulu, HI Thomas T. M. Ho, Esq., Honolulu, HI R. Patrick Jaress, Esq., Honolulu, HI HI Medical Service Assoc., Janna Nakagawa, Mgr. Employee Relations, Honolulu, Charles Heaukulani, Esq., car1smith Ball Wichman, et aI., Honolulu, HI Glenn T. Honda, Esq., Honolulu, HI Glenn S. Horio, Esq, Deely King & Pang, Honolulu, HI Clayton C. Ikei, Esq., Honolulu, HI Steven T. Iwamura, Esq., Stanton Clay Chapman, et al., Honolulu, HI Jared H. Jossem, Esq., Vernor, Liipford, et al., Honolulu, HI Chester M. Kanai, Esq., Honolulu, HI Thomas J. Kaster, Esq., Law Firm of Melvin Belli, san Francisco, CA Jim Kawashima, Esq., Honolulu, HI Thomas Kellenberg, Esq., Perkins Cole, Seattle, Washington Jodi L Kimura, Esq., Ayabe, Chong, Nishimoto, Honolulu, HI Dennis W. King, Esq., Deeley, King & Pang, Honolulu, HI Patsy H. Kino, Esq., Watanabe Ing & Kawashima, Honolulu, HI Charles T. Kleintop, Esq., Stirling & Kleintop, Honolulu, HI Rexford C. Kosack,' Esq., Saipan Marie Kosegarten, Esq., Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Wailuku, HI Edquon Lee, Esq., Lyons, Brandt, Cook & Hiramatsu, Honolulu, HI Mervyn W. Lee, Esq., Honolulu, HI Peter V. Lee, Esq., Stanton, Clay, Chapman, et ai, Honolulu, HI Kurt K. Leong, Esq., Oliver, Lau, Lawhn, et ai, Honolulu, HI T. Stephen Leong, Esq., Honolulu, HI Richard Lewallen, Esq., Lyons Brandt Cook & Hiramatsu, Honolulu, HI Paul Lucas, Esq., Native Hawaiian Legal Defense Corp., Honolulu, HI Ben T. Manayan, Jr., Esq., Honolulu, HI Barry Marr, Esq., carlsmith Ball Wichman, et ai, Honolulu, HI Mary L. Martin, Esq., Honolulu, HI Robert P. Marx, Esq., Hilo, HI S. Jay Matsumaru, Esq., Honolulu, HI Dyan M. Medeiros, Esq., Stirling & Kleintop, Honolulu, HI Ernest C. Moore III, Esq., Torldldson Katz Fonseca, et ai, Honolulu, HI Dean T. Nagamine, Esq., Honolulu, HI Jeffrey W. Ng, Office of Public Defender, Honolulu, HI Leanne A. N. Nikaido, Esq., Paul Johnson Park & Niles, Honolulu, HI Robert L. S. Nip, Esq., Honolulu, HI Vincent J. Nip, M.D., Honolulu, HI Rodney Nishida, Esq., Ayabe Chong & Nishimoto, Honolulu, HI Jeanne O'Brien, Esq., Kailua-Kona, HI Stuart Oda, Esq., Hilo, HI Jean Orque-Lee, Esq., Honolulu, HI William Ornellas, Esq., Honolulu, HI Outrigger canoe Club, John Rader, Jr., Honolulu, HI Randy Oyama, Esq., Honolulu, HI Pacific Tank Cleaning Services, Ralph Orozco, Vice-President, san Diego, CA Padfic Transfer & Warehouse, Honolulu, HI
Guam
HI
http://www.reedwrite.comfcv
.html
9/16/2008
---.-- ---.I
--7
--------
-----.
------.------
Richard T. Pafundi, Esq., Honolulu, HI Arthur Y. Park, Esq., Park Kim Yu & Remillard, Honolulu, HI David J. Pierguidi, Esq., The Pagan Law Firm, P.C, New Yorl< City, NY Eric J. Piesner, Esq., Chun Chipchase Takayama & Nagatani, Honolulu, HI Bradley R. Pulice, Esq., Stanton, Oay, Chapman, et aI., Honolulu, HI Antonio V. Ramil, Esq., Wailuku, HI Laurent J. Remillard, Esq., Park Kim Yu & Remillard, Honolulu, HI Joy San Buenaventura, Esq., HIIo, HI Sheraton Moana Surfrider Hotel, Davie Felipe, Director of Security, Honolulu, HI Sheraton Royal Hawaiian Hotel, Marc Bennor, Human Resourres Manager, Honolulu, Craig K. Shikuma, Esq., Kobayashi Sugita & Goda, Honolulu, HI Kenneth J. Shimozono, Esq., Takemoto & Simozono, Honolulu, HI Heber Simmons, Esq., Simmons Law Group, Jackson, MS Donald L Spafford, Jr., Esq., Honolulu, HI Rochelle Sparko, Esq., Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI St. Francis School, Sr. Joan of Arc Souza, OSF, Honolulu, HI Thomas L. Stirling, Jr., Esq., Stirling & Kleintop, Honolulu, HI Steven D. Strauss, Esq., Hilo, HI Richard Striker, Esq., Honolulu, HI Allan F. Suematsu, Esq., Suematsu & Lee, Honolulu, HI Curtis T. Tabata, Esq., Matsubara Lee, et ai, Honolulu, HI Bradley R. Tamm, Esq., Honolulu, HI Arnold T. Phillips II, Esq., Honolulu, HI Carroll Taylor, Esq., Honolulu, HI A1ika Thoene, Esq., Hilo, HI Roland Q. F. Thorn, Esq., Char Hamilton Campbell & Thorn, Honolulu, HI Raymond P. Tieman, Esq., Uhue, HI Tour Pari< Hawaii, Peter Vi, President, Honolulu, HI Neil J. Verbrugge, Esq, Honolulu, HI Sheila Vierra, Esq., Honolulu, HI Jan M. Weinberg, Esq., Honolulu, HI Donald L Wilkerson, Esq., Honolulu, HI Carl Williams, D.C., Watsonville, CA Colin Wilson, Cornwall, England Todd Withy, Esq., Honolulu, HI Eric M. K. Wong, Esq., Honolulu, HI Michael J. Y. Wong, Esq., Honolulu, HI Sandra-Ann Y. K. Wong, Esq., Honolulu, HI John H. Wright, Esq., Honolulu, HI Darren U Wu, Esq., Coates & Frey, Honotulu, HI Randal S. Yoshida, Esq., Honolulu, HI Bryant zane, Esq., Office of the Public Defender, Honolulu, HI Mari< R. Zenger, Esq., Richards & Zenger, Uhue, HI William I. Zimmerman, Esq., Van Pernis Smith & Vantil, Kailua-Kona, HI
HI
ReedWrite.com 2007
3503
I PO Box 235213, Honolulu, HI 96823-
Tel: 808.737.05021
Graphics
Fax: 808.356.0811 1Website Design: HPM
9/16/2008
W1U
OF EL YIN 1L MEEK
,
(
I, EL VINR.
MEEK, a resident of Honolulu County, Hawaii, declare that this is my
. .1
Will. I revoke all Wills and Codicils thaI I have previously made.
FIRSTI am presently manied

10
ELIZABETH r
A. MEEK.
I have three (3) adult children, now
~ving. namely. NANCY LORRAINE
MEEJ(
KUSLEY, M,ELVIN RAY MEEK, and LoLA
DEE MEEK. SECONIi-
I have no deceased children, leaving issue.
1. I give all my estate to the Trustee then in office under that Declaration of Trust designated as the ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUsr, dated June 14, 1996 entered into between EL VlNR. To theextenI 2. MEEK as Trustor and EL YIN R. MEEK as .Trustee, to beadministered as provided in said Declaration of Trust, including any amendments thereto made before my death. pennitted by law. it is not my intem to create a separate Trust by ~. If the disposition in subparagraph WUl or to subject the Trust or the property added to it by this Will to the jurisdiction of the Probate Coon. 1 is inoperative or is invalid for any-reason, or ,
.
. if the Trust referred to in subparagraph the Trustees named in instrument.
1 fails or is revoked, I Incorporate berein by this

(0
. reference the tenus of that Trust, as executed on this dare, and J give the residue of my estate
me
Trust to be held, adminiStered. and distributed
as provided
in that
TfttRn:
The Trustee oftbe ELVIN R. 1\1EEK FAMIJ.,Y TRUST dated January 14, 1996, as amended is directed by its terms to pay all taxes that may be payable because of my deatb and to
allocate the taxes as provided in the Trust.
Executor to pay
or, if it does still exist. but is insufficient

my me taxes
If at the time of my death that Trust no
IOngCF
exists
...
to pay the taxes referred to in this paragraph,
that cannot be paid from the Living
Trust.EXHI"Blr~
I direct
FOlmTH:
I nominate my wife
ELIZABETH
A.-MEEK
Executor of
this
Will to serve without
bond.
In the event that she is unable to serve, I nominate TIIE BANK OF HAWAII, TRUST
as Executor of this Will to serve without bond. Thererm of my estate.
DEPARTMENT
"my
Executor"
as
used in this Will shall include any personal representative
I authorize my Executor to sell, with or without notice, at either public or private sale,
and to lease, manage,
and operate any
property
belonging
to my esta~6~ subject only to such
confirmation of
-reinvest
COUll
as may be required by law. 1 further authorize my Executor to invest and handsin every ldndofpropeIt)', real. persoaal or
not limited to, interest-bearing or common stocks, shares .of investment
any
surplus money in the Executor's
mixed, and every kind of investmem,

acceunts, trusts. ccrporateobllgatlcnsof invesunent companies,
specifically including,bur
every kind, preferred
mutual funds, or common trust funds. including funds administered that men of prudence, discretion and intelligence
by the Executor
in mongage participations,
acquire for their own account.
Executed this 2iday Of......;:~=-=G:.:;:.f;_tT...::..r .
,~
.,. 6#.
,.. ~~__,.
,!P. Honolulu
('"~...
D'::J
County ,Hawaii '. YJA. -. L _~ r/.~
ELVIN R. MEEK
..
ATTESTATION
On the date written below, ELVIN R. MEEK declared Will, and requested us toact as witnesses of us being present at
to
us, the undersigned, that this
instrument, consisting of three (3) pages, including the page signed by us as wimesses,
to it.
was his
He thereupon signed his Will in our presence, all /
me
same time.
We now. at his request, in his presence, and in the

jA
. presence of each other. subscribe our names as witness.
It is our belief that he is of sound mind and memory and is under-no constraint or undue of
'influence whatsoever. Executed
(m~1,
~~
2003, in Honolulu.County,
Hawaii. Wedeclare
Under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct,
.. ~
Wimess
R~Jph SkLl~w~
Name
4u;j·L~O/<-N;une
~@lbtu(q,~£
:Address Address
~g(O/
~~dT9~/IS-····
Dec
15 05
11:27a
Cinema
Screen
June 28,2005
Dear Elizabeth, 1 am very troubled by what I hear is happening to Elvin's estate. As you are aware, Elvin & I were very close personal friends for over 30 years and I was privy to many of his personal and financial affairs. And, as you asked, I gave his Eulogy at his final services, and I was honored to do so. Elvin had confided to me on many occasions how he wished his estate to be settled and administrated, and I understand now there is controversy contrary to the wishes that he had many times related to me. The last time Elvin and I were together at Waipuna was just days before he entered the hospital for the final time in his life. Prior to my "surprise visit" I had left many, many messages of your telephone to contact me, but he, maybe because of his condition, or you, never responded to my calls though we are just across the street from you at Waipuna I finally decided to go to your condo & "surprise" him. You were not at home, but I was shocked and disturbed to see his physical and mental condition and how little he could carry on any logical conversation, He had difficulty with conversation, memory ,and was unable to concentrate or carry on a continual conversation. He was terribly swollen and hardly looked like the man I had known . At the time of my visit he was dressed in what I would call "hospital "garb" and in a .very weakened condition. After about 45 minutes of our visit you returned and I left shortly thereafter thinking Eivin was in a shocking shape and it would probably be the last time I would see him alive. I commented to you as I left my concern and how poorly Elvin was doing and hoped for some improvement In the following few days. Elvin was admitted to the hospital for his final time. As you recall, we visited Elvin at the hospital at least 3 times and he was never conscious and in a comatose state. Both Nina and I admired your continual bed side vigil during his final days, Now I understand there were changes made to his Trust in his final days before he entered the hospital for the last time that were different from the ones that he had many, many, times confided to me in his Trust wishes for his estate. On my last visit with Elvin at the Waipuna, he was, in my opinion, incapable mentally and rationally of making any legal changes to his estate. Hopefully, Elvin's estate can be resolved in a manner, which I am sure Elvin, (my opinion), would have wanted as he discussed with me. For years Elvin had told me what he wanted for you, Lo la, and his children. I am sorry to hear there are controversies, and I hope they can be resolved satisfactorily for aU parties. Sincerely,
Of Counsel: DIEHL & WEGER RICHARD J. DIEHL #3409 DIEHL & WEGER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LAW CORPORATION 6700 Kalanianaole Highway, Suite 208 Honolulu, Hawaii 96825 Telephone: (808) 396-4080 Attorney for Petitioner IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII
THE MATTER OF THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMIL Y
)
)
T. No. 05-1-0101 AFFIDAVIT OF WESLEY STEWART
)
) ) ) )
TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED
AFFIDAVIT OF WESLEY STEWART STATE OF HAWAII CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU ) ) ) SS.
I, WESLEY STEWART, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that: 1. I make this Affidavit to advise the Court of my interaction with the
decedent approximately at or about the time the decedent executed the Second Amendment to his Trust on September 22, 2003. 2. I had known Elvin meek for 34 years. We were business associates and
[\G
l(
close personal friends. I currently reside at 411 Hobron Lane, #3603, Honolulu, HI 96815 and used to reside at 411 Hobron Lane, #3311. Elvin resided adjacent to my condo. We could literally wave to one another from our lanais. 3. Elvin and I met in 1969. He was my corporate attorney. My wife, Nina
and I socialized with Elvin often. 4. Elvin abused alcohol. A primary cause of his death was liver failure.
Notwithstanding, he was a functional and astute businessman, an excellent attorney and a wise real estate investor. 5.
In the weeks preceding the date Elvin signed the Second Amendment to
his trust, I made repeated attempts to establish contact. I left numerous voice messages but my phone calls were not returned. 6. I had infrequent contact with Elvin's wife, Elizabeth but I do know Elvin
and Elizabeth were estranged. For the two years prior to his death, Elvin told me considered to seek a divorce. I believe that was just another attempt to completely isolate Elvin from his closest friends and family. 7. Elizabeth isolated Elvin, particularly during his final illness. His calls
were screened. My phone calls were not returned. 8. As I recollect, Elvin was taken to Queen's Hospital on or about October 2
and he was in hospice care by October 19. I understand that Elvin executed a Second Amendment to his trust on September 22. I visited Elvin at his condo about 7 to 10 days prior to his admission to Queen's which would have been right about the time Elvin signed that document.
9.
My wife suggested Ijust go to Elvin's condo after weeks of no return I did. Elizabeth was not at home. Elvin and I sat on his lanai. He was bloated. His face was almost I stayed for about 1Y2hours
phone calls and that'swhat 10. unrecognizable.
I was shocked by his appearance.
He was wearing hospital-type pajamas.
until Elizabeth arrived home. It was awkward. arrived without her knowledge. about. 11.
She was obviously uncomfortable that I
She was overly concerned about what Elvin and I talked
I tried to reminisce with my old friend. Elvin had been the Mayor of
Rialto, California but he could not recall that fact. He told me that Elizabeth and his son and daughter, Nanci Meek, were well taken care of. There was no indication that Elvin had or would ever change his estate plan. He always indicated to me he would never exclude his children. his estate plan. 12. disconnected. Elvin was not intoxicated. He was disoriented and in great pain. He was He.was slurring his words. There was His state of mind on that date was that his kids were provided for in
He kept losing his train of thought.
no continuity to his thoughts.
He would just abruptly stop in the middle of a sentence and
not complete the sentence, losing the thought. 13. I am not an expert but I knew Elvin extremely well and there is no
question that he was not of sound mind. 14. When Elvin died, I was contacted by his daughter, Nanci Meek. I told her
about my visit. I wrote a letter to Elizabeth telling her emphatically that Elvin was not of sound mind when I visited which was in close proximity to the time he executed the Second Amendment. Elizabeth never responded to my letter.
Further Affiant sayeth naught.
WESLEY STEWART Subscribed and sworn to before me this __ day of August, 2007.
Notary Public, State of Hawaii My commission expires:
y ouTube - Mayor of City Rialto Palau Last Will Part Two Meek
Page 1 of2
Browse
Upload
Create Account
Sign In
elvin meek
Suggestions
Mayor of City Rialto Elvin Meek Palau Last Wi. ..

by r13i:cirneek
8.022 v~cw'S
Like Loading ... nanclmeek
Add to
Share
Embed
1,779
Palau Senator Reklai Memorial by nanclmeGl< 2.804 Yiev... 'S
I April 24, 2008
2 likes. 1 dislikes
The Great City of Rialto 1985

by
r1anCim('JOi<
Details property sales and impunity with regards to father's estate as well a ..
1.:?,..r1 views
Villa Palau Scandal by chans123

B~Jf) ",lews
Real Ghost Pictures

byarrndni1616 15,7fl.7,85B views
Big Fat San Pedro Wedding

t)y naneirn({)!<.
Uploader Comments (nancimeek)
4.:'1·3 views
CAM-CAPONE CITY"
try CA.tv1GAPONE 341,034 v;8WS
"RIALTO
Fraud - Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Embezzlement

by goof~m4n 1A55
Vfe-NS
it is so sad yo see how cruel someone can be. why hasn't it been brought to a judge to investigate the firm of clay chapman to see if there is a possible payoff to keep quiet as well as the other firms? it seems like they are afraid to do the right thing. good luck, i would like to hear how it ends for you. it's sad that everything that your family worked hard for is gone. keep fighting this, it's the best honor you could give your family.
roy1966
(1/2) The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want.

by NufffRespect 8,78t3,773 views
luberta
1 yea r ago
One Families Probate Nightmare

try W\SGAO? 2,8-15 vtews
July 8th and 9th we had an Evidentiary hearing in front of Judge Derrick Chan and every key piece of evidfence submitted was denied by Jim Ashford of law firm Cades Shutte and Judge Derrick Chan would not allow our crucial evidence to be admitted we are
Bank of Hawaii Corporation (BOH)

by watlstnp 7.084 views
EXHIBIT 5
y ouTube - Mayor of City Rialto Palau Last Will Part Two Meek
Page 2 of2
appealing his decision without reviewing our brief he just signed the brief prepared by Cades shutte law firm the judge didn't even write up his OWN findings of fact I guess Judge Chan was busy he sat on his decision for 3 months ~t~::~(' @roy1966 The attorney for Bank of Hawaii was Judy Lee with Gooddsill Anderson Check out Cal Coast News and the failed Pe Ji Ho Ta casino buy in for that casino as a partner amount as the stock check issued to Elizabeth Meeek Perhaps that is what motivated Grigger Jones to commit fraud and forgery and steal from our family $646,000 is still unaccounted for by the attorneys in hawaii for elizabeth Cades Shutte. Now they want to appoint a Master Goal is to take over estate steal money
3VR On KGMB Hawaii Evening News

by (k~sib<·]icJwln 3,OdH views
Kid beeing shot with a saw airsoft gun

bY;::.jirsoflS<:w" 76,178 vtews
25th anvsry Koror, Meyuns

by gkrnissy 1,790 views
City Fest Luis Palau

by kak~sad
~1tfiEii!Q~~:SS
@roy1966 The attorney for Bank of Hawaii was Judy Lee with Gooddsill Anderson Check out Cal Coast News and the failed Pe Ji Ho Ta casino buy in for that casino as a partner amount as the stock check issued to Elizabeth Mee~emaps that is what motivated \Cillgger Jones to_l;_Qmmit fraud and forgery anc st!@! from our famill'j646,000 is still unaccounted for by the attomeys in hawaii for elizabeth Cades Shutte. Now they want to appoint a Master Goal is to take over estate steal monel'
I
800 views
Isadore Rosenberg(19182008) Homicide4Financial.. by oancnaroso

317 views
Footage from steve irwin's death

by kulekcnoon 3.340,017 views
<11J£jr.ifettsr:ro.@1i&fMfD~-H"
All Comments (14)
see all
AMALIA KESSLER LIFE ESTATE EVICTION

by h.3tdtel10is 1.572 views
We are finding out more and more what has been happening behind the scenes Money does amazing things to people and everyone has a price. Clay Chapman was helping us tremendously until it was revealed they had a partner who had helped Elizabeth with her immigration matter a few months earlier Why they didn't find this out sooner and it took 8 months is certainly a mystery.
nancimeek 1 year ago
President Toribiong of Palau

bv intemationaJrn.:::;n88
1,04 7 \.';(·~'.·.'S
He died approximately 9:2" p.m. on October 19th 2003 and his body was removed and sent to Ultimate Cremation at approximately 2:25 a.m. October 20th 2003 He was cremated a few hours after that. No autopsy since he died in the hospital but interesting that Elizabeth NEVER called anyone in the family to tell us dad had passed yet several phone calls were made from her cell phone to HER relatives and friends including an anesthesiologist married to her cousin. nanctmeek 1 yHar ago Her sister did the same thing in Palau to HER husband named Caleb Udui He was in a high position in Palau government isolated the guy for a few weeks and he was dead Mysteriously signed a will leaving everything to Elizabeth's sister and NOTHING to HIS children HMMMM just like Elizabeth nanctmecs 1 YHarago 2 Next View all Comments»
CAM-CAPONE "STRAIGHT RIDER" THE OFFICIAL ov CAf",1CAPONE

44,698 views
Load more suggestions
About
Press & Blogs
Copyright
Locauon:
Creators & Partners

Worldwide
Advertising
Developers
Help
Safety
Privacy
Terms
Report a bug
Langu:Jge: English
Safety mode: Off
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=vgVts2xiD50
1/11/2011
y ouTube - Mayor of City Rialto Elvin Meek Palau Last Will Fraud Part One
Page 1 of3
Browse
Upload
Create
Account
Sign In
I elvin
meek
23 videos
Subscribe
He says he spoke with my 18th. Dad had earner to Straub h

sufferingfromDehtion.
Get Your
FREE 2011 Credit Score
in the hospital on '1
Suggestions
Mike invents window yoga
by downy 11,310 views Promoted vktec
nanclmeek Atascadero
March 27 2008 and possible
15 nkes, 3 dislikes elder abuse by Palauan days before our dad Mayor of City Rialto Palau
Isolation
Last Will Part Two, by nanchneek 1,($40 views
Footage death by
from
steve
irwin's
KuJekongen
3,!-382:70'::; views
CAM-CAPONE John Barry & Roger Williams - Theme from "Somewhere In Time" Download This Song' iTunes AmazonMP3
"RIALTO
Uploader Comments
(nancimeek) this is a calculated family scheme to marry and then CITY"
This is more then a pattern, dispose feelings, of the spouses the death
by CM,,1CAPONE
34f5,740
in order to gain money.
I do not want to hurt your family's it's because
views
of ones parent
is huge. When I use the word dispose are doing. It is infuriating
that is exactly
what these women
to know that our justice with no
system allows these kinds of lawyers and women to hatch these schemes consequences. By any chance, was Jones the sisters lawyer also??? besosrnart 6 d3YS ago @besosmart No Grigger Jones only handled the fraudulent 1 st Amendment attachment and the 2nd amendment right before Dad died. The 1 st Amendment was created after he died because the original 1st Amendment is only two pages. Kei Kei Asanuma Udui had an attorney in her native Palau (most of the attorneys there are americans) and it was heard in the Palau courts No doubt elizabeth her daughter Lola Reklai will try this again Her sister too Once you have a taste for lood .. nancimeek 6 (jay";
<-l~j()
Palau •
Senator
Reklai
Memorial
by nanc.meek 2,94!:"l views
The Great by naocnneek 1,358 viows
City of Rialto
1985
EXHIBIT 6
http:/L~youtube.coID7watch ?v=d _PiKumEPVU
Page 2 of3
This is so incredible
it's hard to believe,
BUT that is the justice
system
in America.
I think you and your brother something committed
must have some kind of recourse
to try and get back rialto city jerk
of your father's estate. This woman Elizabeth should be in jail, she a huge fraude along with the help of Attny. Jones. Who in the state behavior? He should be disbarred.
of Calif. is looking into this Attny's oesosrrart ~ week 3g0
t)y ()l;nclsny03
2,(HO views
@H}esosrnert thanks for the reply You know her sister Kei Kei asanuma did something similar to HER dead husband Caleb udui Sr in Palau His family was left out in the cold too The children sued Kei Kei and received some of the property but the death was never investigated There is defijitely a pattern here don't you think? nancimeek ~ week ;:'lJG
Paris
Hilton
& Drink Pee
by virorop !,991' ,840 views
@besosmac1 As far as robert Griger Jones the attorney in Atascadero We checked and he has had three other complaints filed with the bar but none have gone through or been finalized We filed TWO and because he was not our retained attorney we were unable to pursue them Sad huh? nancimeek 1 week ago
Rialto
City Piece
tly CRAZY9c13
Thank you for the encouraging words I miss my dad every single day I would give anything to have him here with us for Christmas to spend time with my daughter and granddaughter It hurts every day to think the attorney in california Grigger Jones got away with committing fraud and stealing And the SLO da's offices is doinq nothing The FBI is doing nothing It hurts but with time I will get over it. Thanks again nanctmeek 2 months ago Big Fat San by nanctmeek 4.14 views Pedro Wedding
Rare Cyrus Ail
Mitchel Pies
Musso
and Miley
Comments (54)
see all
by omngdro(J3 1.534,·177 views
RECORD PALAUAN l)yTZOEY 3,578 views
STREAMING SONGS ONLINE
Hi. I am an old friend of Elvin's from the late 1970's when we skiied together and played hard. He was a truly a good person and friend, and altho we had lost contact over the years I always remembered how he welcomed me with open arms (and a beer) to the ski club to the ski club, where I was the first African American member. I am really saddened to hear all that is associated with his passing - we was a wonderful person. Mel Ashford t)Onlbardtnornan 2 months ago
First Pacific March 2006
Leadership Koro ..
Forum-
Next
View all Comments
by KnOWie(1QeiNeil 661 views
Rialto Randy
Police
Lieutenant at GRDC M ...
DeAnda
by r-{ialtoDernacra!5 1,044 views
Chloe Explorer
Rocks
to Dora
the
bv nanomeek
564 views
http://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=d _PiKumEPVU
2D/2011
Page 3 of3
IE Rap/Hip-Hop, Video Vol. 3

byaUhiphopaHthBtime • 11.f:JOO views
Mixtape
cam capone - rialto city news pt1 - Ridin High

by 3u5zFor • 2,382 views
Waikiki Real Estate for Sale Waipuna in Waikiki

by hcorcnano • 279 views
AMALIA KESSLER LIFE ESTATE EVICTION

by nardtennrs • 1,588 views
FIVE Monkeysl
by rnavenckzvn • 354 views
About
Press & Blogs
Copyright
t.ocauon:
Creators & Partners

Wortdwide
Advertising
Developers
Help
Safety
Privacy
Tenms
Report a bug
Lan~Juag(·r English
SafHty mode: Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PiKumEPVU
2/1/2011
Page 1 of2
Browse
Upload
Create Account
Sign In
elvin meek
Mayor of City Rialto Elvin Meek Palau Last Will Fraud Part One
nancimeek
:#)
23 videos
Subscribe
IRn::lnrlr.rnhn~
I"'.nm
Arl", hv ~nnnl",
Mayor of City Rialto Palau Last Will Part Two.

by (land meek 1.770 V~GWS
like Loading .. nancimeek I
Add to
Share
Embed
8,022
Footage from steve irwin's death

by i\lJ!Hkcn9(m :3,B4g,H77 views
March 27. 2008
14 likes, 3 dislikes
Atascadero Isolation and possible elder abuse by Palauan days before our dad.
CAM-CAPONE CITY"
1)1 Cl-\f'.'lCAPOf'JE 341,034 \fleWS
"RIAL TO
Palau Senator Reklai Memorial

by nancirnock 2,504 v'ews
The Great City of Rialto 1985

by nancirneck 1,347 views
rialto city jerk

by diinelsHy03 2,0H3 views
Download This Song: ArnazonMP3
iTunes
Beach Party
i)y iOflelygi,i -15 5,9G7,430
\!iC\v~)
Uptoader Comments (nancirneek) Thank you for the encouraging words I miss my dad every single day I would give anything to have him here with us for Christmas to spend time with my daughter and granddaughter It hurts every day to think the attorney in california Grigge, ,joneg',gru~ ..lth c:Q:mmitting ..... .fraud an(ksrealing And the SLO da's offices is dOing nothing The FBI is doing nothing Ifhurts but with time I will get over it. Thanks Rialto City Piece
by CRAZYDt}13 1,329 v!H':J$
~~f!41!I)
we don't even know where ElizaWlb placed our father's ashes it is so sad Slle~ delib- Thfsly 'iWOot 5!f8'aI<'40, ~ShlhneJ/,!l;;-8aJlEl.d. . s w . en- a_<j_ V@l..<iY.iJ:IgjiQ.\:!...c.c;M..;:;'i.;[. is~that? How can you respect anyone who aligns emselves wth someone like that? She lived in the US of A for 32 years and never wanted to become an american citizen until grigger Jones her attorney in Atascadero made the ~~~~esti~.
Big Fat San Pedro Wedding

by nanctmeek 443 views
g~U~1S(~~ o,~~[iCa
l'<~'.J'.~.:.. ..,~.• '
Rare Mitchel Musso and Miley Cyrus Pics tJy or £~n:~(~fro~J3 ~,532,4?3 views RECORD STREAMING PALAUAN SONGS ONLINE
!)yTZOEY 3473 views
@nancimeek Scrib'd site and look at the Findings of Fact prepared by myself in support of our allegations the 1st Amendment was a forged document and document signed in Hawaii prepared after dad died, also the.'tl.l!Y<QriggeTj6nes-has;twist.El.dLttleJrrutb_
EXHIBIT 7
http://www,y_QU_tuhe,cQIillwatch?v=d_PiKumEPVU
Page 2 of2
First attomey nancimeek James Ashford of Cades Shutte objecting to
Pacific 2006
Leadership Koro ..
Forum-
our evidence.
2 months ago
March GE:5
iN Kno'.t,.'!edgeWeH
VieWS
@nancimeek no relations to Kendrick Meek

nancimeek 2 months age
Rialto Randy
Police
Lieutenant at GRDC M ..
DeAnda
July 8th and 9th we had an Evidentiary hearing in front of Judge Derrick Chan and every key piece of evidfence submitted was denied by Jim Ashford of law firm Cades Shutte and Judge Derrick Chan would not allow our crucial evidence to be admitted we are appealing his decision nan·Giltfee'''- j.r?'f~"it~D J @nancirneek We have asked repeatedly for Elizabeth to give my brother my father's jewelry which he wanted Melvin to have and she wont' respond Her attomeys won't respond It hurts so badly to have the law working against your family and your father's wishes And ironically he was an attomey Someday the truth will come out about Elizabeth Asanuma and her brother Highness who is one of the biggest ice crack dealers in Palau and Hawaii
by Ri8!to(')emocmt3
i ,035 V!O',:.'S
Chloe Explorer
Rocks
to Dora
the
by nancimeek
600
v':IJW5
IE Rap/Hip-Hop, Video Vol.
Mixtape
by <-)!ltllptl(m<Jllttlt~tirne 1 '1,588 views Paris Hilton
& Drink Pee
by viropoo ~,992,0'71
VIH'.vS
.-p1lnclmile~2'-V;l1~~..
cam All Comments capone - rialto High city news
(48)
see all
pt1 - Ridin by Susz+cr 2,361 views Waikiki
Real
Estate
for Sale
Hi. I am an old friend of Elvin's from the late 1970's when we skiied together and played hard. He was a truly a good person and friend, and altho we had lost contact over the years I always remembered how he welcomed me with open arms (and a beer) to the ski club to the ski club, where I was the first African American member. I am really saddened to hear all that is associated with his passing - we was a wonderful person. Mel Ashford bomoardthernan 1 momn ago @nallcin;eE\\In@nancimeek Scri : 'slt .tli_"F!n,qi.ng,s 9.(fa~,gc<;p.:;,r~ mrs!1:I!j.ri_su·pport of our allegations the 1st Amendment was a fcirged document document signed in Hawaii prepared after dad died, also the way grigger jones twisted the trruth. attomey James Ashford of Cades Shutte objecting to our e'lid.er,l.ce. "_ . ". ~
Waipuna 277 views AMALIA ESTATE
in Waikiki
t)y r:GtnJinn(J
KESSLER EVICTION
LIFE
a :_a..'!Q_6k~<!t
. -' and has
UiII!
~jrve~k.
2. n.1ontrts'·.a9C?:Co ~ .....
@Guilaristmom a quick note. I found out about the quit claim deed through the internet. Older sister is doing things with mom's money and not communicating with me. A bunch of us should start a massive complaint making this country take elder financial fraud seriously! C3ultanstnlom 5 montns clg()
Privacy
t)y nardtennis i,57) views rialto ..
Ike Fight at Wendys
lois
by FG;,UjlJl)(~2 42,'rill views
3
& Blogs
Next
View all Comments»
About
Press
Copyright
Creators
& Partners
Advertising
Developers
Help
Safety
Terms
Report a bug
Lf.mguage: English
Location' Wor1cjwide
S;"Jfoly moco: Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PiKumEPVU
111112011
Documents matching "elvin meeK" I Scribd
Page 1 of5
Search Results for: elvin meek» • • • • • Documents 1 People 1 Collections
Search Options
L-- __
.....Jill
CHRONOLOGOLY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; ELVIN MEEK TRUST ($4.2 Million)··· 9/03Father diagnosed ... , Elizabeth Meek. Numerous real estate transactions sold under value Widow alleges Nan and br ... From: nancimeeK: Add to your collections • Reads:74 • Readcasts:O • Uploaded:11 102 1 2009
L...- __
_'~
Billing statement to Bank of Hawaii who DID NOT pay the bill but had the fees paid from our father's estate and then withdrew as co-trstuee claiming they never were really a co-trustee ... Bank ...
Add to your collections • Reads:3 • Readcasts:O ~0--7""~--:-='':::-:''-:----' • Bpiuaoea:Ol I 08 / 2011
EXHIBIT 8
http:lr/www.scri150.com;search?language=l&limit=1 O&num_pages=&page= 1&query=elvin...
2/2/2011
Documents matching" elvin meek"
I Scribd
Page 2 of5
the First Amendment
to the Elvin r. Meek
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMIL Y TRUST ORIGINAL THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMIL Y ... TRUST Elvin R. Meek, as the settlor of the Elvin R. Meek Family Trust, established on Ju ... From: nancimeek Add to your collections • Reads:235 • Readcasts:l • Uploaded:ll
/ 02 / 2009
.__--__..~ Trustee of the Elvin R Meek Family Trust Dated 1996 Our response to stepmother Elizabeth Asanuma Meek petition to have her removed as trustee ... 1 Trustee ofthe Elvin R Meek Family Trust Dated 1996 Filed August 14,2009 for the ... From: nancimeek Add to your collections • Reads:370 • Readcasts:O • Uploaded:ll /17/2009
http://www.scribd.comlsearch?language=
1&limit= 1O&num_pages=&page= 1&query=elvin...
2/212011
Documents matching "elvin meek"
I Scribd
Page 3 of5
ElvinMeek Decedent's estate 9 0 i 6 0 5 8 13 5 D Simple trust IESTATE OF ELVIN R MEEK 0 Date entity created D (2007) Form10<11 (200n ESTATE OF ELVIN R MEEK 90-6058135 ?age2 I Schedule . From: nancimeek Add to your collections • Reads:90 • Readcasts:O • Uploaded:11 102/2009
several e mails sent and received Jan of 20 11 asking for clarification on our father's estate from executives at Bank of Hawaii, Attorney Jane Peebles, Attorney Judy Lee, Attorney Rhonda Gri ...
From: nancimeek
Add to your collections • Reads:19
eon Jane Peebles attorney bill!_ngmeelrestate Billing statement to Bank of Hawaii who DID NOT pay the bill but had the fees paid from our father's estate and then withdrew as co-trstuee claiming they never were really a co-trustee ... Bank ...
Add to your collections • Reads:4 • Readcasts:O
http://www.scribd.com/search?language=
1&limit= 1O&num_pages=&page= 1&query=elvin...
2/2/2011

Responseto Petitionfor Removalof Elizabethas Trusteeof Elvin Me

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Responseto Petitionfor Removalof Elizabethas Trusteeof Elvin Me

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CADES SCHUTTE LLP RHONDA L. GRISWOLD JAMES H.

FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAU FIl.ED

THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST,

DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED.

April 21,2011 10:00 a.m. Hon. Derrick H.M. Chan

THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE

The Petition for Declaratory Relief.

Nanci Meek's argument was already rejected by the Court.

Wes Stewart's HearsayLetter and Affidavit.

The Court's determination that these

determining the validity of the First and Second Amendments-but

to determining whether Elizabeth Meek is fit to serve as Trustee.

Thus, besides being

Nanci's April 2002 Meeting with Elvin Meek.

See Declaration of Rhonda L. Griswold

Trustee (Elizabeth) or any information from the Trustee-other

THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST,

DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED.

THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST,

DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED.

the internet site YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgVts2xiD50)

the internet site YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d

the internet site YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d

internet site Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/search?language=1&limit=1 O&num pages=&page=1 &query=elvin)

2010 SE? 30 Ai1 8: 37

California for many years. Accountant in California.

1979 to attend college in San Diego, California.

October 19, 2003, at the age of 71.

Elvin's friend and estate planning attorney Robert "Grigger" Jones

than Elvin's practice-to

Meek for the Benefit of Elvin R. Meek (the "1996 Trust").

1m 5.1 & 3.02.2.

The First Amendment

C. The First Amendment also gives Elizabeth a

Under the First Amendment, the Exemption Trust is to be funded with an

In response to Elvin's request, Jones prepared a Second Amendment to See

and did nothing to procure the Second Amendment or the Will.

105. Elizabeth. 106.

116. 117. 118. 119.

is the resident manager at the Waipuna condominium.

140. 141. telephone. 142.

hospital in October 2003.

153. 154. 155.

No evidence was offered or admitted to refute Elizabeth's testimony on

or other undue influence in August 2003.

To the extent any Finding of Fact may be interpreted as a Conclusion of

§§ 560:1-302(a)(1) and (3) and 560:7-201. '

Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i 443,455,979

execution of the Second Amendment was the product of undue influence.

execution of the Will was the product of undue influence.

Fraud To succeed on a claim of fraudulent inducement, Nanci must establish

' 'if''..As Am~."

ES H. ASHFORD ONDA L. GRISWOLD Attorneys for ELIZABETH MEEK, as Trustee

ImanageDB: 139683 8.2

FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STAlE OF HAWAIl

THE ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST,

DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED.

DERRICK H.M. CHAN JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-

correct copy of the 0 ..

lao tleleDy cartity mat tnls ISa lull, true, arr..

on file in this ofIiot.

(Exhibit "A'1 is invalid for the following reasons:

1) There appears to be evidence that would doubt the authenticity