Of Counsel:In pro se

NANCI MEEK3308 Ariba StLas Vegas NV 89129Telephone: (760) 413-5660Petitioner in Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

THE MATTER OF ) T. No. 05-1-0101 ) FINDINGS OF FACT ANDTHE ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996 ) RE: EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS AMENDED ) OF JULY 8 AND JULY 9, 2010,

) HONORABLE JUDGE DERRICK ) CHAN PRESIDING; ) __________________________________)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

On July 8, 2010 and July 9, 2010 the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit State of Hawaii an evidentiary hearing was held before

Honorable Judge Derrick Chan with respect to the Amendment To

Petition For Declatory Relief Declaring the 1st Amendment Invalid,

filed on August 14, 2009. As instructed by Honorable Judge Derrick

Chan, the following are the Petitioner’s Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Elizabeth Meek testified she observed Elvin Meek, in April of 2002 in the parking lot of the El Torito Restaurant in San Bernardino, California, entrusting to Petitioner, aka decedent’s daughter, Nanci Meek, a copy of the original Elvin R

11

Meek 1996 Trust Agreement not including the questionable 1997 1st Amendment. Elizabeth Meek’s testimony confirms the Petitioner’s allegations as set forth in the Amended Petition for Declatory Relief filed August 14, 2009 that the aforementioned 1997 1st Amendment as presented to the court by Elizabeth Meek and Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones has been altered and lends credibility to the allegation that the true 1st Amendment consisted of only a few pages.

2. During testimony provided by decedent’s son, Melvin Meek, he

stated he believes the 1st Amendment (Respondent’s Exhibit

“1”) did not exist at the time of the decedent’s death on

October 19, 2003. Melvin Meek confirmed he was in attendance

at the El Torito Restaurant in San Bernardino in April of 2002

when the decedent handed to Petitioner and original Trustee,

Nanci Meek, a copy of the original Elvin R Meek 1996 Trust

agreement in April of 2002 without any amendments, however

he did not witness the exchange but was told of it later.

3. Melvin Meek further testified that during a conversation he had

with his father sometime in 2001, Elvin Meek indicated he was

upset having recently discovered that Respondent Elizabeth

Meek had sent $5000 to her daughter Lola Dee Reklai-Meek

without his knowledge and had lied to Elvin about the

transaction. It was during this time according to Melvin Meek

the decedent told him that Elvin and Elizabeth were “not

getting along” and during a trip to Palau in 2000 Elvin Meek was

going to leave Elizabeth in Palau and return to the states.

4. Melvin Meek testified upon receipt of a letter from Attorney

Robert Jones dated August 2, 2004, Melvin made several

requests through telephone conversations with Attorney Jones

and his secretary Colleen Alexander requesting a copy of the 1st

Amendment. Melvin further stated that only after several

months transpired did Attorney Jones provide a copy of the 1st

Amendment.

22

5. Melvin Meek testified that he was concerned with the uncaring

manner in which Elizabeth Meek had not contacted him or any

of the decedent’s family and friends to inform him of his

father’s terminal condition. Melvin referred to a telephone call

he placed to Elizabeth’s Meek’s cellular phone inquiring about

his father’s condition on October 13th of 2003. Melvin stated

Elizabeth advised, “Elvin is an adult and can call you himself.”

During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she verified and confirmed

this conversation. However, during her deposition taken on May

28, 2010 on page 61 she states she does not recall Melvin

calling her on her cell phone. SBC Long Distance Phone records

reflecting Melvin’s home telephone account and previously filed

with the court confirm Melvin did contact Elizabeth on her cell

phone on October 13, 2003. It was shortly thereafter Melvin

was informed by hospital staff at Straub hospital that Elvin

Meek was in and out of consciousness and likely unable to

make phone calls as Elizabeth had suggested.

6. During Melvin Meek’s testimony he spoke of a conversation he

had with his father, Elvin Meek during the time the decedent

had signed his 2nd Amendment and the Last Will and Testament

on or around September 20, 2003. Melvin indicated Elvin Meek

sounded “drunk”. At the same time Melvin also stated Elvin

admitted he was having trouble hearing. Melvin stated Elvin

asked him to send him an e mail since his hearing was

weakened.

7. During testimony of Melvin Meek he confirmed a meeting he

had with another Palauan woman, Rose Tsuneo, who confided

in Melvin a short time after Elvin Meek passed away that she

had concerns with the manner in which Elizabeth was talking to

others about Elvin’s Trust and pending events. Melvin indicated

this meeting made him uneasy however he was confident that

33

he shouldn’t be concerned because his sister Nanci Meek

previously had been given a copy of the original The Elvin R.

Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. Melvin stated he was

confident his father, Elvin Meek, an attorney himself, had his

affairs in order.

8. Melvin Meek testified regarding a conversation he had with

someone from the Bank of Hawaii wherein he states he told the

representative from the bank that Melvin was of the opinion

the 1st Amendment was not accurate and had been fabricated

after Elvin Meek had passed away.

9. Melvin Meek testified regarding his concerns over signatures

on a Christmas Greeting card received from Elizabeth Meek, her

daughter Lola and granddaughter Ruthie postmarked December

2, 2003. This card was received by Melvin Meek after Elvin

Meek passed away with handwriting identical to his father’s.

While Melvin Meek is not a handwriting expert he is the

decedent’s son and comparing the signatures on the

documents in question and the greeting cards composed after

the decedent passed away logic will conclude Elizabeth Meek

was skilled at mimicking the decedent’s handwriting. It should

be noted a copy of the card and envelope were submitted as

Petitioner Exhibit #H into evidence, objected by opposing

counsel and sustained by Judge Derrick Chan.

10. During Jones’ testimony Petitioner introduced a copy of a

letter (Received by the Court as Petitioner Exhibit “30”)

executed by Robert Jones and dated September 17, 2003.

During testimony Jones confirmed the letter accompanied the

Last Will and Testament and 2nd Amendment for signature by

Elvin Meek. This is suspect because the letter makes a request

for the signed 1st Amendment indicating at the time Jones did

not possess a copy of the signed 1st Amendment. This letter is

44

suspect in that this is the first time it has been presented to

Petitioner for review. Given the history of the questionable 1st

Amendments, the letter with the word italicized word “signed”

speaks for itself. It should be noted Elvin Meek was re-

admitted to Straub hospital on September 16, 2003 for

dehydration and complications from cirrhosis of the liver.

According to Mr. Jones’ testimony supported by telephone

records, it was on September 15, 2003 that Mr. Jones had a

telephone conversation with someone at the Meek dwelling.

11. During testimony of Attorney Robert Jones an Affidavit

identified as Exhibit #B was submitted into evidence for

identification by the Court. It was objected by attorneys for

Respondent and sustained. Mr. Jones’ Affidavit prepared by

attorneys for Bank of Hawaii and executed on November 10,

2005, in which Robert Jones alleges the 1st Amendment was

signed in California on September 19, 1997. A copy of the

aforementioned 1st Amendment was presented during the

Evidentiary Hearing to Mr. Jones for review. Mr. Jones admitted

it was his signature and the notary signature was that of his

secretary, Colleen Alexander. However Jones stated he could

not recall executing the Affidavit. Further Mr. Jones admitted he

wasn’t sure who had prepared the Affidavit. Mr. Jones was

asked to review the heading on the Affidavit filed with the court

on November 16, 2005 and was reminded Goodsill Anderson

Quinn and Stifel former attorneys for the Bank of Hawaii had

prepared the document. Mr. Jones further stated he did not

recall executing the Affidavit. Based on Mr. Jones’ inability to

accurately recall the Affidavit or the signing of it, but at the

same time recognize his signature is suspect. One would

expect a successful, skilled and seasoned practicing attorney

would recall such a critical document and its content.

55

Reiterating, the Affidavit states the 1st Amendment was

executed in Hawaii by the Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek and

again by Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek three days later in

California in the presence of Robert Jones.

12. During Testimony of Attorney Robert Jones, Petitioner

requested to admit into evidence Petitioner’s Exhibit “D” which

is the Declaration of Partial Revocation of Trust executed by the

decedent on June 14, 1996 and witnessed by Attorney Robert

Jones. This Exhibit outlines the Real Property and Personal

Property included within the Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust.

The document also removes Lola Dee Meek as the successor

trustee. This document directly contradicts the testimony

provided by Robert Jones wherein Attorney Jones states Elvin

spoke often and fondly of Lola Meek, and was proud of her

academic achievements.

13. During testimony of Attorney Robert Jones Petitioner

requested to admit into evidence Petitioner’s Exhibit “X”, a

letter dated September 8, 2004 addressed to Nanci Meek and

Melvin Meek from Attorney Jones wherein he states “for a

variety of reasons, Elizabeth has chosen not to correspond with

you at this time.” When questioned about this letter Attorney

Robert Jones stated during his testimony the reason Elizabeth

chose not to communicate with Nanci Meek and Melvin Meek

due to Nanci Meek having Elizabeth Meek’s “telephone service

shut off.” Upon hearing this inaccurate and false statement,

the Petitioner immediately responded that such an event did

not occur. Common sense would dictate one could not

terminate phone services or other utilities billed to another.

During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she stated that she had

Robert Jones write the letter because Nanci Meek had left

several “nasty messages” on her answering machine. When

66

asked if Elizabeth could recall the nature of the messages,

Elizabeth could not respond. Upon hearing this Nanci Meek

denied leaving any messages which would be construed as

harassment. It should be noted that Melvin Meek stated during

his testimony that he had never had cross words with Elizabeth

and couldn’t understand why he would receive the referenced

letter. Also it should be noted that Elizabeth’s biological

daughter Lola Meek was not included in the aforementioned

letter.

14. During Mr. Jones’ testimony he admitted to a long term

business relationship with Mr. Kelly Gearhart, a land developer.

The Petitioner was informed in 2009 by Dieter Wilkomm, a field

agent with the Santa Maria Federal Bureau of Investigation that

both men are currently under investigation by the FBI with

respect to a $400 million ponzi land development scheme. At

that time Mr. Wilkomm requested Petitioner provide documents

related to this litigation. During testimony Attorney Robert

“Grigger” Jones stated both he and Kelly Gearhart had in the

past been involved with several business transactions including

a corporation entitled the Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC which he testified has

since dissolved. Documentation submitted to the court a year

earlier will support our findings that Attorney Robert Jones has

been involved in questionable fraudulent real estate dealings

involving Hurst Financial corporation, the Pe Ji Ho Ta Indian

casino in Central California, Jay Miller and Associates with

respect to charges of fraud, mismanagement of funds and

assisting in the illegal transfer and hiding of assets as well as a

pending judgment of $1.5 million. (US Bankruptcy Court

Eastern Division Akron, Ohio Case #09-50469 Complaint

Fraudulent Conveyance – Kelly Gearhart and Tamara Lowe

77

Debtors, Harold Corzin Plaintiff vs. Robert Grigger Jones, Daniel

Phillips, Chris Molina, Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC, Defendants).

15. Testimony by Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones as to the

validity of the 1st Amendment signed in California by his

previous admission in the aforementioned Affidavit was vague.

The 1st Amendment identified as Exhibit #B was submitted into

evidence for identification by the Court. It was objected by

Respondent’s counsel and sustained by the Court. During this

same testimony Mr. Jones reviewed Exhibit #B of the 1st

Amendment signed in California, comparing the pages to the 1st

Amendment (admitted by the court as Respondent’s Exhibit #1)

signed in Hawaii three days earlier as if Attorney Jones were

reviewing it for the first time. When questioned as to his

response when the 1st Amendment was presented to him by

Detective Fred Pflum of the Atascadero Police department in

2009, Mr. Jones’ responded that he could not recall the

document. It should be noted the San Luis Obispo District

Attorney’s office is currently reviewing the pending criminal

case against Robert Jones for fraud and forgery with respect to

the referenced 1st Amendment allegedly executed in California.

When asked by Petitioner why Robert Jones stated in his

Affidavit that the decedent Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek were

in his office in California three days after executing the same

document in Hawaii his response was “I don’t understand the

question.” This was a basic question requiring a basic answer of

which Mr. Jones stated he did not understand, adding further

doubt to the credibility of Robert “Grigger” Jones’ testimony.

16. During Attorney Robert Jones’ testimony he was

questioned regarding a telephone conversation with Mr. Meek

in the days prior to the drafting of the 2nd Amendment and the

Last Will and Testament. Mr. Jones stated Elvin Meek was clear,

88

concise, and did not sound weak or incoherent despite medical

records, doctor’s reports, a medical forensics report prepared

by Suzanne Gelb and previously submitted to the court,

indicating during the time the telephone conversation took

place between Mr. Jones and Mr. Meek, that the decedent was

in a weakened condition, subject to falls, informed of his

terminal condition, and 100% incapacitated. However during

his testimony Attorney Robert Jones indicated, professional

medical opinion notwithstanding, Elvin Meek was concise and

clear as to the manner in which he desired to modify and

amend his Trust as well as executing an additional Last Will and

Testament. However testimony by the decedent’s son, Melvin

Meek indicated the decedent by his own admission was

suffering from severe hearing loss. Further testimony by the

Respondent Elizabeth Meek confirmed the decedent was

utilizing two hearing aids in order to hear, however she could

not recall if Mr. Meek was wearing the hearing aids during the

previously mentioned conversation with Attorney Robert Jones.

17. During Attorney Robert Jones’ testimony Petitioner asked

his opinion as to why Mr. Meek, an attorney himself who was

responsible for scrutinizing legal documents would fail to see an

error on the 2nd Amendment which clearly states the 2nd

Amendment is amending the 1st Amendment executed on

“September ___ 1999” Mr. Jones simply stated it was an

oversight on his part and there is not a 1st Amendment

executed on September __ 1999. It is difficult to accept that two

skilled practicing attorneys could fail to see such a glaring error.

Again this is yet another component along with the weakened

signatures reflecting Mr. Meek’s deteriorating condition during

the executing of the 2nd Amendment.

99

18. Attorney Robert Jones further testified that in 1996 Elvin

Meek and Elizabeth Meek were having marital difficulties and as

a result met with only the decedent, drafting and executing The

Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. Robert Jones

indicated Elvin was alone during the execution of the Elvin R

Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. When Elizabeth Meek

was asked during her deposition if she recalled being present

during the signing of the Elvin R Meek Family Trust dated 1996

she stated she was not and a upon further questioning stated

she was in fact present. Leaving the unanswered question, was

she or wasn’t she present. Mr. Jones admitted the Trust

removed Elizabeth Meek as the Trustee as set forth in the Elvin

R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust with an Amendment

drafted and executed in 1994 which removed Lola Meek as the

surviving trustee. Mr. Jones further stated that less than 14

months after executing the original The Elvin R. Meek Family

Trust dated June 14, 1996, Elvin had turned his life around and

wanted to provide for Elizabeth and her biological daughter Lola

Meek. His testimony conflicts with the contents of an Affidavit

executed by Attorney Jones on October 2, 2007 and submitted

to the court wherein Jones states during his conversation with

Elvin Meek on or about September 16, 2003 Elvin expressed he

was very proud of Lola and that SHE had turned her life around.

Attorney Jones was detailed during his testimony when

speaking about how much Elvin Meek cared about his adopted

daughter Lola, yet when asked about Mr. Meek’s relationship to

his biological children Nanci Meek and Melvin Meek, Attorney

Jones appeared evasive and testified that Elvin Meek rarely

spoke of Melvin Meek and Nanci Meek. When asked about

Elvin’s granddaughter Nicole Kusley, Attorney Jones indicated

he couldn’t recall Elvin speaking about Nicole Kusley either.

1010

This is in direct conflict with the testimony provided by Nanci

Meek who indicated she was very close with her father. She

also indicated Elvin Meek was very fond of his granddaughter

Nicole Kusley and found it peculiar that Elvin would not speak of

her. Nanci further stated she couldn’t understand if the 1997

1st Amendment had existed prior to her father’s passing, why

her father would entrust to her a copy of the original The Elvin

R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 in April of 2002

without the supposed 1st Amendment. Nanci Meek further

testified that she does not argue a 1st Amendment exists,

however she is of the opinion it is only a few pages much like

the Amendment prepared in 1994 and not the 21 unnumbered

pages the Respondent and Attorney Robert Jones allege is the

true and operative document.

19. Attorney Robert Jones who is not licensed to practice in

Hawaii opened the probate in California within five months after

the decedent passed away in Honolulu Hawaii. Attorney Jones

during his testimony stated his reason for opening the probate

in California was to assist Elizabeth Meek to sell properties

because at the time she was not an American Citizen, however

when asked why he didn’t contact Elvin’s children and inform

them of the pending sales of several properties Attorney Jones

stated he was doing what his client wanted.

20. During his testimony Attorney Robert Jones was asked by

Petitioner if he was aware that Lola Meek had in fact moved to

Palau in 1999, married, had a child and went to work for her

biological father Senator Johnny Reklai. Mr. Jones stated he was

not aware of this. This is in direct conflict with the assertion by

Mr. Jones that he and Elvin Meek maintained a close friendship.

If that were true and Mr. Jones was as close to Elvin Meek as he

alleges, logical reasoning would dictate that Mr. Jones would

1111

have known that Lola had moved to Palau. That coupled with

Elizabeth Meek stating in her deposition that she could not

recall the name of Mr. Jones’ wife downing the relationship that

Jones’ alleges existed.

21. Testimony by Robert “Grigger” Jones appeared vague and

uncertain with his responses when questioned by Petitioner,

however when questioned by Respondent’s attorney James

Ashford , Mr. Jones appeared to have total recall providing

certain and determined responses

22. During his testimony, Attorney Robert Jones was

questioned as to the purpose of the Certification of Trust of the

Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust. Mr. Jones

confirmed the Certification of Trust was drafted by his office

and executed by the Respondent on February 20, 2004 in

Hawaii four months after Elvin Meek passed away on October

19, 2003 (identified as Exhibit #C - submitted into evidence

for identification by the court. opposing counsel objected and

objection was sustained). Attorney Jones reviewed the

Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek

1992 Trust and denied having knowledge of the decedent’s

Union Bankcal stocks admittedly valued at $646,000. However

according to an Affidavit prepared and filed with the Court by

the Bank of Hawaii on January 6, 2006 the purpose of the

Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek

1992 Trust was to assist Elizabeth Meek with dissolving any

assets not included in The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June

14, 1996. The Union Bankcal stocks are named as a part of The

Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 in the

previous form of Bank of San Bernardino. It is our finding of

fact that if the 1st Amendment as the Respondent is alleging

existed in the form (unnumbered 21 pages) as submitted to the

1212

court by Respondent, logic would conclude there would have

been no use for a Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and

Elizabeth Meek 1992 trust and facts as presented prove that

Attorney Robert Jones was not acting in accordance with the

original wishes of Elvin Meek and exploited his advanced

weakened condition as a result of alcohol abuse. (See In re

Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44) It should

be noted The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996

requests Nanci Meek-Kusley act as the trustee of the estate and

therefore the Union Bankcal would not have authorized anyone

but Nanci Meek-Kusley to cash out the stocks. As is reflected

on page 66 – 70 of the May 28, 2010 deposition of Elizabeth

Meek, Mrs. Meek had knowledge of the Union BankCal stocks,

admitted Robert Jones created the Certification of Trust for the

Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 trust, cashed the check

provided to her from the Union BankCal in the amount of

$646,000 which was also made out to the Elvin R Meek and

Elizabeth A Meek Living Trust 1992.

23. During Attorney Jones testimony Petitioner’s Exhibit “U”

was introduced and accepted. This document is an accounting

prepared by Robert Jones and submitted to the San Luis Obispo

Superior Court in May of 2005. Robert Jones acknowledged he

had submitted this accounting which carefully valued the estate

at $3.7 million with a stipulation of $1 million to be removed

and placed in an Exemption Trust. The Marital, Survivors and

Exemption Trusts were first introduced as part of the 1st

Amendment drafted by Robert Jones. Logic may conclude that

Robert Jones created the 1st Amendment as a means to control

and contain the Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust to the benefit of

certain parties to wit, Elizabeth Meek and Lola Meek.

1313

24. During testimony provided by Heidi Emery who identified

herself as a Customer relations representative for the Bank of

Hawaii she stated she had met Elvin Meek during the late 80’s.

Ms. Emery stated that on September 22, 2003, Elvin Meek was

in the Bank of Hawaii and executed the 2nd Amendment in

question. She further testified he appeared to be in good spirits,

wanting to go to lunch with her, joking about “Viagra use” and

not appearing to be in danger of falling. This contradicts the

findings of fact included in the previously submitted medical

forensics report prepared by Suzanne Gelb and filed with the

Court several times. The aforementioned forensics report is

based on the medical records and doctor reviews accumulated

reflecting the period Elvin Meek was admitted and re-admitted

to Straub hospital and St. Francis hospice care (8/27/03 through

10/19/03). Ms. Emery appeared to have been coached and her

testimony further contradicted Elizabeth Meek’s testimony and

deposition during which Mrs. Meek affirmed that Mr. Meek was

utilizing a cane. Also Ms. Emery is believed to be a biased

individual having stated she has known the Respondent,

Elizabeth Asanuma Meek’s family for approximately 56 years

and is herself a native of Palau, as is Elizabeth Meek. Heidi

further indicated she was school mates with the Respondent’s

sister Kei Kei Asanuma. Ms. Emery testified she socializes with

Elizabeth Meek on a regular basis and has been close with her

for several years. She further testified they have spent many

holidays together. When questioned by Petitioner if she

recalled seeing pictures of Nanci Meek or Melvin Meek within

the decedent’s apartment she stated “No.” Ms. Emery appears

to be biased and prejudiced her testimony should be excluded.

25. During the testimony of witness Ralph Shumway,

manager at the Waipuna apartment building where the

1414

decedent resided admitted to witnessing along with the

recently deceased Ann Taylor, Elvin Meek signing a document. ,

however he was not sure of the document. The Attestation

attached to the Last Will and Testament (submitted by

Respondent and received by the Court as Exhibit “4 “) and

signed by Ralph Shumway specifically states “He thereupon

signed his Will in our presence, all of us being present at the

same time.” This contradicts Mr. Shumway’s testimony stating

he is not sure of the document he witnessed Mr. Meek

executing. Mr. Shumway during his testimony could not recall if

Mr. Meek appeared to be in a weakened state, could not recall if

he was utilizing a cane, and did however testify he heard Mr.

Meek had been having health issues. Mr. Shumway testified his

relationship to both Elizabeth Meek and Elvin Meek was

business and not social. Ralph Shumway’s testimony is

speculative, contradictory and should be dismissed.

26. During testimony of witness Margo Corliss she stated she

has been employed with Bank of Hawaii for over 20 years and

on September 22, 2003 the day Mr. Meek was escorted to the

Bank of Hawaii by Elizabeth Meek to execute the 2nd

Amendment to his Trust that he appeared cognizant of his

surroundings, alert, not bloated or appearing to be on any

medications. This is in direct conflict with the medical

assessment report prepared two days earlier by Mr. Meek’s

attending physician Dr. Charles Zerez on September 20, 2003

the day Mr. Meek was discharged from Straub Hospital. The

report states Mr. Meek was sleeping most of the time, was

suffering from dehydration, had abdominal extension, anemia

due to bleeding, suffering from Cirrhosis of the liver, chronic

renal failure, recovering from a surgery performed a day before

and was developing right sided conjunctivitis. The report also

1515

mentions the doctor agreeing to his discharge on the condition

Elvin Meek seek home hospice care. Further the 2nd page of the

Patient Discharge instructions form signed by Elizabeth Meek on

September 20, 2003 lists 18 discharge medications Mr. Meek

was taking including: Fioricet with codeine, protonix, Proscar,

MS Oxicontin, Reglan, Sodium Chloride, Flomax,

Demeclocycline, Carafiate Liquid, Restoril, Synthroid, and

Magnesium Oxide, and Aldactone. Ms. Corliss’s testimony

was in direct conflict with Elizabeth’s deposition performed May

28, 2010 wherein Elizabeth Meek concurs Elvin was on over 18

different medications, on September 22, 2003, the day the

document was signed at the Bank of Hawaii and that he was

utilizing a cane as he was endanger of falling. Margo Corliss

stated she could not recall Mr. Meek utilizing a cane. The

contradictions in her testimony, the length of employment and

current employment of Margo Corliss by the Bank of Hawaii, her

testimony is biased, speculative and contradictory therefore it

should be dismissed.

27. During testimony of Notary Susan Strong a former

employee of Bank of Hawaii evidence submitted reflect Ms.

Strong did in fact notarize an Amendment to the trust with an

entry in her notary record reflecting only a notation as follows

“M & M Trust document customers of Heidi”. It does not say

how many pages or the actual title of the document.

28. During the deposition of Elizabeth Meek she admitted she

was uncertain as to the introduction of the Bank of Hawaii as

co-trustee and cannot recall who or when the subject of Bank of

Hawaii as co-trustee was introduced. Elizabeth’s statements

directly contradict and conflict with the Bank of Hawaii being

named as co-trustee in the 1st Amendment drafted by Attorney

Robert Jones as well as the Bank of Hawaii nominated in the

1616

Last Will and Testament as Executor of the Will in the event

Elizabeth Meek cannot serve as Executrix. Attorney Robert

Jones as reflected in courtroom testimony that he was aware

that Elizabeth Meek at the time of Elvin Meek’s passing had not

finalized her citizenship and therefore would not be able to act

as a Trustee without a financial institution assisting her in

managing the Trust. Shortly before the decedent passed away

the Bank of Hawaii opened a branch in Palau which is where the

Respondent, a native of Palau travels frequently to visit her

daughter Lola Reklai- Meek who is also a native of Palau.

Elizabeth Meek during her testimony declared she filed for her

American citizenship in the late 90’s and her citizenship was

finalized in August of 2005.

29. Elizabeth Meek while being questioned during the

Evidentiary Hearing as well as her deposition answers a

majority of the questions with uncertain responses such as, “I

don’t Know” “I can’t recall” “I let Grigger take care of that”

“It’s the reason I use Grigger Jones”. Her inability to recall

critical events is suspect as is her credibility by responding with

such vagueness.

30. During the testimony of Elizabeth Meek she stated she

asked Elvin’s friend of over 35 years, Wes Stewart to call both

Nanci and Melvin to tell them Elvin was in the hospital. This is in

direct contradiction with Melvin Meek’s testimony as well as the

testimony of Nanci Meek who insist Elizabeth deliberately

avoided contacting Mr. Meek’s family and friends to apprise

them of the decedent’s terminal condition. Elizabeth Meek

had her own agenda which consisted of isolating Elvin Meek

from his biological children, Nanci Meek, Melvin Meek, his

granddaughter Nicole Kusley, three surviving brothers, as well

as several close friends in an effort to assert influence over him.

1717

(See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44)

During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she was asked if either she

or Elvin had suggested having Elvin’s friend of over 35 years,

Wes Stewart and his wife Nina Stewart who lived across the

street from Mr. Meek in Honolulu, Hawaii, serve as witnesses to

the signing of the Last Will and Testament. Elizabeth indicated

she could not recall making the suggestion and that Elvin never

made the suggestion. During her deposition Elizabeth Meek

was asked why they did not call Wes Stewart and she replied “I

don’t know”. Elizabeth testified she recalled Wes Stewart

paying a surprise visit to Elvin Meek on or around the middle of

September 2003. She stated she had not told Wes Stewart

about Elvin’s condition because Elvin had not wanted to tell

anyone. The majority of the questions posed by Petitioner were

answered by Elizabeth Meek as “I don’t know” and “I can’t

recall”.

31. Wes Stewart passed away in February of 2008 and during

the evidentiary hearing several Exhibits including an Affidavit

signed by Wes Stewart on or about August of 2007 as well as a

letter addressed from Wes Stewart to Elizabeth identified as

Petitioner’s Exhibit “W” were asked to be received in evidence,

objected by opposing counsel James Ashford and not admitted

by Judge Chan. The argument was then made by Petitioner that

given the protracted nature of this litigation for six years, logic

would support that key players were bound to have passed

away and it should not diminish the legitimacy and the impact

of the documents previously submitted to the court. Therefore

any e mails, signed affidavits etc should be admitted to the

court as Exhibits. The request was denied.

32. During her testimony Elizabeth Meek admitted to

changing the beneficiaries of several Life Insurance Annuities

1818

funded by the decedent during the previous years. The original

designations agreed upon by the decedent reflected a

distribution of 1/3 to Melvin Meek. 1/3 to Nanci Meek, 1/3 to

Lola Meek in the event of Elizabeth Meek’s death. Elizabeth

admitted that in March of 2004 she contacted a representative

from Allianz Annuities and changed the contingent beneficiary

to reflect ½ to Lola Reklai (aka Lola Meek) and ½ to her

granddaughter Ruthie Merkll Tokii. Elizabeth Meek admitted to

making the changes and phone records submitted to the Court

reflect a call placed by Elizabeth Meek on November 3, 2003 to

Sanford Norian who was the decedent’s insurance broker. It

should be noted the aforementioned Annuities were part of the

trust. This action by Elizabeth Meek speaks for itself.

33. During testimony of Elizabeth Meek she indicated she

travels to Palau frequently to visit her daughter and

granddaughter. She confirmed her daughter has resided in

Palau since 1999 with no intention of moving back to the United

States. Elizabeth testified at one time she and Elvin had

discussed moving to Palau permanently.

34. During her testimony, Nanci Meek stated her reasons for

questioning the 2nd Amendment and Last Will are based on the

conversations with Elvin Meek’s friend of over 35 years, Wes

Stewart, as well as the Forensic Pathology report prepared by

Suzanne Gelb having reviewed medical records for the

decedent reflecting the period of August 27, 2003 to October

19, 2003. She further affirmed Respondent Elizabeth Meek’s

testimony wherein Elizabeth Meek herself stated she observed

in April of 2002 in San Bernardino, California, Elvin Meek

entrusting Nanci Meek with a copy of his Elvin R Meek 1996

Trust executed in Atascadero, California on June 14, 1996

without the questionable Amendments. Nanci further stated

1919

the Affidavit executed by Attorney Robert Jones on November

10, 2005 is nothing more than a poor effort by Mr. Jones to

further mask his questionable behavior. She stated she

believed it was the intent of Attorney Robert Jones and

Elizabeth Meek to dissolve the Elvin Meek estate utilizing the 1st

Amendment, seizing the opportunity to take advantage of her

father’s weakened condition they created and coerced the

decedent into signing the Last Will and Testament as well as

the 2nd Amendment to the Trust weeks before he passed away

having knowledge he was terminal. (See In re Estate of Herbert,

90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44) Nanci further stated she

feels Attorney Robert Jones’ character is questionable as he is

involved in a fraud investigation stemming from charges filed

with the Atascadero Police Department regarding forgery.

Nanci Meek further stated that Mr. Jones is currently under

investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with

respect to his past representation of Hurst Financial Group, his

admitted former business partner Kelly Gearhart, and the as

reflected during his courtroom testimony the Salinan Indian

Casino venture entitled Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC of San Luis Obispo.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The court has been provided with factual evidence to

make a recommendation declaring both of the 1st Amendments to

Elvin R Meek Family trust invalid instruments. Critical

components and factual evidence listed below will conclusively

and without question justify such a decision being rendered.

A. The 1st Amendment unnumbered allegedly executed in

Hawaii on September 16, 1997 as well as the 1st Amendment

2020

signed in California with Elizabeth Meek’s admittedly forged

signature executed three days later in California on

September 19, 1997 as reflected in Attorney Robert

“Grigger” Jones’ Affidavit executed November 10, 2005, is

ample, sufficient and convincing proof for the court to rule

the documents are invalid instruments. The Affidavit of

Attorney Jones executed on October 2, 2007 and filed with

the Court as an attachment to the Response of Elizabeth

Meek to Petiion for Instructions, executed by Attorney

Rhonda Griswold specifically states the QDOT and inclusion

of Bank of Hawaii was specifically to allow Elizabeth Meek

who was not an American Citizen at the time of the

decedent’s death to act as Trustee. Logic would conclude

Elvin Meek, an experienced attorney himself would have

maintained his original intentions as laid out in his original

Elvin R Meek 1996 Family trust so as to include Nanci Meek

as the Trustee and avoid any inclusion of a bank or QDOT

provision.

B. The numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the

testimony provided during the Evidentiary Hearing by

Attorney Robert “Grigger“ Jones, and Elizabeth Meek, Heidi

Emery, Margo Corliss along with the testimony by Ralph

Shumway and the medical records are sufficient to prove

that Elvin Meek was of undue influence by Elizabeth Meek

and was lacking testamentary capacity therefore the 2nd

Amendment and the Last Will and Testament executed

during Elvin’s final days is an invalid instrument (See In re

Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44).

C. During the deposition of Elizabeth Meek taken on May 28,

2010 she consistently makes reference to having legal

decisions regarding the Trust, sales of properties,

2121

reformation of the Trust remain at the discretion of Attorney

Robert “Grigger” Jones which does not give Petitioner

confidence in Elizabeth Meek nor does it affirm Elvin Meek

desiring to place Elizabeth Meek in such an important

position as to be the Trustee. The decedent, an attorney

himself, entrusted Nanci Meek when he executed his

original The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996

as the Trustee knowing Nanci Meek would not violate the

trust, cause harm (as is evident by the pending judgment of

approximately $331,000 against the Elvin R Meek Estate

arising from the Respondent and her Attorney Robert Jones’

non disclosures during the sale of the Arkansas property in

2005) Furthermore, Nanci Meek would not have ignored the

fiduciary responsible which would have resulted in an audit

by the IRS of the estate (evidenced by the 2007 IRS audit)

performed on the Elvin R Meek Trust in 2007 as a result of

the four year delay in filing a return for the estate by

accountant Michael Gould as well as the Bank of Hawaii who

had accepted co-trusteeship of the estate in March of 2005,

also costing the trust an estimate of over $45,000 payable to

Bingham McCutcheon, attorneys representing the Bank of

Hawaii in Los Angeles as well over $38,000 to the law firm of

Goodsill Anderson Quinn and Stifel attorneys for the Bank of

Hawaii in Honolulu), nor would Nanci Meek or any other

prudent and responsible individual hasten to sell properties

well below market value as did Robert “Grigger” Jones Nanci

Meek or any other prudent and responsible individual acting

as Trustee would not have been four years late in providing

the beneficiaries with an accounting, as performed by

Elizabeth Meek as Trustee. The pleadings and arguments of

counsel submitted during the last 6 years of litigation have

2222

more than proven the 2nd Amendment executed on

September 22, 2003, as well as the Last Will and Testament

executed on September 23, 2003 while Mr. Meek was in a

deteriorating and terminal condition should be declared

invalid (See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979

P.2d at 44).

Based on evidence, pleadings and arguments of counsel the

Petitioner prays the Court will agree to the following:

a) The decedent’s original trust document entitled The

Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 absent

the questionable amendments, be declared the

operative document.

b) That Elizabeth Meek be removed as Trustee. Pursuant

to Rule 34 (a) of the Hawaii Probate Rules and Rule

54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no

reason for delaying the entry of a judgment with

respect to the issues raised in the Petitioner’s Petition

For Removal Of Elizabeth Meek As Trustee Of Elvin R.

Meek Family Trust Dated 1996 filed with the First

Circuit Court State of Hawaii August 14, 2009 and

such a judgment shall be entered herein.

c) Nanci Meek-Kusley, who was originally appointed by

the decedent in his original The Elvin R. Meek Family

Trust dated June 14, 1996 as Trustee, be re-affirmed

as the Trustee of The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated

June 14, 1996 .

d) All assets as contained in the original Elvin R Meek

Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 without

amendments, all monies accrued by the Trust after

Elvin Meek died as reflected in the accountings

2323

provided by East West Wealth Management inclusive

of money from rental properties, interest accrued, be

divided at the fair market rate at the time of Elvin

Meek’s death (estimated at $4.2 million) and according

to the decedent’s original intent with distribution as

follows: (1/3 to Melvin Meek or his heirs <estimated at

$1.4 million>; 1/3 to Nanci Meek-Kusley or her heirs

<estimated at 1.4 million>; 1/6 to Lola Meek or her

heirs <estimated at $700,000; 1/6 to Elizabeth Meek or

her heirs <estimated at $700,000)

e) That the judgment against the estate from the sale of

the Arkansas property by Attorney Robert Jones and

Elizabeth Meek be satisfied by Elizabeth Meek and

Attorney Robert Jones relieving the Elvin R Meek 1996

Trust of any and all debt related to the Arkansas

judgment.

f) Respondent, Elizabeth Meek reimburse the Petitioner,

Nanci Meek in the amount of $97,198.24 covering

costs and attorneys fees allocated by Nanci Meek

during the period of September 2004 until present.

g) Respondent Elizabeth Meek reimburse the Elvin R

Meek Trust for any and all costs incurred resulting from

this litigation as well as legal fees paid by Elizabeth

Meek from monies in the trust to Attorneys Robert

Jones, Accountant Michael Gould, Attorney Jim Stanton,

Law Firm of Cades Shutte, East West Wealth

Management, also the law firm of Bingham

McCutcheon, Goodsill, Anderson Quinn and Stifel who

represented the former co-trustee Bank of Hawaii as

reflected in the accountings provided by East West

Wealth Management.

2424

h) Pursuant to Rule 34 (a) of the Hawaii Probate Rules

and Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure,

there is no reason for delaying the entry of a judgment

with respect to the issues raised in the Petitioner’s

Amended Petition For Declatory Relief Declaring the 1st

Amendment Invalid filed with the First Circuit Court

State of Hawaii August 14, 2009 and such a judgment

shall be entered herein.

I certify that the forgoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury

under the Laws of the State of Hawaii.

DATED: July 22, 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada

_______________________Nanci Meek PetitionerIn Pro Se

2525