Daisha Inman, 52, has blown more than $1 million of her 15-year-olds’ $60 million inheritance since 2010, according to court records.

The former topless dancer is due in court on June 28.

Attribution:

Duke it out in court
Julia Marsh
May 9, 2013
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/duke_it_out_in_court_kwFb4tXPATbtDPYYunT7GK

“They were two big men, so I didn’t go out there until they were gone,” said the 78-year-old widow. “But when I did go out and looked at it, I couldn’t believe it.”

The sign announced that her 92-year-old clapboard cottage was being sold in a Superior Court probate auction scheduled for Saturday.

For Blend, it was stunning news. She thought she was the owner of the 780-square-foot Irvington Place house.

“My husband lived here 40 years before he died,” she said. “I thought the house had been paid for a long time ago.”

According to Blend, she and Fernando H. Neri lived together as husband and wife for 27 years after the death of his first wife. She and Neri met at a Van Nuys shop where he worked as a barber, she as a hairdresser. Before he died in 2011, she said, he wrote a will that left the tiny house to her.

Last year, after Blend first suffered a stroke and then serious burns when her clothes caught on fire as she warmed herself by the fireplace, a notice of a deadline to file an objection to the probate was mailed by Los Angeles County. But Blend said she was undergoing skin grafts when it arrived.

“It turns out they have me down as a renter instead of executor of the estate,” said Blend.

Officials of the county’s Public Administrator’s office said the auction is required because of debts incurred by the estate. County records showed a delinquency on the 2011 property taxes on the house.

Although common-law marriages are not recognized in California — the state has a domestic partnership registry — probate courts pay close attention to hand-written, verifiable wills, officials said.

Blend said she has been told that the residence is not behind on its property tax. “We went to the tax assessor’s office and were told we don’t owe anything. I still have a bill from the hospital for about $1,000. Would they take the house for that?” she asked.

She said others in the Irvington Place neighborhood have joined in her effort to save her home. “The neighbors help me. They bring me breakfast every morning. They take me to the store and to church. They took me to the tax office,” she said.

Neighbor Imelda Mireles said she’s been friends with Blend for 17 years and frequently gives her rides to the store. “It’s a bad situation for her. It’s not right,” Mireles said of the impending auction.

Alejandria Menjibar has lived next door to Blend since 1996. “She’s a nice neighbor. But she’s lonely and people take advantage of her,” Menjibar said.

About two dozen potential buyers toured the two-bedroom house last Sunday during an auction preview showing. On Wednesday, another potential bidder showed up to take photos of the house.

“I’m looking for a house to live in. I saw this auction listing online last night,” said Linda Manheim, a Westwood resident who works in real estate. Advised that Blend still lives in the house, Manheim abruptly changed her mind about submitting an offer.

“I won’t be bidding. Absolutely not. That’s bad mojo. This could be my mom, anybody’s mom,” she said.

But the auction is moving ahead just the same, though the winning bidder will have to go to court within 45 to 60 days for a confirmation hearing, said Craig Hendrickson, the county’s chief deputy public administrator.

Hendrickson declined to discuss specifics of Blend’s situation, including her assertion that a woman claiming to be Neri’s daughter has suddenly stepped forward, but said she will have an opportunity at the court hearing to protest the sale.

Courts typically instruct the public administrator to work with a survivor-occupant to help arrange a loan, a reverse mortgage or some other remedy, he said.

Rhett Winchell, the listing agent for Saturday’s auction, concurred that Blend will have an additional opportunity to fight any eviction.

As for Blend, she’s hoping for the best.

“They’re pushing me to move. They’re hot to put me out. Some guy came by yesterday and asked me when I was leaving,” she said.

“I’m an old lady who’s all alone. Where will I go? Under a bridge somewhere?”

Attribution:

Woman, 78, could lose home in probate confusion
Marianne Blend thought she owned the Highland Park house that the county says she rents. It’s set for auction Saturday, which she can appeal later.
Bob Pool
April 26, 2013
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-elderly-evict-20130427,0,812944.story

A box of candy blew up in her face in 2010. Two years later, authorities told her they recorded her brother trying to hire a hit man to kill her and her sister.

Since 2006, Vennie Wolf has fought her brother over an inheritance that spawned half a dozen criminal cases, myriad lawsuits and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers’ bills.

On Friday, the 61-year-old broke down in tears as she thanked the jurors who sentenced her brother to life in prison and a $10,000 fine, the maximum penalty possible.

“He did this to himself,” Vennie Wolf said behind tears. “We just completed the story.”

Clair Wolf, 66, was emotionless after being convicted of solicitation of capital murder for trying to persuade a Harris County inmate to kill his two sisters and a brother-in-law in the middle of a bitter inheritance fight.

Wolf wanted his family members to die in a specific order to maximize his possible inheritance, a chilling plan recorded by an inmate who decided to alert authorities instead of taking money to kill.

After he was sentenced, Wolf was upbraided by his sisters during courtroom victim impact statements in state District Judge Katherine Cabaniss‘ court.

“You have been evil for so long, no one recognizes you anymore,” said Elizabeth Wolf, a retired teacher who was also targeted. “We’re going to go without you. I hope someday you realize what you’ve given up.”

Wolf’s attorney said the escalation stemmed from probate proceedings of the siblings’ parents estate of almost $3 million.

“Just a tragic situation coming out of probate,” said attorney Sid Crowley. “People get so wrapped up in those things, they lose sight of what’s important.”

Wolf will be eligible for parole in 30 years. Since he must serve at least half of the sentence before being parole eligible, Crowley had hoped for a shorter term for his client.

“At 66 years old, anything over a 25-year sentence is the same as a life sentence,” he said.

Sister blames greed

During the punishment phase, jurors heard testimony that Vennie Wolf and her husband found a gift bag on the doorstep of their north Houston home with a plastic-wrapped chocolate box in 2010.

She was severely burned by the explosion and cut by tacks, glass and pieces of pipe that blew up in her face.

The package arrived just days after a mediation in which Clair Wolf agreed to take more than $22,000 in cash and $16,000 in real estate in exchange for his claim to the inheritance.

Some of the rural properties the siblings were fighting over were already tied up in civil and criminal litigation because of allegations of illegal oil disposal and dumping.

Clair Wolf was later sentenced to five years behind bars for environmental crimes on the properties. His sisters paid $500,000 of the inheritance for the cleanup.

Both women testified they have yet to see a cent and believe most of the estate has been consumed by lawyers’ bills.

“We could have all been very comfortable,” said Elizabeth Wolf. “He’s given up so much just because of greed.”

After the sentence, prosecutor Wes Rucker credited inmate William Maceachran for turning in Wolf, which did not change his jail sentence.

“It was a real ‘Saul on the road to Damascus’ moment,” Rucker said of the inmate’s decision.

Attribution:

Brother sentenced in plot to kill sisters
Brian Rogers
May 10, 2013
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Brother-sentenced-in-plot-to-kill-sisters-4507129.php

In fact, in 2011, Bal Harbour got more than $5 million through its money-laundering investigations from a U.S. Justice Department asset forfeiture sharing program, more than any Florida law enforcement agency that year. The Tri-County Task Force’s agents worked out of a trailer in Bal Harbour and included deputies from a nearby county and a contract employee who worked at a federal immigration officer in California.

The money went for salaries, travel and confidential informant payments — some of which have been questioned as improper by Justice Department investigators — as well as a $100,000 police boat and a $225,000 surveillance truck.

While perhaps an extreme example, Bal Harbour’s task force highlights the way many law enforcement agencies are using the expanding federal program along with permissive state forfeiture laws to seize cash, property and assets in criminal cases that sometimes didn’t even happen in their jurisdictions. Under the federal program, state and local police agencies are rewarded for participating with federal authorities in joint investigations. The locals’ contributions can range from providing leads to essentially running the investigation from start to finish.

Often, it’s only a suspected link to crime that leads to a civil seizure, which can force people to prove they are innocent to get their cash or property back.

To many legal experts, that’s a perversion of a U.S. justice system in which a person is supposed to be presumed innocent, tempting police to focus on cash instead of crime and diverting resources from more urgent safety threats.

“This is a country where we have a Bill of Rights to protect the people from the government,” said Tamara Lave, a former public defender who is now a law professor at the University of Miami. “This is a way of giving the government greater power and it’s an institutional way of undermining people’s rights.”

Prosecutors value forfeiture because it can hit criminals where it hurts — in the wallet — and deprives them of the fruits of crime.

“If there was no forfeiture, then it is conceivable that a defendant could serve their time and when he or she gets out, still have access to the funds the criminal enterprise produced,” said David S. Weinstein, a former South Florida federal prosecutor now in private practice. “Punishment is about more than putting people in jail.”

But, Weinstein added: “The more jaded viewpoint is that it is an easy way for an agency to get cash and property.”

The biggest asset forfeiture program is the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing, which Bal Harbour’s drug task force used. It has grown from $297.5 million in payouts in 2006 to almost $454 million in 2012, according to Justice Department records.

Separately, untold millions more are seized and kept by law enforcement agencies under state forfeiture laws.

Over the same period the federal payouts have increased, according to the FBI, overall rates of crime have been dropping, although police reported a slight uptick in 2012.

In Bal Harbour, there were 56 total arrests in 2010 and 53 in 2011, according to the Justice Department. Over the two years, 18 involved drug violations.

Drug cartels, money launderers, Mafia organizations and fraud rings are among those in criminal cases whose assets are seized and deposited into this program. Yet sometimes prosecutors use civil forfeiture laws — which have a lower standard of proof than criminal cases — to seize property that may be only loosely connected to potential criminal actions.

In Bal Harbour’s case, tipsters were used to set up drug money-laundering pickups by undercover officers in at least 13 locations around the U.S. After the money changed hands, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration would arrest the suspects, and Bal Harbour would apply for its cut of the forfeited cash.

Another different kind of example involves the Motel Caswell on Main Street in Tewksbury, Mass. The family-owned business, operated by 69-year-old Russell Caswell, was targeted for seizure by federal prosecutors who contended it was being used to “facilitate” ongoing illegal drug activity. Caswell denied it and was never charged with a crime, but faced losing a business that his father had built in 1955.

A federal judge ruled in January that there was no proof Caswell tolerated drug activity, much less encouraged it. In fact, U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein said in a 59-page decision that Caswell allowed police free reign over the property and he had no responsibility to tackle the drug problem by himself.

“Courts do not expect the common land owner to eradicate a problem which our able law enforcement organizations cannot control,” Dein wrote.

One of Caswell’s attorneys, Larry Salzman of the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice public interest law firm, said the case illustrates how forfeiture laws have influenced police.

“It’s quick cash for the local agency,” Salzman said. “There are places that have these task forces that exist simply to seize money.”

According to the institute, law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep 100 percent of seized assets in 26 states, with another 16 states allowing them to keep half. Most states require property owners to establish their innocence, with only six — California, Florida, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan and Oregon — requiring the government to prove guilt.

The federal government must prove a person’s connection to crime, but using the lower civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard — in other words, a little more likely than not — rather than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required in criminal cases. Georgia legislation to raise the legal standard and make other reforms failed to pass after fierce resistance from police agencies.

Along Interstate 40 in Tennessee between Nashville and Memphis, task forces were created to catch drug dealers and seize cash using the state’s forfeiture laws. Investigators noticed that if they stopped westbound cars they’d be more likely to find drug money, while the eastbound cars were more likely to contain drugs.

It became clear which side was lucrative for investigators, said Tennessee state Rep. Barrett Rich, a former state trooper sponsored a bill this year to give people more rights in forfeiture proceedings.

“It seems the focus in Tennessee has gone from getting the drugs off the street and instead placing an emphasis on the money,” said Rich, a Republican.

The problem in Tennessee, Rich said, is that innocent people who had large amounts of cash seized were forced to await the outcome of a forfeiture hearing if they wanted it back. The judge and law enforcement officials meet in private to decide what to do.

According to the Beacon Center of Tennessee, a public policy research group, questionable stops included a Georgia lottery winner who had $20,000 in cash seized and a man helping his mother move with her life savings, from whom $27,500 was taken. It’s unclear from the report whether they got their money back.

Back in Bal Harbour, former police chief Thomas Hunker was fired following a Justice Department probe into its drug task force, which has been disbanded in the wake of the controversy. Among the investigation’s findings were that more than $263,000 was improperly paid out of forfeiture funds for salaries and an American Express for travel expenses.

The village has been forced to repay $1.2 million to the Justice Department, said interim city manager Jay Smith, and could be on the hook for millions more.

Hunker’s attorney, Richard Sharpstein, said the Justice Department probe made numerous false accusations — Justice officials refused comment on the investigation — and that the task force was responsible for more than 200 arrests.

“Chief Hunker served and protected the citizens of this community steadfastly for a decade,” Sharpstein said.

Attribution:

Fla. police cash force shows forfeiture’s growth
Curt Anderson/AP Legal Affairs Writer
May 10, 2013
San Antonio Express-News
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/crime/article/Fla-police-cash-force-shows-forfeiture-s-growth-4505810.php#ixzz2TJVpAiyv

Four petitions had been filed following the Court’s February 27 decision to overturn a 2008 settlement deal by former Attorney General (AG) Henry McMaster. On Wednesday the Court denied all petitions and issued a revised opinion, sending the case back to Aiken County for further proceedings.

The settlement deal had been appealed to the Supreme Court by former trustees, Bob Buchanan of Aiken and Adele Pope of Newberry, who replaced Brown’s original trustees after they resigned in 2007.

On Friday, Pope said, “The May 8 decision of our Supreme Court ends the 6-year quest by James Brown’s original trustees, Brown’s companion and others—aided by 90 lawyers—to destroy James Brown’s dream of leaving his $100 million music empire to the James Brown ‘I Feel Good’ Trust, to be used solely for the education of needy and deserving students in Georgia and South Carolina.”

Read more at Watchdog Wire.

Ninety-one-year-old Sophie Paulos spent three months and more than $30,000 proving to court officials that she was competent enough to run her own life.

Two of her daughters had told a local judge that they suspected Paulos was being financially exploited by family members. They said they were worried about her health. They questioned whether she was mentally sound.

By the time the three-month ordeal was over, Paulos says, she had paid $30,000 for court-appointed lawyers she never wanted and another $70,000 on related legal expenses.

“I was humiliated,” said Paulos, who is frustrated with court officials who she says drove up the bills. “I had to pay for this and they don’t care.”

Now Paulos’ son-in-law — former Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs — is holding her case out as an example of how the guardianship system needs reform.

Since Paulos’ case was settled in October, Suehs has been connecting with legislators and guardianship advocates who say people are unfairly dragged through the courts and forced to spend thousands of dollars to protect their independence. Now they’re pushing for changes that would require speedier hearings and force courts to prove they need to intervene before launching full investigations. The proposals have drawn support from AARP and Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth.

But lawyers and judges say the proposed changes would leave people more vulnerable and throw unnecessary roadblocks into the process.

Adult guardianship cases are essentially lawsuits designed to ensure vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities are not abused, neglected or exploited. A probate court must determine whether people are competent enough to keep themselves safe and healthy. If a judge deems they are not, he can appoint a guardian to make medical, financial and other decisions for them.

Between September 2011 and August 2012, more than 4,500 adult guardianship petitions were filed in probate courts across the state. Of those, 206 were filed in Travis County.

Some guardianship cases — such as those for a person in a coma, for example — can be concluded in a matter of days. Others can takes months or years to resolve.

Those involved in the process say people often need guardians for reasons such as dementia or failing health. But sometimes people who need help don’t realize it or can’t recognize the signs of trouble, said Travis County Probate Court Judge Guy Herman. They don’t see that they are being scammed by strangers or giving away all their money.

Consequently, they balk at the the idea of needing a guardian, Herman said.

“Let’s face it, when there is a guardianship, somebody’s losing some rights,” he said. “It’s a loss of freedom and they’re well aware of it.”

Paulos certainly was.

“I am very hurt that they put this through the court,” she said. “I am not incompetent.”

Escalating costs

Until 2009, the year she broke her leg, Paulos lived independently in her Austin home. Then she moved into a senior living community where she was happy. At some point — exactly when is a matter of disagreement among her three daughters — Christine Suehs began handling her mom’s money.

That move ultimately caused friction in the family, said Frances Rabel, who is Paulos’ daughter and lives in Spring. Rabel said she and her other sister, Marianne Clay, who lives in Hays County, were cut off from knowing anything about their mother’s financial affairs.

The sisters suspected the Suehs were exploiting their mother and that Paulos’ health was deteriorating. The Suehs denied they were taking advantage of her, saying that she made all the financial decisions, and that her health was not threatened.

On July 17, 2012, court documents show, Clay called the state’s Adult Protective Services division, which investigates allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation. Both sisters also expressed their concerns in letters to Herman.

As required by law, Herman assigned someone to investigate the case. He appointed local attorney Nancy Scherer to serve as Paulos’ guardian ad litem, a lawyer charged with acting in Paulos’ best interest. Paulos had to pay the guardian about $300 an hour, the court-approved rate.

State law requires that guardians ad litem be paid either by the county or the estate of the suspected victim. In cases where someone is indigent, Travis County taxpayers give lawyers an hourly fee of $85 to $100.

The potential ward can not immediately refuse to have a guardian ad litem. As part of the investigation, guardians ad litem have access to the potential ward’s financial, medical and personal records.

Paulos immediately objected and hired her own attorney to fight the process. Now she was for paying two lawyers.

“I felt like I wasn’t a citizen,” Paulos said. “He’s asking me to give all my financial documents to a stranger? Who would do that?”

State law allows a potential ward to ask for a hearing at any time to challenge the court’s intervention. But nobody explained this to Paulos, according to the Suehs family.

As the guardian ad litem scrutinized the case, the state’s Adult Protective Services investigated and determined that Paulos was not being financially exploited, that her health was not threatened and that she was not being unduly influenced by Christine Suehs.

“Considering her age (90 years old), her medical diagnosis and physical limitations, Mrs. Paulos appears to be in an ideal situation in terms of her living environment and access to quality care and support,” the report states.

That document went to the court. But Scherer wanted Paulos to take a mental exam, which is often needed when a potential ward’s competency is questioned.

Adult Protective Services investigations are “just another piece of information,” said Scherer, who declined to discuss the Paulos case because of confidentiality constraints.

Judges, lawyers defend system

What followed was a back-and-forth that lasted for another two months. Paulos went to two doctors of her own choice, both of whom deemed her mentally sound. But Scherer rejected the results because the physicians didn’t perform the kind of tests she wanted. When Paulos went to a doctor picked by the guardian ad litem, he wanted more tests and she put her foot down.

Paulos’ daughters asked the court to appoint a permanent guardian to handle their mother’s decisions. The court appointed an attorney ad litem, which, by law, Paulos also had to pay.

The dispute finally ended with mediation. The terms of that settlement are confidential. All parties say they are satisfied with the results.

The Suehs say Paulos ended up paying $30,000 to court-appointed lawyers and another $70,000 for her own attorneys and estate planning costs she never would have incurred otherwise.

She wasn’t the only one saddled with legal bills. Rabel, who feels like the process worked well in this case, says she paid her own lawyer $20,000. The Suehs family also paid $20,000 in their legal expenses.

With Paulos’ permission, Suehs embarked on an effort to revise the guardianship process.

With support from Klick, AARP and families advocating for reforms, Suehs has proposed changes such as holding hearings within 15 days and forcing people to sign affidavits before bringing concerns to the court.

Judges and lawyers from across the state balked at such proposals.

Fifteen days might not be enough time to effectively determine whether someone is in jeopardy, said Austin lawyer Deborah Green, who regularly works guardianship lawsuits and served as Paulos’ attorney ad litem. They might not be able to get people to a doctor or review records, so a hearing could be a waste of time and money, she said.

Lin Morrisett, an associate judge for probate court in Tarrant County, opposes the idea of forcing people to sign affidavits before lodging concerns about someone’s safety. While he does see that as a “reasonable protection” against false allegations, he also worries that the new hurdle would keep people from reporting potential problems. He has never had a case in which he believed the guardianship application or information letter was brought in bad faith, he said.

Throughout the session, Suehs has approached legislators about attaching his proposed reforms to bills headed to the legislature. Those suggestions continue to evolve as the process goes on, but they all center around the same issues. Probate lawyers have offered compromises but none of that has been resolved.

“Before we remove somebody’s civil rights, we need to make sure they are, in fact, at risk, that they are being exploited and that they are incapable of making decisions,” Suehs said.

Additional reporting by Eric Dexheimer.

Attribution:

Woman’s costly court battle prompts call for reform of guardianship system
Andrea Ball
May 12, 2013
Austin American-Statesman
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/womans-costly-court-battle-prompts-call-for-reform/nXpdF/?icmp=statesman_internallink_textlink_apr2013_statesmanstubtomystatesman_launch

Channel 9′s Jeff Deal spoke with the woman who tipped off authorities about Linda Littlefield, and asked if there are tougher charges for people who prey on the elderly and take their life’s savings.

Linda and Ross Littlefield were first arrested in 2010. Linda Littlefield was a Kissimmee attorney, and her husband Ross helped her run businesses that appeared to help the elderly.

Victim Janet Lentz said they took everything.

“I feel used, raped,” Lentz said.

Investigators said the Littlefields ran up Lentz’ credit cards, stealing $53,000.

They were both convicted. Linda is still serving part of a two-year sentence. Ross was sentenced to probation.

Federal investigators said there are now 26 victims — people who put money in a special trust.

They said the Littlefields took nearly $3 million from the trust and spent it on cars, their businesses and property.

Kathleen Foust was Lentz’ guardian, and was the first to report the Littlefields.

“Linda and Ross were criminals, they just legitimized themselves and looked like they were wonderful people,” Foust said.

Since then she’s heard horror stories about how the Littlefields targeted the elderly.

She said one woman spent her life savings setting up a trust for two developmentally-disabled daughters and lost everything.

“She said, ‘Now I don’t know who is going to take care of my daughters when I’m gone,’” Foust said.

No one answered at Ross Littlefield’s home.

Foust said she hopes this time they’ll both go to prison.

“No morals… no character,” Foust said.

Attribution:

Investigators: Kissimmee couple ripped off elderly
May 7, 2013
wftv.com
http://m.wftv.com/news/news/local/investigators-kissimmee-couple-ripped-elderly-stol/nXj4Z/

The 33-year Lawrence police officer is accused of stealing nearly $70,000 from Elizabeth Lacey, an elderly Andover Street woman known to friends as “Aunt Betty.”

Yesterday was Hale’s fourth scheduled arraignment date in the case, although criminal charges were filed against him in January.

Dressed in black pants and a gray jacket, Hale, 77, was released on personal recognizance by Judge Lynn Rooney. At the request of prosecutors, who did not seek any bail, Rooney issued Hale a warning to stay away from the victims in the case. He was also issued a bail warning, which means if he is arrested and charged in any other criminal cases, he can be held in jail for 60 days, Rooney explained.

Hale was represented yesterday by Ryan Loughlin, who declined to comment on the charges and Hale’s defense.

According to court records, Hale claims he is the rightful beneficiary of the will of Elizabeth Lacey, who died at age 89 in 2007. Lacey’s friends and surrogate family members were shocked she left everything to Hale, a man she said she disliked because he badgered her for money. Hale is the son of a man Lacey dated in the 1950s.

In July 2011, Judge Mary Ann Sahagian threw out the Hale will and approved an earlier will leaving everything to James Wareing, Wareing’s mother Joan McGuire and his two twin sisters, Denise Clegg and Diane Forrester. Wareing, his sisters and mother were Lacey’s friends for decades.

Hale appealed Sahagian’s decision on the will to the state appeals court. In March, Hale asked for a hearing before the state appeals court to be postponed, saying he has cancer and a blood clot in his leg. The appeals court denied his request, however, deciding instead to base their decision on legal briefs already filed with the court. To date, the appeals court has not made a decision in the case.

A year ago, in a civil action, Superior Court Judge Timothy Feeley placed a $70,000 attachment on Hale’s 7 Meadow St. home.

State police filed uttering, larceny and forgery charges against Hale in January. He is accused of cashing $66,000 in Lacey’s checks before and after her death. When he was questioned about the checks during civil and probate trials, Hale repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Lacey owned a home at 418 Andover St., which was worth $175,000 at the time of her death. She also had another $170,000 in savings and checking accounts.

Uttering and forgery convictions carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail. The larceny charge carries a 5 year maximum jail sentence.

Hale’s relationship with Lacey and the dispute over her wills was exposed in a July 24, 2011 Sunday Eagle-Tribune article.

Attribution:

Ex-cop finally shows for arraignment
Jill Harmacinski
May 9, 2013
Eagle-Tribune
http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x1169349849/Hale-finally-shows-for-larceny-forgery-arraignment

Daisha Inman, 52, has blown more than $1 million of her 15-year-olds’ $60 million inheritance since 2010, according to court records.

Judge Nora Anderson ordered Inman, a former topless dancer, to defend why she should not provide receipts for her spending to Citibank and J.P. Morgan, which administer accounts for the children, in a May 3 Surrogate’s Court ruling.

“The children, in effect, are supporting her, or she is supporting herself using funds she withdraws from the children’s accounts or otherwise obtains via the children,” a Citibank vice president, Elizabeth Ott, charged in a May 2 filing.

Inman has been demanding funds on an emergency basis and ordering that the money be put directly into her personal checking account, Ott claims.

Mom to Georgia Noel Lahi Inman and Walker Patterson Inman III, Daisha allegedly refused to use medical insurance provided by the bank for the children, instead forcing the trustees to reimburse her with cash for doctors’ appointments.

The court papers don’t detail how Inman has spent the inheritance cash, but previous documents allege she wanted money to purchase gold coins for a Vegas trip last fall and $29 million for a Salt Lake City area ranch.

The $1 million Inman has spent does not include direct payments the bank has made for the children’s expenses including school tuition.

When asked to account for ATM withdrawals, Inman has been hostile and invoked a right to privacy, Ott explains in court papers.

Inman, 52, was married to the twins’ late father, Walker Inman Jr., who was philanthropist and tobacco heiress Doris Duke’s nephew.

Last month JPMorgan alleged that a convicted child molester and former boyfriend of Inman was making a grab for the kids’ cash.

Inman has moved the children to three states in three years, from Wyoming to South Carolina and finally Utah, where she’d been holed up in a $120,000 a month hotel, the banks’ allege in court papers.

She’s due in court on June. 28.

Calls and emails to Inman’s attorney were not returned. In an email to the Post Inman asserted, “I receive not one dime from my children’s Trusts and never have.”

She added, “JPM and Citibank Trustee’s have a history of bad faith and intentional fiduciary misconduct dating back to the birth of my children.”

Attribution:

Mom of twin Duke fortune heirs ordered to court after allegedly blowing $1M of their inheritance
Julia Marsh
May 8, 2013
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/their_allegedly_inheritance_duke_YIXpPRK1EYACBgydtt87YP

Wednesday an appeals court commissioner, Joyce McCown of Spokane, heard arguments about whether the question should be heard by an appeals court panel. She made no ruling, saying she needed time to study and research the issue.

Stuart, 39, fatally shot her mother in March 2011 in their Pasco home and is charged in Franklin County Superior Court with first-degree murder with aggravating circumstances. She is arguing self-defense.

In February, Judge Cameron Mitchell ruled that he would allow testimony about comments the prosecution says her mother, Judy Hebert, made to friends and neighbors in the weeks before she died.

He based his decision to admit the statement on a recently adopted state law that says a defendant may not kill a witness and then argue that the witness is not available to testify.

Mitchell pointed to evidence that allegedly shows Stuart tried to get her mother’s will when Hebert was alive and tried to get the combination to her safe.

He also relied on evidence that allegedly showed that Stuart initially told police that nothing was wrong when they responded to a 911 hangup call and that when police contacted Stuart again she said she had shot her because her mother was coming at her with an ax.

“From that evidence, it is clear and convincing to this court that the shooting of Ms. Hebert was done to prevent her from reporting the wrongdoing that Ms. Hebert had discovered that the defendant has been involved in,” the judge said in February. “Therefore Ms. Stuart, by her actions, has forfeited her right to confront Ms. Hebert.”

But defense attorney Peter Connick said Wednesday in a telephone conference call to the court commissioner that is akin to dispensing with the jury because it would mean the defendant obviously is guilty. There is no opportunity for cross-examination and no limit to hearsay statements, he said.

Stuart has a constitutional right to confront her accuser, the defense has argued.

The case has been pending for two years and Mitchell considered a wealth of information made available during that time to make his decision, she said. The defense is cherry-picking facts to make its case to the court of appeals, said Deputy Prosecutor Teresa Chen.

“I would ask the court to be skeptical,” she said.

It’s clear that at the time of the shooting Hebert was calling 911 to report that her daughter had broken into her safe and stolen from her, the prosecution has argued. Because Hebert was silenced, the state has to rely on statements the victim made to people in the days before her death about her fears, the prosecution has argued.

Hebert reportedly told her ex-husband, a friend and four neighbors that she believed her daughter was trying to kill her.

Eleven days before her death, she was hit on the head by a 32-pound plastic bin of books that fell from the rafters in her garage after Stuart allegedly pushed the bin. Hebert also allegedly said she believed her medication was being switched.

Stuart’s trial is scheduled to start May 28.

Attribution:

Stuart’s lawyers want alleged suspicions excluded from murder trial
Annette Cary/Tri-City Herald
May 2, 2013
The News Tribune
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/05/01/2580919/attorneys-want-ruling-overturned.html#storylink=cpy