1

Trustee of the Elvin R Meek Family Trust Dated 1996 Filed August 14,

2009 for the following reasons:

I. BACKGROUND

The objections to Elizabeth’s misreprentation of the trust

intentions have been previously described in our Petition

Declaring the 1st Amendment to be Invalid (filed August 14,

2009) and Answers thereto filed November 12, 2009).

II. ARGUMENT

In her answers to our Petition Elizabeth Meek sets forth her

reasons for denying our Petition for her removal and we will

address those arguments accordingly:

A. Elizabeth and Her Attorney Have Been

Noncommunicative During the Last Five Years of

Litigation

These arguments have been previously addressed in our

Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the

1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)

B. Wes Stewart’s Hearsay Letter and Affidavit

These arguments have been previously addressed in our

Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the

1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009) Elizabeth’s

claims that the Affidavit prepared by Attorney Richard Diehl and

signed by Wes Stewart are false and baseless. The Affidavit

2
notarized and signed has been submitted to the court several

times.

C. Nanci’s April 2002 Meeting with Elvin Meek

These arguments have been previously addressed in our

Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the

1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009). Elizabeth was

present at that time and was well aware of the pending

dissolution of the relationship between my father and herself.

Any claims otherwise are baseless and without merit and merely

a vehicle for Elizabeth Meek to justify her actions isolating our

father from his friends and family. As confirmed by the

Accounting prepared by East West Wealth Management

Elizabeth Meek withdrew $182,000 from a joint account held by

herself and my father on the morning before he passed away,

October 19, 2003. Her phone records show she contacted

several of her friends and family on this date, however did not

contact anyone in our family including my father’s brothers in

California, myself, Elvin’s son Melvin, nor his granddaughter

Nicole Kusley.

D. Arguments in Nanci’s Petition for Declatory Relief

1. Physical appearance of the First Amendment

We stand by our suspicions regarding the First Amendment

based on recent forensics and Elizabeth Meek’s own admission

that the 1st Amendment signed in California does not bear her

3
signature. According to Reed Hayes, the forensics expert with

whom we consulted, unaligned paragraphs, contrasting fonts etc

is a legitimate basis to invalidate a document and thus basis to

remove Elizabeth as Trustee.

2. Nanci admits that Elvin Meek executed a document on

September 16, 1997

As presented to the court by my own admission, I spoke with

notary Susan Strong and obtained a copy of her notary book

showing an entry reading simply “customers of Heidi Trust

document” dated September 16, 1997. The pages introduced

by Attorney Robert Jones, the same attorney who by his own

admission and contradicing his 2005 Affidavit stated he made an

“erroneous Assumption” regarding what we have proven

through forensics to be a fraudulent signing of the Amendment

in California. The pages on both 1st Amendments are not

numbered and the 21 pages are out of alignment with each

other, leading us to conclude that both the 1st Amendment

signed in California as well as the document supposedly signed

in Hawaii are not the operative document. We are of the opinion

there was a 1st Amendment however it is not the same document

introduced to the court by Attorney Robert Jones.

3. Eliabeth and Bank of Hawaii as trustees

We stand by our original argument that our father would not

have appointed the Bank of Hawaii as co-trustee only 1 and a

4
half years after executing his original 1996 trust. Our father

being an attorney and responsible for executing the documents

of others, was fully aware that Elizabeth after living in the United

States for over 23 years was not an American Citizen. Having

been an accountant before becoming an attorney, my father was

well aware of the tax consequences involved and the need to

appoint as co-trustee a United States Citizen to assist Elizabeth

in dissolving properties. However, both my brother and myself

are United States citizens. Therefore it is inconceivable he would

have enlisted a financial institution to briefly act as trustee as

was the case with the Bank of Hawaii. The Bank of Hawaii

accepted appointment as trustee of the Exemption Trust and the

Qualified Domestic Trust at the request of Attorney Robert

Grigger Jones. Given the background and many allegations of

fraud currently tied to Attorney Robert Grigger Jones it is our

contention that Attorney Jones crafted the 1st Amendment as he

has introduced it to the court after our father’s death in an effort

to support his intentions.

4. The 1996 Trust Agreement does not mention QDOT

Trust

I apologize for my error. The 1st Amendment as drafted by

Attorney Robert Grigger Jones mentions the QTIP and not the

QDOT Trust. Attorney Robert Grigger Jones set into motion

litigation in the California courts in September of 2004 to

5
establish the QDOT Trust. I recognize as will the court the

similarities to the QDOT and QTIP provisions within a trust

designed to eliminate tax consequences.

5. The California “probate”

Attorney Robert Jones did in fact file a probate proceeding in San

Bernardino, California while attempting to sell the properties in

Rialto, California and we believe in anticipation of selling the

properties in Big Bear, Crestline and Hesperia, California.

Attorney Jones also opened a probate in Arkansas preparing to

sell the property which rendered a judgment against the estate

(see Exhibit “A”) as outlined in the Affidavit of Russel Nowell,

who has been and is currently acting as the legal instrument for

the Havens estate. Attorney Robert Jones is only licensed to

practice law in California. While Elvin Meek passed away in

Hawaii and had been a resident of Hawaii since 1996 we suspect

attorney Robert Jones proceedings in the California courts are

suspicious and self serving. Also Robert Jones was fully aware

that Elizabeth Meek began immigration proceedings with

Attorney Jim Stanton which would enable her to obtain United

States citizenship prior to Robert Jones filing the QDOT provision

motions in California. It should be noted the law firm of Clay

Chapman was hired by myself after the litigation was moved

from California to Hawaii in September of 2005. Clay Chapman

were partners with Attorney Jim Stanton and 8 months after

6
filing our civil complaint the conflict of interest was revealed and

thus Clay Chapman had to withdraw as my representation.

6. The sale of California properties

As to Elizabeth’s arguments that the properties were sold

without informing myself or my brother are false and baseless.

Attorney Jones has never contacted myself or my brother

regarding the sales of any or the properties listed in our father’s

estate. Furthermore, Attorney Robert Jones initiated contact with

the City of Rialto as far back as September of 2004 as is

evidenced in the minutes of the City of Rialto council meeting

previously submitted to the court. The property was sold

undervalue and property comparatives already submitted to the

court have already proved the property in Rialto, the property in

Hesperia as well as the property at the Waipuna were sold

undervalue. This issue has been raised in the past and is

documented. Attorney Robert Jones and Elizabeth Meek have

been determined to have the estate remain undervalue in an

effort to avoid paying taxes on the estate. The Respondent and

her attorneys have maintained value of the estate to be

between $2.7 and $2.8 million plus the $1 million Exemption

trust which they assert at times has already been funded and at

times admit the $1 million Exemption trust was never funded. It

is this inconsistency which again leads us to believe Elizabeth

7
Meek’s has not been forthright and honest in administering the

estate.

7. Inconsistencies in amendments

As to the Inconsistencies in the amendments addressed, we

would have to argue that Elizabeth Meek while acting as trustee

had a responsibility to be truthful and forthright with respect to

the validity of the 1st and 2nd amendments, by isolating family

members, assisting our father who was proven by medical

forensics expert Suzanne Kelb, Phd. to have been 100 %

incapacitated during the signing of the 2nd Amendment and the

pour over Will, with full knowledge of his terminal and weakened

condition. and by colluding with Attorney Robert Grigger Jones,

not admitting the 1st Amendments were false and fraudulent

documents until after we had the documents scrutinized by

Reed Hayes, a qualified document forensics expert is enough to

have her removed as trustee of the estate.

8. Elizabeth is not sufficiently communicative

This argument has been addressed in the Response to

Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the 1st

Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)

9. Robert Jones is not sufficiently communicative

This argument has been addressed in the Response to

Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the 1st

Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)

8
 10. Letter and affidavit of Wesley Stewart

This argument has been addressed in the Response to

Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition Declaring the 1st

Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009)

11. Nanci’s April 2002 meeting with Elvin Meek

This argument has been addressed several times, most recently

in the Response to Elizabeth’s Response to our Petition

Declaring the 1st Amendment Invalid (filed November 12, 2009).

Elizabeth was present at that meeting/dinner in San Bernardino,

California.

III. CONCLUSION

The arguments included in Elizabeth Meek’s Response to our Petition

for Removal of Elizabeth Meek as trustee are baseless, false and self-

motivated. We argue that the facts presented before the court support

our petition to remove Elizabeth Meek as current trustee of the Elvin R

Meek 1996 Trust. We vehemently deny her assertion that we stated

we would withdraw any further efforts to contest the matter if the

document is produced. We stated we would deny any further claims if

the 1st Amendment were validated. It was not. Quite to the contrary, it

was in fact proven to be false, a fraud and Elizabeth Meek herself

asserts and agrees the signatures on the amendment signed in

California are not hers. This only leads us to question the pages

preceding the signature page from the 1st Amendment signed in

Hawaii.

9
Therefore we pray the court will do the following:

1. Remove Elizabeth Meek as current Trustee.

2. Re-Appoint Nanci L. Meek-Kusley, who was named trustee in

the original Elvin R Meek Family Trust executived June 14,

1996 , as acting trustee as set forth on page 9 Article V which

reads as follows:

5.1 Death of Trustee: In the event that the initial trustee,

ELVIN R. MEEK, fails to qualify or ceases to act as a trustee,
as a result of death, resignation or inability to act as
trustee, then the following will act as trustees in the
following order as the following property in the succession
stated:
NANCY LORRAINE MEEK KUSLEY as Trustee. In the event
that NANCY LORRAINE MEEK KUSLEY fails to qualify or
ceases to act as trustee as a result of death, resignation or
inability to act as trustee, then MELVIN RAY MEEK shall act
as Trustee for the purposes of administering this Trust.

3. The court acknowledge the original Elvin R Meek Family Trust

executed on June 14, 1996 as the operable and valid

instrument and allow the estate to be dissolved and

distribution to be completed as set forth on page 4 which

reads as follows:

3.02.2 Distribution of Trust Estate On the death of the

Trustor, after payments made pursuant to paragraph 3.02.01
above, the successor trustee(s) shall distribute the trust
estate free of trust as follows:
One share equaling 1/3 of the trust estate to NANCY
LORRAINE MEEK-KUSLEY, or her issue. One Share equaling
1/3 of the trust estate to MELVIN RAY MEEK, or to his issue.
One half share equaling 1/6 of the trust estate to ELIZABETH
A. MEEK, or her issue. One half share equaling 1/6 of the trust
estate to LOLA DEE MEEK, or her issue.

10
 4. The judgment entered in Arkansas against the estate for the

wrongful sale of property by Elizabeth Meek and Attorney

Robert Grigger Jones owned by the Havens family be paid by

Elizabeth Meek and Robert Grigger Jones respectively and

independently of the trust.

5. The court order Elizabeth Meek to reimburse to the trust

monies already paid to attorneys for the Bank of Hawaii in

Hawaii (Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn and Stiffel) as well as

attorney Jane Peebles who represented the Bank of Hawaii in

California during the IRS tax audit of the estate.

6. Reimburse Nanci Meek for costs incurred as and for attorney

fees, travel expenses, and costs during the last 5 years in the

amount of $58,783.27.

DATED: November 12, 2009, Honolulu Hawaii

Nanci Meek Petitioner

Self Represented

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

IN THE MATTER OF ) T. No. 05-1-0101

)
THE ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY TRUST ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
11
DATED JUNE 14, 1996, AS AMENDED )
_______________________________ )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the RESPONSE TO

ELIZABETH MEEK’S MOST RECENT RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF
ELIZABETH MEEK AS TRUSTEE OF ELVIN R. MEEK FAMILY TRUST DATED 1996
FILED AUGUST 14, 2009 RE-APPOINTMENT OF NANCI MEEK,ORIGINAL
TRUSTEE OF 1996 TRUST; EXHIBITS A-C and attachments was duly served
again upon the following individuals by depositing the same in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows: (All parties were served
from Hawaii via e mail on November 12, 2009)

LOLA DEE MEEK (REKLAI) BY MAIL and

previous E mail
P.O. Box 7042
Koror, Palau 96940
Lola@ palaunet.com

MELVIN RAY MEEK BY MAIL and

previous E mail
1633 E Chaparral Drive
Casa Grande AZ 85222
MelvinMeek@yahoo.com

Robert M Jones Esq BY MAIL and previous E

mail
8655 Morro Road Suite C
Atascadero CA 93422
Attorney for ELIZABETH A MEEK in California
grigger@robertmjones.com

DATED: Las Vegas, Nevada November 16, 2009

Nanci L Meek, in pro se

12