GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's hoping that there will be zero funds released for HM --- she deserves the legal aid provided by the Indonesian system MOO.....((keeping fingers crossed for good outcome today))
 
SLAYER RULE

As it is a civil matter, it sounds as though the slayer rule can be enacted upon a preponderance of the evidence (of murder), not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because the rules of inheritance are part of civil law, only the civil, and not the criminal, standard of proof needs to be met. Rather than proof of murder “beyond a reasonable doubt,” her parents needed only to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that David willfully and unlawfully caused Shelley’s death.

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/02/05/mamas-in-the-graveyard-papas-in-the-pen


Surely, a court wouldn't release any of her mother's money while HM is on trial for her murder. :crossfingers:
So glad that Sheila's brother is a lawyer.
 
newone said:
The announcement today that there will be executions in Bali, this weekend, hopefully has resulted in an increase in blood pressure for HM.......a little more stress would be a useful reality check for her. MOO

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ran-Sukumaran-to-be-executed-together-in-Bali
Click to expand...


Wow .. 6 executions scheduled for Sunday (well, after midnight on Saturday night). 5 of them foreigners - one an Indonesian woman.

Oh. This is getting a little too real for us Aussies :( I imagine the govt fight for Andrew and Myuran will really start now.
 
Since TS is in the men's side, I hope this freaks him out enough that he starts singing like a yellow canary bird.
 
Hiandmighty said:
Since TS is in the men's side, I hope this freaks him out enough that he starts singing like a yellow canary bird.
Click to expand...

Two of the those to be executed are women, one Vietnamese and one Indonesian -- hopefully H hears of this too and realizes -- execution is ''equal opportunity'' in Bali.

"The six to be executed on Sunday are an Indonesian woman, a Vietnamese woman, and men from Brazil, Malawi, Nigeria, and a man born in Papua described as having 'uncertain citizenship'.

- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...e-executed-together.html#sthash.Sg1KKW5z.dpuf
 
Kamille said:
And finally...there it is. Michael Elkin HAS been working on this. And the new lawyer in Bali that she just got before the trial is requesting some money. So what do you think her chances are?

I hope she gets absolutely nothing.

MOO
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, there we are...this may be interesting. So this is the "trust" we have been wondering about. There has to be a copy of the trust on file somewhere if there is a motion being heard on it. It is likely that Shelia was the original trustee and her brother the secondary in the event she could not serve. My question is this: If this trust was already established in Heather Mack's name prior to her Mother's death does it escape application of the rule that precludes benefitting from the death of one in which you caused? I don't know but I'll play Devil's advocate. I suspect the argument used is that the trust was and is legally hers as established prior to SWM's death and is to be administered per the trust conditions and that SWM's death has no bearing on it whatsoever. Sounds reasonable and legit to me since this is not an inheritance. I just knew she had funds somewhere (and I never thought Von Mar and his ilk had any of note to give to her, indeed, they were probably looking at her as a mark prior to the events at hand) otherwise most lawyers would not be touching it with a ten pole and I'll bet already she has tapped into it for pre-natal needs. No, that baby will not be going anywhere for a while, she is going to hold on to it until the bitter end. I now think one of the reasons it has taken so long for the case to get to court is that the prosecutors have know all along she intends to claim she is innocent and only was aiding in the attempt to dispose of the body so they wanted to make sure their ducks were all in a row. This news about the new lawyer makes my stomach turn, I can hardly wait to hear what she pleads.
 
SouthAussie said:
SLAYER RULE

As it is a civil matter, it sounds as though the slayer rule can be enacted upon a preponderance of the evidence (of murder), not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because the rules of inheritance are part of civil law, only the civil, and not the criminal, standard of proof needs to be met. Rather than proof of murder “beyond a reasonable doubt,” her parents needed only to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that David willfully and unlawfully caused Shelley’s death.

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/02/05/mamas-in-the-graveyard-papas-in-the-pen


Surely, a court wouldn't release any of her mother's money while HM is on trial for her murder. :crossfingers:
So glad that Sheila's brother is a lawyer.
Click to expand...

IMO even if HM walks free of charges she still was involved causing her mothers death = no inheritance. HM knows her uncle is a lawyer. I think she is delusional. The uncle knows the entire history of his sister's problems with HM and now knowing HM wanted to put out a death hit on his sister. Maybe I'm naive, I don't see HM getting any money but I do see HM telling TS don't worry I've got us covered as they walk into court and he's bitting his fingernails. Jmo



ciao
 
gracehatter said:
Yes, indeed, there we are...this may be interesting. So this is the "trust" we have been wondering about. There has to be a copy of the trust on file somewhere if there is a motion being heard on it. It is likely that Shelia was the original trustee and her brother the secondary in the event she could not serve. My question is this: If this trust was already established in Heather Mack's name prior to her Mother's death does it escape application of the rule that precludes benefitting from the death of one in which you caused? I don't know but I'll play Devil's advocate. I suspect the argument used is that the trust was and is legally hers as established prior to SWM's death and is to be administered per the trust conditions and that SWM's death has no bearing on it whatsoever. Sounds reasonable and legit to me since this is not an inheritance. I just knew she had funds somewhere (and I never thought Von Mar and his ilk had any of note to give to her, indeed, they were probably looking at her as a mark prior to the events at hand) otherwise most lawyers would not be touching it with a ten pole and I'll bet already she has tapped into it for pre-natal needs. No, that baby will not be going anywhere for a while, she is going to hold on to it until the bitter end. I now think one of the reasons it has taken so long for the case to get to court is that the prosecutors have know all along she intends to claim she is innocent and only was aiding in the attempt to dispose of the body so they wanted to make sure their ducks were all in a row. This news about the new lawyer makes my stomach turn, I can hardly wait to hear what she pleads.
Click to expand...

I think you may be right about the trust being established for HM via her father rather than her mother which is perhaps why we've heard a snippet about Sheila's brother fighting it on the basis of anti corruption laws regarding bribery as opposed to the slayer law?

I hope he's done the same homework South Aussie did about his niece's new lawyer.

MOO
 
SouthAussie said:
SLAYER RULE

As it is a civil matter, it sounds as though the slayer rule can be enacted upon a preponderance of the evidence (of murder), not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because the rules of inheritance are part of civil law, only the civil, and not the criminal, standard of proof needs to be met. Rather than proof of murder “beyond a reasonable doubt,” her parents needed only to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that David willfully and unlawfully caused Shelley’s death.

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/02/05/mamas-in-the-graveyard-papas-in-the-pen


Surely, a court wouldn't release any of her mother's money while HM is on trial for her murder. :crossfingers:
So glad that Sheila's brother is a lawyer.
Click to expand...

South Aussie see my post above, if it's not SWM's money the brother can't proceed under the inheritance rules so we'll see...here is hoping someone unearths a copy of the trust for us to look at. There are a complete independent set of rules applicable to the distribution of trusts.
 
And of course we're back to the same question of if she does get off on a bribe will she be able to be prosecuted for anything n the U.S.? I suppose they could get her on a conspiracy to commit murder charge for the text since she sent that while in the US?
 
Kamille said:
And of course we're back to the same question of if she does get off on a bribe will she be able to be prosecuted for anything n the U.S.? I suppose they could get her on a conspiracy to commit murder charge for the text since she sent that while in the US?
Click to expand...

I wish we had a few more details on that text. Were they both here in the US when it took place? What was his response if any? I wasn't really clear on that since I have not really been able to read everything posted yet...TGIF, something I'm planning to do over the weekend!
 
gracehatter said:
... My question is this: If this trust was already established in Heather Mack's name prior to her Mother's death does it escape application of the rule that precludes benefitting from the death of one in which you caused? I don't know but I'll play Devil's advocate. I suspect the argument used is that the trust was and is legally hers as established prior to SWM's death and is to be administered per the trust conditions and that SWM's death has no bearing on it whatsoever. Sounds reasonable and legit to me since this is not an inheritance. I just knew she had funds somewhere (and I never thought Von Mar and his ilk had any of note to give to her, indeed, they were probably looking at her as a mark prior to the events at hand) otherwise most lawyers would not be touching it with a ten pole and I'll bet already she has tapped into it for pre-natal needs...
Click to expand...

SBM


Here’s one elucidation of the Slayer Rule (from the Cornell University Law School):

In trusts and estates law, the slayer rule says that a murderer cannot retain a property interest in his victim’s estate. The slayer rule allows courts to presume the murderer disclaims her property interest, and therefore behave as though the murderer predeceased the victim. This has the effect of disqualifying the murderer from receiving property from the estate of the victim.

The slayer rule applies only if killing was felonious and intentional. The murderer is not required to be convicted of the crime, but if she is convicted of murder, the conviction establishes a conclusive presumption that the murderer did feloniously and intentionally kill the victim.

I note a few things:

1. It is explicitly applicable to trusts; and

2. In this particular formulation, the rule specifically speaks of being unable to “retain” an interest.

So I think if this particular version of the rule is applicable in Illinois, Heather is in trouble. (From my previous reading about the Slayer Rule, probably back in November, my recollection is that most U.S. states have very similar rules and regulations on this issue.)

I don’t think Heather has had any money whatever from this trust as of yet. Remember, the emergency application to the Cook County Court moaned and groaned that Uncle William has been so terribly unfair to her. (Ha!) The Sun-Times article which has previously been mentioned here on the board said:

In the motion, Mack contends that her uncle “has not released one penny” to help her pay for her criminal defense.​

The RedEye went further and claimed:

“To date, (the trustee) has not released one penny to assist Heather in any way, shape or form,” the emergency motion states.​

The issue which perplexes me is this: when does the Slayer Rule kick in? Are civil courts which make rulings on trusts compelled to consider an indictment for murder sufficient reason to hold disbursement in abeyance? Or must they release the funds now to the not-yet-convicted Heather and only change their position after a conviction?

What makes this situation interesting to me as a non-lawyer, is that we don’t (yet) have a conviction. A conviction would make the legal case easy.

And it was interesting to me that William Wiese did not invoke the Slayer Rule as his reason for non-release of funds to Heather. His reason, recorded in the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune (as well as the RedEye, which is a Tribune publication), was anti-corruption. Is this because the time is not yet ripe, as the lawyers say, for arguing application of the Slayer Rule?

Will Heather’s attorneys argue today that Heather has not been convicted and until she actually is convicted, she has the right to the money? Is that argument sufficient for her to obtain access to some or all of the money?

Would a separate case lodged in Cook County against Heather, merely pending, be enough for the court to say that no decision can be made until that Cook County proceeding is completed? Will William Wiese’s attorneys today ask the judge for leave to file a wrongful death civil suit against Heather and thereby make any decision on releasing the funds contingent on the completion of that case? Will Wiese want to do this, since he has said that he wants Heather to have a fair trial and is trying to withhold judgment until said trial is over?

I have no idea. I just have lots of wonders!

I hope RK77 attends this hearing and gives us the full story.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slayer_rule

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-ch...go-teen-wants-trust-fund-pay-criminal-defense

http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/local/ct-bali-murder-estate-met-20150115,0,912925.story
 
Kamille said:
I think you may be right about the trust being established for HM via her father rather than her mother which is perhaps why we've heard a snippet about Sheila's brother fighting it on the basis of anti corruption laws regarding bribery as opposed to the slayer law?
Click to expand...

SBM

I am confused by this position. All the articles I've seen refer to the trust in question as having been set up by Sheila. For example:

"Now, the 19-year-old Chicago area woman wants the trust fund that her mother set up for her to pay for her criminal defense."

http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/local/ct-bali-murder-estate-met-20150115,0,912925.story​
 
The best story so far on the trust fund matter appears in the legal publication “The Cook County Record.” It says:

--Heather wants access to funds from “her mom’s trust.”

--The emergency motion requesting these funds is seven pages long.

--The motion claims that Heather is sole beneficiary of her mother’s trust and after Heather’s unborn child, William Wiese is next in line to inherit the money.

--The motion says that Heather retained Michael Elkin and Venessa Favia with a fee agreement of $150,000. Neither Elkin nor Favia have been paid anything. After these two lawyers left Indonesia, on their one and only visit to Heather, she “lost faith in the procured counsel, and irretrievable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship occurred.” Heather has terminated her professional relationship with Elkin and Favia.

--The article states:

Before that [presumably, before Elkin and Favia were canned], however, Mack consulted with Indonesian attorney Ary Soenardi. His fee agreement, the filing says, was for $300,000 “due to the cultural taboos of this case, including but not limited to, an unwed mother suspected of killing her own mother, as well as a pending trial in approximately one month.”​

--Heather sent the Ary Soenardi fee agreement to William Wiese and asked for funds. He refused because it “could allow for bribery, which is against anti-corruption laws.” (This reason is specifically cited in the motion itself.)

-- Soenardi responded by lowering his retainer fee to $150,000.

--The article explains William Wiese’s reaction:

Mack’s filing alleges the [new] agreement [with Soenardi] was sent to Wiese on Monday morning and that [he] denied the request that evening, saying the reduction to the retainer fee was suspect. He apparently said he didn’t feel comfortable with her using that attorney and asked Mack to use her original lawyer instead.​

--The article also says,

Soenardi was at Mack’s hearing on Wednesday, but the filing says its unclear whether he is formally representing her as Wiese “has not released one penny to” Mack to assist with her legal costs.​

Juicy stuff! William Wiese appears to know the lay of the land.

http://cookcountyrecord.com/news/26...-county-seeking-trust-funds-to-pay-for-lawyer
 
Kamille said:
I think you may be right about the trust being established for HM via her father rather than her mother which is perhaps why we've heard a snippet about Sheila's brother fighting it on the basis of anti corruption laws regarding bribery as opposed to the slayer law?

I hope he's done the same homework South Aussie did about his niece's new lawyer.

MOO
Click to expand...

Didn't Mrs Mack go to court and have the money Mr Mack set up for HM converted to her. I'll go back to see were I read the article about the court order. Moo

ciao
 
nightwatch said:
Didn't Mrs Mack go to court and have the money Mr Mack set up for HM converted to her. I'll go back to see were I read the article about the court order. Moo

ciao
Click to expand...

Yes, Sheila "successfully petitioned the court for the $500,000 two years ago (on top of the $340,667 she received for herself in the suit). The presiding judge noted von Wiese-Mack as the “sole beneficiary” in the 2012 judgment."
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...ney-will-death-james-lawsuit-carnival-cruise/
 
Still more on the trust fund and the lawyers. This time from the Chicago CBS affiliate. Their story says:

--Heather was once represented by Reprieve. (Is this true? I thought it was only Tommy who had a Reprieve lawyer.)

Thursday’s court filing states that her uncle balked at releasing the funds because Mack fired her first defense team, affiliated with the international organization Reprieve U.S.

The nonprofit organization specializes in the legal defense of “individuals facing abusive detentions, extrajudicial killing and execution,” according to its website.

Instead, she hired Ary Soenardi, a Bali-based lawyer, according to his LinkedIn page.​

--The attorney who filed the emergency motion for Heather, Anthony R. Scifo, says “Heather has the right to obtain her own legal counsel.”

--Heather has been asking William Wiese for money since November:

Scifo said Mack’s lawyers had negotiated with her uncle since November, but couldn’t reach an agreement to pay Soenardi’s retainer. If the money were to be disbursed, it would be placed in an escrow-like account with the U.S. Consulate, according to the court papers.​

(By the way, am I the only person who thinks this “escrow-like account with the U.S. Consulate” is a very thin fig leaf?)

--Soenardi has done some work for Heather, even though he has not been paid anything:

Though he hasn’t been paid, Soenardi represented Mack when she was charged. But according to the court filing, “it is unknown whether he is formally representing her and [he] may withdraw his representation” if “no funds will be made available.”​

--William Wiese is said to have declined any comment on Thursday night on advice of his lawyer.

See: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/01...i-chicago-woman-wants-trust-fund-for-defense/
 
Also this article HM claims uncle has conflict of interest mentioned here. If HM gets a dime my head will explode (so to speak) how can there be justice for murdered parents if their evil off spring can benefit from causing the death? Scratching my head..... Jmo

ciao
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 139 more.
Total: 345 (members: 140, guests: 205)

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
205
Total visitors
345
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,175
Messages
18,250,424
Members
234,551
Latest member
Psycho_Sally
Back
Top