GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #5

[Snoods]

Exactly. With the right amount if pressure I don't think they would've accepted a bribe. Wasn't there a case where they were mostly concerned about the impact on tourism? If so, I doubt they would believe this spoiled American kid is worth the bad press & would tell her to shove her bribe money. MOO of course

Maybe Natalee Holloway? I remember that being brought up in her case.

 

[Kamille]

I thought it had been established that Stella has no inheritance, hadn't it?

It's going to be interesting for sure. When Cohen said he couldn't rewrite the will for Favia's request for funds on behalf of an unborn child, how will that change now that she is born? Are they going to once again interpret and twist Sheila's will to indicate that the child of her murderers is the sole heir if the slayer law takes effect?

I guess she should have put that clause in there too? No child born to my murderer should benefit from my estate either? Geez. What happened to common sense? I swear the law just convolutes things sometimes and is subject to interpretation by human judges, who all have different mind sets and opinions.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

BBM. Me too. I wish someone would take it and rename her for Sheila.

I wish someone could adopt and raise this child as their own, as far away from any blood relative as possible. And change her name.

MOO

 

[gracehatter]

It's going to be interesting for sure. When Cohen said he couldn't rewrite the will for Favia's request for funds on behalf of an unborn child, how will that change now that she is born? Are they going to once again interpret and twist Sheila's will to indicate that the child of her murderers is the sole heir if the slayer law takes effect?

I just want to point out that the instant case is regarding the trust and the document used to set it up by Sheila for Heather. It has nothing to do with her will. Her will has been filed with the court and letters of authority granted to WW... I think that is it.

 

[Kamille]

I just want to point out that the instant case is regarding the trust and the document used to set it up by Sheila for Heather. It has nothing to do with her will. Her will has been filed with the court and letters of authority granted to WW... I think that is it.

Is there anyone who can explain this properly to me? I was under the impression that Sheila's entire estate was in trust under her name. I know the condo was put into a trust in her name. And that HM was the sole beneficiary of that trust upon her death. However Sheila's brother was to oversee that inheritance/trust should Sheila die before HM turned 30.

Where are we getting the info that there is a separate trust for HM inclusive in Sheila's will? I admit that I know nothing about how these trusts are set up and what the purpose is. Can anyone give a quick tutorial in layman's terms?

TIA

 

[SwampMama]

And isn't it true that the trust says that HM only gets the only when she is 30?

 

[gracehatter]

Is there anyone who can explain this properly to me? I was under the impression that Sheila's entire estate was in trust under her name. I know the condo was put into a trust in her name. And that HM was the sole beneficiary of that trust upon her death. However Sheila's brother was to oversee that inheritance/trust should Sheila die before HM turned 30.

Where are we getting the info that there is a separate trust for HM inclusive in Sheila's will? I admit that I know nothing about how these trusts are set up and what the purpose is. Can anyone give a quick tutorial in layman's terms?

TIA

I am not promising this is completely accurate as it is off the top of my head and I am not familiar with Illinois law.

My understanding from reading the various news articles is this deduction (and by all means anyone that has info that is different, I welcome it) is that Sheila set up a Trust for Heather a few months before her death, this would consist of a document that defines what the "corpus" is, that is what the funds consist of, it will also state where and by whom the corpus is held, generally a banking institution. The document further states who the trustee is (WW) his authority and the terms and conditions of the trust, that is the purpose of the trust, for whom the funds are held "in trust for" the beneficiary (HM), when it kicks in and under what conditions, what the "trustee" can or cannot do and any other "rules" the Grantor (SWM) wanted in place. The trustee must act within the confines of the trust document. If a beneficiary and trustee disagree about whether a given action is allowed or if claimed it is not allowed, the party that wants relief because of the disagreement must take it to court for an interpretation of the "construction" of the trust (what do the words of the trust really mean and who's interpretation is right). In Illinois the court is the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court. When you look at the case title that is what he "CH' stands for. https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com...3&case_no=&PLtype=1&sname=heather+mack&CDate=

When the attorney that disclosed the existence of Sheila's will went to file it, he filed it in the "Probate Division" of the Circuit Court because that is the court that will handle her estate. This is a totally different document from the document above. It was at that time the news reports stated that SWM's estate "was in the form of a trust for one single person that was not identified" and that her brother WW was the executor for the will and the trustee for the trust contained therein. Generally speaking her estate consists of all real and personal property owned at the time of death. An executor's job is to marshall all of the assets and they will have the authority to dispose of them unless the will states differently. Most often the executor has greater latitude and authority from a will than a trustee does from a trust. So WW sold the condo and the proceeds went into the estate trust. That's why there are 2 trusts I believe and at some point someone I thought posted a caption for the Probate file (will) and it should read with a different court heading and file/case number.

I have not seen a copy of either of these documents which is why it makes it hard to understand what Judge Cohen is doing b/c we don't know what the trust says...except we do know it provides only for HM's benefit. That is why I have said before that I think his hands are tied...by the trust. He has to interpret it from the face of the document, he just can't make up stuff and put into it because it "feels" better morally, nor can he do it just so WW has control and does whatever he wants...that is not how it works.

This is the best I can do to explain it with the limited info we have. Nothing will be happening much with the estate other than what are called "housekeeping duties" like liquidation of real property, paying all estate debts and expenses and so on until after the Bali court concludes and god only knows how long that will take because of HM's possible appeals. Anyhow, here is a wiki link for the jurisdiction of the Illinois Circuit court. Each state is different to some degree as they are also similar basically in form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_Court_of_Cook_County

 

[SouthAussie]

Exactly. With the right amount if pressure I don't think they would've accepted a bribe. Wasn't there a case where they were mostly concerned about the impact on tourism? If so, I doubt they would believe this spoiled American kid is worth the bad press & would tell her to shove her bribe money. MOO of course

Yes, tourism is mentioned in several cases that I have read.

[Rosi was sentenced to 15 years in prison]
"Prosecutor Eddy Artha Wijaya had demanded Rosi be handed a life jail term, describing Ms Murphy's slaying as cruel and bad for Bali's tourism industry."
http://www.dance.net/topic/7536003/...The-killing-was-unintentional.html&replies=10


[Wicaksono was sentenced to 20 years]
"The judges said that the sadistic nature of the murder, the fact that Rika Sano was an only child and the damage done to Bali's reputation all weighed against the defendant. In partial mitigation, the judges pointed to the polite demeanor of Wicaksono during the trial process; his admission of guilt; and requests for forgiveness made to the family of the victim, the Japanese consul in Bali and Bali's tourism industry. "
http://www.balidiscovery.com/update/update713.asp


There is also this opinion by Jeffrey Winters, a professor of politics and an Indonesia expert at Northwestern University, about Sheila's case ....

"This is a very high-profile case, which means massive domestic and international scrutiny," Winters said. "That's going to reduce the chances that there's going to be any irregularities."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-indonesia-suitcase-death-met-20140814-story.html#page=1


And a whole article here about Bali's concern that crime - especially crime against foreigners - hurts their tourism industry.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/03/high-crime-rate-may-hurt-tourism.html

 

[Kamille]

I am not promising this is completely accurate as it is off the top of my head and I am not familiar with Illinois law.

My understanding from reading the various news articles is this deduction (and by all means anyone that has info that is different, I welcome it) is that Sheila set up a Trust for Heather a few months before her death, this would consist of a document that defines what the "corpus" is, that is what the funds consist of, it will also state where and by whom the corpus is held, generally a banking institution. The document further states who the trustee is (WW) his authority and the terms and conditions of the trust, that is the purpose of the trust, for whom the funds are held "in trust for" the beneficiary (HM), when it kicks in and under what conditions, what the "trustee" can or cannot do and any other "rules" the Grantor (SWM) wanted in place. The trustee must act within the confines of the trust document. If a beneficiary and trustee disagree about whether a given action is allowed or if claimed it is not allowed, the party that wants relief because of the disagreement must take it to court for an interpretation of the "construction" of the trust (what do the words of the trust really mean and who's interpretation is right). In Illinois the court is the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court. When you look at the case title that is what he "CH' stands for. https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com...3&case_no=&PLtype=1&sname=heather+mack&CDate=

When the attorney that disclosed the existence of Sheila's will went to file it, he filed it in the "Probate Division" of the Circuit Court because that is the court that will handle her estate. This is a totally different document from the document above. It was at that time the news reports stated that SWM's estate "was in the form of a trust for one single person that was not identified" and that her brother WW was the executor for the will and the trustee for the trust contained therein. Generally speaking her estate consists of all real and personal property owned at the time of death. An executor's job is to marshall all of the assets and they will have the authority to dispose of them unless the will states differently. Most often the executor has greater latitude and authority from a will than a trustee does from a trust. So WW sold the condo and the proceeds went into the estate trust. That's why there are 2 trusts I believe and at some point someone I thought posted a caption for the Probate file (will) and it should read with a different court heading and file/case number.

I have not seen a copy of either of these documents which is why it makes it hard to understand what Judge Cohen is doing b/c we don't know what the trust says...except we do know it provides only for HM's benefit. That is why I have said before that I think his hands are tied...by the trust. He has to interpret it from the face of the document, he just can't make up stuff and put into it because it "feels" better morally, nor can he do it just so WW has control and does whatever he wants...that is not how it works.

This is the best I can do to explain it with the limited info we have. Nothing will be happening much with the estate other than what are called "housekeeping duties" like liquidation of real property, paying all estate debts and expenses and so on until after the Bali court concludes and god only knows how long that will take because of HM's possible appeals. Anyhow, here is a wiki link for the jurisdiction of the Illinois Circuit court. Each state is different to some degree as they are also similar basically in form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_Court_of_Cook_County

Thank you so much for this explanation gracehatter. I wish we could see those documents.

 

[Kamille]

Yes, tourism is mentioned in several cases that I have read.

[Rosi was sentenced to 15 years in prison]
"Prosecutor Eddy Artha Wijaya had demanded Rosi be handed a life jail term, describing Ms Murphy's slaying as cruel and bad for Bali's tourism industry."
http://www.dance.net/topic/7536003/...The-killing-was-unintentional.html&replies=10


[Wicaksono was sentenced to 20 years]
"The judges said that the sadistic nature of the murder, the fact that Rika Sano was an only child and the damage done to Bali's reputation all weighed against the defendant. In partial mitigation, the judges pointed to the polite demeanor of Wicaksono during the trial process; his admission of guilt; and requests for forgiveness made to the family of the victim, the Japanese consul in Bali and Bali's tourism industry. "
http://www.balidiscovery.com/update/update713.asp


There is also this opinion by Jeffrey Winters, a professor of politics and an Indonesia expert at Northwestern University, about Sheila's case ....

"This is a very high-profile case, which means massive domestic and international scrutiny," Winters said. "That's going to reduce the chances that there's going to be any irregularities."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-indonesia-suitcase-death-met-20140814-story.html#page=1


And a whole article here about Bali's concern that crime - especially crime against foreigners - hurts their tourism industry.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/03/high-crime-rate-may-hurt-tourism.html

Funny how there was no talk of the impact on tourism in this case. Or no request for the maximum from the prosecutor, which is always the case everywhere in the world. Well except where bribes are accepted I guess.

 

[Kamille]

And isn't it true that the trust says that HM only gets the only when she is 30?

She gets full control when she's 30 but apparently she can still request ridiculous amounts for questionable purposes prior to that so I don't really see what the purpose was other than to make some lawyers rich.

MOO

 

[Bugbear]

Where are we getting the info that there is a separate trust for HM inclusive in Sheila's will? I admit that I know nothing about how these trusts are set up and what the purpose is. Can anyone give a quick tutorial in layman's terms?

TIA

Estate Of VON WIESE SHEILA MACK SHEILA VON - Current Probate Case - Next Court Date is 03/29/2016
http://www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.or...se=2015P000315

Trust for Heather Mack - Next Court Date is 04/07/2015
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com...v=&caseno=&PLtype=1&sname=heather+mack&CDate=

Trust is set up with a set amount and private, SWM already had that set aside. Wills (in Probate) are public and is the accumulation of whatever SWM owned, had in the bank, sold properties, cars, etc. HM is the next, by IL Law, to inherit whatever SWM owned. IF she is not convicted in the US.

Should HM be convicted (wrongful death suit = civil court) HM will not be entitled to the "estate" per si. The Trust is another matter and case. Trusts can be tapped into for various reasons, whereas Estates will sit in Probate until IL gets their $ out of it, the Trustee gets his and then the Heir gets what is left.

I am assuming the Probate case is set a year out waiting for various court cases to settle. &/or a conviction to proceed otherwise.

 

[Bugbear]

Here is the Condo Sale Showing WW as Trustee
http://chicago.blockshopper.com/property/17031110091045/1240_n_lake_shore_unit_18b/

The Will was filed by a different Lawyer. -
The Chicago Sun-Times’ local subsidiary, the Oak Leaves, reported that local lawyer Lance Taylor put through the documents last week.

“Having the will, I have an obligation to file it,” Taylor told the publication, adding that he helped the late couple, von Wiese-Mack and husband James L. Mack, plan their estate in documents inked Aug. 1, 2006, days before James’ Aug. 6 death that year.

One question left unanswered, for the time being, is who will end up with the property holdings she left behind. Neither specifically named a beneficiary, leaving their holdings to a trust.

Since that time, SWM moved the Trust to her as Sole Beneficiary, then re-created HM's Trust.

 

[Weezer Fan]

Funny how there was no talk of the impact on tourism in this case. Or no request for the maximum from the prosecutor, which is always the case everywhere in the world. Well except where bribes are accepted I guess.

We all discussed this before. All though this is a "high profile case", the crime was committed by Americans, (the daughter and boyfriend) of another American, (the mother). Therefore, it isn't that Bali is such a dangerous place to visit because of the locals--it is only dangerous if you have a toxic, violent, abusive relationship with those you are traveling with.

That being said, after this case, (which made me aware of the Bali 9), I have crossed Bali off my bucket list of places to visit. It is so corrupt, that I am scared to go there in case I would be targeted as a source for bribe funds because I am a "rich American".

 

[gracehatter]

She gets full control when she's 30 but apparently she can still request ridiculous amounts for questionable purposes prior to that so I don't really see what the purpose was other than to make some lawyers rich.

MOO

They are generally set up when a Grantor, very often a parent or Grandparent, Aunt or Uncle wants to gift a significant amount of money to a beneficiary but they recognize that that person is unlikely to use good sense once they get their hands on it. The case most often you see it in is when you have a spendthrift, grantor knows full well the beneficiary will blow right thru the money, if given outright so a trust is used to maintain some control over it. A lot of folks prefer to use Trusts to Wills if they want control because Wills have a limit on basically how long you can control your estate from the grave. In most Trusts the only person making/earning any money are the institution holding the funds, they charge fees and the trustees and even then the amounts are what are considered "reasonably and customary". Way back when we were speculating about the proceeds from JM's law suit and estate which he wanted his share to go to HM in trust, we were asking why had SWM asked the court to award her the money as sole beneficiary? I said then I thought that at that point SWM's relationship with HM was very turbulent and already demonstrating her instability and I'll bet that was the basis for the award. I have no doubt HM knew what her father's wishes were, knew some of the lawsuit proceeds were earmarked for her and I will equally bet that those proceeds had been considered "her money" for a long time by the two, right or wrong. Doesn't Elliot even refer to it as "her money" in an email? To answer your question Kamille, most trusts are administered pretty smoothly. Generally speaking a beneficiary is aware that repeated forays into court mean the corpus is reduced by the attorney fees on both sides as long as the judge approves them and they will if they are reasonable and customary and not frivolous, so they try to stay out of court and just deal with the trustee. I know you think HM's requests are but HM has no choice or recourse given her circumstances but to go to court if WW disagrees with her requests. Where BENJAMIN MACKOFF comes in, is that he is the appointed Guardian Ad Litem and plays the role of watchdog for the judge, a layer of insulation between the judge and the parties as it were. He does the research and advises the judge AND all the parties of his opinion, all parties knows what he recommends but the judge will decide in the end what is ordered. The judge asks him to get him certain info so you cannot assume that the judge knows say, everything you read, most likely he does not but saying he has been manipulated by HM is in my opinion not the case, he has to follow the law and the purpose of the trust. Remember at the very start he made some remark about "having no choice but to follow SWM's own words". SWM of course had no clue how this would play out when she set up the trust and how it is being dispersed but that is where Cohen's hands are tied, regardless of how horrid the circumstances he cannot say now "Gee, that was wicked bad what this evil girl and her stupid boyfriend did to the Grantor, she's probably rolling in her grave and who would want this so let me now change what SWM would want"...he can't, she has, for good or bad already spoken.

 

[Kamille]

Still say that Mackoff and Cohen knew that what she wanted the funds for was illegal and chose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore WW, his attorney and his expert. They could have easily denied the request. Funds were released with no back up, nothing based in reality and on an email which was pure manipulation. Now they both are partially responsible for the outrageous outcome yet to be determined.

MOO

 

[gracehatter]

Still say that Mackoff and Cohen knew that what she wanted the funds for was illegal and chose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore WW, his attorney and his expert. They could have easily denied the request. Funds were released with no back up, nothing based in reality and on an email which was pure manipulation. Now they both are partially responsible for the outrageous outcome yet to be determined.

MOO

No, they couldn't. Whatever makes you think that Mackoff has any authority to do so? What information do you have that supports your contention that Cohen "knew" it was for something "illegal" and that this email was manipulation...what email?

 

[Kamille]

No, they couldn't.

Why not? That trust was supposed to be overseen by her Uncle until she was 30. He presented evidence that she wanted the money for an illegal transaction.

 

[gracehatter]

Why not? That trust was supposed to be overseen by her Uncle until she was 30. He presented evidence that she wanted the money for an illegal transaction.

Mackoff makes no rulings, period, he cannot. You are indicating that somehow whatever evidence WW presents should be accepted without scrutiny but that is not how our system works. Each party gets to present their 2 cents and the judge then considers the evidence according to the law and from that determines how much weight it is given and that's how he makes a decision.

 

[Kamille]

Mackoff makes no rulings, period, he cannot. You are indicating that somehow whatever evidence WW presents should be accepted without scrutiny but that is not how our system works. Each party gets to present their 2 cents and the judge then considers the evidence according to the law and from that determines how much weight it is given and that's how he makes a decision.

Cohen refused to listen to WW's expert on bribes and corruption in the Indonesian court system. He refused to hold a separate hearing to deal with the issue. Somehow WW's attorney was held in contempt and fined. He made his decision without listening to the "other side".

MOO