CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #15

[bourne]

"Fontelle Harrod and her children by previous marriages wouldn't have anything to gain by Harrod's disappearance, either.

Loomis said that though Fontelle's family isn't wealthy, they are solidly middle-class. More importantly, Harrod hadn't signed anything over to Fontelle Harrod by the time he disappeared, and both Loomis and Fontelle Harrod herself said Fontelle had no idea how rich Bob Harrod was before he disappeared."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html

I don't believe Fontelle was after Bob's money. But it's not a matter of what I believe, it's what Bob perceived to be the case. Again I have no idea what Bob was thinking, but I can only imagine, if all my family members were harassing me about $money and the family trust, and then I married someone who started asking me about including her/him in the trust, I'd start getting upset too. JMO

 

[Cubby]

The heated family meeting occured Sunday afternoon. If Bob percieved Fontelle to be after his money, why would he have spoken with her for support and to share infomation about why he was so beyond po'd after the heated family meeting?

It makes no sense Bob would not have pushed Fontelle away earlier and there is no way they would have found notes in Bob's handwriting with regards to the accounts he wanted to add her.

Who of us shares our innermost feelings with someone we don't trust? That makes no sense to me.

Bob pushed his children away. I think he wanted their constant nagging to stop prior to Fontelle's return. Something did happen which set JuM and JeM off, if not AH too, and they conspired to prevent Bob from enjoying his wife and his own money.

 

[bourne]

Narrator: Fontelle says the conflict was not over the trust, instead it had to do with another announcement Bob made.

Fontelle: He told the girls that as soon as I got back from Missouri, he was going to add my name to the house, to his checking account, and also to the estate.

Narrator: But, Bob's daughters dispute that he ever said such a thing.

PB: The meeting that was held was not about Fontelle at all. She was not part of the discussion that day. Dad does not share his private or personal matters with anyone. He never had and he continued not to and that's his choice.

Narrator: Police see a possible motive in this discrepancy. Did a family member kill Bob before he could make changes to the trust? They carefully look for any evidence of Bob's intentions regarding Fontelle and his financial holdings.

Det. Radomski: I was able to find that there were talks between Mr. Harrod and Fontelle as far as getting her on checking accounts and stuff of that nature, but there were no changes or amendments made to the trust involving Fontelle.

Thanks, this is why I'm confused. The police, whose words I would trust over any of the POIs say that "there were no changes or amendments made to the trust involving Fontelle". But the narrator says "Did a family member kill Bob before he could make changes to the trust?"

BBM. I don't know what that means. Does it mean the police suspect there WERE discussions at the family meeting about alterations to the family trust to include Fontelle, or not? Both PB and Fontelle say the argument on Sunday was not over the trust. So I have no clue. :waitasec:

 

[bourne]

The heated family meeting occured Sunday afternoon. If Bob percieved Fontelle to be after his money, why would he have spoken with her for support and to share infomation about why he was so beyond po'd after the heated family meeting?

It makes no sense Bob would not have pushed Fontelle away earlier and there is no way they would have found notes in Bob's handwriting with regards to the accounts he wanted to add her.

Who of us shares our innermost feelings with someone we don't trust? That makes no sense to me.

Bob pushed his children away. I think he wanted their constant nagging to stop prior to Fontelle's return. Something did happen which set JuM and JeM off, if not AH too, and they conspired to prevent Bob from enjoying his wife and his own money.

True, but Bob doesn't seem to have anyone else to talk to, besides Fontelle. So who else would he share such intimate information as the family trust with, if not Fontelle?

What do you think happened that set JuM and JeM off?

I got to go for the rest of the night. I'll come back tomorrow. But keep sleuthing! Excellent job, everyone!

 

[zwiebel]

In the episode, Fontelle says Bob was going to add her to 'the estate'. I guess that's interchangeable with 'the trust'?

The yellow notes Angelo kindly posted, in Bob's handwriting, say;

Add Fontelle
accounts*

Fontelle Y

Cite Bank
Need new checks
change name add Fontelle
Print new checks
Destroy old checks.

It does all seem to point to checking accounts, although I don't know what the Y could be.

Personally, just going by how Bob arranged things for his dependants (first wife, children and grandchild) I do think he would have added Fontelle to his estate, to make sure she was well cared for in the event of his death. That's just my judgement though.

What I would say though is that our verified attorney, gitana1 made a very enlightening post ages ago about trusts, with links. How they can be completely used up by the person in control of them, and the future beneficiaries/former trustee can hardly do a thing to stop it.

So I'm guessing if you are in control of a trust, or have access to a checking account held by someone in control of a trust, you could probably get access to the money in California, if not the property.

I dont think Fontelle would have been aware of all that. She didn't have a trust or live in California. But I think Bob's daughters might well have been. We have seen written evidence that Roberta at least, was taking a very active interest in trusts and how the money could be used before it could pass to future beneficiaries.

What I'm saying is that Bob just adding Fontelle to his checking account could have sent them into panic mode.

ETA: Weren't Bob's children able to use his checking account days after his disappearance, to access his money?

 

[Cubby]

True, but Bob doesn't seem to have anyone else to talk to, besides Fontelle. So who else would he share such intimate information as the family trust with, if not Fontelle?

What do you think happened that set JuM and JeM off?

I got to go for the rest of the night. I'll come back tomorrow. But keep sleuthing! Excellent job, everyone!

Check out the link to the workshop thread in zwie's siggy. That will be probably give you some idea's of what might have set JuM and JeM off.

Bob had some neighbors he had spoken to. His friend PE was aware of the nonsense going on with his daughters, he posted here about it. He had confided in PE previously. Bob communicated with the friends from Balboa Island and the hairdresser. So Bob spoke with people other than Fontelle. Those are the people we know of from MSM or their posting here.

 

[zwiebel]

I've managed to post a nice map on Bob's website at last. I'm so happy but so scared at the same time Oriah's going to see it and ask me why I haven't got proper grids and all the shennanigans on it.....

 

[tamild]

Thanks, this is why I'm confused. The police, whose words I would trust over any of the POIs say that "there were no changes or amendments made to the trust involving Fontelle". But the narrator says "Did a family member kill Bob before he could make changes to the trust?"

BBM. I don't know what that means. Does it mean the police suspect there WERE discussions at the family meeting about alterations to the family trust to include Fontelle, or not? Both PB and Fontelle say the argument on Sunday was not over the trust. So I have no clue. :waitasec:

Jumping in here with a quick question. Bob's "To Do" list with regard to Fontelle lists Edward Jones. Fontelle says she was to be added to the "estate." Perhaps Bob's intention was to list her as beneficiary on his investment accounts?

 

[Cubby]

That's Citibank, not Citebank in Bob's notes.

 

[Cubby]

In the episode, Fontelle says Bob was going to add her to 'the estate'. I guess that's interchangeable with 'the trust'?

The yellow notes Angelo kindly posted, in Bob's handwriting, say;

Add Fontelle
accounts*

Fontelle Y

Cite Bank
Need new checks
change name add Fontelle
Print new checks
Destroy old checks.

It does all seem to point to checking accounts, although I don't know what the Y could be.

Personally, just going by how Bob arranged things for his dependants (first wife, children and grandchild) I do think he would have added Fontelle to his estate, to make sure she was well cared for in the event of his death. That's just my judgement though.

What I would say though is that our verified attorney, gitana1 made a very enlightening post ages ago about trusts, with links. How they can be completely used up by the person in control of them, and the future beneficiaries/former trustee can hardly do a thing to stop it.

So I'm guessing if you are in control of a trust, or have access to a checking account held by someone in control of a trust, you could probably get access to the money in California, if not the property.

I dont think Fontelle would have been aware of all that. She didn't have a trust or live in California. But I think Bob's daughters might well have been. We have seen written evidence that Roberta at least, was taking a very active interest in trusts and how the money could be used before it could pass to future beneficiaries.

What I'm saying is that Bob just adding Fontelle to his checking account could have sent them into panic mode.

ETA: Weren't Bob's children able to use his checking account days after his disappearance, to access his money?

BBM. I think so. Perhaps that is why they never turned in an accounting for the last half of 2009 and early part of 2010?

Isn't it odd Bob's daughters and son in law wouldn't want to be completely transparent if they had no involvement in Bob's disapperance?

I hope LE was able to subpeona records for the time there was no accounting given on Bob's estate.

 

[Cubby]

It does all seem to point to checking accounts, although I don't know what the Y could be.

Y would be for Yes.

 

[TDW59]

MS KEMP: All right. Here's one from '99
MR ALGORRI: Okay. So let me mark this just by means of identification deed of trust with assignment of rents dated 6/17/99. I don't want to write on it. This is your only copy or are these extras?
MS KEMP: No, you can make copies from that one if you want to put a sticker on it.
MS ALGORRI: Okay.
MS KEMP: And I would request when we go back on the record that we-- that people attending the deposition be identified for the record. I don't know who is here.
MR ALGORRI: Okay. Well, present is obviously Ms Harrod and Terry McGaughey, Indu, you and Mr Harrod.
MS KEMP: And Terry McGaughey is?
MR McGAUGHEY: I'm co-counsel with Mr. Algorri in this matter.
MS KEMP: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR ALGORRI: We'll mark this as Objector's F. Okay. Let me take a peak at this. This is the deed of trust of assignment of rents marked as Exhibit F.

(Petitioner's Exhibit F was marked for identification by the court reporter and is attached hereto.)

MR ALGORRI: All right. What else do you have there counsel?
MS KEMP: I have the deed of trust from 2006. Is that one of the ones you've identified? I think you did.
MR ALGORRI: Yes.
MS KEMP: The document was recorded on October 11, 2006.
MR ALGORRI: Yeah, I have that. That's E.
MS KEMP: I have --
MR ALGORRI: Let's get a pile going here. Excuse me.
MS KEMP: Sure.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: While your attorney is doing that, let me ask some preliminary questions here. Prior to coming her today, Mr. Harrod, did you review any documents?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Those documents that you reviewed are what? Are they the ones that your counsel is looking at here today?
A: Yes, they are.
Q: Aside from the ones that your attorney is picking through as we speak, have you reviewed any other documents, notes, whatever?
A: I reviewed all my electronic and hard copy records.
Q: When you say "electronic records," what are you talking about? E-mail?
A: E-mail correspondence.
Q: To whom were those e-mails received from - - or I misspoke. To whom were they sent?
A: They were sent to my grandfather, Robert Harrod.
Q: And did you have a chance to review any of the responses, if any, from your grandfather to you?
A: The e-mails weren't from me.
Q: Okay. Who were they from
BBM
A: Actually, let me correct. One e-mail was addressed from Frank Chicatelli to Bill Rabe.
Q: Bill Rabe was the accountant?
A: Correct.
Q: Was your grandfather known to be an e-mail kind of person?
A: No.
Q: To your knowledge, he didn't have his own computer and his --
A: No, he didn't.
Q: Okay. Remember we have to talk one at a time.
A: I apologize.
Q: No worries.
MS KEMP: Okay. Did you want me to continue to produce the --
MR ALGORRI: Yeah, there is E. What else do you have there?
MS KEMP: I have a note from 2006.
MR ALGORRI: We'll mark this as G. Okay. We already spoke about that. Let me just hop around here before -- I'm going to interrupt you, if you don't mind Counsel.
MS KEMP: Sure.
MR ALGORRI: Take this one at a time here.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: This deed of trust with assignment of rents we've marked as Exhibit F, I notice that it references the sum of $250,000. That was the purchase price --the initial purchase price of the house there that we talked about, the one you initially acquired?
A: I don't believe so.
Q: Okay. Yeah, actually at the top I see 124 North May Avenue, Monrovia?
A: That's my grandfather's former address.
MS KEMP: You have to wait for a question.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: Oh, I see. That was obviously -- this May Avenue address, this is where Mr. Harrod lived before he moved down to Placentia; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: I spaced on you. I'm sorry. The $250,000 was used for -- I'm sorry, did you say for the purchase of the house on Windflower?
A: (Inaudible response)
MS KEMP: You have to answer audibly.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR ALGORRI: Okay. All right. Sorry, Ms. Kemp, I interrupted you. What else you got there?
MS KEMP: We have a borrower's closing statement dated October 10, 2006. Apparently some of these, because they're whole punched, they appear to be documents I may not have made copies for.
MR ALGORRI: Okay. We'll have copies make of these before we leave.
MS KEMP: And I have another letter from the escrow company dated October 11, 2006.
MR ALGORRI: All right. And that, again, I'm sorry, is H.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: These are documents -- the ones that we're going through today, you've seen all these prior to today's deposition, I take it?
A: Yes.
Q: These came from your own personal files?
A: Yes.
Q: I gotcha.
MR ALGORRI: Okay. What else do you have there?
MS KEMP: I have some additional documents which may not be responsive to your request regarding transfer deeds for the Placentia property, quitclaim deeds back and forth to the trust and to the -- to Mr. Andrew Harrod's trust. And a grant deed I think you have that from 1999. Additionally, I do have a copy of a recent check -- no, excuse me, this is -- I apologize. I thought this was a different check. Is that what you have?
THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's fine.
MS KEMP: Okay. This is a 10,000 dollar check dated --
THE WITNESS: No.
MS KEMP: Right? 10/5/2006 -- oh, 610,000 dollar check. I'm sorry. I missed that one. That's a big miss.
MR ALGORRI: All right. No worries. I've done worse. So we'll call this I.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: This document that's just been handed us marked as Exhibit I for $610,000, what was that for?
A: That was -- that was to pay off a loan on the house.
MS SRIVASTAV: Can I look at that?
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: Now, I see there's been a few loans on that--
MS KEMP: Excuse me, he wants to go off the record.
MR ALGORRI: Go ahead and talk.

(A conference was held between the witness and his counsel.)


My dinner is ready. back later.

 

[Cubby]

Ok, well then AH admits to reading his grandfathers emails and that his grandfather did not have a computer.

What would prompt Bob's attorney and Bob's account to believe Bob had access to email? and why would they be sending Bob emails if he didn't have a computer?

Now I am wondering if AH was representing himself as being Bob in email communication with Bob's attorney and Bob's accountant.

Perhaps that is the motive. If AH was posing as Bob via email, it's is highly likely either his accountant or attorney would discuss what was entailed in those emails because they believed they were communicating with Bob, not someone else (if that were the case).

A face to face meeting would not only cause Bob to realize someone was posing as himself, it would also cause the attorney and accounting to realize someone was posing as Bob.

I can see how AH could black mail RB with that poison pen letter, convincing her she has equal culpability. I wouldn't think RB had any knowledge of AH posing as Bob, if that was the case.

Hmmm.

 

[zwiebel]

Jumping in here with a quick question. Bob's "To Do" list with regard to Fontelle lists Edward Jones. Fontelle says she was to be added to the "estate." Perhaps Bob's intention was to list her as beneficiary on his investment accounts?

Good point. Good post. That could have meant opening up access to a lot of assets, imo. We don't seem to know anything about Bob's investments, other than property, but they are there, I betcha. Interest on investments has to be listed for tax purposes in England. Is it the same in California, do you know?

That could mean anyone helping Bob with his accounts or taxes -like daughter PB - could have known exactly what they were worth.

 

[tamild]

Good point. Good post. That could have meant opening up access to a lot of assets, imo. We don't seem to know anything about Bob's investments, other than property, but they are there, I betcha. Interest on investments has to be listed for tax purposes in England. Is it the same in California, do you know?

That could mean anyone helping Bob with his accounts or taxes -like daughter PB - could have known exactly what they were worth.

Depending on the type of investments, yes, he should've had some sort of year end statement. Maybe someone with more experience can weigh in.

ETA: I'm pretty sure Edward Jones handles several different types of investments. I'll have to look into it a little more.

 

[TDW59]

Cubby, yes I have long suspected that during Bob's preparations, getting his accounts in order, he may have discovered "irregularities" in his account(s).

I suspect identity theft on the part of AH. He did change his middle name to Robert and last name to Harrod when he was 20.

I believe that there are a minimum of 4 major motives, but this the primary one. greed + prosecutable felony.

If you go back to an earlier section of that deposition, the attorney clearly states that it appears he ripped Bob off of $700,000. (I have it bolded to make it easier to find.)

OT....there is an awesome show on TED talks about liespotting.
This show is titled Head Games and is free streaming on Netflix.
It also affirms things others have said here, their readings of body language and word choices, that I was not able to see and be convinced of.

My partner just commented that this completely confirms the validity of his reading of RB on the show.
I will be looking more carefully at different things now too.

 

[deca]

Couldn't LE get a forensic accountant to look at all those? Given that LE already suspects money was involved, you think that would be the first step.

They could see if at a certain point "Bob" (fake Bob) started transferring money electronically between accounts, etc. My guess, given Bob's age, is that he preferred going to the bank and writing checks vs. web banking. They could also see if money was flowing towards AH beside the already documented loans.

In CA, interest earned is documented with year end statements and is also reported to the IRS when the money is over a certain amount. There are a few exceptions for certain retirement type accounts.

 

[tlcya]

I use Edward Jones and have for years for my 401K. I am sent a monthly statement regarding my contributions and where they've been invested, whether those funds lost or gained etc.

Chances are if Bob had money with EJ and daughter was helping gather his docs for the tax accountant, she would have seen those. Also - with AH having such access to Bob's house (proximity, computer, etc) he would also have seen those docs.

As to the computer, am I to understand that the computer is alleged to belong to AH but was for some reason in Bob's house? When AH lived right down the way? DO I have this right?

If Bob had a computer it is likely he had email and used it IMO but Cubby raises excellent point. IF Bob had no computer, who would be sending him emails he was not going to read to an email address he did not have?

This computer business really bothers me.

 

[Cubby]

Couldn't LE get a forensic accountant to look at all those? Given that LE already suspects money was involved, you think that would be the first step.

They could see if at a certain point "Bob" (fake Bob) started transferring money electronically between accounts, etc. My guess, given Bob's age, is that he preferred going to the bank and writing checks vs. web banking. They could also see if money was flowing towards AH beside the already documented loans.

In CA, interest earned is documented with year end statements and is also reported to the IRS when the money is over a certain amount. There are a few exceptions for certain retirement type accounts.

LE may have already uncovered this information by way of a forensic accountant. If they believe Bob was murdered, I think they would continue building evidence until they were confident they could convict on murder charges......

It's my understanding as a lay person, that any evidence used at trial for lesser charges would no longer be admissable in future trials, say for a murder trial or something like that. I'm not sure exactly how to word it, but I don't think LE is willing to settle for lesser charges in this case. I think they are waiting for the grand finale so to speak.

 

[TDW59]

DEPOSTITION OF ANDREW ROBERT HARROD PART 5

MR ALGORRI: Back on the record and clarify something here. There's two G's. All right. Just if I could, please, Ms. Reporter, Exhibit A is the notice of deposition, B is the objections filed by Ms Kemp, C is the grant deed dated 6/17/99, D is the deed of trust dated 8/29/03.
BY MR ALGORRI: Just as an aside while I'm on that, I notice, Mr Harrod, that the grant deed is dated June 17th of '99 yet there's a filing date of the deed of trust of two months later on 8/29/03. As far as you know, is there any explanation as to why there's that two-month delay?
A: I honestly don't know.
MS KEMP: Can I ask you again when was the grant deed recorded?
THE WITNESS: 8/23
MS KEMP: And when was the deed of trust recorded?
MR ALGORRI: 6/17 -- I'm sorry, just so I'm clear, the deed of trust is dated 8/29/03, and the grant deed is dated 6/17.
MS KEMP: It's not dated --
MR McMAUGHEY: There's another deed of trust.
MR ALGORRI: Hang on a second here. I'm getting all messed up here. Oh, yeah, you're right. Okay. I'm totally mistaken, yeah. Let me take that back. Yeah, the deed of trust that would apply to the grant deed of 6/17/99 in fact was filed on 6/17/99. It's just marked as Exhibit F. Okay. So back to where I was. So we've got the deed of trust dated 8/29/03 marked as D. We have a deed of trust dated 10/11/06 marked as E. we have a deed of trust dated 6/17/99 as F. And then there's a borrower's closing statement dated 10/10 of '06 marked as G.

(Petitioner's Exhibit G was marked for identification by the court reporter and is attached hereto.)

MR ALGORRI: And then what I have here is a deed of trust dated 10/26 marked as G as well. So what I will do is strike that out and mark that as H, which means the following exhibit, which is an escrow company letter from North Orange County Escrow dated October 11th of '06, that was H. That will now be I.

(Petitioner's Exhibits H and I were marked for identification by the court reporter and are attached hereto.)

MR ALGORRI: And the check in the sum of $610,000 dated 10/5 of '06, I will be stricken out, and that will be J.

(Petitioner's Exhibit J was marked for identification by the court reporter and is attached hereto.)

MR McGAUGHEY: Just to clarify the record, that's not a check. I think it's a receipt.
MS KEMP: And I would concur. I referred to it as a check.
MR ALGORRI: Thank you. That is a receipt.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: Okay. Have we covered now all the loans and deeds of trust that were taken out on the property that you had there on..what was that, Wildflower? What's the street name?
A: Windflower.
Q: Windflower. Have we covered them all or was there other ones?
A: There were other ones, but not with my grandfather.
Q: Okay. That's what I'm really going for here.
A: Yes.
Q: The ones aside from your grandfather, they were with Countrywide?
A: They were with a few banks.
Q: Approximately how many?
A: Two or three.
Q: We'll come back to that in a bit. At some point in time you were made aware of your grandfather's disappearance?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And at some point in time were you made aware that your aunts were designated as trustees of the trust of Robert Harrod?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Did they at any point in time contact you to inquire about the status of your payments to the trust?
A: Yes.
MS KEMP: Are you referring to as in their capacity as trustee?
MR ALGORRI: That's correct.
MS KEMP: Or those particular parties?
MR ALGORRI: In their capacities as trustees.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: Approximately when was that?
A: A little over a year ago.
Q: Was that the first time -- and strike that. What do you recall in substance --let me strike that and back up a bit. Did they call you on the phone or did they approach you in person on that issue?
A: I don't -- I don't recall the specifics.
Q: Was it Paula or Roberta or both of them?
A: I believe it was a letter from Indu's office was the communication I received.
Q: And that was the first communication you received about the payments that were to be made on the deed of trust; is that correct?
A: I don't recall. There may have been communications prior to that. I don't remember the sequence back then of what came first.
Q: After the time of your grandfather's disappearance and before you received that letter from Indu, would you ever have any other contact with Roberta and Paula whether it be informal or in their capacities as trustees?
A: Yes.
Q: Was mention ever made about you not making payments toward this deed of trust?
A: Yes.
Q: Would one aunt or the other typically have this conversation with you?
A: It was most -- it was most -- most of the conversations with Paula.
Q: Do you recall about how many conversations you had with Paula in that regard?
A: Ten.
Q: Did she ever just come out and in substance ask you why weren't you paying the trust deed?
A: Yes.
Q: Your response would be?
A: Again, not recalling the specifics, the gist was that it wasn't my grandfather's intent.
Q: Now, at any point in time whether it be through Indu's office or the daughter's acting on their own -- excuse me, your aunts acting on their own, was there ever an action brought against you to foreclose on the deed of trust?
A: It was --
MS KEMP: I'm going to -- it's vague and ambiguous. Are you referring specifically to litigation?
MR ALGORRI: That's correct.
THE WITNESS: The threat was there, but I don't believe the action was ever brought.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: Did they ever advise you in writing of their intent to bring legal action against you for any nonpayment towards this deed of trust?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you keep those letters?
A: I did not receive the letter. It went directly to my attorney.
Q: Okay. Now, at some point in time you vacated the premises there on Windflower; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And when did you vacate the premises?
A: It was --
MS KEMP: Asked and answered. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, it was end of July, last few days of July.
BY MR ALGORRI:
Q: As -- and let me strike that and back up a bit here. Did you work out any sort of arrangement with the trustees and/or with Indu's office that turning back the house to the estate of Mr. Harrod would be full satisfaction of the amounts that were owed on the trust deed?
MS KEMP: I'm going to interpose an objection. There is a settlement in place. The settlement has confidentiality clauses. That could be reviewed, but we don't want to refer to that in the deposition. I think that would be made available to you. My understanding would be that it's going to be made available to the court for instruction, and I would -- all the questions regarding the settlement I would like to have not at this time and not asking my client because he is guessing as to what the terms would be from his recollection.
MR ALGORRI: Okay. So there's an instruction not to answer on grounds of a confidentiality agreement involving reconveyance of a trust asset; am I correct on that?
MS KEMP: I'm informing you that there is a settlement document, and the document speaks for itself. If you're goiong to ask him questions regarding what that document says, you're asking for speculation. And there is a confidentiality clause which indicates thatit would be made available to the court and to interested parties. I don't want -- at this point I have some serious issues that we would have to discuss, and I would be happy to discuss them at this point. Again because there have been -- apparently, not since I've been involved particularly -- I guess that's not really true. There have been occasions that I've been made aware of the private facts have been made public over the Internet and in other inappropriate means. I understand that your office -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- was involved with settling a -- in a settlement -- reaching a settlement agreement with the conservatorship issues and payments to your client and that that settlement agreement was then posted on the Internet.