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

[whatthewhaat]

Wow...he's really posting about how his "client" should be able to decide what happens with Stella. So Elkin is out then? And where is Favia in all this. She is supposed to be Stella's attorney but she was supposedly hired by HM. So how is she still in this? Is she getting paid? And if so, how? Is the trust paying her? I know she was denied that huge amount she asked for right at the beginning.

https://www.facebook.com/Legalservices.Bali/

Uuggh his posts... This really worries me. She has a lawyer there fighting for her to keep Stella there... Who's going to be there fighting for her 'release'?

 

[Kamille]

Uuggh his posts... This really worries me. She has a lawyer there fighting for her to keep Stella there... Who's going to be there fighting for her 'release'?

This girl is a real piece of work. She's got all the angles. She's been using her networking skillz over there to her advantage. She's got over 300 friends on her FB, a lot of them in the Densapar/Bali area. People just seem to be drawn to her and want to help her. Is she still claiming to be a millionaire heiress that's going to be living there with her millions once she gets out? Are people lining up to be her "friend" hoping for some trickle down cash?

 

[FigTree]

HM's new lawyer. Would still like to know how she's paying him. Is he doing this for free because he's an "advocate"? Free publicity? He posted the info on his FB page. Or did she tell him she's a millionaire heiress and her people with get him the money sometime soon? :dunno:

https://id.linkedin.com/in/yulius-benyamin-seran-a8914b38

https://www.facebook.com/Legalservices.Bali/

from your link Kamille...
https://id.linkedin.com/in/yulius-benyamin-seran-a8914b38
Legal Defender
Problem Solving
Secure Investment

So she has her bases covered, and I reckon she was feeling pretty secure and in the running to determine what happened to Stella (for her own 'Secure Investment' :facepalm: ) until everything went downhill...
Yes - where is the money coming from?

 

[FigTree]

She better be careful. Renee Lawrence, one of the Bali 9, was a favorite of the Kerobokan boss and was even made a 'trustee'. She even got a 6-month sentence reduction, with the possibility of more. Then she supposedly got involved in a ridiculous plot - part of her punishment was to send her off to a much smaller prison, difficult for visitors to get to, and with a lot less in the way of 'facilities'.

I wonder who HM told that she was going to plead the 5th? It's not clear to me if she posted it somewhere or otherwise contacted the reporter. I don't see an attorney's name mentioned.

Yes, I cant find the source reference - it claims to pointing to court documents.



http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fearing-u-s-prosecution-heather-mack-takes-the-fifth/

 

[FigTree]

So HM was charged as an Accessory after the fact ...

part of that letter from Soenardi when he was wanting money... clarifying Heather's charge


https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2073338/heather-mack-motion.txt

Extract from the full court document:
To. whom it may concern:
I am sending the following email hoping it will give clear up matters relating
to my clients specific charge from the court. Heather Mack has been charged
with article 56 whjch means Heather was found guilty of only accessory, in
Indonesia although she was accessory after the fact we do not have 2
different charges. I will send court documents later this week hopefully
clarifying this.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Why Heather is Pleading the Fifth


From today's Chicago Sun-Times, already cited multiple times:

Heather Mack has acknowledged she is under threat of prosecution in the United States, citing an “ongoing federal criminal proceeding” in a fresh round of court filings this week.

The 21-year-old Chicagoan, imprisoned in Indonesia, made the claim as she asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a legal battle scheduled to return to a Cook County courtroom on Friday. She said she would continue to do so “until she is no longer under the threat of criminal prosecution in America or Indonesia.”​

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fearing-u-s-prosecution-heather-mack-takes-the-fifth/

Here's what I think this is all about.

I assume that Judge Cohen has made no definitive ruling on the applicability of the Illinois Slayer Statute to Heather. (Obviously, you must correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

Jon Seidel in the above-captioned article implies, but doesn't actually state, that some part of Friday's court session(s) will be devoted to considering the Slayer Statute.

Heather (via her attorneys, this ploy is too technical for HM to have conceived on her own) is trying to forestall that by pleading the fifth, which is her Constitutional right.

I believe lawyers for Mack are going to try and stop any CIVIL Slayer Statute ruling by invoking this part of the Illinois Slayer Statute:

A determination under this Section may be made by any court of competent jurisdiction separate and apart from any criminal proceeding arising from the death, provided that no such civil proceeding shall proceed to trial nor shall the person be required to submit to discovery in such civil proceeding until such time as any criminal proceeding has been finally determined by the trial court or, in the event no criminal charge has been brought, prior to one year after the date of death. [My bold]​

As early as May 2015, a hearing in Judge Cohen's courtroom on the Slayer Statute, which might include Skype-delivered testimony from Heather has been discussed:

Jay Dahlin, the attorney representing the special interim trustee appointed by Cohen, said there is a difference between "accessory to murder" and "accessory after the fact" in United States criminal law.

"Whether there’s that difference in Indonesia, I don’t believe there is," Dahlin said. "If that’s the case the Illinois slayer statute would create some problems for [Mack] getting additional funds from the trust."

Evidence from Mack’s criminal trial in Indonesia could be entered as exhibits during a slayer statute hearing in Cook County and it is possible that Mack could make an appearance via Skype to provide her perspective on what happened. She could also plead the Fifth Amendment in the hearing.​

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...ccess-to-Funds-for-Bali-Appeal-302783521.html

So, for Heather, it boils down to this: her lawyers will fight a Slayer Statute hearing, arguing this prejudices Heather because she cannot testify on her own behalf without fear of self-incrimination. She has a Constitutional right not to incriminate herself. But they will also argue that she has a right (I'm not sure under what legal theory, IANAL, but, say, due process) to not have to forfeit her rights to Sheila's trust without the full panoply of legal rights to which she is entitled and this is not possible under current circumstances or as long as a US criminal charge is possible or pending against her.

Rather clever.

William Wiese's attorney, however, will surely invoke the very next part of the bolded statute above:

or, in the event no criminal charge has been brought, prior to one year after the date of death.​

They will say considerably more than a year has passed since Sheila's death. Moreover, for Heather to claim a civil proceeding against her is unfair because of possible criminal charges is entirely speculative and could derail any hearing for literally years and years.

Heather's attorneys will reply that the Illinois statute is written so that civil proceedings follow criminal and it's not under Heather's control that a different sovereign (the US Feds) want to pursue additional criminal charges against their client even after a first sovereign (Indonesia) has already litigated her criminal culpability.

A Weise reply to that could take many forms, most which are obvious, but I think a ruling could hinge on the fact that the statute doesn't foresee the possibility of a civil proceeding coming before a criminal one because of multiple criminal trials.

Very interesting legal wrangling, if I'm guessing about all this correctly.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Here is the Illinois Slayer Statute, which I've posted here before (but years ago!)

(755 ILCS 5/2-6) (from Ch. 110 1/2, par. 2-6)

Sec. 2-6. Person causing death.

A person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another shall not receive any property, benefit, or other interest by reason of the death, whether as heir, legatee, beneficiary, joint tenant, survivor, appointee or in any other capacity and whether the property, benefit, or other interest passes pursuant to any form of title registration, testamentary or nontestamentary instrument, intestacy, renunciation, or any other circumstance. The property, benefit, or other interest shall pass as if the person causing the death died before the decedent, provided that with respect to joint tenancy property the interest possessed prior to the death by the person causing the death shall not be diminished by the application of this Section.

A determination under this Section may be made by any court of competent jurisdiction separate and apart from any criminal proceeding arising from the death, provided that no such civil proceeding shall proceed to trial nor shall the person be required to submit to discovery in such civil proceeding until such time as any criminal proceeding has been finally determined by the trial court or, in the event no criminal charge has been brought, prior to one year after the date of death.

A person convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder of the decedent is conclusively presumed to have caused the death intentionally and unjustifiably for purposes of this Section.

The holder of any property subject to the provisions of this Section shall not be liable for distributing or releasing said property to the person causing the death if such distribution or release occurs prior to a determination made under this Section.

If the holder of any property subject to the provisions of this Section knows or has reason to know that a potential beneficiary caused the death of a person within the scope of this Section, the holder shall fully cooperate with law enforcement authorities and judicial officers in connection with any investigation of such death.

(Source: P.A. 86-749.)

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...=075500050K2-6

 

[whatthewhaat]

Why Heather is Pleading the Fifth


From today's Chicago Sun-Times, already cited multiple times:

Heather Mack has acknowledged she is under threat of prosecution in the United States, citing an “ongoing federal criminal proceeding” in a fresh round of court filings this week.

The 21-year-old Chicagoan, imprisoned in Indonesia, made the claim as she asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a legal battle scheduled to return to a Cook County courtroom on Friday. She said she would continue to do so “until she is no longer under the threat of criminal prosecution in America or Indonesia.”​

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fearing-u-s-prosecution-heather-mack-takes-the-fifth/

Here's what I think this is all about.

I assume that Judge Cohen has made no definitive ruling on the applicability of the Illinois Slayer Statute to Heather. (Obviously, you must correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

Jon Seidel in the above-captioned article implies, but doesn't actually state, that some part of Friday's court session(s) will be devoted to considering the Slayer Statute.

Heather (via her attorneys, this ploy is too technical for HM to have conceived on her own) is trying to forestall that by pleading the fifth, which is her Constitutional right.

I believe lawyers for Mack are going to try and stop any CIVIL Slayer Statute ruling by invoking this part of the Illinois Slayer Statute:

A determination under this Section may be made by any court of competent jurisdiction separate and apart from any criminal proceeding arising from the death, provided that no such civil proceeding shall proceed to trial nor shall the person be required to submit to discovery in such civil proceeding until such time as any criminal proceeding has been finally determined by the trial court or, in the event no criminal charge has been brought, prior to one year after the date of death. [My bold]​

As early as May 2015, a hearing in Judge Cohen's courtroom on the Slayer Statute, which might include Skype-delivered testimony from Heather has been discussed:

Jay Dahlin, the attorney representing the special interim trustee appointed by Cohen, said there is a difference between "accessory to murder" and "accessory after the fact" in United States criminal law.

"Whether there’s that difference in Indonesia, I don’t believe there is," Dahlin said. "If that’s the case the Illinois slayer statute would create some problems for [Mack] getting additional funds from the trust."

Evidence from Mack’s criminal trial in Indonesia could be entered as exhibits during a slayer statute hearing in Cook County and it is possible that Mack could make an appearance via Skype to provide her perspective on what happened. She could also plead the Fifth Amendment in the hearing.​

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...ccess-to-Funds-for-Bali-Appeal-302783521.html

So, for Heather, it boils down to this: her lawyers will fight a Slayer Statute hearing, arguing this prejudices Heather because she cannot testify on her own behalf without fear of self-incrimination. She has a Constitutional right not to incriminate herself. But they will also argue that she has a right (I'm not sure under what legal theory, IANAL, but, say, due process) to not have to forfeit her rights to Sheila's trust without the full panoply of legal rights to which she is entitled and this is not possible under current circumstances or as long as a US criminal charge is possible or pending against her.

Rather clever.

William Wiese's attorney, however, will surely invoke the very next part of the bolded statute above:

or, in the event no criminal charge has been brought, prior to one year after the date of death.​

They will say considerably more than a year has passed since Sheila's death. Moreover, for Heather to claim a civil proceeding against her is unfair because of possible criminal charges is entirely speculative and could derail any hearing for literally years and years.

Heather's attorneys will reply that the Illinois statute is written so that civil proceedings follow criminal and it's not under Heather's control that a different sovereign (the US Feds) want to pursue additional criminal charges against their client even after a first sovereign (Indonesia) has already litigated her criminal culpability.

A Weise reply to that could take many forms, most which are obvious, but I think a ruling could hinge on the fact that the statute doesn't foresee the possibility of a civil proceeding coming before a criminal one because of multiple criminal trials.

Very interesting legal wrangling, if I'm guessing about all this correctly.

Great post! If this is what's going on... I just really hope she doesn't succeed in weaseling herself out of this.

When would the FBI step in, with the evidence they gathered? Is their only play to arrest her when she enters the country, or can they get involved with this civil case?

 

[Orange Tabby]

Keep in mind that the trust isn't a fixed sum, and if it's being properly managed, it's been doing very well in today's market. Not enough to replace what's been spent, but quite a bit.

From a Chicago Tribune article almost exactly a year ago:

"About one-third of the trust has been spent on legal fees and investment losses." [my bold]

I don't know what's happened in the past year.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-heather-mack-trust-fund-met-20160209-story.html

 

[Orange Tabby]

The most astounding thing is that she doesn't want to talk.
That's a headline!

LSHIFMCIAFRAH!

(Laughing so hard I've frightened my cats into a frisky run and hide.)

Orange Tabby says: if LSHIFMCIAFRAH isn't a thing, it ought to be.

 

[Orange Tabby]

When would the FBI step in, with the evidence they gathered? Is their only play to arrest her when she enters the country, or can they get involved with this civil case?

Excellent questions. I don't know the answers.

If Judge Cohen were of the mind that uncertain and only potential criminal prosecutions in a distant future are irrelevant to his decision-making, then the FBI SMS evidence alone is scathing, particularly when juxtaposed with what Heather said at trial.

However, if Judge Cohen were inclined to rule that the spirit of the Illinois Slayer Statute (while not the letter) is that a civil case should not proceed if a criminal one is pending or likely, then FBI involvement could actually hurt the Weise side. Heather's lawyers could call the FBI dude involved to the stand and ask point blank if the Bureau has been gathering evidence against Heather in anticipation of a criminal charge. If the answer is yes, then Cohen could rule that the time is not ripe (as the legal beagles are so quick to say) for a civil proceeding. The beneficiary of the trust remains unsettled and Heather demands money on the ground that either she or Stella is entitled to it, so fork over some cash now-ish.

The unique and unusual facts of this case have helped Heather tremendously.

You know what else the beagles say: hard cases make bad law.

 

[FigTree]

Why Heather is Pleading the Fifth


From today's Chicago Sun-Times, already cited multiple times:

Heather Mack has acknowledged she is under threat of prosecution in the United States, citing an “ongoing federal criminal proceeding” in a fresh round of court filings this week.

The 21-year-old Chicagoan, imprisoned in Indonesia, made the claim as she asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a legal battle scheduled to return to a Cook County courtroom on Friday. She said she would continue to do so “until she is no longer under the threat of criminal prosecution in America or Indonesia.”​

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fearing-u-s-prosecution-heather-mack-takes-the-fifth/

Here's what I think this is all about.

I assume that Judge Cohen has made no definitive ruling on the applicability of the Illinois Slayer Statute to Heather. (Obviously, you must correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

Jon Seidel in the above-captioned article implies, but doesn't actually state, that some part of Friday's court session(s) will be devoted to considering the Slayer Statute.

Heather (via her attorneys, this ploy is too technical for HM to have conceived on her own) is trying to forestall that by pleading the fifth, which is her Constitutional right.

I believe lawyers for Mack are going to try and stop any CIVIL Slayer Statute ruling by invoking this part of the Illinois Slayer Statute:

A determination under this Section may be made by any court of competent jurisdiction separate and apart from any criminal proceeding arising from the death, provided that no such civil proceeding shall proceed to trial nor shall the person be required to submit to discovery in such civil proceeding until such time as any criminal proceeding has been finally determined by the trial court or, in the event no criminal charge has been brought, prior to one year after the date of death. [My bold]​

As early as May 2015, a hearing in Judge Cohen's courtroom on the Slayer Statute, which might include Skype-delivered testimony from Heather has been discussed:

Jay Dahlin, the attorney representing the special interim trustee appointed by Cohen, said there is a difference between "accessory to murder" and "accessory after the fact" in United States criminal law.

"Whether there’s that difference in Indonesia, I don’t believe there is," Dahlin said. "If that’s the case the Illinois slayer statute would create some problems for [Mack] getting additional funds from the trust."

Evidence from Mack’s criminal trial in Indonesia could be entered as exhibits during a slayer statute hearing in Cook County and it is possible that Mack could make an appearance via Skype to provide her perspective on what happened. She could also plead the Fifth Amendment in the hearing.​

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...ccess-to-Funds-for-Bali-Appeal-302783521.html

So, for Heather, it boils down to this: her lawyers will fight a Slayer Statute hearing, arguing this prejudices Heather because she cannot testify on her own behalf without fear of self-incrimination. She has a Constitutional right not to incriminate herself. But they will also argue that she has a right (I'm not sure under what legal theory, IANAL, but, say, due process) to not have to forfeit her rights to Sheila's trust without the full panoply of legal rights to which she is entitled and this is not possible under current circumstances or as long as a US criminal charge is possible or pending against her.

Rather clever.

William Wiese's attorney, however, will surely invoke the very next part of the bolded statute above:

or, in the event no criminal charge has been brought, prior to one year after the date of death.​

They will say considerably more than a year has passed since Sheila's death. Moreover, for Heather to claim a civil proceeding against her is unfair because of possible criminal charges is entirely speculative and could derail any hearing for literally years and years.

Heather's attorneys will reply that the Illinois statute is written so that civil proceedings follow criminal and it's not under Heather's control that a different sovereign (the US Feds) want to pursue additional criminal charges against their client even after a first sovereign (Indonesia) has already litigated her criminal culpability.

A Weise reply to that could take many forms, most which are obvious, but I think a ruling could hinge on the fact that the statute doesn't foresee the possibility of a civil proceeding coming before a criminal one because of multiple criminal trials.

Very interesting legal wrangling, if I'm guessing about all this correctly.

I think that's a wonderful post indeed and a great guess
(even if it is a bit complicated )

 

[Orange Tabby]

I think that's a wonderful post indeed and a great guess
(even if it is a bit complicated )

My heartfelt thanks to you and whatthewhaat for taking the time to express generous reactions to my post. It means a lot to me, and I am grateful.

And a winking smile right back at you for your assessment of "complicated" when you quite rightfully might have used a less friendly term.

Yes, the idea is complicated, but I was trying to figure out what Heather and her lawyers could mean. When you are guilty as sin, the only thing that advances your cause is a cagey and cunning use of the law. People who remember my early contributions to this case will recall that among other things I've always been interested in the application of the Slayer Statute and it's been on my mind -- off and on -- even in the years I've been absent from this board.

There are reasons I don't think Heather's blather of invoking her Fifth Amendment right refers to the "confession" video:

--She obviously knew of the video from the time it was made. If she genuinely thought it could legally hurt her, she and her legal reps would not have used the weak word "pressured" to explain it. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution does protect a person from the use of unreasonable force in obtaining a confession. Yet her lawyer didn't use strong words like force, or duress, or coercion. Pressure is a weasel word.

--To use those videos against her, William Wiese, Kia Walker, or anyone else in Judge Cohen's court, would have to authenticate them. That is, provide proof that the person was Heather, that she was speaking truthfully and not hypothetically, provide details as to specific time and place and circumstance, establish the identity of the the videographer, and so on. It's pretty clear that can't be done. So legally speaking, the vids are null. (Add to this that virtually everyone but me -- including Heather's aunt Debbi Curran -- concluded that she was high at the time, that alone vitiating any legal value they might contain.)

And so I proceeded on a different course of thought. We should learn if I'm on the right track sometime tomorrow.

 

[watergirl62]

[emoji192] Orange Tabby, its like you have all the players on a chess board and study all the potential moves. You have an amazing ability to visualize the potential strategies. Brilliant. Love your posts!

I'm just trying to stay caught up with all the posts and am feeling anxious about this next hearing.

 

[possumheart]

Heather is so obviously playing and being played. And a small child is in the crossfire. I will never understand the slow march of justice but I live in hope

 

[ajaylee]

Orange Tabby, I just want to take a moment to thank you for your fantastic analysis and posts. This case just seems to get more complicated as it goes on, and I find it very easy to get lost in the details and to lose sight of how things fit into the larger picture.

 

[whatthewhaat]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bali-heather-mack-hearing-met-20170217-story.html

Judge Cohen refused to rule on custody, which makes sense in hindsight. Am I being too optimistic and thinking this actually may work against HM, if another court/judge decides? Judge Cohen has always been trying too hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully a different judge will see things a little clearer....?

 

[whatthewhaat]

And yes Orange Tabby, you're not a lawyer but you should be one with that vision of yours!

 

[ajaylee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bali-heather-mack-hearing-met-20170217-story.html

Judge Cohen refused to rule on custody, which makes sense in hindsight. Am I being too optimistic and thinking this actually may work against HM, if another court/judge decides? Judge Cohen has always been trying too hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully a different judge will see things a little clearer....?

Strictly speaking, it doesn't seem appropriate for him to be involved. This is Chancery Court, not some kind of Family Court. He in effect told KW as much when she tried to introduce the issue of HM allegedly trying to sell Stella.

Good news is that we appear to finally have an update on the status of the 'Slayer Statute'. It looks like it has even been settled yet. I wonder if HM will delay it further by asking for a review of her dad's death records. Remember when she was demanding a full audit of her mother and father's affairs to find out where SWM had allegedly hidden $10 million dollars?

It seems to me that HM benefits by playing for time. If 3/17 comes and KW hasn't got a court order, presumably Kerobokan will remove Stella. Based on what's happened for the last two years, it appears that they will defer to HM's wishes. I think at that point, it might start getting more difficult for KW to get custody. If Stella is in a safe, decent, caring environment and is able to visit both parents regularly, that might Trump a grandmother's claim. The Wiese's have always made it clear that they will see to it that Stella is adequately cared for, so they could let Wiese continue as trustee for Stella.

Lord only knows what that will mean 8 years from now.

 

[FigTree]

RSBM ...

And a winking smile right back at you for your assessment of "complicated" when you quite rightfully might have used a less friendly term.

:laughing: - I had to read it 3 times to work out what it said - complicated but fantastic! (I would never use a less friendly term towards you - its all good )

Based on what's happened for the last two years, it appears that they will defer to HM's wishes. I think at that point, it might start getting more difficult for KW to get custody. If Stella is in a safe, decent, caring environment and is able to visit both parents regularly, that might Trump a grandmother's claim. The Wiese's have always made it clear that they will see to it that Stella is adequately cared for, so they could let Wiese continue as trustee for Stella.

Lord only knows what that will mean 8 years from now.

It seems that the plans are already in place for a local family to look after Stella.

MSM - Chicago Tribune:
Grandmother seeks guardianship of baby living in Bali prison
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bali-heather-mack-hearing-met-20170217-story.html

Walker is seeking official guardianship of the child.
Minutes earlier, Cook Circuit Judge Neil Cohen denied her attorney's request to intervene in a long-ongoing case concerning Mack's $1.56 million trust.
The judge noted the grandmother's good intent but said his chancery courtroom was not the proper venue for guardianship matters.
The grandmother's attorney, Michael Goldberg, said he planned to file Walker's motion in the court's probate division by the end of the day.

Mack's attorney, Vanessa Favia, said her client wants her child to instead remain in Bali and has arrangements in place for Stella to be cared for by a local family with whom she and her child have close ties.