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

[Kamille]

--The alternate beneficiaries were not blood relatives of the murder victim. (That alone could be enough to distinguish this case from Heather and Stella.)

Don't think it would make a difference if the kids were not blood relatives, they were named as beneficiaries. I think we'd still be in the same situation if HM was SVM's stepdaughter and she was the named beneficiary of the trust.

However...

--The author reporting these two cases seems to believe that Opalinska could be found to overturn the analysis of Mueller.

I also came to this conclusion which is why I think there is no question in Judge Cohen's courtroom that Stella will inherit the trust if HM does not. But as I said, at one time, perhaps prior to the Opalinska case, that decision may have been different if the Mueller case was the standard.

I also wondered if perhaps the fact that the trust stipulates HM's heir does not have full access to the trust until age 30 may have made it pretty easy to decide that.

MOO

 

[Orange Tabby]

Don't think it would make a difference if the kids were not blood relatives, they were named as beneficiaries. I think we'd still be in the same situation if HM was SVM's stepdaughter and she was the named beneficiary of the trust.

SBM

But in fact, it is this very distinction between "named contingent beneficiaries" and "heirs" that sent the "Mueller" case to the appeals court.

(Heirs and beneficiaries are not the same thing.)

The court ruling says:

The trial court certified the following question of law to the appellate court, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308, (134 Ill.2d R. 308):

"Whether individuals who are named as contingent beneficiaries in a will may take property under that will when the original taker is precluded under Section 2-6 of the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act), (755 ILCS 5/2-6 (West 1992)), and the contingent takers are heirs of the precluded person but not of the testator." [My bold]

We answer this question in the negative.​

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19951695655NE2d1040_11631/IN RE ESTATE OF MUELLER

I don't think "Mueller" was ever going to be a factor in this case because Stella is both a named contingent beneficiary and an heir. (I discussed "Mueller" in one of the older threads.) And now "Opalinska" makes a ruling for Stella even more likely.

 

[watergirl62]

I thought the circumstances regarding Opalinska were too close for comfort as the wife had lied to protect her husband but inherited anyways. Also this decision was made Feb. 2016 in Cook County.

Also the mothers brother tried to gain control of his sister's estate but lost out. It discusses the 'unclean hands' concept regarding Dorota, the wife, in the attached 8-page decision. I haven't made it through the entire document yet.

I think it could contribute to slowing the wheels of justice a bit Like Cohen may be a bit stumped as well or is merely proceeding cautiously. Tough precedent to follow.

 

[Orange Tabby]

I thought the circumstances regarding Opalinska were too close for comfort as the wife had lied to protect her husband but inherited anyways. Also this decision was made Feb. 2016 in Cook County.

Also the mothers brother tried to gain control of his sister's estate but lost out. It discusses the 'unclean hands' concept regarding Dorota, the wife, in the attached 8-page decision. I haven't made it through the entire document yet.

SBM, BBM

That Opalinska chick is a nasty bit of work.

After her mother's death she changes her story multiple times.

She assists her husband (the murderer) in an attempt to escape justice.

She is found guilty of both perjury and obstruction of justice with respect to her mother's murder but served not a day in prison.

And she inherits her mother's estate.

I agree with you, watergirl, she leaves me squirming.

Did you mean to provide a link?

 

[Kamille]

Moreover, what's at issue in "Mueller" is the relationship at the grandchild level (not your hypothetical of Heather being a step-daughter, which is at the child level.)

Not sure I follow here. It's basically the same principle at either level IMO. The stepchildren of the deceased were alternate named beneficiaries after their mother. There are no grandchildren involved are there?

So in the Mueller case, when the mother was denied due to the slayer statute, the 60 percent of the estate went to her minor children...the deceased's stepchildren. Then the deceased's biological children, who only received 40 percent of the estate appealed. So this case is very much different than SVM's because there are other biological children involved who had to appeal the original decision to award the money to the stepchildren.

In SVM's case, if HM was her stepdaughter, it would be SVM's step-granddaughter who would be the alternate beneficiary so there is a grandchild involved in this hypothetical. So would SVM's blood relatives (which are only siblings in her case as there are no other biological children) be able to override her step-granddaughter even though she named her stepdaughter's future children as the alternate beneficiary?

Well it doesn't matter as that isn't the case here. I guess the only question is the one that was posed in the Mueller one. HM's sentence is short. When she is released, Stella will be a minor child and she will benefit from the trust through her no doubt. But there are no blood relatives fighting this so the money will go to Stella. That's an easy one for Judge Cohen.

Man...no wonder this is taking so long. My head is spinning at the possibilities. :scared: And here's one more....

Can you imagine if JM's other biological children jumped into this after HM made that confession video claiming SVM killed him? :gaah:

MOO

 

[Orange Tabby]

Since people are re-examining the charges against Heather, I'm reposting something I contributed two years ago. It is a list of the charges, with Article Numbers appended.

I did not make anything like a big enough sniff at the time that every single charge was in conjunction with an accessory charge. I had posted info about how an accessory charge could still leave you liable to the sentence of the underlying charge, and I thought that was significant.

But I did not point out that a list of guilty charges entirely in the accessory category might make a Slayer finding more difficult or lengthy. Shame on me.

I've not checked the links, assuming there's enough info of interest here even if the links are broken. And I don't know how to quote it "in a box" because it's from a closed thread (Sheila thread #4, post #821).

I still find it astounding that an idiot like Elkin can make a living in spite of the constant and glaring displays of his intellectual shortcomings, which he seems to view as a feature not a bug.

13 February 2015, Orange Tabby wrote:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

There is an Indonesian language article at suluhbali.co which is dated 14 Jan 15 that outlines the various charges against the pair.

Here is the Google Translate version of what this article says are the specific charges lodged against Heather in this trial:

Heather Lois Mack sitting in a chair prisoner was charged under Article 340 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 338 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 353 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 to-1 of the Criminal Code, Article 351 Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 56 of the Criminal Code to-1 and Article 181 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code to-1.​

Here is what I believe this all means, according to the Indonesian Criminal Code:

Article 340. Premeditated murder, maximum penalty: life imprisonment or execution. Heather’s Article 340 charge is in conjunction with Article 56, which relates to an accomplice. The significance of this is, as I have pointed out before, that even as an accomplice she still potentially faces the maximum penalty of the underlying crime, that is, she faces the potential of life imprisonment or execution if found guilty of this charge.

Article 338. Murder (possibly manslaughter, this is unclear to me, the code says “the person who with deliberate intent takes the life of another person” but also uses the word manslaughter), maximum penalty: 15 years. Again, this charge is in conjunction with Article 56.

Article 353, paragraph 3. Maltreatment committed with premeditation resulting in death, maximum penalty: 9 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 351, paragraph 3. Maltreatment (without premeditation), maximum penalty: 7 years. In conjunction with Article 56.

Article 181. Concealing a dead body, maximum penalty: 9 months or a maximum fine of 300 rupiahs. In conjunction with Article 55. Article 55 relates to being a principal of the crime but not the sole perpetrator.

Article 56 speaks first of “persons who deliberately aid in the commission of the crime” and secondly, of those who “deliberately provide opportunity, means or information for the commission of the crime.” I believe Heather’s Article 56 indictments are of the first type.

It is interesting to note that Michael Elkin told OakPark.com that Heather was charged with (among other things) "murder" (not manslaughter) and that he said the "violence causing death" charge (presumably referring to the charged under Article 353) carries a 12-year maximum sentence. He also said that Heather was charged with crimes not mentioned above: hiding a criminal, which carries a 9-month prison sentence; and domestic violence, which carries a 15-year prison term.

Tommy’s charges, according to suluhbali.co, are the same as they list for Heather, except: none of his charges are in conjunction with either Articles 55 or 56.

Note on manslaughter: what this means varies by jurisdiction. One common definition of manslaughter includes intent to kill but with mitigating circumstances (in our case, presumably the alleged preceding argument) or an intent to cause serious bodily harm without an intent to kill. My point is that it seems what in the U.S. would be two distinct categories -- second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter -- are grouped together in Indonesia’s Article 338. (I repeat my usual caveat: IANAL.)

My belief is that a conviction on an Article 338 charge would automatically disbar Heather from benefiting from Sheila’s estate, as the Illinois slayer statute uses the expression “intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another,” although I imagine there are lawyers out there would try to help Heather get the funds by arguing (were she convicted on this charge) that the attack was “justified” and if that argument prevailed, a civil suit would be necessary to keep Heather from benefiting from killing her mother.

In Indonesian: http://suluhbali.co/kasus-mayat-dala...-hukuman-mati/

There is a very similar article in Indonesian and from an Indonesian source, dateline 13 Feb 15, here -- and with no mention of any proceedings since the indictment was read in court:

http://humas.polri.go.id/berita/Page...UMAN-MATI.aspx

Eklin's list of the charges, previously posted, can be found here:

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles...ved-from-case/

 

[Orange Tabby]

Not sure I follow here. It's basically the same principle at either level IMO. The stepchildren of the deceased were alternate named beneficiaries after their mother. There are no grandchildren involved are there?

So in the Mueller case, when the mother was denied due to the slayer statute, the 60 percent of the estate went to her minor children...the deceased's stepchildren. Then the deceased's biological children, who only received 40 percent of the estate appealed. So this case is very much different than SVM's because there are other biological children involved who had to appeal the original decision to award the money to the stepchildren.

In SVM's case, if HM was her stepdaughter, it would be SVM's step-granddaughter who would be the alternate beneficiary so there is a grandchild involved in this hypothetical. So would SVM's blood relatives (which are only siblings in her case as there are no other biological children) be able to override her step-granddaughter even though she named her stepdaughter's future children as the alternate beneficiary?

Well it doesn't matter as that isn't the case here. I guess the only question is the one that was posed in the Mueller one. HM's sentence is short. When she is released, Stella will be a minor child and she will benefit from the trust through her no doubt. But there are no blood relatives fighting this so the money will go to Stella. That's an easy one for Judge Cohen.

Man...no wonder this is taking so long. My head is spinning at the possibilities. :scared: And here's one more....

Can you imagine if JM's other biological children jumped into this after HM made that confession video claiming SVM killed him? :gaah:

MOO

I'm embarrassed.

I'm embarrassed that I led you to waste your time on a sentence I edited out a few minutes later on the ground I found it incoherent. Not soon enough! Sorry.

My main point stands, and it's the part of my post you ignore: heirs and beneficiaries are not the same thing and "Mueller" was a case hinging on the difference.

That's not applicable in our case, because unlike "Mueller," the named contingent beneficiary (Stella) is also an heir.

So while "Mueller" is really the biggest hope that the courts might work to keep Heather from benefiting from Sheila's trust via Stella, I genuinely and strongly believe it is off point.

 

[BorderSam]

On where Heather may be getting money--I assumed (nothing to cite) that her cash was a combination of; a kickback from AS' haul, selling (yep, I did assume this low and dastardly action from her) off stuff from Stella's freebie packages such as extra clothing and skimming from money that's coming from the trust fund for Stella's welfare. We haven't heard that the trust is NOT disbursing funds for Stella so it wouldn't surprise me if a monthly stipend is sent.

I know that Bali's costs are low but Heather would be paying full price for her alcohol and cigarettes plus fees to the delivery people and gifts to Hotel K's guards and all of this must add up. If she is getting monthly cash for Stella's benefit that's going to hurt when it's gone in a few weeks but no doubt she'll have the caregivers giving her a cut.

Those are my assumptions. We know she's getting cash from somewhere; enough for the extras but not enough for the private room (I figure that was part of AS' second request for a lavish fee; that he'd be kicking back enough for the private or shared with only one other room; all mention dropped once he was denied).

I can't think of any way that the murdering diva can make any money in Hotel K unless the odd fee for a photo or story (not the Ch. Tribune but some of the British tabloids). What skills does she have? Not an artist who can sell their work like Myuran. Can't see her trading favours for sex; think that was implied somewhere here simply because I can't see her making the effort! If she had skills I doubt she'd make the effort; she wants to coast by in life talking on social media, wearing pretty clothes and being admired--she wants to be the admiree not the admirer.But then, the murderous diva is manipulative; I;d love to know where she gets her money!

I wonder about Stella's immigration status in Indonesia; will the babe be granted an indefinite tourist visa? Wouldn't Indonesia have less attention focused on the corruption in its legal system if Stella was not in the country? Easy peasy for Indonesia to throw up her hands and say the child is American and not our problem.

 

[Kamille]

My main point stands, and it's the part of my post you ignore: heirs and beneficiaries are not the same thing and "Mueller" was a case hinging on the difference.

Not ignoring that point at all. Just trying to make heads or tabby tails of why those stepchildren were originally awarded their share and then taken out of the will on appeal. Was it because the other Mueller children argued that a person who was charged with causing the death would have benefited from the estate because she got out of jail while they were minor children and she had custody? If they were older, would they still have been removed strictly because they were not biological heirs?

With that in mind, I was questioning a hypothetical situation whether you thought, if HM was a step child and therefore her child was a step grandchild, even though SVM specifically named both of them as beneficiaries in a trust (not a will) and no other biological children existed, nor were any other biological heirs of SVM named as beneficiaries in the trust, do you think that SVM's siblings would have a case to keep the trust from both HM (due to the slayer statute) and her minor child (because she is not the biological heir) based on the Mueller decision?

I guess what I'm asking is, did they just basically throw out the Mueller will because of the slayer statute and award the estate to the deceased's biological heirs? In which case, even if they did the same with this case, that would still allow for Stella to be the sole beneficiary, except HM would be able to benefit from the trust when she gets out of jail because she will have custody of her because she will still be a minor child. Which was the whole basis of why the Mueller children were able to launch the appeal in the first place.

Am I making any sense here? :waitasec:

I feel like you and I have just spent an evening in Judge Cohen's courtroom. :floorlaugh:

 

[SouthAussie]

But the one thing that the article you posted makes clear is that you need cash in the prison to have all the perks. Otherwise its a miserable existance of living off the basic food and supplies provided by the prison. And unless you are running drugs in the prison, or selling something else, the only way to get it is from the outside. And we know that HM is getting pretty much all the perks listed in the article with the exception of perhaps a visit from a local prostitute. But it also appears that she doesn't need that because she appears to be bisexual. At least I guess she is now if she wasn't before she got there.

It does seem apparent that all the women, at least the ones she has had for cellmates, have cash. So I also would imagine they look out for each other. I don't think they would let "one of their own" suffer.

MOO

RSBM

I think a lot of bartering goes on in prison also. I guess it depends on how far she would go to get the phones and other items she wants.
She has already used her 'charms' to get Tommy to murder her mother. She is a wild and wiley person.
And she has so much latitude with the guards. So, yes, that is cash ..... or perhaps other 'favours'..

As far as Stella goes, she will be receiving many of her needs from external organisations.

Not saying that I believe this is the case for sure, but it certainly is a possibility in my mind that HM is 'selling' herself.
My gosh, she has already sold her soul.

 

[watergirl62]

SBM, BBM

That Opalinska chick is a nasty bit of work.

After her mother's death she changes her story multiple times.

She assists her husband (the murderer) in an attempt to escape justice.

She is found guilty of both perjury and obstruction of justice with respect to her mother's murder but served not a day in prison.

And she inherits her mother's estate.

I agree with you, watergirl, she leaves me squirming.

Did you mean to provide a link?

It was linked via the blog I linked upthread but here is a direct link to the doc to bring it forward.

http://docs.google.com/gview?embedd...s/AppellateCourt/2015/1stDistrict/1143407.pdf

Sent from my LG-H740 using Tapatalk

 

[watergirl62]

Not ignoring that point at all. Just trying to make heads or tabby tails of why those stepchildren were originally awarded their share and then taken out of the will on appeal. Was it because the other Mueller children argued that a person who was charged with causing the death would have benefited from the estate because she got out of jail while they were minor children and she had custody? If they were older, would they still have been removed strictly because they were not biological heirs?

With that in mind, I was questioning a hypothetical situation whether you thought, if HM was a step child and therefore her child was a step grandchild, even though SVM specifically named both of them as beneficiaries in a trust (not a will) and no other biological children existed, nor were any other biological heirs of SVM named as beneficiaries in the trust, do you think that SVM's siblings would have a case to keep the trust from both HM (due to the slayer statute) and her minor child (because she is not the biological heir) based on the Mueller decision?

I guess what I'm asking is, did they just basically throw out the Mueller will because of the slayer statute and award the estate to the deceased's biological heirs? In which case, even if they did the same with this case, that would still allow for Stella to be the sole beneficiary, except HM would be able to benefit from the trust when she gets out of jail because she will have custody of her because she will still be a minor child. Which was the whole basis of why the Mueller children were able to launch the appeal in the first place.

Am I making any sense here? :waitasec:

I feel like you and I have just spent an evening in Judge Cohen's courtroom. :floorlaugh:

I know, right? My brain hurts. This case has so much reading homework, I am trying to stay caught up. :treadmill:

Thanks to all for slicing and dicing the precedent case law with me, I don't think I was around the first time.

So, in Mueller, the crux is that trial court decided that she was essentially predeceased, and allowed her biokids to inherit stepdads estate, since they were named as his heirs in the event wife was predeceased. By the time it made it to the appeals court, her sentence had been reduced, she was no longer in custody, and still had one minor child she was providing for. Whole different ballgame in front of appellate judge.

I am uncertain if either this case or Opalinski has a direct correlation to, I was curious about potentially relevant prior decisions and what logic they were based upon.

 

[Orange Tabby]

No, watergirl, I strongly disagree with your summary of what "Mueller" means. I'll try to take some time and explain it more clearly. It may take a while.

But I'll just say this right now: in probate law, heirs and beneficiaries are not the same thing. These terms cannot be used interchangeably. In "Mueller", the children of the murderer were beneficiaries not heirs. In Sheila's case, the child of the murderer is not only a beneficiary but also an heir. I believe the fact that Stella is an heir is crucial to the analysis.

 

[Orange Tabby]

Heir:
One who acquires property upon the death of another, based on the rules of descent and distribution, namely, being the child, descendant or other closest relative of the dear departed.

(While in ordinary language it often used to also mean anyone named as receiving something of value in a will, I think in these legal opinions we are talking about judges use the word heir in the narrowest sense, as above.)

Heir-at-law:
The person entitled to succeed to the real property of a person who dies intestate (that is, who dies without a will).

Beneficiary:
A broad definition for any person or entity (like a charity) who is to receive assets or profits from an estate, a trust, an insurance policy or any instrument in which there is distribution

Contingent beneficiary:
A person or entity named to receive a gift under the terms of a will, trust or insurance policy, who will only receive that gift if a certain event occurs or a certain set of circumstances happen. Examples: surviving another beneficiary, still being married to the same spouse, having completed college, or being certified as having shaken his/her drug habit.

 

[Orange Tabby]

We all know about the Slayer Rule. Someone who intentionally and unjustifiably kills a person cannot benefit from that person's death.

I believe a Slayer ruling will be made against Heather. One day. Someday. Perhaps even while I'm still alive.

But here is where things get sticky: there have been Slayer rulings which disinherit the slayer's children in order that the Slayer doesn't benefit via her children.

We discussed this a few years ago on this board and one of the cases I discussed in a couple of old posts was "Mueller". So I've had that case on my mind, off and on, for a while.

To answer a recently asked question: "Mueller" and "Opalinska" are cases which may have some bearing on how Cohen's court will rule with respect to Stella, so some readers here may be interested, particularly those who have concerns that Heather may covertly control funds disbursed to Stella.

 

[Orange Tabby]

The "Mueller" case and Stella

In re the Estate of Mueller is a 1995 Illinois Slayer case.

Mueller was murdered by his wife Hanke. She was convicted of the murder and served time in prison. In his will Mueller left his house and 60 percent of his other assets to Hanke. The named contingent (alternate) beneficiaries of Hanke's portion of the estate were her two children, who were not Mueller's children. The will provided that the other 40 percent of Mueller's assets went to his four natural children (whose mother was not Hanke).

Hanke was denied any part of the estate and her share went to her then-minor children, who had a court appointed guardian ad litem.

Mueller's natural children appealed. The appellate court said it had to determine two things only:

1. Could Hanke's children benefit? And
2. Could Mueller's brother benefit?

The appeals court ruled the brother could not benefit and that part of the case is irrelevant to us.

For the first matter, the court said the question before them was specifically this:

"Whether individuals who are named as contingent beneficiaries in a will may take property under that will when the original taker is precluded under [the Illinois Slayer Statute], and the contingent takers are heirs of the precluded person but not of the testator."​

If that's too dense, I'll suggest that it is quite close to this:

If the Slayer is not allowed to benefit from the will, can the alternate beneficiaries inherit if they are the Slayer's children and not the children of the victim?

The appeals court said no: the murderer's kids could not inherit. Mueller's entire estate went to his natural children.

Here's how "Mueller" is similar to Sheila's case

In "Mueller", after the murderer was released from prison, she was taking care of her minor child, one who was named in Mueller's will. If that child inherited, then the murderer could benefit from the inheritance because she would have access to the child's money. The appeals court saw that, and so they denied the murderer's children the inheritance.

(They didn't actually give a specific reason for the Hanke child who was not a minor.)

Here's how "Mueller" is different from Sheila's case

1. The alternate beneficiaries in "Mueller" were not blood relatives of the victim. The only Slayer question the appeals court looked at specifically included the fact that the alternate beneficiaries were not related to (not "heirs" of) the victim.

Strangely (to me) the Court doesn't explain why they make the distinction between beneficiary and heir. But they make this distinction multiple times in the ruling. They specifically reject Slayer cases where the alternate beneficiary is a blood relative of the victim, saying they are not relevant. "Mueller" is about beneficiaries who are not heirs, about beneficiaries not related to the victim.

So if "Mueller" is precedent, it may be found to be inapplicable in Sheila's case, because while Stella is her contingent beneficiary (she's in the trust) Stella is also Sheila's heir. If there's a Slayer ruling against Heather, that makes Stella Sheila's closest blood relative for inheritance purposes.

This is why I've been bleating on and on like a diseased sheep concerning the difference between beneficiary and heir. "Mueller", is explicitly about beneficiaries who are not heirs. Stella is both a beneficiary and an heir. "Mueller" doesn't seem to apply to her.

2. "Mueller" is a case about a will. All of Sheila's assets are in a trust with a trustee. It could be argued that the trustee will make sure only Stella reaps the reward of the trust, so there is no need to deny Stella the funds to keep them from Heather. (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this, but I think Heather's lawyers will argue this.)

3. When the lower court made its ruling that Hanke's children could inherit, Hanke was already out of prison. She remained out of prison while the appeals court made its ruling. That differs from Sheila's case in that it's possible the Slayer ruling will be made less than eight years from now, while Heather's still in prison and might be presumed by the court to have little control over Stella's funds.

If you like pulling your hair out while you read, here is "Mueller" in all its frustrating detail:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19951695655NE2d1040_11631/IN RE ESTATE OF MUELLER#

I've done my best to be clear and to not be complicated. Apologies if I've failed.

And: I am not a lawyer.

 

[watergirl62]

No, watergirl, I strongly disagree with your summary of what "Mueller" means. I'll try to take some time and explain it more clearly. It may take a while.

But I'll just say this right now: in probate law, heirs and beneficiaries are not the same thing. These terms cannot be used interchangeably. In "Mueller", the children of the murderer were beneficiaries not heirs. In Sheila's case, the child of the murderer is not only a beneficiary but also an heir. I believe the fact that Stella is an heir is crucial to the analysis.

Yeah, sorry I may have used the wrong term for her biokids. My bad. And I was describing my take on why the higher court had a different view on things nothing more. I never said I was a lawyer. Cheers! [emoji477]

 

[ajaylee]

Orange Tabby, if HM were tried and convicted of a conspiracy charge (like TS's cousin, RB), would that charge be enough to trigger the 'slayer statute'?

 

[Weezer Fan]

I'm interested to know if folks on this board think Heather has access to money. If so, where do you think it comes from?

I believe she does based on her Instagram photos and TS's comments in the infamous letter. The GAL in Chicago was suppose to be coordinating care for Stella, so, I'm sure HM is benefiting there. I had not thought about the kickbacks from Ary. Makes sense though. But, she is much better off than what we have read about other prisoners.

 

[Weezer Fan]

Here is the latest entry on the docket:

Activity Date: 2/17/2017 Participant: MACK HEATHER
CONTINUANCE - ALLOWED -

Date: 3/3/2017
Court Time: 1130

Judge: COHEN, NEIL, H.

Activity Date: 2/17/2017 Participant: WALKER KIA
MOTION TO - DENIED -


Judge: COHEN, NEIL, H.

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com...v=&caseno=&PLtype=1&sname=mack+heather&CDate=