PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #11

[Salem]

Why is LG not entitled to all of RG's estate?

I would think that LG would be entitled to all of anything she held jointly with her dad. Beyond that, it would depend on any wills/trusts/etc. that RG might have had. My understanding is that he did not have any of these plans in place, nor did he have a wife or other children. Is that correct? If so, I would say LG is entitled to all of RG's estate.

I don't know what the intestate rules are in PA. If this had happened in CA and the situation was as described as above - then yes, LG would get everything as RG's only heir.

And of course that doesn't consider any complications that might arise because of RG's missing status. But once the Court declared him deceased, LG would take the estate.

Salem

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thank you, JJ. They were joint accounts, I take it. That makes perfect sense to me.

Salem

Her name was on it and technically it was a joint account. She lived 2000+ miles away, so I couldn't say she used it too often.

It is not uncommon to use this arrangement. If RFG would have had a stroke, a debilitating injury, or died, LG would be in the position to pay for what was needed, bills, medical costs, or funeral expenses. My father actually did that with me for years prior to his becoming disabled, in case he died or became disabled.

It would have an advantage of lowering inheritance taxes by 50%, because half of that money was legally LG's, though that might have been a secondary concern.

 

[Saunterer]

I would think that LG would be entitled to all of anything she held jointly with her dad. Beyond that, it would depend on any wills/trusts/etc. that RG might have had. My understanding is that he did not have any of these plans in place, nor did he have a wife or other children. Is that correct? If so, I would say LG is entitled to all of RG's estate.

I don't know what the intestate rules are in PA. If this had happened in CA and the situation was as described as above - then yes, LG would get everything as RG's only heir.

And of course that doesn't consider any complications that might arise because of RG's missing status. But once the Court declared him deceased, LG would take the estate.

Salem

I totally agree with you. So what happened to even the small part of Gricar's estate that we have been previously made aware of? How does 100K in a joint account, or even half of that, just disappear...not to mention Gricar's other savings and his pension. Answer: Estate Planning ... the kind neither you, me or anyone here would need to know about.

 

[Salem]

I totally agree with you. So what happened to even the small part of Gricar's estate that we have been previously made aware of? How does 100K in a joint account, or even half of that, just disappear...not to mention Gricar's other savings and his pension. Answer: Estate Planning ... the kind neither you, me or anyone here would need to know about.

Well actually - I disagree with this to some extent. Where the money went is really very important. If LG lived 2000 miles away, she probably did not know things her dad didn't want her to know, kwim? So taking a look at what RG did with any personal accounts that LG wasn't privy to, looking at his cash exchanges, etc. could be very enlightening. More crimes than one have been committed over money. Heck, RG could have had money stashed under his mattress or buried in his backyard, for all we really know. If his neighbor knew that though, it could be motive.

I know that is very unlikely. My point is that life is stranger than fiction and money is a HUGE motivator. I think if there were any estate planning documents, generally they are public information and accessible if one wants to run them down. My understanding is that RG didn't leave any such documents, right?

Salem

 

[Salem]

Her name was on it and technically it was a joint account. She lived 2000+ miles away, so I couldn't say she used it too often.

It is not uncommon to use this arrangement. If RFG would have had a stroke, a debilitating injury, or died, LG would be in the position to pay for what was needed, bills, medical costs, or funeral expenses. My father actually did that with me for years prior to his becoming disabled, in case he died or became disabled.

It would have an advantage of lowering inheritance taxes by 50%, because half of that money was legally LG's, though that might have been a secondary concern.

I was in this same position with my dad. I was a joint owner on a select few of his accounts, even though he lived in a different state. It was very helpful when he passed. There were never any questions about my authority to write checks on the account, etc. Thank goodness. Things were difficult enough.

Salem

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Where is that 50K or so in the documents Trackergd obtained?

As noted there could be, and very possibly were additional expenses. We know of a minor one, RFG's law license.

There could be some additional costs. Goodall set up the reward prior to the establishment of the trusteeship, so some of the money could have gone to the cost of setting up and advertising it. As indicated, the costs of setting up the trusteeship could have come out of that.

Life insurance could be an expense. Even if he purchased whole life for $100 K in 1980 at age 35, it could cost around $1500/year. That could easily come to $7,500-$9,000. http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/life_annuity/life/whole/whole.asp There could be other or higher costs than that.

Obviously, LG would pay the premium because it would lower her tax liability and increase the amount of money she gets.

 

[Saunterer]

Well actually - I disagree with this to some extent. Where the money went is really very important. If LG lived 2000 miles away, she probably did not know things her dad didn't want her to know, kwim? So taking a look at what RG did with any personal accounts that LG wasn't privy to, looking at his cash exchanges, etc. could be very enlightening. More crimes than one have been committed over money. Heck, RG could have had money stashed under his mattress or buried in his backyard, for all we really know. If his neighbor knew that though, it could be motive.

I know that is very unlikely. My point is that life is stranger than fiction and money is a HUGH motivator. I think if there were any estate planning documents, generally they are public information and accessible if one wants to run them down. My understanding is that RG didn't leave any such documents, right?

Salem

My understanding is that estate planning documents are not generally public information and that LG obviously exercised her right in regard to the PA Inheritance Tax Return on RG's estate. LG was empowered by the court to finalize her father's estate planning. This is what the documentation Trackergd (and others before) conclusively shows.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I would not reject any of that, largely because many, if not most, people in RFG's situation have life insurance. I doubt if Goodall will set up the trusteeship or reward pro bono.

I would also recognize that there would be legitimate costs associated with the estate flying back and forth several times in 2005.

Now, perhaps the better question is why RFG's assets were reported as so low in 2005? So far, there is no indication of assets matching RFG's income at the time he disappeared, either from LE or the family.

 

[Salem]

My understanding is that estate planning documents are not generally public information and that LG obviously exercised her right in regard to the PA Inheritance Tax Return on RG's estate. LG was empowered by the court to finalize her father's estate planning. This is what the documentation Trackergd (and others before) conclusively shows.

Well I know in CA estate docs are generally public info. You can go to the Recorder's Office and have a copy of any recorded trust printed, the same with a will. If the will has been probated, you can find that in the court records.

Generally - money is not a private matter. We all like to think it is, but its not and typically it is not recognized as private by the courts. In a situation like this, where a man is missing and cannot be found, there should be very little expectation of privacy in anything he did prior to his missing. He needs to be found.

As far as LG's involvement, I have no argument with that. I would think that was natural and normal, for her to wrap up her father's affairs.

I confess I have not read all the info that Tracker found, so you guys have more info than I do.

Salem

 

[Salem]

~Respectfully snipped ~

Now, perhaps the better question is why RFG's assets were reported as so low in 2005? So far, there is no indication of assets matching RFG's income at the time he disappeared, either from LE or the family.

Would they have under reported assets for tax purposes? RG went missing in April, so he was gone for 2/3rds of the year. Did he receive his paycheck during any of that time? When they realized he was not coming back, did they cash out his sick leave and/or vacation time? Did they consider him on vacation in the beginning, charging him vacation time because they didn't know what else to do? Any idea what kind of money he made that year? It couldn't have been his full salary, right? Because he wasn't there.

Is this part of the info that Tracker got that I need to go back and read??

Salem

 

[J. J. in Phila]

~Respectfully snipped ~

Would they have under reported assets for tax purposes? RG went missing in April, so he was gone for 2/3rds of the year. Did he receive his paycheck during any of that time? When they realized he was not coming back, did they cash out his sick leave and/or vacation time? Did they consider him on vacation in the beginning, charging him vacation time because they didn't know what else to do? Any idea what kind of money he made that year? It couldn't have been his full salary, right? Because he wasn't there.

Is this part of the info that Tracker got that I need to go back and read??

Salem

His salary, in 2005, was frozen in late April. Since he was the guy in charge, the sick/vacation time didn't apply.

In 2005, he was making about $129 K per year; he would have received, minus withholding, about a third of that. In 2003, he was making $120,225. There was no outside income; he paid no rent through that period, but he did contribute to the bills.

RFG was divorced in 2001 (late July), had no alimony. From that period until he disappeared, I think he was grossing at least $110 K.

I think there would be a legal problem with "under reporting."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

His estate was valued at under $2 K, but LE reported just over $100 K in joint accounts when he disappeared.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

As for knowing, well, I did my own research.

I think we might ask why his assets, in 2004, seemed to be so low?

 

[SuperSmith]

Well actually - I disagree with this to some extent. Where the money went is really very important. If LG lived 2000 miles away, she probably did not know things her dad didn't want her to know, kwim? So taking a look at what RG did with any personal accounts that LG wasn't privy to, looking at his cash exchanges, etc. could be very enlightening. More crimes than one have been committed over money. Heck, RG could have had money stashed under his mattress or buried in his backyard, for all we really know. If his neighbor knew that though, it could be motive.

I know that is very unlikely. My point is that life is stranger than fiction and money is a HUGE motivator. I think if there were any estate planning documents, generally they are public information and accessible if one wants to run them down. My understanding is that RG didn't leave any such documents, right?

Salem

This is good. I never thought of RG's money being a motivator for foul play. That certainly seems more likely than walk away.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I checked, and for probate, as opposed to inheritance tax, joint accounts are not counted in probate. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/pennsylvania-probate-an-overview.html

That can be a partial explanation for the low assets in probate.

What it doesn't explain is why interest is below $1300 from a single source for 2005.

 

[SuperSmith]

The fact that there are now three different sources is obvious to whomever took the time to actually study this aspect. The different details are interesting. I tend to disbelieve Sinderson's informant.

Saunterer, I am with you on this one. I do not think you are assuming anything and have laid out a clear picture of what we know thus far.

As far as the informants stories having a different flavor I submit that they are not telling different stories but rather adding pieces to the original.

The one informant suggests RG owed money to the Hells Angels. On the surface that can be construed that RG was on the take or in shady dealings with them. You and I know better so what I take from that statement is that he owed them because he disrupted a deal or plans of there's whatever that may be (drugs, stolen property, etc.)

JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

ABC 23 used the term "corrupt office" specifically. It wasn't that he cut into someone's profits. There isn't any evidence of corruption from RFG. Further, it is know that alleged killer did not get the harsh sentence that was asked for by Sloane. That is not a sign of a motive.

There was a principal person in this A.K.; he might have said something. However, the versions of each story have elements that can be ruled out (assuming RFG isn't corrupt). Further, did BB's source talk to A. K. or did he hear the story from Bock's source?

The money trail would the issue if there is any corruption and so far, there is no extra funds that cannot be explained. There is, in fact, lower assets than would be expected for his salary.

 

[SuperSmith]

ABC 23 used the term "corrupt office" specifically.

If we are being specific this is the actual quote from ABC 23.

"It said that Gricar ran a corrupt District Attorney's office and was in debt to the Hells Angels for a large sum of money."

I know that Gricar didn't run a corrupt office however he did have some ADA's that later go into a bit of trouble. That has nothing to do with Gricar himself.

I clearly explained my thought in my previous post on the statement about being debt to the Hells Angel group.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If we are being specific this is the actual quote from ABC 23.

"It said that Gricar ran a corrupt District Attorney's office and was in debt to the Hells Angels for a large sum of money."

I know that Gricar didn't run a corrupt office however he did have some ADA's that later go into a bit of trouble. That has nothing to do with Gricar himself.

I clearly explained my thought in my previous post on the statement about being debt to the Hells Angel group.

Well let's be clear. No ADA was known to be "corrupt." SPS had about $500 worth of pot, which was at least partially for personal use. That doesn't quite make him a Colombian drug lord. That was 18 months after he left office. ML situation involved "sexting." No money changed hands.

Is there any evidence that the DA's Office ever prosecuted someone in the Hells Angles. Further, the accused killer, A. K. was not in the group. He was known to have been an informer and would not have curried favor with the Hells Angels. As a known informer, it would be unlikely that he could "order" anyone; he would not be trusted.

The ABC 23 story is also different than Bock's reporting, even though it is supposedly the same informant. It doesn't mention a "shaft" of any type. It states that RFG was killed in Central Pennsylvania. None of the details match the other two stories. Further, Bock's informant did have a potential motive to implicate A. K., as A. K. was an informant; most criminals don't like informants.

 

[SuperSmith]

Well let's be clear. No ADA was known to be "corrupt." SPS had about $500 worth of pot, which was at least partially for personal use. That doesn't quite make him a Colombian drug lord. That was 18 months after he left office. ML situation involved "sexting." No money changed hands.

Is there any evidence that the DA's Office ever prosecuted someone in the Hells Angles. Further, the accused killer, A. K. was not in the group. He was known to have been an informer and would not have curried favor with the Hells Angels. As a known informer, it would be unlikely that he could "order" anyone; he would not be trusted.

Let's be crystal clear shall we. Sloane is now a felon which included charges of distribution. http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...even-years-probation-on-drug-charges,1380027/

Sloane also admitted his addiction to Oxy

"He said he was a former Oxycontin addict," the complaint said

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/10/02/3356578/former-centre-county-da-steve.html#storylink=cpy

I only suggested it possible that RG screwed up some of the HA dealings, not that it was because he prosecuted them per say. In my opinion your are twisting my posts to fit your argument.