Of Counsel:

In pro se

NANCI MEEK
3308 Ariba St
Las Vegas NV 89129
Telephone: (760) 413-5660
Petitioner in Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

THE MATTER OF ) T. No. 05-1-0101

) FINDINGS OF FACT AND
THE ELVIN R MEEK FAMILY ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;
TRUST, DATED JUNE 14, 1996 ) RE: EVIDENTIARY
HEARING
AS AMENDED ) OF JULY 8 AND JULY 9,
2010,
) HONORABLE JUDGE DERRICK
) CHAN PRESIDING;
)
__________________________________)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

On July 8, 2010 and July 9, 2010 the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit State of Hawaii an evidentiary hearing was held before
Honorable Judge Derrick Chan with respect to the Amendment To
Petition For Declatory Relief Declaring the 1st Amendment Invalid,
filed on August 14, 2009. As instructed by Honorable Judge Derrick
Chan, the following are the Petitioner’s Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Elizabeth Meek testified she observed Elvin Meek,

in April of 2002 in the parking lot of the El Torito Restaurant in
San Bernardino, California, entrusting to Petitioner, aka
decedent’s daughter, Nanci Meek, a copy of the original Elvin R

1
 Meek 1996 Trust Agreement not including the questionable
1997 1st Amendment. Elizabeth Meek’s testimony confirms the
Petitioner’s allegations as set forth in the Amended Petition for
Declatory Relief filed August 14, 2009 that the aforementioned
1997 1st Amendment as presented to the court by Elizabeth
Meek and Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones has been altered and
lends credibility to the allegation that the true 1st Amendment
consisted of only a few pages.
2. During testimony provided by decedent’s son, Melvin Meek, he
stated he believes the 1st Amendment (Respondent’s Exhibit
“1”) did not exist at the time of the decedent’s death on
October 19, 2003. Melvin Meek confirmed he was in attendance
at the El Torito Restaurant in San Bernardino in April of 2002
when the decedent handed to Petitioner and original Trustee,
Nanci Meek, a copy of the original Elvin R Meek 1996 Trust
agreement in April of 2002 without any amendments, however
he did not witness the exchange but was told of it later.
3. Melvin Meek further testified that during a conversation he had
with his father sometime in 2001, Elvin Meek indicated he was
upset having recently discovered that Respondent Elizabeth
Meek had sent $5000 to her daughter Lola Dee Reklai-Meek
without his knowledge and had lied to Elvin about the
transaction. It was during this time according to Melvin Meek
the decedent told him that Elvin and Elizabeth were “not
getting along” and during a trip to Palau in 2000 Elvin Meek was
going to leave Elizabeth in Palau and return to the states.
4. Melvin Meek testified upon receipt of a letter from Attorney
Robert Jones dated August 2, 2004, Melvin made several
requests through telephone conversations with Attorney Jones
and his secretary Colleen Alexander requesting a copy of the 1st
Amendment. Melvin further stated that only after several
months transpired did Attorney Jones provide a copy of the 1st
Amendment.

2
5. Melvin Meek testified that he was concerned with the uncaring
manner in which Elizabeth Meek had not contacted him or any
of the decedent’s family and friends to inform him of his
father’s terminal condition. Melvin referred to a telephone call
he placed to Elizabeth’s Meek’s cellular phone inquiring about
his father’s condition on October 13th of 2003. Melvin stated
Elizabeth advised, “Elvin is an adult and can call you himself.”
During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she verified and confirmed
this conversation. However, during her deposition taken on May
28, 2010 on page 61 she states she does not recall Melvin
calling her on her cell phone. SBC Long Distance Phone records
reflecting Melvin’s home telephone account and previously filed
with the court confirm Melvin did contact Elizabeth on her cell
phone on October 13, 2003. It was shortly thereafter Melvin
was informed by hospital staff at Straub hospital that Elvin
Meek was in and out of consciousness and likely unable to
make phone calls as Elizabeth had suggested.
6. During Melvin Meek’s testimony he spoke of a conversation he
had with his father, Elvin Meek during the time the decedent
had signed his 2nd Amendment and the Last Will and Testament
on or around September 20, 2003. Melvin indicated Elvin Meek
sounded “drunk”. At the same time Melvin also stated Elvin
admitted he was having trouble hearing. Melvin stated Elvin
asked him to send him an e mail since his hearing was
weakened.
7. During testimony of Melvin Meek he confirmed a meeting he
had with another Palauan woman, Rose Tsuneo, who confided
in Melvin a short time after Elvin Meek passed away that she
had concerns with the manner in which Elizabeth was talking to
others about Elvin’s Trust and pending events. Melvin indicated
this meeting made him uneasy however he was confident that

3
 he shouldn’t be concerned because his sister Nanci Meek
previously had been given a copy of the original The Elvin R.
Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. Melvin stated he was
confident his father, Elvin Meek, an attorney himself, had his
affairs in order.
8. Melvin Meek testified regarding a conversation he had with
someone from the Bank of Hawaii wherein he states he told the
representative from the bank that Melvin was of the opinion
the 1st Amendment was not accurate and had been fabricated
after Elvin Meek had passed away.
9. Melvin Meek testified regarding his concerns over signatures
on a Christmas Greeting card received from Elizabeth Meek, her
daughter Lola and granddaughter Ruthie postmarked December
2, 2003. This card was received by Melvin Meek after Elvin
Meek passed away with handwriting identical to his father’s.
While Melvin Meek is not a handwriting expert he is the
decedent’s son and comparing the signatures on the
documents in question and the greeting cards composed after
the decedent passed away logic will conclude Elizabeth Meek
was skilled at mimicking the decedent’s handwriting. It should
be noted a copy of the card and envelope were submitted as
Petitioner Exhibit #H into evidence, objected by opposing
counsel and sustained by Judge Derrick Chan.
10. During Jones’ testimony Petitioner introduced a copy of a
letter (Received by the Court as Petitioner Exhibit “30”)
executed by Robert Jones and dated September 17, 2003.
During testimony Jones confirmed the letter accompanied the
Last Will and Testament and 2nd Amendment for signature by
Elvin Meek. This is suspect because the letter makes a request
for the signed 1st Amendment indicating at the time Jones did
not possess a copy of the signed 1st Amendment. This letter is

4
 suspect in that this is the first time it has been presented to
Petitioner for review. Given the history of the questionable 1st
Amendments, the letter with the word italicized word “signed”
speaks for itself. It should be noted Elvin Meek was re-
admitted to Straub hospital on September 16, 2003 for
dehydration and complications from cirrhosis of the liver.
According to Mr. Jones’ testimony supported by telephone
records, it was on September 15, 2003 that Mr. Jones had a
telephone conversation with someone at the Meek dwelling.
11. During testimony of Attorney Robert Jones an Affidavit
identified as Exhibit #B was submitted into evidence for
identification by the Court. It was objected by attorneys for
Respondent and sustained. Mr. Jones’ Affidavit prepared by
attorneys for Bank of Hawaii and executed on November 10,
2005, in which Robert Jones alleges the 1st Amendment was
signed in California on September 19, 1997. A copy of the
aforementioned 1st Amendment was presented during the
Evidentiary Hearing to Mr. Jones for review. Mr. Jones admitted
it was his signature and the notary signature was that of his
secretary, Colleen Alexander. However Jones stated he could
not recall executing the Affidavit. Further Mr. Jones admitted he
wasn’t sure who had prepared the Affidavit. Mr. Jones was
asked to review the heading on the Affidavit filed with the court
on November 16, 2005 and was reminded Goodsill Anderson
Quinn and Stifel former attorneys for the Bank of Hawaii had
prepared the document. Mr. Jones further stated he did not
recall executing the Affidavit. Based on Mr. Jones’ inability to
accurately recall the Affidavit or the signing of it, but at the
same time recognize his signature is suspect. One would
expect a successful, skilled and seasoned practicing attorney
would recall such a critical document and its content.

5
 Reiterating, the Affidavit states the 1st Amendment was
executed in Hawaii by the Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek and
again by Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek three days later in
California in the presence of Robert Jones.
12. During Testimony of Attorney Robert Jones, Petitioner
requested to admit into evidence Petitioner’s Exhibit “D” which
is the Declaration of Partial Revocation of Trust executed by the
decedent on June 14, 1996 and witnessed by Attorney Robert
Jones. This Exhibit outlines the Real Property and Personal
Property included within the Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust.
The document also removes Lola Dee Meek as the successor
trustee. This document directly contradicts the testimony
provided by Robert Jones wherein Attorney Jones states Elvin
spoke often and fondly of Lola Meek, and was proud of her
academic achievements.
13. During testimony of Attorney Robert Jones Petitioner
requested to admit into evidence Petitioner’s Exhibit “X”, a
letter dated September 8, 2004 addressed to Nanci Meek and
Melvin Meek from Attorney Jones wherein he states “for a
variety of reasons, Elizabeth has chosen not to correspond with
you at this time.” When questioned about this letter Attorney
Robert Jones stated during his testimony the reason Elizabeth
chose not to communicate with Nanci Meek and Melvin Meek
due to Nanci Meek having Elizabeth Meek’s “telephone service
shut off.” Upon hearing this inaccurate and false statement,
the Petitioner immediately responded that such an event did
not occur. Common sense would dictate one could not
terminate phone services or other utilities billed to another.
During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she stated that she had
Robert Jones write the letter because Nanci Meek had left
several “nasty messages” on her answering machine. When

6
 asked if Elizabeth could recall the nature of the messages,
Elizabeth could not respond. Upon hearing this Nanci Meek
denied leaving any messages which would be construed as
harassment. It should be noted that Melvin Meek stated during
his testimony that he had never had cross words with Elizabeth
and couldn’t understand why he would receive the referenced
letter. Also it should be noted that Elizabeth’s biological
daughter Lola Meek was not included in the aforementioned
letter.
14. During Mr. Jones’ testimony he admitted to a long term
business relationship with Mr. Kelly Gearhart, a land developer.
The Petitioner was informed in 2009 by Dieter Wilkomm, a field
agent with the Santa Maria Federal Bureau of Investigation that
both men are currently under investigation by the FBI with
respect to a $400 million ponzi land development scheme. At
that time Mr. Wilkomm requested Petitioner provide documents
related to this litigation. During testimony Attorney Robert
“Grigger” Jones stated both he and Kelly Gearhart had in the
past been involved with several business transactions including
a corporation entitled the Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC which he testified has
since dissolved. Documentation submitted to the court a year
earlier will support our findings that Attorney Robert Jones has
been involved in questionable fraudulent real estate dealings
involving Hurst Financial corporation, the Pe Ji Ho Ta Indian
casino in Central California, Jay Miller and Associates with
respect to charges of fraud, mismanagement of funds and
assisting in the illegal transfer and hiding of assets as well as a
pending judgment of $1.5 million. (US Bankruptcy Court
Eastern Division Akron, Ohio Case #09-50469 Complaint
Fraudulent Conveyance – Kelly Gearhart and Tamara Lowe

7
 Debtors, Harold Corzin Plaintiff vs. Robert Grigger Jones, Daniel
Phillips, Chris Molina, Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC, Defendants).
15. Testimony by Attorney Robert “Grigger” Jones as to the
validity of the 1st Amendment signed in California by his
previous admission in the aforementioned Affidavit was vague.
The 1st Amendment identified as Exhibit #B was submitted into
evidence for identification by the Court. It was objected by
Respondent’s counsel and sustained by the Court. During this
same testimony Mr. Jones reviewed Exhibit #B of the 1st
Amendment signed in California, comparing the pages to the 1st
Amendment (admitted by the court as Respondent’s Exhibit #1)
signed in Hawaii three days earlier as if Attorney Jones were
reviewing it for the first time. When questioned as to his
response when the 1st Amendment was presented to him by
Detective Fred Pflum of the Atascadero Police department in
2009, Mr. Jones’ responded that he could not recall the
document. It should be noted the San Luis Obispo District
Attorney’s office is currently reviewing the pending criminal
case against Robert Jones for fraud and forgery with respect to
the referenced 1st Amendment allegedly executed in California.
When asked by Petitioner why Robert Jones stated in his
Affidavit that the decedent Elvin Meek and Elizabeth Meek were
in his office in California three days after executing the same
document in Hawaii his response was “I don’t understand the
question.” This was a basic question requiring a basic answer of
which Mr. Jones stated he did not understand, adding further
doubt to the credibility of Robert “Grigger” Jones’ testimony.
16. During Attorney Robert Jones’ testimony he was
questioned regarding a telephone conversation with Mr. Meek
in the days prior to the drafting of the 2nd Amendment and the
Last Will and Testament. Mr. Jones stated Elvin Meek was clear,

8
 concise, and did not sound weak or incoherent despite medical
records, doctor’s reports, a medical forensics report prepared
by Suzanne Gelb and previously submitted to the court,
indicating during the time the telephone conversation took
place between Mr. Jones and Mr. Meek, that the decedent was
in a weakened condition, subject to falls, informed of his
terminal condition, and 100% incapacitated. However during
his testimony Attorney Robert Jones indicated, professional
medical opinion notwithstanding, Elvin Meek was concise and
clear as to the manner in which he desired to modify and
amend his Trust as well as executing an additional Last Will and
Testament. However testimony by the decedent’s son, Melvin
Meek indicated the decedent by his own admission was
suffering from severe hearing loss. Further testimony by the
Respondent Elizabeth Meek confirmed the decedent was
utilizing two hearing aids in order to hear, however she could
not recall if Mr. Meek was wearing the hearing aids during the
previously mentioned conversation with Attorney Robert Jones.
17. During Attorney Robert Jones’ testimony Petitioner asked
his opinion as to why Mr. Meek, an attorney himself who was
responsible for scrutinizing legal documents would fail to see an
error on the 2nd Amendment which clearly states the 2nd
Amendment is amending the 1st Amendment executed on
“September ___ 1999” Mr. Jones simply stated it was an
oversight on his part and there is not a 1st Amendment
executed on September __ 1999. It is difficult to accept that two
skilled practicing attorneys could fail to see such a glaring error.
Again this is yet another component along with the weakened
signatures reflecting Mr. Meek’s deteriorating condition during
the executing of the 2nd Amendment.

9
18. Attorney Robert Jones further testified that in 1996 Elvin
Meek and Elizabeth Meek were having marital difficulties and as
a result met with only the decedent, drafting and executing The
Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. Robert Jones
indicated Elvin was alone during the execution of the Elvin R
Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996. When Elizabeth Meek
was asked during her deposition if she recalled being present
during the signing of the Elvin R Meek Family Trust dated 1996
she stated she was not and a upon further questioning stated
she was in fact present. Leaving the unanswered question, was
she or wasn’t she present. Mr. Jones admitted the Trust
removed Elizabeth Meek as the Trustee as set forth in the Elvin
R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust with an Amendment
drafted and executed in 1994 which removed Lola Meek as the
surviving trustee. Mr. Jones further stated that less than 14
months after executing the original The Elvin R. Meek Family
Trust dated June 14, 1996, Elvin had turned his life around and
wanted to provide for Elizabeth and her biological daughter Lola
Meek. His testimony conflicts with the contents of an Affidavit
executed by Attorney Jones on October 2, 2007 and submitted
to the court wherein Jones states during his conversation with
Elvin Meek on or about September 16, 2003 Elvin expressed he
was very proud of Lola and that SHE had turned her life around.
Attorney Jones was detailed during his testimony when
speaking about how much Elvin Meek cared about his adopted
daughter Lola, yet when asked about Mr. Meek’s relationship to
his biological children Nanci Meek and Melvin Meek, Attorney
Jones appeared evasive and testified that Elvin Meek rarely
spoke of Melvin Meek and Nanci Meek. When asked about
Elvin’s granddaughter Nicole Kusley, Attorney Jones indicated
he couldn’t recall Elvin speaking about Nicole Kusley either.

10
1
0
 This is in direct conflict with the testimony provided by Nanci
Meek who indicated she was very close with her father. She
also indicated Elvin Meek was very fond of his granddaughter
Nicole Kusley and found it peculiar that Elvin would not speak of
her. Nanci further stated she couldn’t understand if the 1997
1st Amendment had existed prior to her father’s passing, why
her father would entrust to her a copy of the original The Elvin
R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 in April of 2002
without the supposed 1st Amendment. Nanci Meek further
testified that she does not argue a 1st Amendment exists,
however she is of the opinion it is only a few pages much like
the Amendment prepared in 1994 and not the 21 unnumbered
pages the Respondent and Attorney Robert Jones allege is the
true and operative document.
19. Attorney Robert Jones who is not licensed to practice in
Hawaii opened the probate in California within five months after
the decedent passed away in Honolulu Hawaii. Attorney Jones
during his testimony stated his reason for opening the probate
in California was to assist Elizabeth Meek to sell properties
because at the time she was not an American Citizen, however
when asked why he didn’t contact Elvin’s children and inform
them of the pending sales of several properties Attorney Jones
stated he was doing what his client wanted.
20. During his testimony Attorney Robert Jones was asked by
Petitioner if he was aware that Lola Meek had in fact moved to
Palau in 1999, married, had a child and went to work for her
biological father Senator Johnny Reklai. Mr. Jones stated he was
not aware of this. This is in direct conflict with the assertion by
Mr. Jones that he and Elvin Meek maintained a close friendship.
If that were true and Mr. Jones was as close to Elvin Meek as he
alleges, logical reasoning would dictate that Mr. Jones would

11
1
1
 have known that Lola had moved to Palau. That coupled with
Elizabeth Meek stating in her deposition that she could not
recall the name of Mr. Jones’ wife downing the relationship that
Jones’ alleges existed.
21. Testimony by Robert “Grigger” Jones appeared vague and
uncertain with his responses when questioned by Petitioner,
however when questioned by Respondent’s attorney James
Ashford , Mr. Jones appeared to have total recall providing
certain and determined responses
22. During his testimony, Attorney Robert Jones was
questioned as to the purpose of the Certification of Trust of the
Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 Trust. Mr. Jones
confirmed the Certification of Trust was drafted by his office
and executed by the Respondent on February 20, 2004 in
Hawaii four months after Elvin Meek passed away on October
19, 2003 (identified as Exhibit #C - submitted into evidence
for identification by the court. opposing counsel objected and
objection was sustained). Attorney Jones reviewed the
Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek
1992 Trust and denied having knowledge of the decedent’s
Union Bankcal stocks admittedly valued at $646,000. However
according to an Affidavit prepared and filed with the Court by
the Bank of Hawaii on January 6, 2006 the purpose of the
Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek
1992 Trust was to assist Elizabeth Meek with dissolving any
assets not included in The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June
14, 1996. The Union Bankcal stocks are named as a part of The
Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 in the
previous form of Bank of San Bernardino. It is our finding of
fact that if the 1st Amendment as the Respondent is alleging
existed in the form (unnumbered 21 pages) as submitted to the

12
1
2
 court by Respondent, logic would conclude there would have
been no use for a Certification of Trust for the Elvin R Meek and
Elizabeth Meek 1992 trust and facts as presented prove that
Attorney Robert Jones was not acting in accordance with the
original wishes of Elvin Meek and exploited his advanced
weakened condition as a result of alcohol abuse. (See In re
Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44) It should
be noted The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996
requests Nanci Meek-Kusley act as the trustee of the estate and
therefore the Union Bankcal would not have authorized anyone
but Nanci Meek-Kusley to cash out the stocks. As is reflected
on page 66 – 70 of the May 28, 2010 deposition of Elizabeth
Meek, Mrs. Meek had knowledge of the Union BankCal stocks,
admitted Robert Jones created the Certification of Trust for the
Elvin R Meek and Elizabeth Meek 1992 trust, cashed the check
provided to her from the Union BankCal in the amount of
$646,000 which was also made out to the Elvin R Meek and
Elizabeth A Meek Living Trust 1992.
23. During Attorney Jones testimony Petitioner’s Exhibit “U”
was introduced and accepted. This document is an accounting
prepared by Robert Jones and submitted to the San Luis Obispo
Superior Court in May of 2005. Robert Jones acknowledged he
had submitted this accounting which carefully valued the estate
at $3.7 million with a stipulation of $1 million to be removed
and placed in an Exemption Trust. The Marital, Survivors and
Exemption Trusts were first introduced as part of the 1st
Amendment drafted by Robert Jones. Logic may conclude that
Robert Jones created the 1st Amendment as a means to control
and contain the Elvin R Meek 1996 Family Trust to the benefit of
certain parties to wit, Elizabeth Meek and Lola Meek.

13
1
3
24. During testimony provided by Heidi Emery who identified
herself as a Customer relations representative for the Bank of
Hawaii she stated she had met Elvin Meek during the late 80’s.
Ms. Emery stated that on September 22, 2003, Elvin Meek was
in the Bank of Hawaii and executed the 2nd Amendment in
question. She further testified he appeared to be in good spirits,
wanting to go to lunch with her, joking about “Viagra use” and
not appearing to be in danger of falling. This contradicts the
findings of fact included in the previously submitted medical
forensics report prepared by Suzanne Gelb and filed with the
Court several times. The aforementioned forensics report is
based on the medical records and doctor reviews accumulated
reflecting the period Elvin Meek was admitted and re-admitted
to Straub hospital and St. Francis hospice care (8/27/03 through
10/19/03). Ms. Emery appeared to have been coached and her
testimony further contradicted Elizabeth Meek’s testimony and
deposition during which Mrs. Meek affirmed that Mr. Meek was
utilizing a cane. Also Ms. Emery is believed to be a biased
individual having stated she has known the Respondent,
Elizabeth Asanuma Meek’s family for approximately 56 years
and is herself a native of Palau, as is Elizabeth Meek. Heidi
further indicated she was school mates with the Respondent’s
sister Kei Kei Asanuma. Ms. Emery testified she socializes with
Elizabeth Meek on a regular basis and has been close with her
for several years. She further testified they have spent many
holidays together. When questioned by Petitioner if she
recalled seeing pictures of Nanci Meek or Melvin Meek within
the decedent’s apartment she stated “No.” Ms. Emery appears
to be biased and prejudiced her testimony should be excluded.
25. During the testimony of witness Ralph Shumway,
manager at the Waipuna apartment building where the

14
1
4
 decedent resided admitted to witnessing along with the
recently deceased Ann Taylor, Elvin Meek signing a document. ,
however he was not sure of the document. The Attestation
attached to the Last Will and Testament (submitted by
Respondent and received by the Court as Exhibit “4 “) and
signed by Ralph Shumway specifically states “He thereupon
signed his Will in our presence, all of us being present at the
same time.” This contradicts Mr. Shumway’s testimony stating
he is not sure of the document he witnessed Mr. Meek
executing. Mr. Shumway during his testimony could not recall if
Mr. Meek appeared to be in a weakened state, could not recall if
he was utilizing a cane, and did however testify he heard Mr.
Meek had been having health issues. Mr. Shumway testified his
relationship to both Elizabeth Meek and Elvin Meek was
business and not social. Ralph Shumway’s testimony is
speculative, contradictory and should be dismissed.
26. During testimony of witness Margo Corliss she stated she
has been employed with Bank of Hawaii for over 20 years and
on September 22, 2003 the day Mr. Meek was escorted to the
Bank of Hawaii by Elizabeth Meek to execute the 2nd
Amendment to his Trust that he appeared cognizant of his
surroundings, alert, not bloated or appearing to be on any
medications. This is in direct conflict with the medical
assessment report prepared two days earlier by Mr. Meek’s
attending physician Dr. Charles Zerez on September 20, 2003
the day Mr. Meek was discharged from Straub Hospital. The
report states Mr. Meek was sleeping most of the time, was
suffering from dehydration, had abdominal extension, anemia
due to bleeding, suffering from Cirrhosis of the liver, chronic
renal failure, recovering from a surgery performed a day before
and was developing right sided conjunctivitis. The report also

15
1
5
 mentions the doctor agreeing to his discharge on the condition
Elvin Meek seek home hospice care. Further the 2nd page of the
Patient Discharge instructions form signed by Elizabeth Meek on
September 20, 2003 lists 18 discharge medications Mr. Meek
was taking including: Fioricet with codeine, protonix, Proscar,
MS Oxicontin, Reglan, Sodium Chloride, Flomax,
Demeclocycline, Carafiate Liquid, Restoril, Synthroid, and
Magnesium Oxide, and Aldactone. Ms. Corliss’s testimony
was in direct conflict with Elizabeth’s deposition performed May
28, 2010 wherein Elizabeth Meek concurs Elvin was on over 18
different medications, on September 22, 2003, the day the
document was signed at the Bank of Hawaii and that he was
utilizing a cane as he was endanger of falling. Margo Corliss
stated she could not recall Mr. Meek utilizing a cane. The
contradictions in her testimony, the length of employment and
current employment of Margo Corliss by the Bank of Hawaii, her
testimony is biased, speculative and contradictory therefore it
should be dismissed.
27. During testimony of Notary Susan Strong a former
employee of Bank of Hawaii evidence submitted reflect Ms.
Strong did in fact notarize an Amendment to the trust with an
entry in her notary record reflecting only a notation as follows
“M & M Trust document customers of Heidi”. It does not say
how many pages or the actual title of the document.
28. During the deposition of Elizabeth Meek she admitted she
was uncertain as to the introduction of the Bank of Hawaii as
co-trustee and cannot recall who or when the subject of Bank of
Hawaii as co-trustee was introduced. Elizabeth’s statements
directly contradict and conflict with the Bank of Hawaii being
named as co-trustee in the 1st Amendment drafted by Attorney
Robert Jones as well as the Bank of Hawaii nominated in the

16
1
6
 Last Will and Testament as Executor of the Will in the event
Elizabeth Meek cannot serve as Executrix. Attorney Robert
Jones as reflected in courtroom testimony that he was aware
that Elizabeth Meek at the time of Elvin Meek’s passing had not
finalized her citizenship and therefore would not be able to act
as a Trustee without a financial institution assisting her in
managing the Trust. Shortly before the decedent passed away
the Bank of Hawaii opened a branch in Palau which is where the
Respondent, a native of Palau travels frequently to visit her
daughter Lola Reklai- Meek who is also a native of Palau.
Elizabeth Meek during her testimony declared she filed for her
American citizenship in the late 90’s and her citizenship was
finalized in August of 2005.
29. Elizabeth Meek while being questioned during the
Evidentiary Hearing as well as her deposition answers a
majority of the questions with uncertain responses such as, “I
don’t Know” “I can’t recall” “I let Grigger take care of that”
“It’s the reason I use Grigger Jones”. Her inability to recall
critical events is suspect as is her credibility by responding with
such vagueness.
30. During the testimony of Elizabeth Meek she stated she
asked Elvin’s friend of over 35 years, Wes Stewart to call both
Nanci and Melvin to tell them Elvin was in the hospital. This is in
direct contradiction with Melvin Meek’s testimony as well as the
testimony of Nanci Meek who insist Elizabeth deliberately
avoided contacting Mr. Meek’s family and friends to apprise
them of the decedent’s terminal condition. Elizabeth Meek
had her own agenda which consisted of isolating Elvin Meek
from his biological children, Nanci Meek, Melvin Meek, his
granddaughter Nicole Kusley, three surviving brothers, as well
as several close friends in an effort to assert influence over him.

17
1
7
 (See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44)
During Elizabeth Meek’s testimony she was asked if either she
or Elvin had suggested having Elvin’s friend of over 35 years,
Wes Stewart and his wife Nina Stewart who lived across the
street from Mr. Meek in Honolulu, Hawaii, serve as witnesses to
the signing of the Last Will and Testament. Elizabeth indicated
she could not recall making the suggestion and that Elvin never
made the suggestion. During her deposition Elizabeth Meek
was asked why they did not call Wes Stewart and she replied “I
don’t know”. Elizabeth testified she recalled Wes Stewart
paying a surprise visit to Elvin Meek on or around the middle of
September 2003. She stated she had not told Wes Stewart
about Elvin’s condition because Elvin had not wanted to tell
anyone. The majority of the questions posed by Petitioner were
answered by Elizabeth Meek as “I don’t know” and “I can’t
recall”.
31. Wes Stewart passed away in February of 2008 and during
the evidentiary hearing several Exhibits including an Affidavit
signed by Wes Stewart on or about August of 2007 as well as a
letter addressed from Wes Stewart to Elizabeth identified as
Petitioner’s Exhibit “W” were asked to be received in evidence,
objected by opposing counsel James Ashford and not admitted
by Judge Chan. The argument was then made by Petitioner that
given the protracted nature of this litigation for six years, logic
would support that key players were bound to have passed
away and it should not diminish the legitimacy and the impact
of the documents previously submitted to the court. Therefore
any e mails, signed affidavits etc should be admitted to the
court as Exhibits. The request was denied.
32. During her testimony Elizabeth Meek admitted to
changing the beneficiaries of several Life Insurance Annuities

18
1
8
 funded by the decedent during the previous years. The original
designations agreed upon by the decedent reflected a
distribution of 1/3 to Melvin Meek. 1/3 to Nanci Meek, 1/3 to
Lola Meek in the event of Elizabeth Meek’s death. Elizabeth
admitted that in March of 2004 she contacted a representative
from Allianz Annuities and changed the contingent beneficiary
to reflect ½ to Lola Reklai (aka Lola Meek) and ½ to her
granddaughter Ruthie Merkll Tokii. Elizabeth Meek admitted to
making the changes and phone records submitted to the Court
reflect a call placed by Elizabeth Meek on November 3, 2003 to
Sanford Norian who was the decedent’s insurance broker. It
should be noted the aforementioned Annuities were part of the
trust. This action by Elizabeth Meek speaks for itself.
33. During testimony of Elizabeth Meek she indicated she
travels to Palau frequently to visit her daughter and
granddaughter. She confirmed her daughter has resided in
Palau since 1999 with no intention of moving back to the United
States. Elizabeth testified at one time she and Elvin had
discussed moving to Palau permanently.
34. During her testimony, Nanci Meek stated her reasons for
questioning the 2nd Amendment and Last Will are based on the
conversations with Elvin Meek’s friend of over 35 years, Wes
Stewart, as well as the Forensic Pathology report prepared by
Suzanne Gelb having reviewed medical records for the
decedent reflecting the period of August 27, 2003 to October
19, 2003. She further affirmed Respondent Elizabeth Meek’s
testimony wherein Elizabeth Meek herself stated she observed
in April of 2002 in San Bernardino, California, Elvin Meek
entrusting Nanci Meek with a copy of his Elvin R Meek 1996
Trust executed in Atascadero, California on June 14, 1996
without the questionable Amendments. Nanci further stated

19
1
9
 the Affidavit executed by Attorney Robert Jones on November
10, 2005 is nothing more than a poor effort by Mr. Jones to
further mask his questionable behavior. She stated she
believed it was the intent of Attorney Robert Jones and
Elizabeth Meek to dissolve the Elvin Meek estate utilizing the 1st
Amendment, seizing the opportunity to take advantage of her
father’s weakened condition they created and coerced the
decedent into signing the Last Will and Testament as well as
the 2nd Amendment to the Trust weeks before he passed away
having knowledge he was terminal. (See In re Estate of Herbert,
90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44) Nanci further stated she
feels Attorney Robert Jones’ character is questionable as he is
involved in a fraud investigation stemming from charges filed
with the Atascadero Police Department regarding forgery.
Nanci Meek further stated that Mr. Jones is currently under
investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with
respect to his past representation of Hurst Financial Group, his
admitted former business partner Kelly Gearhart, and the as
reflected during his courtroom testimony the Salinan Indian
Casino venture entitled Pe Ji Ho Ta LLC of San Luis Obispo.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The court has been provided with factual evidence to

make a recommendation declaring both of the 1st Amendments to
Elvin R Meek Family trust invalid instruments. Critical
components and factual evidence listed below will conclusively
and without question justify such a decision being rendered.

A. The 1st Amendment unnumbered allegedly executed in

Hawaii on September 16, 1997 as well as the 1st Amendment

20
2
0
 signed in California with Elizabeth Meek’s admittedly forged
signature executed three days later in California on
September 19, 1997 as reflected in Attorney Robert
“Grigger” Jones’ Affidavit executed November 10, 2005, is
ample, sufficient and convincing proof for the court to rule
the documents are invalid instruments. The Affidavit of
Attorney Jones executed on October 2, 2007 and filed with
the Court as an attachment to the Response of Elizabeth
Meek to Petiion for Instructions, executed by Attorney
Rhonda Griswold specifically states the QDOT and inclusion
of Bank of Hawaii was specifically to allow Elizabeth Meek
who was not an American Citizen at the time of the
decedent’s death to act as Trustee. Logic would conclude
Elvin Meek, an experienced attorney himself would have
maintained his original intentions as laid out in his original
Elvin R Meek 1996 Family trust so as to include Nanci Meek
as the Trustee and avoid any inclusion of a bank or QDOT
provision.
B. The numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the
testimony provided during the Evidentiary Hearing by
Attorney Robert “Grigger“ Jones, and Elizabeth Meek, Heidi
Emery, Margo Corliss along with the testimony by Ralph
Shumway and the medical records are sufficient to prove
that Elvin Meek was of undue influence by Elizabeth Meek
and was lacking testamentary capacity therefore the 2nd
Amendment and the Last Will and Testament executed
during Elvin’s final days is an invalid instrument (See In re
Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979 P.2d at 44).
C. During the deposition of Elizabeth Meek taken on May 28,
2010 she consistently makes reference to having legal
decisions regarding the Trust, sales of properties,

21
2
1
reformation of the Trust remain at the discretion of Attorney
Robert “Grigger” Jones which does not give Petitioner
confidence in Elizabeth Meek nor does it affirm Elvin Meek
desiring to place Elizabeth Meek in such an important
position as to be the Trustee. The decedent, an attorney
himself, entrusted Nanci Meek when he executed his
original The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996
as the Trustee knowing Nanci Meek would not violate the
trust, cause harm (as is evident by the pending judgment of
approximately $331,000 against the Elvin R Meek Estate
arising from the Respondent and her Attorney Robert Jones’
non disclosures during the sale of the Arkansas property in
2005) Furthermore, Nanci Meek would not have ignored the
fiduciary responsible which would have resulted in an audit
by the IRS of the estate (evidenced by the 2007 IRS audit)
performed on the Elvin R Meek Trust in 2007 as a result of
the four year delay in filing a return for the estate by
accountant Michael Gould as well as the Bank of Hawaii who
had accepted co-trusteeship of the estate in March of 2005,
also costing the trust an estimate of over $45,000 payable to
Bingham McCutcheon, attorneys representing the Bank of
Hawaii in Los Angeles as well over $38,000 to the law firm of
Goodsill Anderson Quinn and Stifel attorneys for the Bank of
Hawaii in Honolulu), nor would Nanci Meek or any other
prudent and responsible individual hasten to sell properties
well below market value as did Robert “Grigger” Jones Nanci
Meek or any other prudent and responsible individual acting
as Trustee would not have been four years late in providing
the beneficiaries with an accounting, as performed by
Elizabeth Meek as Trustee. The pleadings and arguments of
counsel submitted during the last 6 years of litigation have

22
2
2
 more than proven the 2nd Amendment executed on
September 22, 2003, as well as the Last Will and Testament
executed on September 23, 2003 while Mr. Meek was in a
deteriorating and terminal condition should be declared
invalid (See In re Estate of Herbert, 90 Hawai'i at 448, 979
P.2d at 44).

Based on evidence, pleadings and arguments of counsel the

Petitioner prays the Court will agree to the following:
a) The decedent’s original trust document entitled The
Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 absent
the questionable amendments, be declared the
operative document.
b) That Elizabeth Meek be removed as Trustee. Pursuant
to Rule 34 (a) of the Hawaii Probate Rules and Rule
54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no
reason for delaying the entry of a judgment with
respect to the issues raised in the Petitioner’s Petition
For Removal Of Elizabeth Meek As Trustee Of Elvin R.
Meek Family Trust Dated 1996 filed with the First
Circuit Court State of Hawaii August 14, 2009 and
such a judgment shall be entered herein.
c) Nanci Meek-Kusley, who was originally appointed by
the decedent in his original The Elvin R. Meek Family
Trust dated June 14, 1996 as Trustee, be re-affirmed
as the Trustee of The Elvin R. Meek Family Trust dated
June 14, 1996 .
d) All assets as contained in the original Elvin R Meek
Family Trust dated June 14, 1996 without
amendments, all monies accrued by the Trust after
Elvin Meek died as reflected in the accountings

23
2
3
 provided by East West Wealth Management inclusive
of money from rental properties, interest accrued, be
divided at the fair market rate at the time of Elvin
Meek’s death (estimated at $4.2 million) and according
to the decedent’s original intent with distribution as
follows: (1/3 to Melvin Meek or his heirs <estimated at
$1.4 million>; 1/3 to Nanci Meek-Kusley or her heirs
<estimated at 1.4 million>; 1/6 to Lola Meek or her
heirs <estimated at $700,000; 1/6 to Elizabeth Meek or
her heirs <estimated at $700,000)
e) That the judgment against the estate from the sale of
the Arkansas property by Attorney Robert Jones and
Elizabeth Meek be satisfied by Elizabeth Meek and
Attorney Robert Jones relieving the Elvin R Meek 1996
Trust of any and all debt related to the Arkansas
judgment.
f) Respondent, Elizabeth Meek reimburse the Petitioner,
Nanci Meek in the amount of $97,198.24 covering
costs and attorneys fees allocated by Nanci Meek
during the period of September 2004 until present.
g) Respondent Elizabeth Meek reimburse the Elvin R
Meek Trust for any and all costs incurred resulting from
this litigation as well as legal fees paid by Elizabeth
Meek from monies in the trust to Attorneys Robert
Jones, Accountant Michael Gould, Attorney Jim Stanton,
Law Firm of Cades Shutte, East West Wealth
Management, also the law firm of Bingham
McCutcheon, Goodsill, Anderson Quinn and Stifel who
represented the former co-trustee Bank of Hawaii as
reflected in the accountings provided by East West
Wealth Management.

24
2
4
 h) Pursuant to Rule 34 (a) of the Hawaii Probate Rules
and Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure,
there is no reason for delaying the entry of a judgment
with respect to the issues raised in the Petitioner’s
Amended Petition For Declatory Relief Declaring the 1st
Amendment Invalid filed with the First Circuit Court
State of Hawaii August 14, 2009 and such a judgment
shall be entered herein.

I certify that the forgoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury

under the Laws of the State of Hawaii.

DATED: July 22, 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada

_______________________
Nanci Meek Petitioner
In Pro Se

25
2
5