Notes from Bk 467 pages 193-194
1. Decedent: had a POD account in Hallmark Bank with Jean Nader. The bank erroneously paid the amount to the estate. This figure [270.82] is the interest earned on that sum while in the estate account. (Accounting entanglement $270.82)
2. This [230.14] represents interest earned in the estate account on the amount of the disbursement while the disbursal was delayed. This is to equalize the disbursements among the legatees. (Accounting entanglement $230.14)
3. Estimated tax was paid with an extension request. ($175,000.00 version and $119,000.00 version)
4. Expenses [169.26, 20.00] incurred due to lost Nuveen certificate of ownership. (Accounting entanglements $169.26 and $20.00)
5. Decedent owned a partial interest in 15 acres of land in Accotink. The Harold O’Connell Trust owned the other share. The estate agreed to pay [2,000.00] for the appraisal which hopefully will reduce the value of the tract by 50%. The beneficiaries of the Trust are the same persons as the devisees under the will and in the same shares. (Accounting entanglement using an imaginary $2,000.00)
6. When the 1991 income tax was prepared by Edward J. White, Co- Executor, a large capital gain was omitted necessitating the filing of an amended return. $526.55 was assessed in interest by the IRS. The figure is the amount of interest earned by the estate while the amount due the IRS was in the estate bank account. The balance of the interest assessment [241.81] was paid by Edward J. White. (Accounting entanglement $241.81)
7. Jean M. Nader and Sheila O’Connell-Shevenell agreed that the vehicle should be disbursed [8,000.00] to Anthony M. O’Connell in addition to his 1/3 share of the remainder of the estate. (Accounting entanglement using car as $8000.00 gift-estate tax interplay)
All the notes describe what are actually accounting entanglements. The family is made to appear responsible for all of them except in note 6. (Flag; when something appears strange such as note 6, it is a flag to see what is behind it.)
The accounting entanglements are generally small amounts such as the amounts in the accounting trail 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97, appearing too insignificant to address when the issue is naturally assummed to be the amounts rather than that they are accounting entanglements.
I don't understand why the car problem, the appraisal, and the gift tax problem were not previously resolved by Jean O'Connell's accountant Joanne Barnes or by her power of attorney Edward White, but brought into the estate.
I don't understand why the accountants waited until after they were in control of the estate to address the car problem, the appraisal, and the gift tax problem; or why the family was made to appear responsible for them; or why these problems were planted between family members and the family made to appear responsible for them, when the family has no control, and the accountants have all the control over them.
Please judge for yourself
(1) Do all seven notes describe what are actually accounting entanglements that cover the accounting trails of this account?
(2) The accounting entanglements are generally small amounts such as the amounts in the accounting trail 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97, appearing too insignificant to address when the issue is naturally assummed to be the amounts rather than that they are accounting entanglements.
(3) Is the family made to appear responsible for all of them except for that described in note 6?
(4) Is note 6 unusual? If so, is that unusualness a flag to see what is behind it? Would an attempt to exspose the accounting trails for the April 21, 1991, Lynch payment of $125,820 to Jean O'Connell be obstructed by the $241.81 that entangles Jean O'Connell's tax returns as an individual, the estate's tax returns and accounts, and Edward White?
(5) Do the accountants use their accounting to frame the family and is the family is powerless to stop them?
(6) Why did the estate never reimbuse the trust for the $2,000 the trust paid for the professional appraisal but make it appear that the estate paid for the appraisal? If the estate did reimburse the trust the $2,000 it would show that it was not an accounting entanglement. Do the accountants use a trusting family member to carry out their instructions to create accounting entanglements?
"Since the trust was supposed to terminate on Mother's death, the $2000.00 for the appraisal should be paid to the beneficiaries, not to the trust. The checks from Sheila and me can then be paid back to you."
(From innocent Jean Nader's July 27, 1992, letter to Anthony O'Connell)
(7) Note 3. If an attempt were made to expose the conflicting trails on what was said to be paid to the IRS on June 11, 1992, $175, 000 or $119,000, would the reasons given to the IRS for the extension request obstruct the attempts? Did the accountants make the family [Anthony O'Connell] appear responsible for the delay with the appraisal, gifts, and debts? Why were the gifts and appraisal issues carried into the estate and not addressed before? Why did the accountants create the debts and ask the family [Anthony O'Connell] if there were any more debts when Joanne Barnes did the accounting?
From IRS Form 4768, Part II Extension of time to file
1. The decedent was a part owner of a tract of ground the value of which is to be determined by an appraisal in progress. The enclosed payment is based on the maximum value for the property and will be changed.
2. The estate does not at this date possess full data for certain gifts and debts of the estate and other needed information."
(8) Note 7 is complicated. Why was the car problem carried into the estate and not addressed before? Jean O'Connell was very upset when she got a car loan statement from the bank; she told me she told them (whoever them was; I didn't think it was important to know who them was at the time) she did not want to pay with a loan. She asked me to see what the problem was. The nature of the problem is still unknown but history suggests that there is a paper trail that makes the family appear at fault. Why was Jean O'Connell powerless to resolve it? I went to the bank and tried to resolve it but I could not resolve it:
"I could not resolve your title problem with Sovran Bank in a follow up phone call. I was reminded that they could not permit me access to your financial information, but they did agree to send you a complete financial history of the loan for the van.
If it is not resolved to your satisfaction, I suggest that you call your attorney and power of attorney, Mr. Ed White.
Would not being able to resolve a car problem, or an accounting problem, or a bond problem, and the nature of those problems remain unknow, be a flag to see what is behind the problem?
Was the car problem used to lead the family [Anthony O'Connell] to go to another attorney for advice on how to write a non-entangling receipt for the car that Edward White would accept? Is that going to another attorney later used to make it appear that the family has two attorneys and is therefore divided, and that is where the confusion and conflict comes from, and that is used as a justfication for not communicating with a family member who is trying to turn the opaques transparent?
Why is the the nature of the car problem is still unknown? After the car problem was carried into the estate, was it planted between family members and the family made to appear responsible for resolving it, when the family does not have control and the accountants do have control of it's resolution? Why is the the nature of the car problem is still unknown? Was the car problem used to irreversably break the family? Was another unresolved car problem created? Would it be carried forward and used in a settlement of Accotink?
(9) If the family trusts the accountants and carries out the accountants's instructions, is the family, rather than the accountants, held accountable for the consequences?