1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97
(Transparency test)

The accounting trail 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 is the simplest example of an accounting entanglement. Whoever controls the accounting entanglement controls the people and assets that are entangled. The family is powerless to remove them. The small numbers used make the numbers appear too insignificant for attention and correction, but the significance of the trail is directly proportional to the degree that the accountants go to avoid recognizing their accounting trails. Recognizing 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 is the key to recognizing the accountant's patterns and exposing the accounting trails behind Bk467p191.

Steps simplified

(1) Source: The CPA Joanne Barnes did the trust's accounting for 1991.

"Preparation of Federal and Virginia fiduciary income tax returns for the year ended December 31, 1991 and preparation of annual court accounting for the year ended December 31, 1991    $3,100 "
(From the April 29, 1992, statement of the CPA firm of Joanne Barnes to Anthony O’Connell, Trustee)

(2) Create: The CPA prepared the figure for the trust's 1991 payment to the estate as $1,475.97 in the trust's Court account but as $816.00 in the trust's K-1 to the IRS and estate. The amounts should be the same.

Trust's payment to the estate as shown in the trust's seventh court account at Bk480p1768:
"Payable to the Esate of Jean M. O'Connell ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... $ 1,475.97"

Trust's payment to the estate as shown in the trust's K-1 to the IRS and estate:
"Interest .... ...816"

(3) Blame: The Attorney Edward White asks the trustee [me] about discrepancies in the CPA's accounting; this makes the trustee appear responsible for the CPA's accounting:

"2. The K-1 filed by the Trust showed a payment of $816.00 in interest to the estate. You sent a check in the amount of $1475.97 to the estate. What was the remaining $659.97? Do I have this confused with the tax debt/credit situation which ran from the Third Accounting?"

(4) Record: Edward White records the following two items in the estate's first court account at Bk467p192:

"Int fm Harold O'Connell Trust  ......................................... 816.00
 Debt fm Harold O’Connell Trust ....................................... 659.97 "

(5) Confuse: I don't understand why Commissioner Jesse Wilson does not recognize the accounting trails behind these two items at Bk467p192 when he had previously approved them:

"Int fm Harold O'Connell Trust  ......................................... 816.00
 Debt fm Harold O’Connell Trust ....................................... 659.97 "

"As you will see from the report [to the Judges], it appears to me from the information you have provided that the $659.97 debt you report is not a trust asset. Even if the debt existed as you suggest, it's collectability would be so problematic and uncertain, and the effort so costly, as to render it worthless and make reasonable a decision for it to be abandoned as an asset. It certainly should not be the basis for keeping this trust estate open and requiring the filing of annual accounts indefinitely."
(From Commissioner Jesse Wilson to Anthony O'Connell, August 8, 2000)

(6) Shutout: I don't understand how trying to expose the accountant's accounting trails becomes something that can only be done by others:

"(1) the Court is not organized or constituted for the purpose of conducting the sort of investigation required to establish the facts that you allege in your letter. The Court can only decide cases based on evidence produced by others;:
(From Commissioner Jesse Wilson to Anthony O'Connell, August 8, 2000)

Reality test

Recognizing 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 is the key to recognizing the accountant's patterns and exposing Bk467p191. The patterns for creating accounting entanglements are not intended to be recognized but if you can recognize the dynamics in the simple accounting entanglement 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 you can recognize the same dynamics in the more complicated examples. When in doubt a good reality test is to ask yourself:

(1) Does 1,475.97 less 816.00 equal 659.97?  

(2) If 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 is not recognized, does it still exist?

(3) Did the accountants create, report and approve these numbers? Do the accountant's recognize the accounting trail 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 or any accounting trail for these numbers? If you did not know this accounting trail before would you know it after asking the accountants? Do the accountants make it appear that the family is responsible?

(4) Do the accountants make $659.97 appear (when blaming it on the trustee) and disappear (when the trustee tries to expose and correct it) at will? If so, is it understandable how amounts not mentioned, such as $545,820, $125,188, and $70,0511, disappear?

(5) From day one, was there ever a chance of exposing the accountant's accounting trails? Was there just the appearance of it until it was tried?

(6) Should judgements be based 100% on the accounting trails and 0% on power or anything else?