There are five unknowns that could fit what the issue might be in "IN RE: Harold A O'Connell". Unknown in that there should be something in the Court records because surprising and still unexplained events infer that there is something in the Court records.. All are a secret, none should be. What do the Court records show for these five unknowns? Are they the same issue or are some or all separate issues?
Unknown 1: The "lawyer fix" and "come in" instructions to the testator
Unknown 2: The surprise bond problem that prevented the trustees from qualifying on May 1, 1986
Unknown 3: The justification for the surprise clause in the April 21, 1988, deed that says Anthony O'Connell could not qualify as trustee.
Unknown 4: The justification for not recognizing the 1992 deed for Accotink where one of the Grantor's is Anthony O'Connell, trustee under the will of Harold A. O'Connell. History suggests that the accountants would have created something to avoid accountability for not recognizing this deed and the other trust documents.
Unknown 5: The issue in "In Re: Harold A. O'Connell" that is apparently the basis for wanting to remove Anthony O'Connell as trustee.
Was unknown 1 created to justify the surprise shutouts of the trustee that followed? Has unknown 1 been concealed for 28 years with the intention of it being shown only in the event of an investigation and only to the investigators? It fits the accountant's signature pattern of using the family as cover.
Please judge for yourself. Do I want to expose the accounting and the accountant's don't want their accounting to be exposed? Does our sister Jean Nader do what the accountants want her to do? Why do the accountants want me out and Jean Nader in? Please use common sense.
Should we let this be laughted off as too unbeleivable to be true or should we expose the evidence and then judge?
What is it in the Court records that would show what the accountants instructed the testator to do around 1985 (I am guessing that this was done about the same time as the false lost account and the false final account in January of 1985)? Why is this still a secret? From Jean O'Connell's memos on big yellow envelope three:
"Bond fee- Lawyer fix so
bond pd when sold.
nominal amt now."
fiduciary no. 21840
Come in - surety bond-)
(Va resident with)
Patty Moat ot"
Whatever the accountant's instructions had the testator do remains unknown. My best guess is that the accountants instructed her to come in to the Court and sign something under the guise that it was a customary and usual document concerning non-resident fiduciaries and something to do with a bond; but that it will actually be used by the accountants to justify obstructing Anthony O'Connell, who happens to be a non-resident named fiduciary, from qualifying as trustee. The testator's memos of these instructions were found in her papers after she died in 1991. Secrecy is fatal to the family and essential to the accountants.
What is it in the Court records that would show what the bond problem was on May 1, 1986? Why is this still a secret? From Henry Mackall letter of May 8, 1986:
1986.05.08 (Henry Mackall to Anthony O’Connell and H.A. Higham)
"Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to Mr. White together with copy of a proposed Petition and Order in connection with the bond problem we ran into when you attempted to qualify [On May 1]. I have discussed this with Mr. White and expect no problem getting it entered. If either of you have any objections to anything in either of these documents please let me know.
Sincerely, Henry C. Mackall”
(Comment: Why would Mr. Mackall instruct me to travel from Saint Louis, Missouri, to Fairfax, Virginia, to qualify in Court with the named resident co-trustee H. A. Higham, and then, as we three were walking to the Court House and I tell Mr. Mackall that H. A. Higham and I have been good friends since High School, Mr. Mackall tells me and H. A. Higham to wait outside the Court while he goes in alone? What is the bond problem Mr. Mackall ran into on that May 1, 1986? Why is this still secret? Does this fit with unknown 3?}
What is it in the Court records that would show that Anthony O'Connell could not qualify as Trustee? Why is this still a secret? From the surprise clause in the 1988 deed at bk7005p634 for the sale of the home place:
'Whereas by Deed of Partition recorded in Deed Book 4026 at Page 454, the property was reconveyed to Harold A. O'Connell as to an undivided one-half interest and to Jean M. O'Connell, as to an undivided one-half interest, whereas, Harold A. O'Connell died testate May 26, 1975, and by his Last Will and Testament recorded in Will Book 201 at Page 96, devised his interest to his executor Anthony M. O'Connell, Trustee; whereas Anthony M. O'Connell, Trustee, could not qualify and Herbert A. Higham, Trustee, was appointed to act in his place and stead."(my bold)?
History suggest that the clause "ANTHONY MINER O’CONNELL, Trustee Under the Last Will and Testament of Harold A. O’Connell" in the 1992 deed for Accotink at bk8307p1446 and other Trust documents for Accotink will not be recognized in the settlement of a sale of Accotink and what ever might be used to justify it not being recognized will remain unknown:
THIS DEED IN TRUST UNDER LAND TRUST AGREEMENT, made this 16th day of October, 1992 by and between JEAN MARY O’CONNELL NADER and HOWARD NADER, husband and wife, SHEILA ANN O' CONNELL and PIERRE SHEVENELL, husband and wife, ANTHONY MINER O’CONNELL, divorced and not remarried, and ANTHONY MINER O’CONNELL, Trustee Under the Last Will and Testament of Harold A. O’Connell (collectively, “Grantors"); and ANTHONY MINER O’CONNELL, Trustee, of Fairfax County, Virginia (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as "Trustees" or "Grantees"):
(From the 1992 deed for Accotink)
This pattern of unknowns is one reason why the sale of Accotink has had to be on hold. Can we find out what the lawyer fixed? Can we get the accountants to take a position on whether Anthony O'Connell did, or did not, qualify as co-trustee u/w of H. A. O'Connell on June 20, 1986, and that he was still qualified as co-trustee u/w of H. A. O'Connell on October 16, 1992, when he signed the 1992 for Accotink as one of the Grantors, so that all concerned can rely upon it? It's been twenty-seven years now.
"IN RE: Harold A O'Connell"
What is it in the Court records that would show what "Re: Harold A. O'Connell" is about? The following is from my letter of November 21, 2012, and from Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith's reply letter of November 27, 2012:
"(3) The notice says "In Re: Harold A. O'Connell" but doesn't say what the issue is. Harold A. O'Connell is our Dad who died in 1975.
It would not be prudent for me to appear in Court unless the issues are defined and the evidence for the issues can be obtained beforehand. The present structure makes me dead on arrival; this is not due process.
The best of my two bad options is to not appear in Court, even though my not appearing could be made to appear as if I, rather than the accountants, were trying to hide something, and the terms of their summons and injunction might be approved by default.
Would you please put everything on hold until all of the plaintiff’s issues can be identified and their evidence for their issues can be obtained? The known evidence I need before appearing in Court includes exposing the accounting trails in our Mother’s estate at Bk467p191."
(From Anthony O'Connell's letter of November 21, 2012)
"Your letter also indicates that you do not know what issues are raised in the case but our records indicate that you have responded to the Complaint which sets out the Plaintiff's allegations and prayer for relief so I therefore assume that you are acquainted with the issues which have been raised."
(From Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith's letter of November 27, 2012)
Is there some way to find out where the money went in our Mother's Estate, such as at bk467p191, without her family being destroyed in the attempts?