Friday, April 22, 2011 4:25 PM
From: DuBreuil
To:
RE: Well Fargo reports these [MM] accounts to have been closed as of that date.

Analyst Commentary:Above e-mail documents DuBreuil his witchhunt.

May 25 2011 Sharp appointed Attorney Ad Litem.

June 2, 2011 Jack discussion with Sharp

Analyst Commentary:did Jack tell Sharp about the monthly financial updates or box? This would be withholding evidence.

Analyst Commentary:Jack gave Sharp some financial info - didn't talk about MoU, and convinced Sharp money was missing per DuBreuil.

June 3, 2011 Later that day I [Sharp] spoke with Don about the Petition. He informed me that he supports the Petition.

June 6, 2011, I [Sharp] spoke with Alberta's son Bob Beckett.

June 13, 2011 Jack transferred $1k from mom to LLC to "replenish" funds. Jack could have distributed to llc checking from investment account but would have had to talk to LPL broker and was advised by DuBreuil not to contact LPL.

Jack/DuBreuil Access My Business Account

Analyst Commentary:DuBreuil states in e-mail to [?]: "Jack did mention something about a Wells Fargo account of Don's that was still bank-linked to one Alberta's accounts that you felt should be de-linked. I [DuBreuil] am meeting with Jack on Monday at Wells Fargo to try and take care of it."

June 21, 2011 Jack & DuBreuil went to the Wells Fargo bank, asked for and was given my wife's business account number by Wells Fargo employee.

Focusing on the events of June 21, 2011: Mr. Dubreuil's email indicated he was meeting Jack at Wells Fargo to address the linking between Don's and Alberta's accounts. However, on that very same day, Jack and Mr. Dubreuil obtained my wife's business account number from a Wells Fargo employee.

Even if we only consider this single day, the fact that they obtained my wife's business account information on the same day they were supposedly addressing a different account linkage raises serious questions about their purpose and the legality of obtaining that specific account number. It suggests the acquisition of my wife's business account information was not a part of the stated intention and could therefore be unauthorized and potentially illegal.

June 21, 2011 Did Jack ask for and was granted by a Delaware court walk in access my wife's business account OR did Jack and DuBreuil just ask Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo will provide when/how Jack was added to the LoC. Did it happen the morning of 6/21/2011?

When searching for the allegedly stolen $427,833.32, Jack and DuBreuil using Jack's access, requested my wife's accounts' register.

Obtaining someone's financial account information or access without proper authorization is illegal and have significant legal ramifications.

The Report of the Attorney Ad Litem June 21, 2011

MOORE & RUTT,P.A.

James P. Sharp, Esquire
Attorney Ad Litem

122 West Market Street
P. O. Box 554
Georgetown, DE 19947

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE C.M. No. 15916-S

I evaluate and question the report's opening premises:

Sharp took my statement regarding mom's finances while I was touring Alcatraz in San Francisco. Sharp struggled with my explanation of an irrevocable trust.

Sharp States:
According to Don, he consulted with a Virginia attorney named John Ryan to create a Trust and Limited Liability Company on his mother's behalf. He explained to me that the settlement proceeds were put into the Trust for Alberta's benefit. When she passes away, the remaining assets will go to her children.

Dubreuil originated this explanation a year prior and is a fabrication that does not reflect my communication with Sharp. I unequivocally explained that the trust was an irrevocable Medicaid Trust funded with a $300,000 gifted to the trust June 2009. I never made this statement alleged by Sharp and this statement contaminates Sharp's entire presentation to the court.

Sharp States:
Sharp: "Jack has some questions about the establishment of the Trust"

Analyst Commentary:October 15, 2009, Jack personally participated and witnessed Dubreuil reviewing the Trust and LLC Operating Agreement with the family and Jack signed those documents.

Sharp seems to have called Ryan while Ryan was on vacation.

Sharp States:
When I spoke with Don, I specifically asked him about his mother's finances ... Don advised me that the Trust consisted of the following:

1) the house at Postal Lane,
2) a money market account with approximately $10,000.00,
3) a checking account with approximately $6,000.00, and
4) a stock brokerage account with approximately $19,000.00.

The following constitutes the correct, accurate, and precise detail of Trust and Estate assets as of March 1, 2011. This excerpt is derived from documentation provided by Jack in accordance with discovery in the Virginia litigation, which documentation was under Jack's control as of the date of this report:

A correct list of the LLC's [trust] assets June 1, 2011:
1) the house at Postal Lane,
2) a money market account [Wells Fargo 20000 3103 3345] with approximately $10,000.00
3) a checking account [Wells Fargo 20000 3103 3332] with approximately $6,000.00
Analyst Commentary:The two above accounts are those DuBreuil believes all lawsuit proceeds should be deposited to.
4) a stock brokerage account [LPL 5451-7282] with approximately $300,000.00
5) a Nationwide annuity [01-6049490] with approximately $200,000.00

A correct list of Alberta's [estate] assets June 1, 2011:
1) a car $13,000
2) a truck $3,000
3) a stock brokerage account with approximately $19,000.00 including 200 shares of Lowe's stock valued at approximately $4,000.00
4) a safety deposit box with gold valued at $30,000.00, silver service set valued at $6,000.00, and four coins valued at $2,400.00
5) bob's debt $40,000
6) Wells Fargo checking
7) Well Fargo money market

Analyst Commentary: total estate assets June 2011: $113,400.00

Ryan email to Thomas re: above

Analyst Commentary: The preceding section was a static snapshot June 1, 2011.
Analyst Commentary: Sharp now begins a Time period money flow analysis December 2008 through June 2011:

Sharp States:
Even though Alberta received a great deal of money from the aforementioned settlement, it is unclear where that money went.

It was unclear what happened to the settlement proceeds she received from the mesothelioma suit.

A correct and generalized money flow analysis:

1) proceeds from closing Alberta's investment accounts $100,000+.
2) proceeds from mesothelioma litigation $1,300,000 +
3) outlay gift via MoU $1,000,000
4) outlay gifting to boys Jan - Dec 2010 $45,000
5) outlay gifting to establish of the Trust $300,000
6) outlay purchase car $13,000
7) outlay home care
8) outlay personal expenses

Sharp States:
Don admitted to me that he started the process to receive these payments but did not follow through on completing it. Only recently has Jack stepped in to correspond with the insurance company.

1) Only Jack, with POA health could apply. I submitted the application and only needed Jack to submit his POA health documents to insurance.

2) DuBreuil told Jack she had plenty of money and didn't need long term care insurance payment.

3) Jack's attorney sent me a email saying Jack didn't want to be micromanaged by me.

Sharp States:
I was disappointed to hear that he [Don] failed to adequately handle his mother's bills since she was moved to Brandywine.

False statement. I handled all her bills and all were paid on time & there was an estate plan.

Long term care plan Cost: Brandywine $6,000 /month increasing to $8,000 /month - using an average of $7,000/month

Source of funds: Social Security $2,000
Long term care $3,000
Cash and Assets on hand: $113,400/60 months = $2,000+-

This simple back of the napkin, single page analysis I give here should be kept in mind when reviewing the Sharp report and the DuBreuil financial analysis below.

I evaluate and refute the 10 paragraphs listed under Alberta's Assets and Finances:

I have reason to believe paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this section was written by Bob Beckett. Bob attended night law school. He tried numerous times to pass the bar but was unable. Bob worked as a receptionist at a dental office. Bob would have gotten all info from Jack or DuBreuil.

These paragraphs, raise concerns about the writer's attention to detail and clarity. It does not necessarily prove that the writer is inexperienced, but it suggests that the writing could be significantly improved. The lack of detail, and passive voice used, are things that an experienced attorney would typically avoid. Based on these observations, it's reasonable to conclude that the writer's legal experience is likely limited or that they are not paying close enough attention to the details of their work.

Bob struggled with writing; said he wanted to work with Trusts and Estates.

Refutation of Paragraph 1:

Sharp States:
"During my investigation, i discussed with Don, Jack, and Bob my concerns about Alberta’s assets. According to Jack, Alberta owns her home free and clear of all mortgages, liens, etc. it is believed that she also has ample liquid resources available for her care from a settlement related to Sam Veazey’s death. Evidently, Sam suffered from medical problems related to mesothelioma. the Veazeys filed a lawsuit and received a hefty settlement. Because Sam was Don's father, Don was involved in the lawsuit. Jack and Bob, however, were not involved in the suit even though Sam was very close to them because they were Sam’s stepsons. Jack advised me that the settlement proceeds were split four ways with Don, Jack, Bob, and Alberta each receiving over $400,000 Alberta received 3/4 of the settlement and distributed shares to Jack and Bob"

The initial paragraph's analysis of Alberta's assets is fundamentally flawed, relying on incomplete and potentially biased information. Key inaccuracies include:

Incomplete Asset Discussion:

The investigator's discussion of assets with Don, Jack, and Bob is presented as comprehensive, but this is misleading. Thomas was also involved in asset discussions, and this omission creates an incomplete and inaccurate narrative.

False Claim of Unencumbered Home Ownership:

Jack's assertion that Alberta owns her home "free and clear" is demonstrably false. The property is held within a trust, a critical detail that significantly alters the understanding of her asset ownership.

Misrepresentation of Asset Sources:

The statement that Alberta's "ample liquid assets" derive solely from the Sam Veazey settlement is incomplete. Her assets originate from diverse sources, and this narrow focus misrepresents her true financial situation.

Incorrect Family Relationships and Settlement Participation:

The claim that Sam Veazey was Jack and Bob's stepfather and that they participated in the mesothelioma settlement is incorrect. Jack and Bob were never legally adopted and, therefore, had no legal claim to the settlement (standing). Bob penned several e-mails indicating he did have "Standing".

Contradictory and Oversimplified Settlement Distribution:

Jack's description of the settlement being split "four ways" and then Alberta receiving "3/4" is both contradictory and an oversimplification. A more accurate and concise description is provided in my synopsis above.

Jack's Unreliability and Bias:

Jack's refusal to review relevant documents suggests a lack of thoroughness or a deliberate attempt to maintain a skewed narrative. His repeated expressions of dissatisfaction with his perceived share of the settlement, coupled with accusations of stolen money, reveal a clear bias. Furthermore, his statement that it is believed that she has ample liquid resources, is based on his misunderstanding, and disregards the actual financial plan.

Internal Contradictions:

The paragraph contains internal contradictions regarding the settlement distribution. First it states that the settlement was split four ways, then it states Alberta received 3/4. These two statements are not compatible.

Vague and Misleading Terminology:

The term "ample liquid resources" is vague, and based on Jacks misunderstanding, and disregards the actual financial plan.

These inaccuracies and inconsistencies demonstrate the unreliability of the paragraph's analysis and necessitate significant correction.

Paragraph 2 misrepresents the handling of the settlement funds and the nature of Alberta's existing trust:

Sharp States:
"Even though Alberta received a great deal of money from the aforementioned settlement, it is unclear where that money went. According to Don, he consulted with Virginia attorney Names John Ryan to create a trust and LLC on his mother's behalf. He explained to me that the settlement proceeds were put into the trust for Alberta’s benefit. when she passes away, the remaining assets will go to her children."

Misrepresentation of Fund Placement:

The statement that "the settlement proceeds were put into the trust" is false. No settlement funds were placed into the existing trust. Instead, the majority of those funds were gifted to Jack and Bob.

Nature of the Existing Trust:

The existing trust is a Medicaid trust. It is specifically designed for Medicaid eligibility purposes and does not provide for Alberta's direct benefit or use of funds. This is a critical distinction that the paragraph fails to acknowledge.

Gift to Jack and Bob:

The settlement funds were gifted to Jack and Bob. This was a deliberate and documented decision.

Refutation of "For Alberta's Benefit":

The paragraph's assertion that the funds were placed in a trust "for Alberta's benefit" is incorrect in regards to the existing trust. The funds were gifted, and the existing trust is a Medicaid trust, not a vehicle for her direct financial benefit. This seems to echo Dubreuil's explanation of the estate. The investigator speaks of "a Virginia attorney named John Ryan" but seems to not have talked to him.

The investigator's statement

"He explained to me that the settlement proceeds were put into the trust for Alberta’s benefit. When she passes away, the remaining assets will go to her children. "Echoing Dubreuil's Erroneous Explanation and may be the "he" referred to here. This repetition of inaccurate information further undermines the investigator's credibility and highlights the flawed nature of their analysis.

Paragraph 3:

Sharp States:
"Mr. Thomas provided a copy of the Trust and Limited Liability Agreement for my review. The documents were prepared under Virginia law and were executed on June 18, 2009. The Trust names Don as the Trustee and Jack as the back-up trustee. Article l } Paragraph 1(1) of the Trust identifies Don, Jack, and Bob as the beneficiaries and distributions may be made to benefit them. The main asset in the Trust was a 100% interest in the LLC. The main asset of the LLC was Alberta's interest in her home in Sussex County, Delaware (presumably her residence on Postal Lane), What has troubled me about the Trust is that there is no provision that the assets be used for Alberta's benefit, It appears as though she created the Trust so that she could pass the assets to her children while she was alive. I also note that the Trust is irrevocable. A copy of the Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit A, Likewise, the LLC C)operating Agreement appears to be designed for the benefit of Alberta's children and not Alberta. The only members of the LLC are Don and the Trust. 4 A copy of the LLC C)operating agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On September 281 2009, Alberta transferred her property located at 34439 Postal Lane in Lewes to the LLC via deed. This deed was also prepared by Virginia counsel. A copy of the deed is attached hereto as Exhibit C."

Paragraph 3 presents a superficial analysis of the Trust and LLC documents, failing to grasp the fundamental purpose of these instruments within the context of Medicaid planning.

Medicaid Trust Context:

The investigator's concern regarding the absence of provisions for Alberta's direct benefit reveals a critical misunderstanding. The Trust in question is a Medicaid trust, specifically structured to protect assets for Medicaid eligibility. Its primary objective is not to provide direct distributions to Alberta, but to preserve assets while adhering to Medicaid regulations. This is a standard and legally sound estate planning strategy in elder law.

Irrevocability and Asset Protection:

The irrevocable nature of the Trust, noted by the investigator, is a necessary component of Medicaid planning. This feature prevents assets from being counted towards Alberta's eligibility threshold, ensuring her access to essential long-term care services.

Beneficiary Designation and Asset Preservation:

The designation of Don, Jack, and Bob as beneficiaries is consistent with the Trust's purpose. This structure allows for the eventual transfer of assets while safeguarding them from Medicaid spend-down requirements.

LLC's Role in Asset Management:

The LLC serves as a vehicle for asset management and protection. Its primary assets are Alberta's residence and, importantly, an investment fund. These are common tools used in conjunction with Medicaid trusts to further shield assets.

Misinterpretation of Intent:

The investigator's speculation that Alberta created the Trust to "pass assets to her children while she was alive" is a simplistic and inaccurate interpretation. Here, I believe the investigator is confusing the MoU with the trust. The Trust's creation was motivated by the need for Medicaid planning, a complex legal strategy, not merely a desire for premature asset transfer.

Omission of Key Asset:

The investigator states that the main asset of the LLC was Alberta's interest in her home. This is incomplete. The main asset of the LLC was an investment fund, followed by Alberta's interest in her home. This omission shows a lack of due diligence.

Omission of Gifted funds:

The investigator has omitted the key fact that the settlement funds were gifted, and not placed into the trust.

Investigator's Lack of Due Diligence:

The investigator's analysis is flawed by the omission of the Medicaid context. The investigator also failed to speak to the attorney that created the documents.

Refutation of Paragraph 4:

Sharp States:
"When I spoke with Don, I specifically asked him about his mother's finances, which he controlled (as acknowledged by all family members including Alberta). Don advised me that the Trust consisted of the following: 1) the house at Postal Lane, 2) a money market account with approximately $10,000.00, 3) a checking account with approximately $6,000.00, and 4) a stock brokerage account with approximately $19,000.00. Alberta also owns a car, a truck, and 200 shares of Lowe's stock valued at approximately $4,000.00. Don also believes that Alberta has a safety deposit box with gold valued at $30,000.00, silver service set valued at $6,000.00, and four coins valued at $2,400.00. It was unclear what happened to the settlement proceeds she received from the mesothelioma suit."

This paragraph demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the separation between the gifted (MoU) funds, the assets held within the established Medicaid trust, and the assets remaining within Alberta's personal estate. The settlement funds were gifted to Jack and Bob, and are no longer a part of Alberta's estate. The trust assets are for Medicaid planning, and separate from Alberta's personal holdings. The reporting of these amounts without proper context creates a misleading picture of Alberta's financial situation. It's worth noting this same confusion is echoed by DuBreuil in his March 21, 2012 letter to the courts, Paragraph 5; Subsection 6: "Alberta Veazey’s share of Samuel Veazey’s Wrongful Death Lawsuit".

It is crucial to differentiate between these distinct categories of assets to provide an accurate and comprehensive understanding of Alberta's financial landscape. Therefore, while the paragraph may contain some factual information, the lack of contextual understanding regarding the gifting of funds, and the separation of the trust and estate, renders the analysis incomplete and misleading.

Refutation of Paragraph 5/6:

Sharp States:
"The issue about locating Alberta's finances has been further complicated by Don's recent abdication of his responsibilities as Trustee, Power-of-Attorney, and Manager of the LLC. In April 2011 1 Mr. Ryan sent a letter to Jack on Don's behalf advising Jack of Don's resignation. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. When I spoke with Don, he admitted that he had been "overwhelmed" and was quite nervous about these issues, He also did not appear to have a solid comprehension of the specifics of the Trust and LLC agreement; something found surprising since he was the person who evidently arranged for the consultation with Mr. Ryan."

locating Alberta's finances has been further complicated...:

The investigator fails to define how so.

Resignation, Not Abdication:

The term "abdication" is inaccurate. I resigned from my positions as Trustee, Power-of-Attorney, and LLC Manager. This was a considered decision, not an abandonment of responsibility.

Context of Resignation: Jack and Dubreuil's Influence:

My resignation was primarily driven by Jack's insistent demands for Dubreuil to manage Alberta's affairs. This, coupled with the misinformation Dubreuil was disseminating, created an untenable situation.

Frustration, Not Overwhelm or Nervousness:

The investigator's portrayal of me as "overwhelmed" and "nervous" is inaccurate. I was not but rather frustrated at Jack's relentless push for Dubreuil's involvement and by the deliberate misinformation Dubreuil was providing, which threatened to undermine the carefully planned Medicaid protection strategies.

Demonstrated Understanding:

My involvement in establishing the Trust and LLC, and my ongoing awareness of their purpose within the Medicaid planning context, demonstrates my understanding of the relevant aspects. I fully understood the documents, and their purpose.

Consultation with Attorney Ryan:

Arranging the consultation with Attorney Ryan was a responsible step in ensuring proper asset protection for Medicaid eligibility. I understood the overall plan.

Omission of Medicaid Context:

The investigator continues to omit the most important factor, the trust is a Medicaid trust. This omission taints the investigator's entire analysis.

Dubreuil's Misinformation:

The investigators report fails to mention the misinformation that Dubreuil was providing, which was a large factor in my frustration.

By providing these clarifications, I address the mischaracterizations, reveal the influence of Jack and, by proxy, Dubreuil, and provide a more accurate and complete picture of my actions and understanding.

Refutation of Paragraph 7: Alberta's ability to pay for care:

Sharp States:
"While I was surprised to hear that Don did not have a good understanding about the Trust and the LLC, I was disappointed to hear that he failed to adequately handle his mother's bills since she was moved to Brandywine. Evidently, Alberta has a long-term care insurance policy that will pay up to $72,000.00 in costs associated with residence in a long-term care facility such as Brandywine. My understanding is that the policy will pay approximately $3,000.00 per month. Don admitted to me that he started the process to receive these payments but did not follow through on completing it. Only recently has Jack stepped in to correspond with the insurance company. In the meantime, Jack has been paying out of his own funds the bills associated with Alberta's stay at Brandywine. It is my understanding that Alberta receives approximately $2,000 per month from Social Security. Brandywine costs approximately $6,000.00 per month so the insurance policy, if used, would greatly reduce the need to dip into Alberta's liquid assets."

"failed to adequately handle his mother's bills"

The assertion that I "failed to adequately handle" Alberta's bills is a gross mischaracterization. There is no proof of this offered at any time during litigation or otherwise. Blatant lie.

Jack's Exclusive POA Health and Refusal:

Jack held the exclusive Power of Attorney for health, granting him sole authority to apply for the long-term care insurance. He refused to do so, citing his dislike of being "micromanaged by me. He will get to it when he has time." This refusal directly impeded the timely processing of the insurance claim.

Jack's Refusal to Act:

The delay in finalizing the long-term care insurance process was solely due to Jack's refusal to file the claim. I was unable to act due to the limitations of my Power of Attorney. While Jack's eventual involvement in corresponding with the insurance company is noted, it is essential to emphasize that he intentionally delayed the process by refusing to file the claim.

Medicaid Planning Context:

The high cost of Brandywine is a significant factor. The investigator continues to ignore the overarching strategy of Medicaid planning. The protection of Alberta's liquid assets is a deliberate and necessary step to ensure her long-term care needs are met without jeopardizing her eligibility for benefits.

Misrepresentation of Responsibility:

The investigator's report implies that I was responsible for the insurance claim, when in fact, Jack was the only person with the legal ability to file the claim.

These clarifications expose the misrepresentation of responsibility and offer a more accurate representation of the situation. Note the insurance would pay $3,000 per month for the Medicaid look back of 5 years.

Refutation of Paragraph 8: Bob's debt:

Sharp States:
"There is also a question as to whether Bob owes his mother money for an outstanding debt. Mr. Ryan references this debt in his letter. I sense that there is some dispute as to whether a debt is actually owed and, if so, how much is owed. Nonetheless, I believe that the guardian, if appointed, should investigate this matter as well."

Bob frequently "borrowed" money from Alberta over the years. This was a recurring pattern. Jack often spoke of bob's debt being $40,000. It is important to acknowledge that Bob did receive a substantial settlement of $400,000.

When planning Alberta's care and estate, I factored in the potential debt owed by Bob. This was a consideration in the overall financial planning.

Paragraph 9: Discuss these concerns with Alberta:

Sharp States:
"I explained to her that Jack had been paying her bills of late with his own money"

Did you tell my mother, who has Alzheimer's and is in a care home, that she was out of money and couldn't pay her bills?

Oh ... My ... God.

Paragraph 10: equitable relief may be necessary:

Sharp States:
"Ultimately, I think that whoever is appointed guardian of Alberta's property should make a thorough investigation about Alberta's finances and assets. The potential lack of assets available to pay for Alberta's care concerns me. If the guardian is unable to find out adequate information from this investigation, it is quite possible that an action for an accounting and other equitable relief may be necessary."

This is where he makes a case for account access. Just so happens to have a list of accounts. Including my wife's business account.

The court was presented with information that was a stunningly blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The attorney must take particular care in weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence if there are grave consequences for those involved.

Analyst Commentary:Misrepresentation in court can have severe consequences, including sanctions, penalties, and criminal charges.

A recently licensed attorney, should understand irrevocable trusts, especially if they have focused their studies or early practice in areas like:

• Estate Planning: Irrevocable trusts are a fundamental tool in estate planning. Trust and Estate Law: This area of law specifically deals with the creation, administration, and distribution of trusts and estates.
• Elder Law: Irrevocable trusts are often used in elder law to protect assets for Medicaid eligibility.
• Tax Law: Irrevocable trusts have significant tax implications, and attorneys specializing in tax law should be familiar with them.
• Law School Curriculum: Most law schools cover the basics of trust law, including the distinction between revocable and irrevocable trusts.
• Bar Exam: Bar exams often include questions on trust law, requiring candidates to demonstrate their understanding of irrevocable trusts.

Bob's involvement as "an attorney in San Francisco" gave credibility to the Sharp report.

Analyst Commentary:transcripts needed.

June 24, 2011 Jack appointed guardian

July 14, 2011 , John Ryan wrote:
Don: I was contacted by Robert Thomas - the attorney who handled the guardianship Petition for your brother. They are requesting that you provide an accounting for the LLC and the Trust from inception in 2009 to the date when you last took action on behalf of the entities.

Analyst Commentary:July 22, 2011 "next court date". AT THIS TIME I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION.

July 22, 2011
from Thomas
to Ryan
were gift tax returns for transfer of house, nationwide filed? [my understanding it wasn't necessary]

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas
RE: Veazey – E Alberta Veazey

DuBreuil attempts to push Don aside

From: Thomas
To: DuBreuil
RE: Veazey – E Alberta Veazey – Question from Tom Dubreuil RE POA Titled Assets

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas
RE: Veazey – E Alberta Veazey – Question from Tom Dubreuil RE POA Titled Assets

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack Beckett
Mesothelioma Settlement

From: DuBreuil
To: Bob Thomas
FW: RE: Veazey – E Alberta Veazey – Question from Tom Dubreuil RE POA Titled Assets

From: Thomas
To: DuBreuil

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas
E. Alberta Veazey POA Accounts

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas
RE: Veazey – E. Alberta Veazey – Email of 12/1/11 from Don Beckett to Jack Beckett RE: Need to Withdraw from Nationwide Annuity

Don suggested a withdraw from the Annuity preparing the trust for taxes for 2012

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack
RE: Veazey – E. Alberta Veazey – Email of 12/1/11 from Don Beckett to Jack Beckett RE: Need to Withdraw from Nationwide Annuity

DuBreuil begins his "research" here, eventually fabricating [Account Zero]

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas
RE: Veazey – Don's 12/12/11 email captioned “LLC year-end tax planning”

DuBreuil strongly disagrees with my attorney Ryan as to the ownership of the Annuity

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack
FW: Veazey – Don's 12/12/11 email captioned “LLC year-end tax planning”

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas

Analyst Commentary: Did DuBreuil know he was moving to Rockwell Associates in 3 weeks? Would this not be something to propose after starting the new job?

Thomas, Karsnitz, DuBreuil & Rockwell Associates' Accusations and The Fog of War

Analyst Commentary: Jack's deposition speaks of "they all" got together.
maybe compiled the DuBreuil document together.

Analyst Commentary: December 2011, Debreuil, Kristen, Jack, and Thomas discussed the details of a document Karsnitz would need to present to Sam Glasscock and the Delaware courts to bring civil and criminal charges against me.

From: DuBreuil To: Jack Dear Jack, This e-mail ls to confirm our scheduled meeting on Jan 31 at my new office @ 3:30pm

Jacks states he will bring criminal charges after the holidays document

According to an email by Mr. Masselli "Jack really didn't have a clue about the many EAV and LLC accounts [the trust vs estate]. Jack and Bob Thomas turned to DuBreuil ... Furthermore, he [DuBreuil] doesn't seem to have a great memory of what went on when he was at Wachovia."

• DuBreuil - DEPOSED TWICE
• Jack - DEPOSED TWICE
• Kristen - DEPOSED
• Thomas - REFUSED TO BE DEPOSED
• Karsnitz - ATTORNEY/CLIENT
• Warrenton -
• Sharp - REFUSED TO BE DEPOSED

DuBreuil Begins Rockwell Associates Monday, January 9, 2012

Monday, January 23, 2012

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas
New Contact info

DuBreuil agrees to hold off bringing litigation against Don.

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack

DuBreuil further insert himself.

From: Thomas
To: DuBreuil
Veazey - E. Alberta Veazey • LLC Action of Sole Member Appointing Jack as Successor Manager

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas

Consequences of DuBreuil being wrong

MS. MURPHY: Objection, speculative. He can answer, if he has the information.

MR. MASSELLI: Let me be very clear about this, because I want this on the record. Mr. DuBreuil, who is a qualified financial analyst with a long career, in this Email and several subsequent documents that we will be considering is making estimates of essentially whether money is missing or money isn't missing;

MR. MASSELLI: ... what Mr. DuBreuil had before him, especially because, unfortunately, in discovery, we were not provided with some documents that are -- not by him, but documents that he says in various Emails that he gave to Mr. Beckett or gave to Mr. Thomas and, because of that, I'm just trying to get a feel for what the basis of certain statements was and wasn't.

MR. MASSELLI: ... putting a 91-page document into the transcript

Q Okay, I'd like to show you an exhibit that I'm going to mark as Exhibit 31, which is a document that you sent to me last week, which appears to be a letter dated March 1st, 2012 to Robert Thomas.
A That's right.

Q I'll give you that copy as well so you can keep it.
A That would be part of the exhibit, all right.

Q Yes.
A I'll go off of that, okay. (DuBreuil Exhibit 31, marked for identification.)
Thursday, March 1, 2012 to Robert Thomas

March 11, 2012
Thomas to DuBreuil: Part of the answer to "where has the money gone" may be answered by the gift tax returns which John Ryan reported that he had filed pertinent to transfers by Mrs. Veazey when the LLC and trust were set up .

Analyst Commentary: did Karsnitz know of Ryan/Thomas conversation?

Analyst Commentary:DuBreuil did not wait for updates from the attorneys sending his official e-mail:

Monday, March 12, 2012
RE: Veazey - E. Alberta Veazey - Tom DuBreuil Analysis of EAV Financial Account

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas

A Trial Is Held

• "I did not discuss the mesothelioma litigation with Alberta."
• "Don [Veazey] handled the mesothelioma litigation."
• "I became aware that a limited liability company existed."
• "I didn't really have an understanding ... what the limited liability company was going to be."
• "I don't remember discussing that the limited liability company existed and the purpose of it."
• "I opened 200003103 3345 E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC savings."
• "I opened 200003103 3332 E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC checking."
• Regarding understanding the reason for the gifting trust, he stated: "... I didn't -- I wasn't really sure specifically."
• When questioned about whether Medicaid trusts must be irrevocable or subject to recapture, Mr. Dubreuil stated: "I am not an expert."
• Interactions with Alberta was limited to overdrafts from checking.
• was not the broker of record at Wells Fargo.

Re:
E. Alberta Veazey
Analysis of Financial Transactions
Dear Robert,

Paragraph 1: DuBreuil Inserts Himself Between Jack, his Attorney and the courts

DuBreuil States:
As requested, the following is a summary of selected assets and asset movement pertinent to E. Alberta Veazey’s personal assets and her assets of Alberta Veazey Family LLC. My research was done at the request of Joseph J. “Jack” Beckett who is E. Alberta’s son and legal guardian. The final appointment of guardianship became effective on 6/24/2011.

My research was done at the request of Joseph J. “Jack” Beckett - days prior a meeting was held where "they all" got together. attorneys, Jack, DuBreuil, Kristen, Warrington?

Analyst Commentary: selected assets and asset movement - why not comprehensive?

Analyst Commentary: it appears Mr. Dubreuil holds a misconception regarding the "her assets of Alberta Veazey Family LLC", seemingly conflating it with the estate of Alberta.

Paragraph 2: DuBreuil's Libelious and Slanderious Statements to Delaware Courts

DuBreuil States:
In order to fulfill his duties as Alberta’s guardian Jack made a number of attempts, through you, as the attoney for Mrs. Veazey’s guardianship, to contact Jack’s brother, Donald B. (“Don”) Veazey, who had held Mrs. Veazey’s power of attorney, in order to make an orderly transfer of legal title of Alberta Veazey’s assets over to the guardianship. Jack Beckett’s primary concerned was and remains how to assure that he can satisfy his mother’s monthly nursing home bill (which approximates $6,000.00+/-month). From Jack Beckett’s perspective, Don Veazey has ignored or refused all of Jack Beckett's requests to transfer legal title of Alberta Veazey’s financial assets to the guardianship.

Analyst Commentary: oblivious to Ryans numerous contacts with Thomas and the ongoing discussion of assets.

Analyst Commentary: fails to acknowledge Jack does not need my consent to move Alberta's assets and Jack has PoA both health and financial.

Analyst Commentary: "ignored or refused to transfer legal title". DuBreuil cannot produce any document supporting his allegation. DuBreuil, aware this document would be used in Delaware court in two weeks after sending, should be accutly aware of the liability this statement brings his employer.

Regarding Contacts with Thomas: DuBreuil states that Jack Beckett made numerous attempts, through Thomas, the attorney for Mrs. Veazey's guardianship, to contact Donald B. ("Don") Veazey. This statement obscures the fact that Ryan had numerous contacts with Thomas, and all attorneys had ongoing discussions regarding Alberta's assets. DuBreuil simply wasn't part of the overall conversation. DuBreuil's statement is misleading by omission.

Regarding Jack Beckett's Authority: DuBreuil fails to acknowledge the fact that Jack Beckett, as Alberta Veazey's guardian, does not require my consent to transfer Alberta's assets. Furthermore, Jack Beckett holds Power of Attorney for both health and financial matters of Alberta. This is a critical point of law and fact that DuBreuil omits.

Regarding "Ignored or Refused": DuBreuil alleges that "Don Veazey has ignored or refused all of Jack Beckett's requests to transfer legal title of Alberta Veazey’s financial assets [Account Zero] to the guardianship." This is a false and defamatory statement. I and my attorney Ryan have not ignored or refused any legitimate requests. DuBreuil has not provided, and cannot provide, any documentation to support this allegation. The opposite is supported in discovery.

This paragraph is a direct and damaging falsehood. Regarding Awareness of Delaware Court Proceedings: DuBreuil was acutely aware that this statement would be used in Delaware court proceedings within two weeks of its publication. This awareness amplifies the gravity of his false statements and highlights the potential liability his employer faces due to his actions. He was not making an innocent mistake, but rather making a calculated false statement.

In summary, DuBreuil has published false and unsupported statements. These statements are not only inaccurate but also potentially defamatory and damaging, especially considering their intended use in a legal proceeding.

Paragraph 3: Misrepresentation of Assets

DuBreuil States:
"Alberta Veazey’s individual financial assets titled in her name appear to have been, as follows:

1) A Nationwide Annuity started on 12/22/2008 for $214,233.51
2) A brokerage account at Wells Fargo Advisers valued at $200,000 +/-.
3) Alberta’s share of the prcoeeds from a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of her deceased husband Samuel Veazey and valued at $427,833.32 [Account Zero] as of 7/2009.
The total dollar value of the assets set forth above, as of the dates indicated, is $842,000 +/-. The dates and amounts of the assets were derived from statements which Jack Beckett was able to obtain and provide to me."

Analyst Commentary: no item listed is an asset of Alberta's. the brokerage account at Wells Fargo Advisers valued at $19,000. No account has ever existed representing Alberta's share of the mesothelioma lawsuit settlement. DuBreuil also makes false statements about the nature of Alberta Veazey's assets. Specifically, DuBreuil falsely represented the following:

• A Nationwide Annuity started on 12/22/2008 for $214,233.51" as an asset of Alberta Veazey.
• A brokerage account at Wells Fargo Advisers valued at $200,000 +/-." an asset of Alberta Veazey, when the account was actually valued at $19,000.
• Alberta’s share of the proceeds from a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of her deceased husband Samuel Veazey and valued at $427,833.32 [Account Zero] as of 7/2009" as an asset of Alberta Veazey, when no such account representing Alberta's share of the mesothelioma lawsuit settlement ever existed.

In total, DuBreuil misrepresented that Alberta Veazey held assets with a total value of $842,000. The items listed by DuBreuil are not assets of Alberta Veazey.

In summary, DuBreuil has published false and unsupported statements. These statements are not only inaccurate but also potentially defamatory and damaging, especially considering their intended use in a legal proceeding.

Paragraph 4: DuBreuil's distorted view of his contact/interaction with Alberta and her family - like creepy distorted.

DuBreuil States:
The balance of this letter is a summary of my research, undertaken at Jack Beckett’s request, as to what has happened to Alberta Veazey’s financial assets. Jack Beckett chose me to conduct this research because I was Alberta’s banker and financial advisor while I was employed as a Sr. Financial Specialist at Wachovia Bank from 1/12/1999 to 5/7/2010; and, in that role, I had unique knowledge of the Alberta Veazey’s financial circumstances during that time. While working at the Bank I had gotten to know Alberta Veazey and her family; and I was instrumental in helping the family set up all of the accounts and orchestrating the movement of the assets related to the distribution of proceeds to the family members from Samuel Veazey’s wrongful death lawsuit. I currently am a Financial Advisor with Rockwell Associates in Wilmington, Delaware.

Analyst Commentary: in deposition DuBreuil also stated "-- so I had knowledge of the -- of her finances, I knew everything, you know, about her finances."

"because I was Alberta’s banker and financial advisor while I was employed as a Sr. Financial Specialist at Wachovia Bank from 1/12/1999 to 5/7/2010; and, in that role, I had unique knowledge of the Alberta Veazey’s financial circumstances during that time."

I was instrumental in helping the family set up all of the accounts and orchestrating the movement of the assets related to the distribution of proceeds to the family members from Samuel Veazey’s wrongful death lawsuit.

Given the prior mishandling of a deposit detailed above, I will attest that Dubreuil never subsequently handled any deposits. Considering the complexity of the estate and trust, Dubreuil presented a significant risk of error, leading Don to exclude Dubreuil.

DuBreuil States:
...I mean in the past we hadn't really -- you know, I hadn't done any investment business for her [Alberta], I can't really remember the last time for her.

Q Did you handle that account?
A I was not the broker of record on that account.

Paragraph 5; Subsection 1; A Nationwide Annuity Contract #016049490:

DuBreuil States:
With reference to the current status of the respective above-identified financial assets, my findings are, as follows:

The assets comprising this annuity appear to have been transferred to the Nationwide Annuity Co. by Don Veazey in his capacity as Alberta Veazey’s POA; and those transferred assets had accumulated through an annuity that Mrs. Veazey held for many years at the Transamerica Annuity Company (contract #26134746) (see exhibit B). The purchase of the Nationwide annuity occurred on 12/22/2008 and the initial funding was in the sum of $214,233.51. The most recent value ofthe annuity, based upon a phone call to Nationwide Annuity customer service on 3/6/2012, is currently $192,000 +/-. Don Veazey had made withdrawals from this annuity totaling $37,000 between 12/22/2008 and 1/31/2011; and, to date, he has not provided an explanation to Jack Beckett as to why these funds were withdrawn.

DuBreuil does not establish that i have not provided an explanation.

attorneys Ryan, Masselli, and Thomas had agreed, at the time of the writing of this document, assets of the trust, including this annuity would be reviewed after resolving Albertas estate plan. DuBreuil was not included in these discussions.

see Ryan's deposition telling Don to move the annuity to the trust and Ryan & nationwide worked to title it correctly.

As of the date of this letter, the Nationwide Annuity is titled “E. Alberta Veazey, Jack Beckett Guardian”. (see Exhibit C)

DuBreuil admits here he transferred a trust asset illegally back to Alberta.

Paragraph 5; Subsection 2; Wachovia/Wells Fargo Brokerage Account 46001-9730:

DuBreuil States:
E. Alberta Veazey maintained the above non-qualified brokerage account with Wachovia Securities. During my tenure with Wachovia Bank as her banker and financial advisor I found Alberta to be a savvy investor always looking for ways to invest excess cash in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. The value of this account had grown over the years to $200,000 +/-

Analyst Commentary: At the time of this writing the value was about $19,000. See further discussion in Paragraph 5; Subsection 4

Paragraph 5; Subsection 3;

DuBreuil States:
An informational notice from First Clearing, LLC, the transactional clearing division on Wachovia Securities (see exhibit D), dated 8/12/2008 shows an account registration change from E. Alberta Veazey TOD Registration to E. Alberta Veazey TOD Registration, Donald B. Veazey POA.

Ryan and Nationwide collaborated to ensure the annuity was correctly payable to Don as the trust manager. Subsequent distribution of these proceeds would then be governed by the terms of the trust agreement.

Paragraph 5; Subsection 4: complete liquidation of this segment of E. Alberta Veazey’s financial assets.

DuBreuil States:
Based upon an entry on page 2 of exhibit I this account is now closed. Year end 1099 tax reporting statements provided by Wachovia Securities for tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010 along with E. Alberta Veazey’s 2010 tax return (see exhibit E) show that since Don Veazey had been added as POA to this account in Aug of 2008 $276,320.79 in stocks, bonds and mutual funds had been sold (see 1099-B IRS Box 2 on each tax statement) resulting in the complete liquidation of this segment of E. Alberta Veazey’s financial assets. The 2010 tax return for Alberta shows a $43,187 capital tax loss possibly related to the sale of the financial assets within the brokerage account.

Upon maturity, the municipal bonds paid out, and Wells Fargo's systems automatically transferred the proceeds to Alberta's checking account. This left the account with only legacy investments of no significant relevance. Don subsequently liquidated these remaining investments, leaving Alberta with a few thousand dollars. During Don's approximately monthly visits, he and Alberta would discuss stocks and occasionally make minor trades together..

BY MR. MASSELLI:
Q Now, looking at page two, the section on Wachovia/Wells Fargo brokerage account, when you wrote this letter, did you know that the Wells Fargo brokerage account still existed?
A Yes.

Q So the statement that the entire brokerage account was liquidated was incorrect?
A Entire? Let me see.

Q If you look at the last --
A Yeah, I know, I saw that ...

Paragraph 5; Subsection 5: why isn't the money still in the investment account?

DuBreuil States:
Because these assets were titled in Alberta’s name, and were not considered as part of the Gifting Trust nor the Family LLC Jack Beckett reasonably assumed these financial assets would be available for him to use as needed to help him fulfill his duties as his mother’s legal guardian. Jack would like an accounting from Don Veazey in his role as Alberta’s POA as to why the entire brokerage account was liquidated and how the proceeds were spent between 8/12/2008 and 12/31/2010.

When the proceeds were automatically moved by wells fargo, Don contacted DuBreuil, then a Wells Fargo employee.

I will provide an email exchange with DuBreuil regarding money automatically moving from the investment account to Alberta's checking.

DuBreuil explains in email to me (2008) that is how the account was set up - proceeds from asset sales would automatically move to checking.

DuBreuil admits in deposition he was aware at the time of writing, "entire brokerage account was liquidated" was not true.

The initial contact with Dubreuil concerned the automatic movement of funds from asset sales to Alberta's checking account, a process confirmed by Dubreuil in a 2008 email as the intended account setup. This routine operation is separate and distinct from the subsequent and complete liquidation of the entire brokerage account. Dubreuil's later deposition testimony clarifies that his earlier description of the "entire brokerage account being liquidated" was known to DuBreuil to be inaccurate.

Paragraph 5; Subsection 6: Alberta Veazey’s share of Samuel Veazey’s Wrongful Death Lawsuit

DuBreuil States:
On 7/30/2009 the sum of $427,833.32 [Account Zero] was deposited in two equal shares into two money market accounts at Wachovia Bank. The title of one account (Account #1) was E. Alberta Veazey, POD Bob Beckett (acct #1010246822633) (see Exhibit F); and the title of the second account (Account #2) was E. Alberta Veazey, POD Jack Beckett (acct # 1010246822646) (see Exhibit G). This was done pursuant to a memorandum agreement of understanding dated 7/30/2009 (see Exhibit H) and signed by Alberta Veazey and each of her three sons — James Robert (“Bob”) Beckett, Jack Beckett and Don Veazey. A Wachovia bank printout dated 4/22/2011 reports these accounts to have been closed as of that date. (see Exhibit I)

Analyst Commentary: During the 2009 calendar year, Alberta resolved approximately thirteen (13) separate legal actions and received approximately twenty six (26) corresponding disbursements. One specific settlement in the amount of $427,833.32 [Account Zero] approximates the $418,000.00 contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU').

The division of the aforementioned settlement amount of $427,833.32 into two equal shares yields $213,916.66 per share, an amount proximate to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ('FDIC') maximum insured deposit of $250,000.00 thus broken into 2 deposits to Money Market accounts.

Analyst Commentary: DuBreuil states in deposition "don somehow got his share directly" - Yes, I did. That is how civil actions are disbursed.

DuBreuil States:
There are indications that Don Veazey, who then was the managing member of the E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC, transferred some, if not all, of the assets comprising Account #1 and Account #2 to Wachovia Bank (Account #20000 3103 3332 ) (see Exhibit J) which is a checking account titled under the E. Alberta Veazey LLC. This account appears to be used to pay various expenses of the LLC and maintain some asset liquidity.

2010, after reviewing various financial statements of the Alberta Veazey estate and the Alberta Veazey Gifting Trust, Dubreuil insisted to and convinced Beckett that I had carried out the withdrawal [ACCOUNT ZERO], that the funds were not distributed, and that I stole the entirety. Beckett, stating "he has an MBA, how could he be wrong?", was convinced. Despite funds moving via the MoU, both ignored this evidence. Consequently, civil lawsuits alleging my mismanagement of Alberta Veazey's finances and theft were brought in Delaware and Virginia, based solely on Dubreuil's analysis.

Mr. Masselli: Q In Exhibit 11, the debit is $227,451.36;
in Exhibit 12 the amount is $244,336.07;
and in Exhibit 13 the amount is $244,336.07.

Q Can you tell me what a debit to close account is?

A It's basically a debit memo...

Mr. Masselli: Q Do you recall if you were the one who closed out any of these accounts?
A I don't recall, no.

Q This is a fairly significant amount of money; would you be likely to recall it if you did?
A I don't remember specifically doing this.

Analyst Commentary: extracted from DuBreuil deposition second, page 3 line 18

MR. MASSELLI: Q ...
Alberta Veazey, [POD] Donald Veazey had an account number with the last four digits 9862
Alberta Veazey POD Jack Beckett had an account number with the last four digits 2646
Alberta Veazey POD Bob Beckett, it had an account number with the last four digits 2633

DuBreuil executed a debit to close these three accounts.

Along with funds from Alberta's personal account, DuBreuil transfered 1 million dollars as per the MoU.

DuBreuil States:
... Don Veazey, who then was the managing member of the E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC, transferred some, if not all, of the assets comprising Account #1 and Account #2...

Analyst Commentary: this is DuBreuil's "source" of funds for $427,833.32 [Account Zero]

Analyst Commentary: Generally, accounts that have been debited to zero and closed no longer can be considered a "source" of funds.

Paragraph 5; Subsection 7: The Mesothelioma Settlement Payout:

Analyst Commentary: DuBreuil statements regarding the mesothelioma settlement payout are deeply flawed and appear to form the basis of accusation. Specifically, DuBreuil asserts that because one mesothelioma settlement payout approximates one-quarter of the total lawsuit recovery, DuBreuil presumes that four equal payouts were made by Angelos, representing Alberta, Bob, Jack, and Don. From this presumption, DuBreuil further concludes that I controlled all of these payouts, and that this constitutes conclusive evidence of grand theft, alleging I misappropriated Alberta's share. DuBreuil has deemed these speculative conclusions worthy of submission to the courts of Delaware and Virginia. Moreover, DuBreuil is willing to testify to these allegations in the Virginia trial, backed by his authority derived by way of employment, Rockwell Associates, HTK, Penn Mutual, and purports to have based this allegation on information and authority provided by Jack, and confirmed in conversation with Jack's attorneys Karsnitz and Thomas, accountant Warrenton, and principals Jack and Kristen. These assertions are speculative, unsubstantiated, and defamatory.

MR. MASSELLI: Q Does your analysis take into account the fact that Mrs. Veazey agreed to put most of her assets into the Veazey Family Gifting Trust?
A I don't think it takes that into consideration...

MR. MASSELLI: Q Now, does your analysis take into account the million dollar gift that Mrs. Veazey made for the 90 percent of which went to Jack and Bob Beckett?
A Yes.

MR. MASSELLI: Q And could you tell me how it does that?
A If you look Alberta Veazey's share of Samuel Veazey's wrongful death lawsuit, that's part of it. So I'm -- you know, if you look at that paragraph, on July 30th of `09, the sum, that sum was deposited into equal shares, $427,833.32, two equal shares into the two money market accounts at Wachovia bank, and pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Alberta Veazey and her three sons.

Analyst Commentary: Here's the smoke and mirrors. Two equal shares yields $213,916.66. DuBreuil is unable to explain how Bob and Jack received a MoU payout of $418,000 each.

DuBreuil seems to believe:

• Bob and Jack participated in the mesothelioma suit and received mesothelioma disbursements.
• The mesothelioma attorney sent settlement proceeds for Alberta, Bob, and Jack to Don.
• Don deposited these four disbursements into a trust brokerage account.
• Dubreuil issued two disbursements via a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), with the "source" being an LPL brokerage account.
• Don has somehow intercepted Alberta's entire one-quarter share of the mesothelioma suit.
• Don has placed Alberta's share into an account referred to as "[Account Zero]."
• "[Account Zero]" exists.
• Don controls "[Account Zero]."
• the amount in "[Account Zero]" is $427,833.32.
• Thomas has been urging Don to "release" this account because his mother reportedly has no other money.
• Jack will now be compelled to petition the courts in Virginia to "release" this account.
• Don might be misappropriating funds, and swift action by Jack is necessary.
• Upon receipt of this money, Alberta would be financially secure, negating the need to claim insurance, sell assets, or collect debt.

Analyst Commentary: in paragraph 4 DuBreuil delusionally asserts: "I was instrumental in helping the family set up all of the accounts and orchestrating the movement of the assets related to the distribution of proceeds to the family members from Samuel Veazey’s wrongful death lawsuit."

Analyst Commentary: There was no reason to include DuBreuil in any aspect of the mesothelioma law suit. He was nothing more than a notary and bank teller; generally avoided.

A Wachovia printout of activity for account 20000 3103 3332 (see exhibit K) shows check #1019, in the amount of$285,000.00, clearing this account on 2/5/2010. Coincidentally, an account summary, printed on 5/31/2010 (see exhibit L), with respect to LPL Financial brokerage account #545 1-7282 (see exhibit M), titled E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC), shows that this account was opened on 2/4/2010 on the strength of an initial investment of$285,000.00. This account would appear not to be part of the Alberta Veazey’s guardianship estate.

Analyst Commentary: DuBreuil has confused the LPL Veazey Gifting Trust's LPL Financial brokerage account. And it had about $400,000. Dubreuil is certain he's found the missing money!

Analyst Commentary: DuBreuil was sidelined, not in the loop with conversations ongoing with Ryan and Thomas

Analyst Commentary: When DuBreuil uses "guardianship estate" I'm presuming Alberta's estate. DuBreuil, not understanding trust law states: it's "titled E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC" ... "would appear not to be part of the Alberta Veazey’s guardianship estate."

DuBreuil closed the trust investment account at LPL, and moved the funds to a HTK guardianship account [HK-403309]
titled E Alberta Veazey guardianship account Jack Beckett guardian, Alberta's Social Security number.

MS. MURPHY: I think he's just asking whether you sent Don or his lawyer, or your lawyer sent the notification that this was transferred.
A I don't -- I can't recall.

Thomas cautions (e-mail) re: "using the funds".

DuBreuil States:
Relating to the future management of the above assets Jack Beckett has sent a letter of instruction (see Exhibit N) to LPL Financial relating to the brokerage account #5451-7282 informing them that Don Veazey has elected to resign both as trustee of the E. Alberta Veazey Gifting Trust and non-member manager of the E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC (see Exhibit O). The instructions with the letter are pursuant to the attached Action of Sole Member naming Jack Beckett as trustee of the trust and managing non member of the LLC. LPL Financial has not responded to the request.

In conclusion, my findings are that, between 12/22/2008 and 7/30/2009, Alberta Veazey had financial assets titled in her name with an aggregate value of$842,000 +/-. Today, it appears that only the Nationwide Annuity, with a value of$192,000.00+/-, is owned by Alberta Veazey (albeit now by Jack Beckett, in his capacity as Alberta Veazey’s guardian).

Currently unaccounted for, based upon my research (which, as indicated above, was limited due to the lack of complete records), are, the following: 1. The premise for and ultimate disposition of the $37,000 withdrawal from the Nationwide Annuity. 2. The premise for and ultimate disposition of the $276,321 transferred from the Wachovia brokerage account. 3. The disposition of the $142,833.32 not deposited to the E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC account at LPL Financial.

Analyst Commentary:DuBreuil incorrectly attempts to write 427,833.32 [Account Zero] and Instead writes $142,833.32.

Once you have considered the findings summarized by this letter, do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely yours,
Thomas DuBreuil
Financial Strategist
Rockwell Associates

cc: File
Mr. Joseph J. Beckett

Summary Rebuttal:

close scrutiny of this document leads to a belief this document was either a poorly conceived joke or a challenging but not insurmountable attempt, using smoke and mirrors, to obfuscate theft of the trust fund's assets

did Karsnitz ask courts to release funds?

All assets of the trust's LPL investment account were moved by DuBreuil, first from LPL to Alberta then before filing albert's accounting DuBreuil moved the remaining assets to LPL into an account controlled exclusively by Jack with Jack ultimately saying everything was lost in "the stock market meltdown". no distributions were ever made by the trust set up by Alberta with all going to Jack

Bob [Thomas]sent Jack a document to sign called the "E. Alberta Veazey Family LLC Action of Sole Member" for you to sign. I [DuBreuil] would like to discuss it with you to make sure that you understand what it is all about. (e-mail)

"As far as responding to Don's letters, I [DuBreuil] recommended that we not respond on a point by point basis since, in doing so, we were not any more likely to satisfy Don than if we offered a more "generalized" response. Despite that advice regarding the proposed response. I did ask Jack (and Kristen) to offer to me a response to each of Don's points. They did so with the exception of a couple of items which Kristen is pursuing was Jack (and Kristen) response" (e-mail) TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY?

Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, it means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This clause protects individuals from government action that infringes on their rights without proper legal procedures.

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack
... conduct business on this account.

From: DuBreuil
To: Thomas
Veazey - Nationwide Annuity Withdrawal

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack Beckett
Next Week

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack Beckett
RE: Wells fargo LLC Acount Statements form 2009 to present

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack Beckett
RE: Power of Attorney for Alberta

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack Beckett
meeting you [Bob Thomas] Jack and Kristen had last Friday

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack Beckett
Beckett/Veazey Update

From: DuBreuil
To: Samuel Warrington
Veazey/Beckett

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack Beckett
Alberta's Wells Fargo Brokerage Account

From: DuBreuil
To: Bob Thomas
Estate of Sam Veazey

Friday, July 13, 2012

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack
Veazey Guardlanship Income Option

Wednesday, July 17, 2012

From: DuBreuil
To: Jack
Veazey Guardlanship Income Option

wrongly states the Long Term Care was ending

June 21, 2012 I sue Jack for Moving all funds from the Trust to Accounts Controlled Exclusively by DuBreuil and Beckett