Now who’s crying over spilled milk?

Coming attractions: Corruption in Lake County IL - Election Iregularities in the Republican Party

Now who’s crying over spilled milk?


Published 10/27/2011 - 4:30 p.m. PST

Orange County Superior Court Approves RICO Complaint against Law Firm Involved in 25 million dollar fraud on the founders and heirs of Alta Dena Dairy.

TheOrange County Superior Court has ruled that the Alta Dena heirs are entitled to proceed against the law firms Buchalter Nemer on claims of Racketeering and against Berger Kahn for negligent hiring having alleged that they were swindled by the firms’ specialist in estate planning and wealth preservation, Wayne J. Allen, out of their $25 million dollar estate.

Irvine, CA October 26, 2011

On a ruling released Tuesday, October 25, 2011, Judge Nancy Wieben Stock of the Orange County Superior Court – Civil Complex Division – overruled procedural attacks on their lawsuit allowing the Stueve family, who are founders and heirs to the Alta Dena Dairy, to proceed against their former lawyers, Raymond Novell, Jennifer Novell Miller, Wayne J. Allen and the law firm Buchalter Nemer on claims that they were Racketeers or as aiders and abettors in racketeering activities against their interests. (Stueve v. Novell, O.C. Case No. 30 2010 00411651). The court further allowed negligent hiring claims to proceed against Berger Kahn, Allen’s former firm.
The Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock, who made the ruling, was appointed by Governor George Deukmejian on January 23, 1990 and has served as Presiding Judge, Assistant Presiding Judge, Supervising Judge of the Family Panel and Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division. Judge Stock is a highly respected member of the Orange County bench and bar. She has dedicated countless hours to many organizations that offer access to justice for all and is currently seated in the Civil Complex department of the Orange County Superior Court.
The counsel for the Stueves, James Daily ofDaily Law Group in Irvine, California, said, “This is an important step towards reversing the mistreatment of these hardworking elderly Americans who were violated by those they most trusted.”

Daily Law Group is a boutique litigation firm, focused on protecting the rights of individuals and business owners, maintaining their client’s wealth and corporate position, assuring the protection of sometimes exotic assets, and creating opportunity for their clients. The firm operates a family practice for wealthy clients in all their dealings while maintaining a strong outreach to protect those who lack access to the legal system.
James Daily noted, that this type of scheme “is a nationwide trend, as Warren Buffet has stated ‘when the economy falters it’s like a tide goes out and those swimming naked are exposed.’ You find out that your team of wealth advisors actually has treated your money, as if it were their own. In the Stueve’s case, the attorneys operated Christian sounding companies out of their law firms. These Christian sounding foundations were just a means of transferring the Stueve’s wealth into the hands of the lawyers or entities controlled by them.”

In one transaction detailed in the lawsuit attorney Raymond Novell sends one million dollars from the Stueve’s account to a company that Allen set up called GSF Acquisitions Inc. GSF is wholly owned by the Good Stewardship Foundation that Allen also had set up. The million dollars was wired from the Stueve’s to GSF-A’s bank account and then Novell, who opened the same accounts, wired a million dollars to his attorney client trust account where he then kept a few hundred thousand and sent the money to another management company that he owned. According to the motions filed in the case, the law firms gave Allen and Novell safe haven to work and operate these Christian sounding foundations all to the detriment of the Stueves. Neither Berger Kahn nor Buchalter had warned or advised the Stueves of these actions or the prior lawsuits against Allen, including a judgment against Allen from Lloyds of London for misrepresentation.

Daily stated that “the dealings between a lawyer and his client frame a fiduciary relationship – uberrima fides, meaning of utmost faithfulness. The duty of a fiduciary embraces the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the beneficiary of all facts which materially affect his rights and interests. Where there is a duty to disclose, the disclosure must be full and complete, and any material concealment or misrepresentation will amount to fraud.”

The State of California passed legislation in 1990 making it unlawful for the drafter of a will or trust to make donative transfers to himself or family members and invalidated such provisions. The purpose of such legislation was to directly address a case where a family lawyer with offices outside of Laguna Woods in Orange County – Leisure World – obtained millions of dollars in inheritance money from his clients by making himself and his daughter beneficiaries. This case, according to Daily is “version 2.0 in that the attorneys use sham corporations and foundations to place control of their clients assets directly into their hands while trying to avoid the forfeiture provisions of 21350 and 21351 of the California Probate code. The defendants here formed 17 trusts, they took over the management of the clients business and then booked the money as loans – using the Stueve’s as if they were their own ATM. Credit cards, luxury automobiles, boats, homes, huge expense accounts and cases of Opus One, along with rare coins and gold were the day to day comforts to the lawyers while those who had earned the money were on a monthly allowance ranging from $2,000 to some at $7,000 a month. The Stueves were farmers raised in the depression. They did not live in a house of privilege but worked on their dairy farm. There was not a single beach front property among them – while the attorneys lived on the golden shores of the pacific, the Stueves lived their lives as the middle class – very understated.”

RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act) is a Federal claim based on 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” “Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962” may bring a RICO action and recover treble damages and the court costs including a reasonable attorney’s fee. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

Daily said, “because of the almost inevitable stigmatizing effect on those named as defendants and the severe mandatory penalties the RICO statute imposes, courts strive to flush out frivolous RICO allegations at an early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the fact the case has been established evidences the overwhelming facts plead in the 331 page complaint. Make no mistake, this ruling was hard fought but worth it, both for the Stueve’s and for the public at large who will benefit by the awareness and frankly what I hope will result in a change to the probate code to eliminate the use of charities designed to hide a person’s identity merely to rip off their clients.”

Please read complete article at link below:


http://www.centurycitynews.com/article/BUSINESS/Law/Now_whos_crying_over_spilled_milk/360423

Editor's note: This could happen in Illinois...but don't hold your breath.  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com