Fiduciary/Trustee and Attorney
Perjury and Subornation of Perjury

On 7-20-2020 - David Heilman and attorneys Robert D. Brower and Angela M. Caulley of Miller Johnson knew that Kirk Siddell was Ralph's son and that David Heilman had been in contact with Kirk via mail, telephone and text. Heilman indisputably knew from Ralph's Trust and other documents that Kirk was Ralph's son. Emails demonstrate Heilman knew Kirk's contact information.

Heilman and Brower signed responses to interrogatories under oath pursuant to MCL 700.1306, and under the penalty of perjury. The responses were transmitted via U.S. Mail and email to Linda Smith claiming at Ralph's death:

"Ralph does not have any living relatives."

Click Here to See The Actual Response:
David Heilman's response to First Set of Interrogatories, Page 3, Paragraph 5

Facts from the record

  • In verified interrogatory responses served on Linda Smith, Trustee David Heilman (through counsel) stated that “Ralph does not have any living relatives.”

  • Independent of those responses, Ralph’s son, Kirk Siddell, is identified in the Ralph A. Siddell Living Trust as a beneficiary, and Heilman was in ongoing contact with Kirk by text during the relevant period.

  • Despite this, the interrogatory response to “Identify all living family members of Ralph Siddell” was “Ralph does not have any living relatives.”

Ethics analysis (Michigan rules)

  • Based on these documents, we allege that Attorneys Robert D. Brower and Angela M. Caulley knew, or reasonably should have known, that the interrogatory answer denying any living relatives was false and misleading as to a material fact.

  • In our view, serving and maintaining that answer, without correcting it once the omission of Ralph’s son and trust beneficiary came into play, is inconsistent with the duties of candor toward the tribunal and honesty imposed by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, including MRPC 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 4.4 (respect for rights of third persons), and 8.4 (misconduct), as well as Michigan Court Rule 9.104(1)–(5).

  • We therefore allege that Brower and Caulley engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of these provisions, and that their conduct should be reviewed by the appropriate disciplinary authorities.

Fraud and criminal‑law analysis

  • Taken together with other conduct described on this site, we allege that the false statement that “Ralph does not have any living relatives,” when Kirk Siddell was both Ralph’s son and a named trust beneficiary in contact with the trustee, was part of a broader scheme to conceal Kirk’s status and to prevent him from contesting the 2017 Restatement of the Ralph A. Siddell Living Trust on grounds of fraud and undue influence.

  • We further allege that this conduct, if proven, would satisfy elements of:

    • MCL 700.218(1), in conjunction with embezzlement by fiduciary under MCL 750.174(1),

    • Perjury under MCL 750.422, and

    • Subornation of perjury under MCL 750.423.
      These citations are offered as our legal analysis of how the documented conduct fits Michigan criminal statutes; they are not findings of guilt by any court.

Mail and wire fraud analysis

  • The interrogatory responses and related litigation communications were transmitted via U.S. Mail and email.

  • We allege that these mailings and electronic transmissions formed part of a broader scheme to defraud the beneficiaries of the Ralph A. Siddell Living Trust and the William H. Johnson Jr. Living Trust of money and property, and that, if proven, such conduct would fall within the prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1342 (fictitious name/address), and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (wire fraud).

  • These are allegations and legal opinions based on the cited record; criminal liability can only be determined by the appropriate prosecuting authorities and courts.

Duty to address and report misconduct

Once these false interrogatory answers and the underlying documentary evidence were brought to the attention of other counsel that includes -- Thomas Kuiper of Kuiper Kraemer and Laura Morris of Warner, Norcross + Judd -- and the Allegan County Probate Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court in subsequent proceedings, we believe they had obligations under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct to address this dishonesty of Robert Brower and Angela Caulley. It is undisputed the sworn response stated that “Ralph does not have any living relatives,” even though the trust instruments, the MCL 700.7604(1)(b) notice letter, and contemporaneous text messages show that Trustee David Heilman knew that Kirk Siddell was Ralph’s son and a named trust beneficiary.

Under MRPC 3.3, a lawyer who knows material evidence presented to a tribunal is false must take reasonable remedial measures, which can include disclosure to the court.

In addition, MRPC 8.3(a) provides that a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a significant violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness “shall inform” the Attorney Grievance Commission. In our view, any attorney or judicial officer who became aware of this conflict between the sworn discovery response and the trust, statutory notice letter, and text communications had a professional duty at least to consider remedial action and, where the MRPC 8.3 standard was met, to report the misconduct to the Attorney Grievance Commission.

Opinion: The documented conduct by these actors, taken together, constitutes predicate acts by an association‑in‑fact enterprise and was intended to injure, harm, and oppress the due process rights of the beneficiaries under color of law, in a manner consistent with violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 and 18 U.S.C. 242.

WHO DOES THIS?

CRIMINALS DO THIS TO CONCEAL FACTS TO ABUSE AND
FINANCIALLY EXPLOIT ELDERLY PEOPLE