- 11 -
appeared on behalf of petitioners.1 At that hearing, Mr. Chisum
argued in pertinent part:
The documents for the change of trustee to put me
personally in that position predate the petition to the
court. We have not yet engaged in discovery. When we
engage in discovery, that seems a more appropriate time
for the discovery items concerning the trust. I do
have concerns in the contract, about the privacy provi-
sions of the trust in the contract and when and how I
reveal that and that that’s my concern as to why I have
not yet submitted copies of the trust or those other
documents of the lineage of trustee, so that the trust
and correct trustee is myself in my personal capacity
and Mr. Wilde in his personal capacity that’s a part of
the other motion.
And since the Superior Court of the State of
Arizona by that same state law has exclusive jurisdic-
tion on the validity of the trust and the validity of
the trustee as the party, it seems that this is a
better process to be handled through the discovery than
in a motion to dismiss, and perhaps the motion is just
premature.
* * * * * * *
* * * In the original format of creating the trust
there was a company trustee, and in my capacity in that
company I have the ability to substitute trustees. In
order to clarify and remove question as to who would be
the proper party to act and argue for the trust to
create and to hold the jurisdiction where I could argue
and have Mr. Wilde assist me in that argument, I elect-
ed to substitute the trustees before –- well, I substi-
tuted myself before the petition was due and then later
decided that to have assistance in some of the case
that I would also include Mr. Wilde. But I was origi-
1At the hearing the Court informed Mr. Chisum that its
allowing him to appear at the hearing as the alleged trustee of
each petitioner did not mean that the Court agreed that he in
fact was a duly appointed and authorized trustee of each peti-
tioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011