A Revealing Weekend

The last three days revealed quite a bit of information -- information many of us suspected for years, but had no direct prove of certain individuals' complicity. For example, it was learned this weekend (Friday nite), the sanctuary's vet (aka Dr. Kevorkian) finally admitted that she knew (KNEW) that the diet the former pseudo-sanctuary directors fed the animals directly caused the animals' health problems. She kept her mouth shut for the sake of the dollars she received from the former directors.

And the pseudo-sanctuary's CPA (aka Madoff) was either extremely incompetent or was instrumental in hiding all the money the former directors allegedly stole from the animals. I mean, let's get real here, how could he not see a problem with filing grocery store receipts for a former directors' family--thereby allowing the animals pay for the former directors' personal living expenses?

Want another example:

According to the County Clerk’s records and sanctuary's Financial Report, the former directors purchased 2.510 acres of land being a portion of a 30.527 acre tract of land from a couple living next store on January 21, 1988.

The contract for deed stated the monthly payment would be $627.30;

Seller agreed to sell to the former directors at the end of 1 year from the date of the contract a 7.285 acre tract owned by Seller in the amount of $20,000 ($2,000 down payment) at 10% interest;

Terms of Payment: $176.60 per month to be added to the payment on herein above, increasing the payment to $803.90 per month for 19 years;

Contract for deed was signed by both directors.

Deed of Trust for both properties (Tract I – 2.510 acres – former directors’ personal property & Tract II – 7.235 acres) was signed by the former male director on January 30, 1989.

Entered into a contractual agreement - Real Estate Lien Note dated March 29, 1990 between the Maker (sanctuary) and the Payees (the former directors);

The former directors entered into a second lien agreement with the sanctuary for the sale of the 7.285 acres of land;

Principle and interest shall be due in monthly payment installments of $199.97 (or more) each, payable on the 1st day of each and every calendar month, beginning on May 1, 1990 and continuing regularly thereafter until the whole of said sum, with interest at 10%, has been duly paid;

Lien states “on default in the payment of this note or in the performance of any obligation in any instrument securing or collateral to it, this note and all obligations in all instruments securing or collateral to it shall become immediately due at the election of the Payee. Maker…waive all demands for payment, presentation of payment, motions of intention to accelerate maturity, protests, and notices of protest;

Former male director signed the Real Estate Lien Notice on March 29, 1990.

Received the sanctuary’s Independent Auditor’s Report (prepared by the sanctuary's CPA [aka Madoff]) dated July 26, 2004;

Note 3 – Related Party Transaction: On March 29, 1990, the sanctuary entered into an agreement with the President of the sanctuary to purchase 7.285 acres of land for $20,000;

The note has an annual interest rate of 10% and matures April 1, 2004;

The remaining principal on this note is $809.99.

Received the sanctuary’s Independent Auditor’s Report (prepared by the sanctuary's CPA [aka Madoff]) August 24, 2005;

Note 3 – Related Party Transaction: On March 29, 1990, the sanctuary entered into an agreement with the President of the sanctuary to purchase 7.285 acres of land for $20,000
The note has an annual interest rate of 10% and matures April 1, 2004;

There was no mention of a remain balance due on this report.

Paid off the lien - Release of Lien dated April 28, 2008 for 10+acre property;

The note was fully paid off ($81,943.49) and the next door neighbors released all rights, title, interest and claim to Tract I and Tract II.


In the September 6, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes, the former director’ came up with an estimated report on the cost for storage and animal care at their personal residence. Instead of asking the Board for permission to store sanctuary property and animals on their personal site in advance for a fee, the directors took it upon themselves to take the sanctuary's property, used it, and kept it on their personal property (i.e. former directors' personal use of the sanctuary’s vehicles). Then several months and/or years later the former directors’ demanded retroactive storage payments for the animals and equipment.


The former directors’ claimed in 2008 they had to vacant their personal residence from March to July 2008, so “Hurricane Katrina” cats could be stored in their house, forcing them to live in the daughter’s apartment loft located on their property. The former directors' wanted reimbursement of their mortgage payments ($750 per month) to include the heat and air conditioning bills paid during this same period.


From 2005-2006 “Katrina” cats were temporally housed in the main building (now known as the main office) until such time they were either released to roam free at the unregulated/unlicensed property; euthanized as the result of contracting a highly virulent and contagious upper respiratory infections; or placed in other animal shelters throughout the local area.

During this same period, the directors supposedly communicated with each other via emails and cellular phones because they could not get along with each other. Divorce paperwork was filed with the courthouse and the couple lived apart; the male director lived in the homestead and the female director rented houses for her personal use. According to public records, 2 adult children still lived at the homestead and the apartment loft, so I have a real hard time visioning four people crammed into one living room, a loft, and a bathroom for four months. Especially two people who were clearly not getting along and were seeking a divorce. Also, the "mortgage" was paid off in April 2008, so why were they claiming three (3) months worth of home mortgage payments from the sanctuary?


According to the February 21, 2009 Board Meeting Minutes, Item 10:


“7+ acres of the 10 acres bought by the xxxxx personally in the ‘80’s that need to be deeded back to them. The 7+ acres were given for use and deeded to the orphanage with a value of $20,000 + interest with the understanding that if and when the xxxxx ever closed this piece of the property, the xxxx's would have the right and opportunity to buy the 7+ acres back for the same value ($20,000 + interest) that it was originally deeded to the orphanage for.”


At the time this motion was made by former female director, she knew the property was already in the former director's she knew the property was already in the former directors’ name. It appears; former female director purposely misled the Board of Director’s regarding the current ownership of the property. According to the County records, the former directors’ already possessed the deed for the 7.285 acres of land which the touring animals currently reside. The motion for Item 10 was tabled until the paperwork showing the sale and the land location could be reviewed by the Board.


I was unable to find any records regarding the make-up of the Board of Directors in 1990. Past 990’s revealed in the early years, the board of directors was made up primarily of three people—former male director (President), former female director (Vice President), and xxxxxxx(Secretary). I was also unable to find board meeting minutes for 1990, which stated an understanding between the sanctuary and the former directors' to sell back the land for $20,000 plus interest, in the event the sanctuary ever closed the xxxxxxx Road property.


It should be noted that the County Appraisal District assessed the value of the xxxxx Road property, for 2009, at $73,040.


Years of 990’s revealed regular payments were made by the sanitary to the former directors’; until such time it was recorded on the 2004 990, Schedule 5, a zero balance for the “xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx” line item entry.


However, it has been brought to my attention, the sanctuary may have continued to pay a monthly “mortgage” payment after 2004 (until 2008) to the xxxxxxx in the amount of approximately $176.40—this leads me to question whether or not this amount was paid to the xxxxxxx for the former directors’ personal home mortgage payment.


I am unable to find a rational as to why the sanctuary should submit to the former directors’ demand to return the xxxxx Road property, upon payment of $20,000 plus interest, when it appears the sanctuary already complied with the terms and conditions of the Real Estate Lien Note dated March 29, 1990. It is my opinion a request, made by the sanctuary to the former directors’ for the release of the lien, is in order so a deed for the xxxxx Road property could be obtained and filed with the County on behalf of its animal residents.

So the question is--why did the CPA allow them to continue to make payments to the xxxxx's after the note was paid off in 2004?

It certainly appears the vet and the CPA have a lot of questions to answer -- like where did all the money go and why didn't you save the animals?

[Present Day:  Here is the information sent to the OAG regarding the above information:

From: Kristina Brunner

To: Nicole Garcia
Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009
Subject: Fw: ASUS/WAO Additional Information - Lawsuit

Greetings Nicole:

Per your verbal request on Saturday, here is a copy of what I sent to the Texas OAG last night. I hope you find it helpful in regards to the October 2009 Asvestas lawsuit pending against the WAO -

Regards,

Kris

OAG Additional Information - 102509


20091016111814898 - lawsuit



Microsoft Word - ASUS-WAO Board Meeting 9-6-08


Microsoft Word - ASUS - February 21, 2009 Meeting Minutes


Contract w Asvestas and Andersons - 012188


Asvestas Anderson Deed - Apr 1989


SA Wild Life Deed of Trust - 032990


SA Wildlife Real Estate Lien Note - 032990


SA Wildlife Warranty Deed With 2nd Vendor Lien - 032990


Asvestas - Release of Lien - 042808