|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
I thought I was going to get a break from the Jodi Arias case until I read this staggering announcement about the Jodi Arias appeal fund.
“Some people have been questioning the validity of the Jodi Arias Appellate (JAA) Trust Fund. This fund was set up by me (Susan Halterman) through a reputable Attorney. It has been set up so that the money donated to it can only be used for Jodi Arias’ legal defense for an appeal. Donations can be made through the Bank or through a PayPal account that is linked only to this Bank. I will not release any other details about the trust. Go to the web site jodispage.com for a link to make a donations. Thank you to all who have already donated.” (Facebook 23rd October 2013.)
Susan Halterman (The aunt of Jodi Arias)
Jodi Arias supporters surprised
Jodi Arias supporters were surely devastated by the above announcement made by Susan Halterman on Facebook about the Jodi Arias appeal fund. No doubt the Alexander family were delighted at her point blank refusal:
- to give any explanation for the reason to launch a public appeal for donations, and
- to disclose any information regarding the trust, or inform donors as to where they can get information.
Sure, Susan Halterman would have an absolute right of non-disclosure, if it was a private trust. But she was appealing to the public’s charitable instincts to give money to a good cause, if that is what they perceived it to be.
It is a Public Appeal
The Jodi Arias appeal fund is not a private family trust. It is a public appeal. But she refused, point blank, to provide, what should be public information to the people she was asking to donate.
When considering making donations or investments to Charities, Trust funds, Mutual Funds, Stocks, Bonds or the like, potential donators have a legal right to view the relevant, legally approved documentation before donating.
Trusts are strictly regulated
The solicitation of money from the public is closely controlled and regulated under Acts of Parliament in the UK. I believe it is the same in the USA.
You cannot just wake up one morning and say, ‘Today I think I’ll set up a trust and raise a load of cash from the public over the internet or other media.’
There are rules and regulations, and approval is needed before you can begin collecting money. If not, the public would be fleeced out of millions every day. The main criteria is transparency and disclosure.
Public trust and confidence is paramount.
In 2012 there was a review – Call for Evidence – under the UK Charities Act 2006 regarding the self-regulation and transparency of fundraising. The Charities Act 2006 Review considered whether the self-regulation of fundraising had been a success. It also considered what changes were needed to strengthen public trust and confidence in charity fundraising.
The Review looked at the requirements that apply to professional fundraisers and commercial charity promotions. The purpose was to determine whether the rules were operating effectively. Thereby providing sufficient transparency to enable the public to make informed decisions.
What was the secrecy about Jodi Arias appeal fund?
What was the secrecy about Jodi Arias appeal fund? Why make a public appeal to raise funds for, what you believe is, a good cause? Then create suspicion through non-disclosure and make it difficult to collect the money you need. I don’t have an answer, and it doesn’t make sense.
The problem with the Jodi Arias Appeal is that the public has no idea what it is all about. And furthermore were told by the Susan Halterman, the founder of the Trust, that she has no intention of telling anyone. So anyone who donates money purely on a Facebook announcement must accept 100% risk.
Jodi Arias applies to fire her attorney
It was not surprising Jodi Arias made another attempt to sack her defence attorney Kirk Nurmi (as reported by Michael Kiefer, The Arizona Republic on Oct 2013.
She tried and failed in June, when Judge Sherry Stephens refused her request. It was pretty clear that her relationship with Nurmi hadn’t improved. But her relationship with her other attorney Jennifer Wilmott, always appeared strong as they sat side by side throughout the trial. I was under the impression that a defendant had the right to choose their own defence from available attorneys. Presumably, in Arizona that is not the case and defendants have to accept who the State appoints to their case.
Settlement Conference news
Superior Court Judge James Keppel presiding over the ‘settlement conference’ referred the case back to Judge Stephens when no agreement was reached. No comment was forthcoming from the Defence Attorneys or the Maricopa County Attorney, who did not attend the settlement conference. Another hearing was scheduled, after which there was a sentencing re-trial as the trial jury were unable to agree on a sentence, in May.
Questions that remained unanswered
The questions that remained unanswered were:
- Would the Jodi Arias application to dismiss Kurt Nurmi and appoint another attorney be accepted?
- The reason for the hearing was not stated in the ‘Arizona Republic’. So what was it for?
- Has a settlement deal been ruled out completely?
- Would the sentencing re-trial definitely be held in Maricopa County?
- When would the date for re-trial be set, and when would it be?
- Would Judge Sherry Stephens preside or would another Judge be appointed?
- What form would the re-trial take, what evidence would be presented, and which witnesses would be called?
- How long was it likely to take?
When I looked at that list I could see the possibility that the case could go well into the next year. Only then would the appeal process begin, and it could take years.
Hi Sandra. On the hot line again! It seems like this is one of those cases that will never go away. I can’t imagine any substantial funds being donated under these circumstances. So the whole exercise will become pretty pointless. And if, as you say, there is nothing untoward why the refusal to speak. I hope for the family’s sake they don’t get caught flouting the fund raising regulations. Then they’ll have more problems on their hands. keep well. James
More rational points you make, James. While there may indeed be nothing nefarious at all with Aunt Sue’s efforts, her online attitude and incomplete disclosure casts yet another pale over “all things Jodi”. And again, Jodi is left in the middle, between that rock and hard place she must be accustomed to by now.
Thank you Ms New York and welcome to JAMOOKI. That’s very useful information even if, like me, you are not 100% sure of everything. On the trust issue; it would be quite interesting to know how it is structured but I am more concerned as to why the family feel they can get donations without complying with regulations and disclosure. But Sue Halterman obviously believes they can persuade people to donate blindly so good luck to her. See you again soon. regards James
Hello again Karliethom. I don’t have an opinion on the motion to fire Nurmi other than I explained in the post. It didn’t surprise me. As far as the family sharing information, I agree they may not want to share but they are legally obliged to disclose the information if they are asking the public for donations. Their alternative is to close the fund to the public and raise money privately. regards James
Your title, “Staggering Announcement” is spot on. So much information in the Arias case and yet it has created even more questions. If I were interested in making a donation to the JAA Fund, I would certainly wait until answers about the Trust were made available. I suppose that the family might believe that they don’t have to share what they feel is a private concern or that it might not be to their benefit to share their strategy. I admit that I have been curious, though.
Jodi’s request to have Mr. Nurmi replaced had some very valid points but was also contradictory. She deserves to have counsel that is responsive to her needs and someone who will be supportive on and off the clock regardless of who is paying the bill. I would be interested in your opinion on the motion that was filed.
Hi James. I have seen you over at JustDaTruth!
Kirk Nurmi himself, had tried several times to be removed from the case over the years and was denied. He started out as a court appointed attorney from the Public Defenders office. When a defendant has no money to obtain an attorney on her/his own, they are appointed an attorney from the public defenders office. An attorney is not “forced” on the defendant, but are available to those who cannot afford an attorney of their own!
Kirk Nurmi started his own business and tied to withdraw from the case, as he was no longer going to be working for the Pubic Defenders office. However, a deal was stuck to pay him private attorney fees to stay on the case. First Arias wanted him. Then she didn’t. Then she wanted to represent herself, then she wanted Nurmi back. (I may not have gotten the order correct. But she went through an attorney or two).
What I have gleaned from her long winded letter to the court, he is blaming Nurmi for her conviction!
I believe the Nov 1st hearing is for motions previously submitted to the court for…well, I don’t know!
I believe the settlement deal is over because no settlement was reached. I doubt either side wanted to settle and it looks like Arias would rather play with her life. In my opinion.
Keep digging into that trust, James!