REMEMBER, BUTTERBALL TURKEY IS NOT AFFILIATED w/ GRANDPA's BUTTERBALL
FARMS BUTTER,
APART from the fact that grandpa sold the name “butterball” many years ago
to the turkey
company (as an aside, grandpa dabbled in the meat business as well,
& always hosted big
thanksgiving meals at
the butterball mansion
:

The Recipe Critic

Loading...

Peters 3c

 “Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” — Proverbs 31:9

AGGRESSIVE, PROSECUTORIAL, NO-NONSENSE version.

This style assumes the voice of a determined advocate exposing wrongdoing, highlighting contradictions, and pressing the strongest arguments. It is not neutral; it is forceful and adversarial, built for maximum rhetorical and legal impact.

SUMMARY STYLE 3 — AGGRESSIVE / PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENT

I. Overview: A Systematic Disinheritance Engineered Through Deception

The record shows a decades-long scheme in which Leo Peters dismantled the legal protections built into Helen Peters’ will, misled their daughters, and transferred all marital assets into the control of his second family. Every meaningful protection Helen established for her daughters was stripped away through coercion, secrecy, and manipulation.

The plaintiff argues this was not an accident, misunderstanding, or administrative error — it was a calculated removal of beneficiaries using emotional pressure and structural power.

II. Leo Peters Subverted Helen’s Will by Removing Oversight and Silencing Beneficiaries

Helen’s will included independent trustees, financial safeguards, hardship provisions, and oversight mechanisms explicitly designed to protect her daughters.

Leo eliminated each of these protections.

When the court intervened in 1976 due to mismanagement, Leo did not correct course — he coerced the daughters into signing statements designed to neutralize the court’s concerns. By forcing declarations of “confidence,” he gained unilateral control over the trust. The daughters, still grieving their mother and conditioned to defer to their father, complied under pressure.

This paved the way for the 1982 takeover.

III. The 1982 Sign-Over Was Obtained Through Undeniable Coercion

No credible analysis can portray the 1982 signatures as voluntary. Consider the facts:

  1. Meeting held without spouses or witnesses — a classic red flag for undue influence.

  2. Two daughters sought independent counsel, which unanimously told them not to sign.

  3. Financial threats and emotional pressure were applied until they relented.

  4. Promises of eventual fairness were made orally and strategically — never in writing.

  5. Retaliation was immediate: invitations revoked, access revoked, relationship terminated.

A valid, voluntary relinquishment is not followed by punishment for hesitation. This was a coerced forfeiture.

IV. After Securing the Signatures, Leo Expelled the Daughters From Their Own Family

Once the documents were obtained, Leo:

  • Cut off the daughters who resisted even briefly;

  • Barred them from family property;

  • Withheld communication and affection;

  • Replaced them with the second family as the sole beneficiaries of relationship, property, and legacy.

These retaliatory acts demonstrate consciousness of guilt. A father acting in good faith does not eliminate his daughters the moment they sign.

V. Upon Leo’s Death, the Scheme Became Fully Visible

When the estate was finally revealed in 1995:

  • Not one daughter of Helen received inheritance.

  • All property accumulated during the marriage of Helen and Leo transferred to Mark Peters.

  • Nancy retained ongoing control and statutory benefit.

  • Helen’s entire line — six daughters and all grandchildren — were erased from the estate.

This outcome is impossible to reconcile with Helen’s will. It is the natural end of Leo’s long-term campaign of misrepresentation.

VI. Attempts at “Dialogue” Were Met With Deflection, Spiritualized Manipulation, and Zero Restitution

The daughters’ letters from 1995–1997 are clear, rational, and grounded in fact.

In contrast:

  • Nancy reframed the issue as “emotional confusion,” dodging all legal responsibility and even accusing the daughters of “holding a gun to [her] head.”

  • Mark dismissed the daughters’ concerns as “vague,” accused them of hiding ulterior motives, and demanded they identify “specific wrongs” — despite the extensive documentation already provided.

These responses echo Leo’s pattern: invalidate, delay, spiritualize, and ultimately refuse.

The offer of a “foundation” is not restitution; it is another control mechanism. It requires the daughters to earn access to what already belongs to them.

VII. The Plaintiff Shows the Multi-Generational Harm of This Fraudulent Transfer

The plaintiff explains that the effects of Leo’s coercion extended beyond the daughters:

  • The grandchildren lost access to family property that could have supported their education, stability, or ministry.

  • The plaintiff personally incurred major hardship that a rightful inheritance could have alleviated.

  • The second family’s children benefited socially, financially, and reputationally from the diverted assets.

The plaintiff points out that Judge Stoppels recognized grandchildren’s interests, providing legal grounding for his standing.

VIII. The Second Family Now Controls 100% of What Helen Intended to Be Shared

This includes:

  • Real estate (Plymouth home, cottage)

  • Business interests

  • Funds tied to Helen’s premarital and marital contributions

  • Memorabilia, heirlooms, and personal property meant for the daughters

This is the very definition of unjust enrichment.

Peters II did nothing to earn Helen’s half of the marital estate, yet now claim permanent ownership of it.

IX. Legal Violations Are Clear and Numerous

  1. Undue influence in obtaining signatures.

  2. Breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee self-dealing.

  3. Misrepresentation regarding purpose, effect, and future intentions.

  4. Suppression of material information from beneficiaries.

  5. Violation of testamentary intent.

  6. Retaliatory conduct proving that consent was compromised.

  7. Unjust enrichment of parties who contributed nothing to the assets in question.

Any one of these doctrines is grounds for challenge. Together, they form an overwhelming case.

X. Relief Sought: Full Restoration of Helen’s Intended Distribution

The plaintiff demands:

  • Voiding of the 1982 relinquishment based on coercion;

  • Redistribution of Helen’s portion of the estate to her daughters;

  • Recognition of grandchildren’s derivative interest;

  • Judicial correction of an inheritance diverted through manipulation;

  • Prevention of further unjust transfer to the Peters II line.

This is not an emotional appeal. It is a legal correction of a documented abuse of power.


Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)