This article was originally posted on Let's Roll and follows on from my earlier post on the same topic, which can be found @ http://firemansams.blogspot.com/2010/11/david-and-lynn-angell-their-final.html. The original version of this article can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=191640&postcount=74
Following on from my last post about the hijack lawsuit brought by David Angell's relatives, here's more damning evidence against the arguments made in this case as regards the couple's domicile at the time of their deaths. To recap, the lawyers argued that the couple had sold their home in California AND their existing property on Cape Cod.
"The couple had sold their long-held summer home on Cape Cod, and their new Cape Cod vacation home was still under construction, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said."
However, property deeds available on the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds website indicate that the couple's property on Cape Cod, 21 Shattuck Lane, Chatham was not sold until after their alleged deaths. This property was sold in March 2002 by Perry Oretzky, acting in his capacity as executor of the couple's wills.
So, on the one hand we have David's brother, Kenneth Angell, telling us that David and Lynn had hosted a family wedding at their home on Cape Cod just prior to 9/11, and on the other we have the same Kenneth Angell involved in a lawsuit alleging that the couple had sold their Cape Cod home and were residing in a non-existent property on a non-existent street in Providence, Rhode Island!
Is there anything to this beyond the rather obvious money-grubbing, given that there was a strong financial incentive for 'proving' that the couple were residents of Rhode Island, rather than California or Massachusetts? The projo.com article has this to say:
"Under California and Massachusetts law, “recovery is largely limited to economic loss to dependants” and Angell had no children. Under Rhode Island law, damages would be calculated by projecting Angell’s lifetime earnings, minus lifetime expenses, defense lawyers said."
One can only wonder at the standard of 'evidence' accepted by the court in question, given that the below documents were not exactly difficult to come by and demonstrate that there is something very, very wrong here.