Speaker 1: On September sixth, nineteen eighty five, elkins biological father.
Speaker 2: Elkin, who was pretending to be Peggy's brother but is
Speaker 2: really her son.
Speaker 1: Yeah, elkins biological father Elkin Simpson Senior, was killed in
Speaker 1: a plane crash. At the time of his death, Elkin
Speaker 1: Simpson Senior was in the process of divorcing Elkins's mother, Peggy,
Speaker 1: but a final divorce decree had not yet been entered. Accordingly,
Speaker 1: Peggy filed the wrongful death suit against the airline company
Speaker 1: as a surviving spouse, from which at least two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars was set aside for elkins benefit. Apparently, the
Speaker 1: last of the settlement funds, approximately fifty thousand dollars, was
Speaker 1: used by Peggy in around two thousand and five as
Speaker 1: a down payment for a condominium she purchased in Louisiana.
Speaker 2: I'm Jonathan Walton and this is a bonus episode of
Speaker 2: Queen of the Cohn The Athlete Whisperer, Episode eight. It's
Speaker 2: a Very Crazy Family where my buddy Evan Goldstein and
Speaker 2: I review a bunch of insane lawsuits and appeals filed
Speaker 2: by Peggy and her son Elkin for various scammy reasons. Whoo,
Speaker 2: this is like a novel here, so I'll tell you
Speaker 2: that the cliffs notes Peggy's first husband died in a
Speaker 2: plane crash.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: But when he died in that plane crash, they were
Speaker 2: separated for five years, but they were not officially divorced
Speaker 2: on paper. They were just separated. But she had remarried
Speaker 2: someone else while she was on paper married to this
Speaker 2: guy who died in the plane crash. So five years
Speaker 2: after they separate, the guy dies in a plane crash,
Speaker 2: which is Elkin's biological father, the one who died in
Speaker 2: the plane crash. Peggy, seizing that she's still married to
Speaker 2: him on paper, tries to get the rights to the
Speaker 2: settlement that the airline made in the lawsuit that was
Speaker 2: filed for wrongful death in the amount of two hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. Peggy tries to get that two hundred thousand
Speaker 2: dollars for herself. So in nineteen eighty five, Peggy is
Speaker 2: newly married to doctor Forrest King and living in a
Speaker 2: mansion in Atlanta down the street from Whitney Houston. When
Speaker 2: she plans to scam the airline and her previous husband's
Speaker 2: current live in girlfriend, Monica out of that two hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars wrongful death settlement, and Peggy's childhood friend, Pamela
Speaker 2: Carey is actually a witness to this fraud in progress.
Speaker 4: I remember Peggy said she was married to doctor King,
Speaker 4: but she had to annul the marriage so that she
Speaker 4: could get the benefits from Elkin's father. And it didn't
Speaker 4: make sense to me, but that's what I was told initially.
Speaker 4: But she was about to come into a large sum
Speaker 4: of money.
Speaker 2: She files a lawsuit trying to take possession of that
Speaker 2: two hundred thousand dollars settlement.
Speaker 1: Simpson versus King, Supreme Court of Georgia decided September eleventh,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine. Appelly missus Forest King. That's Peggy was
Speaker 1: named administratis. It sounds like a dominatrix, sounds sexual.
Speaker 2: It's just a female administrator. This is a court in Georgia.
Speaker 1: A Pelly, missus Forest King was named administratis of decedent
Speaker 1: Elkin Stanley Simpson's estate.
Speaker 2: Decedent is a term that's generally used in law governing
Speaker 2: estates and trusts in reference to a person who has died.
Speaker 1: An application challenging the appelles appointment filed by the appellent
Speaker 1: Monica Simpson was denied by the probate court.
Speaker 2: So Monica was the woman Elkin Senor was gonna marry.
Speaker 2: Monica was the woman Elkin's dad, Elkin. It gets confusing
Speaker 2: because they're both named Elkin. He was going to marry her.
Speaker 2: He'd been separated from Peggy for five years. They weren't
Speaker 2: legally divorced on paper, but they were divorced for all
Speaker 2: intents and purposes. She'd married someone else in the meantime,
Speaker 2: so obviously whatever. So Monica is the woman who fought
Speaker 2: to get this too hundred thousand because they were going
Speaker 2: to get married, and she has a kid for him too,
Speaker 2: So she fought and the court denied her that, so
Speaker 2: she appealed and appealed to appeal, but she lost the
Speaker 2: loss of loss. I reached out to her, she want
Speaker 2: to talk to me, shocker, but Peggy swooped in and
Speaker 2: early on Peggy successfully manages to be named the administrator
Speaker 2: or administrator tricks under Georgia law for Elkin Senior's estate
Speaker 2: so she could get her hands on that two hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars wrongful death settlement from the airline and Elkin
Speaker 2: Senior's girlfriend, Monica, referred to here as the appellant challenges
Speaker 2: that decision.
Speaker 1: The appellant appealed to the Fulton County Superior Court, where
Speaker 1: her motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and where
Speaker 1: the Pelly's motion for summary judgment was granted. We affirm
Speaker 1: in part and reverse in part. The pros here is
Speaker 1: just feel like I'm reading Ray Bradberg. The appelli and
Speaker 1: the decendent were married in nineteen seventy.
Speaker 2: Eight, referring to Peggy and Elkin Senior's marriage in nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy eight, and she gave.
Speaker 1: Birth to a child, Elkin Simpson the second. The couple
Speaker 1: separated in August nineteen eighty, but did not obtain a divorce.
Speaker 1: Sometime in nineteen eighty five, the appellant moved into the decedents'
Speaker 1: home to live with him again.
Speaker 2: The appellant here is Monica, the woman Elkin Senior was
Speaker 2: with after he and Peggy separated. Monica lives with Elkin
Speaker 2: Senior for years.
Speaker 1: In the course of their cohabitation, the appellant became pregnant,
Speaker 1: and they told various family members about their future child.
Speaker 1: Mister Simpson instituted divorce proceedings against.
Speaker 2: The appelle meaning Peggy, and.
Speaker 1: On June twenty fifth, nineteen eighty five, a final alimonium
Speaker 1: property settlement agreement was entered into by the parties. The
Speaker 1: agreement gave mister Simpson custody of Elkin the second and
Speaker 1: awarded the Pelly that's Peggy twenty five hundred dollars for
Speaker 1: her share of the home in which mister Simpson and
Speaker 1: the appellant.
Speaker 2: Was so in Peggy's pending divorce from Elkin Senior, she
Speaker 2: was going to get twenty five hundred dollars and that's it.
Speaker 2: Full custody of her son, Elkin Junior was actually awarded
Speaker 2: to his father, Elkin Senior, and not to Peggy, which
Speaker 2: isn't the first time that happens. Shockingly, earlier that same year,
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty five, Peggy married and divorced another guy
Speaker 2: named Irving Rivers, and he got full custody of the
Speaker 2: baby they had together too, not Peggy. So at this
Speaker 2: point Elkin is the second child that Peggy did not
Speaker 2: get custody of for reasons I can only imagine but
Speaker 2: do not know for sure.
Speaker 1: The agreement was made in order of the Court on
Speaker 1: August twenty second, nineteen eighty five. On September sixth, nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five, before the final divorce decree was entered, mister
Speaker 1: Simpson died in an airplane crash in Wisconsin. The appelly
Speaker 1: aka Peggy, applied to be named administratics of mister Simpson's
Speaker 1: intestate estate as surviving spouse on September eleventh, nineteen eighty five,
Speaker 1: five days after the fatal accident.
Speaker 2: And that to me just says she's a con woman.
Speaker 2: She separated from this guy for five years, the divorce
Speaker 2: is almost final, she married a whole other guy, and
Speaker 2: then she's circling back to say, oh, I should get
Speaker 2: this is my husband. He's still my husband. Yeah, like
Speaker 2: how low? I don't know how low? Knowing full well
Speaker 2: she's cheating the other woman who he was with and
Speaker 2: had a kid with, out of the money, she doesn't care.
Speaker 1: The Fulton County Probate Court judge appointed the appelle as
Speaker 1: temporary administratics of the decedent's estate on September thirteenth, nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five. The appellant, as next friend of the decedent's
Speaker 1: unborn child, Tristan, filed a petition to remove the appellee
Speaker 1: as the administratics of the estate.
Speaker 2: And this is Monica. Monica had the son, Tristan, Monica's
Speaker 2: trying to get the rights to that money because he
Speaker 2: was with her before he died, and according to her,
Speaker 2: they planned to get married.
Speaker 1: Subsequently, the appellant claimed to be mister Simpson's common law wife.
Speaker 1: After a hearing, the probate Court found that no common
Speaker 1: law marriage existed between the appellant and mister Simpson. The
Speaker 1: court ruled that the appellant had no standing individually or
Speaker 1: on behalf of Tristan to petition the court for Appelli's removal.
Speaker 1: After Tristan was born, the decedent's parents voluntarily underwent blood tests,
Speaker 1: which showed a ninety nine point seven percent probability that
Speaker 1: the decedent was Tristan's father exactly. The trial court did
Speaker 1: not air in the part of its order which granted
Speaker 1: some rejudgment to the appelle on the issue of the
Speaker 1: common law marriage. There was no common law marriage between
Speaker 1: the appellant and the decedent.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at common law marriage in Georgia. Ooh, Georgia
Speaker 2: is not a common law state. Ah, so that's why
Speaker 2: she got fucked there Georgia doesn't recognize common law marriages.
Speaker 2: You see score one for scammer Peggy. Peggy was still
Speaker 2: married on paper even though she wasn't really married and
Speaker 2: she married a whole other guy. Meanwhile, the woman he's
Speaker 2: really with for years and has his son is not
Speaker 2: allowed to get this two hundred thousand dollars. So sad.
Speaker 2: It really is the system fucking the victim over god.
Speaker 1: Ah. Mister Simpson's actions indicated that he was in the
Speaker 1: process of taking all the necessary steps to ensure that
Speaker 1: the child whom he and the appellant had conceived would
Speaker 1: be born into a legitimate family environment. He proudly told
Speaker 1: his family and friends that he and the appellant were
Speaker 1: going to have a child. Everything necessary for his divorce
Speaker 1: from his estranged wife, Missus Forest King, was complete except
Speaker 1: for the final decree one. He planned to marry the
Speaker 1: appellant as soon as the divorce became final, which would
Speaker 1: have been prior to Tristan's birth.
Speaker 2: And this just shows you the two kinds of people
Speaker 2: were dealing with hair. He was waiting for an official
Speaker 2: divorce on paper before he married again. She didn't fucking wait.
Speaker 2: She went and married again, even though that's technically against
Speaker 2: the law. Did anyone prosecute or know No. Meanwhile, she's married,
Speaker 2: she's reaching back in time to try to get her
Speaker 2: ex husband.
Speaker 1: The money that should be going to them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's so ugh.
Speaker 1: The fact that mister Simpson listed the appellant on his
Speaker 1: insurance suggests that he had already begun to think of
Speaker 1: them as family. There is clear and convincing evidence that
Speaker 1: mister Simpson intended for his unborn child to be born
Speaker 1: into a legitimate family environment. Thus his unexpected death will
Speaker 1: not defeat Tristan's claim. The trial court should not have
Speaker 1: granted summary judgment to the appelle and the trial court
Speaker 1: should not have denied partial summary judgment to the appellant
Speaker 1: on that issue. The only reason missus King can be
Speaker 1: considered a surviving spouse is because the final divorce decree
Speaker 1: had not been entered. However, she may not inherit from
Speaker 1: the decedent's estate. Mister Simpson's child, Tristan, may inherit under
Speaker 1: the doctrine of virtual legitimation, and the appelle has no
Speaker 1: interest in the estate of the decedent and may not
Speaker 1: serve as administrators of his estate. As a surviving spouse
Speaker 1: judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. All the
Speaker 1: justices concur except Belle J that fucking asshole who dissents,
Speaker 1: and Welter J Not participating.
Speaker 2: Here's where it gets interesting. Once Elkin becomes an adult,
Speaker 2: he files a scammy lawsuit too, and you won't believe
Speaker 2: against who after the break Welcome back to Queen of
Speaker 2: the con Here's where it gets interesting. While they did
Speaker 2: not grant Peggy, as a surviving spouse, the right to
Speaker 2: that two hundred thousand dollars settlement from the airline for
Speaker 2: wrongful death, they did ear market for Peggy's son, Elkin,
Speaker 2: who is all so Elkin's senior son, Elkin to get
Speaker 2: when he's eighteen years old. So they put it into
Speaker 2: an account with doctor Forest King's name, which is Peggy's
Speaker 2: third husband who she was with at the time when
Speaker 2: all this transpired, and Peggy's name is on the account too.
Speaker 2: So years go by, apparently because of this lawsuit, nobody
Speaker 2: tells Elkin he's got two hundred thousand dollars in an
Speaker 2: account with his name. In November of twenty eighteen, Elkin
Speaker 2: sues his stepfather, doctor Forest King, and several crazy Appeals
Speaker 2: follow This was filed in May of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: so like seven months ago, seven months ago, so this.
Speaker 1: Is still press in the United States Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: for the Eleventh Circuit. Elkin King versus Forrest King Junior,
Speaker 1: Elkin King brought a diversity suit against his former stepfather,
Speaker 1: Forrest King Junior.
Speaker 2: All a diversity suit means is that it involves parties
Speaker 2: from different states. So remember Elkin's biological father, Elkin, died
Speaker 2: in a plane crash in nineteen eighty five and his stepfather,
Speaker 2: Peggy's third husband, is doctor Forrest King. And in November
Speaker 2: of twenty.
Speaker 1: Eighteen, Elkin King brought a diversity suit against his former stepfather,
Speaker 1: Forrest King Junior, alleging that Forrest owed him a fiduciary
Speaker 1: duty to disclose the existence of certain settlement funds arising
Speaker 1: from the wrongful death of Elkin's biological father. Peggy filed
Speaker 1: the wrongful death suit against the airline company as a
Speaker 1: surviving spouse on behalf of herself and Elkin in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty nine, when Elkin was approximately eleven. Peggy and the
Speaker 1: airline company reached a settlement agreement from which at least
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand dollars was set aside for elkins benefit.
Speaker 1: Peggy's attorney suggested that the settlement fund should be placed
Speaker 1: in an account in her then husband, Forrest's name. Peggy agreed,
Speaker 1: and so the settlement fund's check was made out to
Speaker 1: both Peggy and Forrest on behalf of Elkin. Forrest then
Speaker 1: placed the settlement funds in a separate account entitled Elkin's Account,
Speaker 1: with custodian of Forest King at Charles Schwab in Atlanta, Georgia.
Speaker 1: The party's dispute whether Peggy was also a party to
Speaker 1: the account. There's no evidence that a formal written trust
Speaker 1: governing the use of these settlement funds ever existed. Forest
Speaker 1: and Peggy divorce in approximately February nineteen ninety nine, when
Speaker 1: Elkin was twenty years old. The party's dispute whether Forrest
Speaker 1: turned over control of the account to Peggy following the divorce,
Speaker 1: but it's undisputed that Forest's name was on the account
Speaker 1: until at least the divorce. Apparently, the last of the
Speaker 1: settlement funds, approximately fifty thousand dollars, was used by Peggy
Speaker 1: in around two thousand and five as a down payment
Speaker 1: for a condominium she purchased in Louisiana.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that sentence is the most damning of this
Speaker 2: whole thing.
Speaker 1: Becaustically saying, my mom spent that last fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: on this condo in Louisiana.
Speaker 2: And if history is any indicator, what does that inf
Speaker 2: for about the rest of the money. She probably spent
Speaker 2: the rest of the money too, Yes, she spent the
Speaker 2: last of it. So can you figure out why the
Speaker 2: hell Elkin is suing doctor Forst King for this, not
Speaker 2: his mother. Why are you assuing Doctor Forrest King? When
Speaker 2: Peggy went out of her way to try to get
Speaker 2: that money for herself, could not get that money for herself.
Speaker 2: Instead got the money deposited into account that her and
Speaker 2: doctor Force King held in trust for Elkin when he
Speaker 2: turned eighteen. Nobody told Elkin about the account. I suspect
Speaker 2: because by the time Elkin turned of age, there was
Speaker 2: no money left.
Speaker 1: Elkin testified in a deposition that he first learned about
Speaker 1: the settlement funds in twenty seventeen from his maternal grandfather.
Speaker 1: Elkin also testified that he would have taken control of
Speaker 1: the settlement funds had he known about them when he
Speaker 1: was eighteen.
Speaker 2: That's a gaping chasm of a whole in Elkin's story
Speaker 2: and in Peggy's story. So Peggy didn't even tell him
Speaker 2: about the account. She's his mother.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would, I would have taken I would have
Speaker 1: taken control of the account when I was eighteen had
Speaker 1: I known about it, although my mother spent the last
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: Of it, and I think she's either in prison or
Speaker 2: about to go to prison at this point, so maybe
Speaker 2: he didn't want to bother her with this. Mom. I
Speaker 2: know you're going to prison, but why didn't you tell
Speaker 2: me about the two hundred grand I should have got
Speaker 2: when I was eighteen? And keep in mind that account
Speaker 2: had both Peggy's name and the name of Peggy's third husband,
Speaker 2: doctor Forst King, who was Elkin's stepfather.
Speaker 1: It does seem like a money grab here. Ah Forrest meanwhile,
Speaker 1: testified in a deposition that he informed Elkin about the
Speaker 1: existence of the settlement funds when Elkin was around seventeen
Speaker 1: or eighteen years old. So it's like he said, she.
Speaker 2: Said, kind of thing he said he said, and I
Speaker 2: believe he said. Yeah. Well, because we have a well
Speaker 2: documented history of Elkin lying to Dennis Rodman pretending to
Speaker 2: be Peggy's brother for literally years. Yeah, I don't believe anything,
Speaker 2: Elkin says. I believe doctor Forest King, who was a
Speaker 2: doctor who has never been accused of any fraud or
Speaker 2: crime or lie, who built a successful life, a successful practice,
Speaker 2: a management company, started a sports management company that Peggy
Speaker 2: took over. I believe doctor Forest King. Here.
Speaker 1: On November thirty, twenty eighteen, Elkin sued Forest in the
Speaker 1: Middle District of Florida. In his amended complaint, Elkin alleged
Speaker 1: that Forrest converted Elkin's settlement funds, and that Forrest breached
Speaker 1: fiduciary duties to Elkin under Georgia law because he won,
Speaker 1: failed to disclose and concealed the fact of the settlement,
Speaker 1: and two failed and refused to account for the settlement
Speaker 1: fund proceeds or to pay the proceeds to Elkin.
Speaker 2: Elkin is accusing Forest of stealing the money when he
Speaker 2: says converted. In Georgia law, when you lawfully obtain another
Speaker 2: person's money or property and then unlawfully converted to your own,
Speaker 2: theft by conversion is applicable. So when he said he
Speaker 2: converted it, he's accusing doctor Forest King of stealing the money.
Speaker 2: Which keep in mind here, doctor Forest King is a
Speaker 2: rich man. He lives in a baller mansion in the
Speaker 2: neighborhood where Whitney, Houston and Usher lived, you know, outside
Speaker 2: of Atlanta. And he's a doctor. He started his medical
Speaker 2: management company, he started a sports management company that eventually
Speaker 2: get to Peggy. He really did make a lot of
Speaker 2: money in Wall Street. He really was a doctor. He
Speaker 2: didn't pretend to be a doctor like she pretended to
Speaker 2: be a lawyer. He was a successful, good man. He's
Speaker 2: got a lot of money. He doesn't need to be
Speaker 2: stealing or swindling Outkin out of anything, nor do I
Speaker 2: think he would. But this lawsuit's claiming he stole that money,
Speaker 2: which I don't believe he did.
Speaker 1: And like, let's say, in a world where you're wrong, right,
Speaker 1: like he did, but so did his mother, So like that,
Speaker 1: like that's the anomaly of this.
Speaker 2: I agree if you want to give the benefit of
Speaker 2: the doubt to Peggy, though I don't imagine anyone should
Speaker 2: or could or would. Maybe they both stole it, but
Speaker 2: what's more likely it's a convicted con woman sitting in
Speaker 2: prison stole the many yes, or this doctor who's never
Speaker 2: done a bad thing in his.
Speaker 1: Life, and the fact that he's not mentioning her.
Speaker 2: We need a judge dread type society where people aren't
Speaker 2: allowed to pursue this bullshit judge, jury and executioners. Yes,
Speaker 2: you have three intelligent people saying, you know what, Elkin,
Speaker 2: this doesn't make any fucking sense. Your mom's a convicted conwoman.
Speaker 2: You're saying she spent some of the money, and now
Speaker 2: you want to hold doctor Forrest King responsible. No, no, no, dismissed. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we need a judge dread society because these frivolous lawsuits
Speaker 2: are clogging up the system and harming innocent people like
Speaker 2: doctor Forest King. Another thing I want to point out
Speaker 2: here is that doctor Force King was actually a loving
Speaker 2: stepfather to Elkin when he was growing up.
Speaker 3: Doctor King was extremely nice and very kind.
Speaker 2: Showrunner Andrina Hale again, who got to know doctor Forest
Speaker 2: King and Elkin very well while producing American Gangster Trap
Speaker 2: Queens That be Et documentary about Peggy.
Speaker 3: Doctor King would not steal money from Elkin.
Speaker 2: I don't know what happened to the money, but well,
Speaker 2: I mean, if you had to guess what happened to.
Speaker 3: The money, this is true, but to blame it on
Speaker 3: doctor King, it's just like, yeah, I can't believe it.
Speaker 3: And he's like, I feel like, you know, he suffered
Speaker 3: that relationship with doctor King because you know, doctor Forest
Speaker 3: felt like he had helped to raise Elkin and that
Speaker 3: treated him as his own son. Alkin even talks about
Speaker 3: when Alcoln was playing like bough like football in college,
Speaker 3: doctor Forest would fly from Florida to the West Coast
Speaker 3: where whatever school Elkin was in, and he would like
Speaker 3: watch him play, like he'd be there for his games.
Speaker 3: So you're going to sue him.
Speaker 2: The official phrasing is breach of fiduciary relationship. He's accusing
Speaker 2: of not telling him about the money, which doctor King says,
Speaker 2: that's not true. I did tell him when he was seventeen,
Speaker 2: and of course he did tell him. Doctor King's not
Speaker 2: a scammer. No, you start a hard working doctor who
Speaker 2: can make tons of money doing anything exactly. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's unfortunate.
Speaker 3: It's a very crazy family.
Speaker 2: Back to my conversation with Evan following discovery, reading from
Speaker 2: one of the many legal filings chronicling Elkin's quest to
Speaker 2: sue his stepfather, doctor Forest King.
Speaker 1: Forrest moved for summary judgment on October fourteen, twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: on both his statute of limitations to and on the merits.
Speaker 1: In turn, Elkin moved for partial summary judgment on his
Speaker 1: claims on March thirty, twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: And what happens next in this crazy court case I
Speaker 2: could have never predicted After the break, Welcome back to
Speaker 2: Queen of the con My buddy Evan is reading from
Speaker 2: the latest round of court filings in Elkins's attempts to
Speaker 2: sue his stepfather, doctor Forrest King.
Speaker 1: On August twenty four, twenty twenty, the District Court granted
Speaker 1: summary judgment for Forrest with respect to Elkins's failure to
Speaker 1: disclosed claim. We certified the following three questions to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court of Georgia.
Speaker 2: It baffles me how Peggy doesn't come up in any
Speaker 2: of these questions. No, because she's the mother. Her name's
Speaker 2: on the account. He almos on the track.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's going pretty hard after this guy. He's just
Speaker 1: like you know now on an appeal. This is twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, Like he wants he wants this to happen.
Speaker 1: He wants money from Forest King, Forest King, you know,
Speaker 1: sounds like he's got a lot of money. If the
Speaker 1: adult fiduciary does have an obligation to disclose to the
Speaker 1: minor beneficiary directly without a written agreement, when must the
Speaker 1: adult fiduciary disclose or redisclose to the minor beneficiary? This
Speaker 1: is just enthralling sentence structure.
Speaker 2: It is. But earlier it was admitted that doctor Forrest
Speaker 2: King told Elkin about it when he was seventeen or so,
Speaker 2: So that's disclosing. What else you remember when you were
Speaker 2: seventeen if someone told you, hey, there's an account with
Speaker 2: two hundred thousand dollars for you, Are you gonna forget that?
Speaker 2: No way, I will definitely take it exactly. So someone's lying,
Speaker 2: and I think it could be. And then if he
Speaker 2: only a doctor or Elkin, and then if.
Speaker 1: He only found out, like what recently that his mom
Speaker 1: spent the last fifty thousand in that account, Like we're like.
Speaker 2: Like, when was that?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: The only claim left for us to resolve is whether
Speaker 1: the district court aired when it granted force rejudgment on
Speaker 1: Elkin's breach of duty for failure to disclose claim.
Speaker 2: I'm not surprised they're ruled in favor of doctor Force King.
Speaker 2: I am not surprised that Elkin tried and tried and
Speaker 2: tried and tried to squeeze him and shake him down
Speaker 2: for money with this bullshit claim.
Speaker 1: Well it sounds like he's he's appealing it, and you know,
Speaker 1: he's trying to hit it from different angles. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like, Okay, that didn't work. Let's just keep throwing
Speaker 1: shit at the wall.
Speaker 2: Exactly. But it's puzzling why he would include in this
Speaker 2: lawsuit that, oh, by the way, my mom spent the
Speaker 2: last fifty thousand in the account, but I'm holding doctor
Speaker 2: Force King responsible.
Speaker 1: That's the giant mystery of this whole thing, this whole lawsuit.
Speaker 1: It's just there's a just basic discrepancy there. It's like
Speaker 1: you hold this guy accountable, but not your mom. Where
Speaker 1: you're saying, oh, she spent like a considerable amount of
Speaker 1: the two hundred thousand dollars, what a quarter of it?
Speaker 2: You know. In the end, after the courts first ruled
Speaker 2: in favor of doctor Forest King, they reversed their decision
Speaker 2: in part and ruled in favor of Elkin. Then suddenly,
Speaker 2: one month later, in June of twenty twenty three, Elkin's
Speaker 2: attorney files emotion to withdraw from being Elkin's attorney. Then,
Speaker 2: in August of twenty twenty three, doctor force King and
Speaker 2: Elkin file emotion to dismiss the case entirely, which a
Speaker 2: judge granted. So it's over now. Maybe doctor force King
Speaker 2: paid Elkin off, or maybe Elkin came to his senses
Speaker 2: and changed his mind about suing his stepfather. Or maybe Peggy,
Speaker 2: who was released from prison a few months before this
Speaker 2: case was dismissed, had something to do with it too.
Speaker 1: I don't know what to believe, but you can't say
Speaker 1: with certainty, but it's definitely an interesting theory that would
Speaker 1: add a lot more kind of another layer of the
Speaker 1: onion on that whole scenario for sure.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening to season five a Queen of
Speaker 2: the Con. If you're new to the pot, we have
Speaker 2: four previous seasons out now that you can binge, each
Speaker 2: about a different crazy but clever con woman and the
Speaker 2: unbelievable scheme they employ to trick people out of a
Speaker 2: lot of money. If you're enjoying Queen of the Con,
Speaker 2: leave us a five star review reviews, help other listeners
Speaker 2: find us, and by all means click that share button
Speaker 2: and send Queen of the Con to anyone you think
Speaker 2: might be into us. Queen of the Con The Athlete
Speaker 2: Whisper is a production of AYR Media and iHeartMedia, hosted
Speaker 2: by Me Jonathan Walton, Executive producers Jonathan Walton for Jonathan
Speaker 2: Walton Productions and Elisa Rosen for AYR Media. Consulting producer
Speaker 2: Evan Goldstein consulting producer Trace Shean. Written by Jonathan Walton,
Speaker 2: Sound design by Justin Longerbean, edited and mixed by Justin
Speaker 2: Longerbean Audio engineer Justin Longerbean audio engineer Chris Desmond, studio
Speaker 2: engineer Graham Gibson. Mastered by Justin Longerbeine Legal counsel for
Speaker 2: a y R Media, Gianni Douglas, Executive producer for iHeartMedia,
Speaker 2: Maya Howard