The Star has a great series going on the incredible level of secrecy that has settled into all facets of Kansas government, and I urge everyone to read it. It could be a strong contender for a Pulitzer Prize in either the investigative or public service category.
That said, the Thomas Pickert murder case continues to gnaw at me — as well as at a large number of area residents — and I have some incremental developments to report.
Last week, as I reported, I got a tip from a good source that authorities might be exploring the possibility of bringing white-collar-crime charges against David Jungerman, the 79-year-old Raytown man who had the most obvious motive to kill Pickert. (Pickert represented a homeless man who, last summer, won a $5.75 million civil judgment against Jungerman, and Jungerman directed an angry outburst at Pickert and others in the courtroom after the jury returned the verdict.)
My source suggested Jungerman may have IRS-related problems. That’s possible, but it’s also possible authorities are pursuing possible irregularities pertaining to a family trust, of which Jungerman either is or was the “trustee” (or owner).
The reason I say that is another civil damage suit pending against Jungerman references the possibility of trust irregularities. The plaintiff in the case I’m referring to was brought recently by another homeless man whom Jungerman shot on the same occasion as the victim in the $5.75 million case.
It, too, is a civil damage suit, but unlike the first case, the initial petition in this case alleges that Jungerman improperly transferred personal assets into the trust after the double shooting.
The petition states: “Defendant Jungerman transferred property to the trust to commit fraud or wrong to perpetrate the violation of statutory or other positive legal duty…”
More about the trust in a minute, but first here are a couple of other things you’ll be interested in:
:: Another lawyer involved in one of several lawsuits Jungerman is involved in is seeking to withdraw. Last Wednesday, Kansas City attorney L. Benjamin Mook, who has been representing the second homeless man to sue Jungerman, filed a motion to remove himself. Mook will be at least the third lawyer to withdraw from cases involving Jungerman since Pickert was shot to death outside his Brookside home the morning of Wednesday, Oct. 25…I say if Jungerman is not a suspect, as police have said, why would three lawyers seek to distance themselves from him in quick succession?
:: A commenter called my attention to a KCUR-FM story that cited a third person — besides Pickert’s wife and a neighbor — who saw a van resembling one registered to Pickert in the area of Pickert’s home. That story quoted a neighbor as saying she saw a van moving slowly up and down West 66th Terrace, where Pickert lived, the night before the murder. The woman said she watched as the vehicle stopped for several minutes in the Southwest High School parking lot before speeding away.
:: Over the last two days, two different Kansas City Police Department media relations officers have not responded to my inquiries about the Pickert case. On Monday, I left a voice message for one officer, Sgt. Kari Thompson, and later sent her an email, saying, “Has the PD cleared David Jungerman of any possible involvement in the Pickert murder?” Simple question, right? She hasn’t responded. Today, I called the office again and asked for Sgt. Thompson and was told she was out of the office for at least the rest of the day. I then left a voice message for another media officer, who did not return my call today. I don’t know about you, but I won’t be satisfied Jungerman isn’t a suspect until I hear the police say they have cleared him of any involvement.
…Now, back to the matter of the trust.
Mook, the lawyer who now wants out, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the second homeless man on Sept. 22, two months after the Jackson County Circuit Court jury returned the $5.75 million verdict in favor of the first man.
Jungerman shot both men in Sept. 25, 2012, when they were on the grounds of a building he owns in northeast Kansas City. The men were outside the building, on the loading dock. Jungerman had gone to the building after being called by an alarm company. He didn’t call police, didn’t warn the two men, just opened fire — from inside the building, with an assault rifle. In his petition on behalf of the homeless man, who had to have a leg amputated because of the shooting, Pickert said Jungerman exhibited “reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff” and “conscious disregard for plaintiff’s safety.”
Like the first homeless man, the second is suing for monetary damages. He is asking for at least $25,000 on each of four counts — similar to what Pickert’s client sought.
Unlike the first plaintiff, however, the second addresses the matter of the Jungerman family trust. Regarding that, Mook’s petition states:
“Defendant is, and was at all times relative to this action, trustee of the Jungerman Family Irrevocable Trust…The Trust currently holds assets previously owned by Defendant Jungerman, which assets were transferred into the Trust for an improper purpose after the acts giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred.”
…It is this filing that makes me think authorities might be looking at a criminal violation pertaining to the trust rather than income-tax evasion.
Trusts can be complicated arrangements, and to many people other than estate planners they are almost incomprehensible. I don’t know very much about them, but I know that two of the more common types of trusts are “revocable” and “irrevocable.”
An irrevocable trust is one that, with a few exceptions, cannot be changed by the trustee (owner) or the beneficiaries “until the terms or purposes of the trust have been completed,” to quote from Wikipedia’s entry on trust law.
A revocable trust, on the other hand, is one that can be “amended, altered or revoked” at any time — provided that the person who created the trust is not mentally incapacitated.
(Wikipedia’s trust law entry says: “Revocable trusts are becoming increasingly common in the U.S. as a substitute for will to minimize administrative costs associated with probate and to provide centralized administration of a person’s final affairs after death.”)
With that background, let’s move on to the issue at hand — the legal ramifications pertaining to violating the terms of an irrevocable trust.
On a blog site called “Pocket Sense,” a former practicing attorney named Renee Booker wrote very clearly about possible violations of irrevocable trusts.
Booker said: “If the trustee of an irrevocable trust violates the terms of the trust, a number of consequences may follow, including removal as trustee or revocation of the trust by a court, as well as a civil lawsuit or prosecution for criminal fraud.”
Regarding the prospect of criminality, she wrote:
“Fraud may be a crime in and of itself or may be only an element in other crimes; however, whether charged alone or used as an element in another crime, intentionally misappropriating assets of a trust can have serious criminal consequences. Typically, the major difference between civil and criminal fraud relates to the intention of the person who committed the fraud. If the fraud was done on purpose, then it is more likely to qualify as a crime. On the other hand, if the fraud was committed by negligence, or not on purpose, then it may only qualify as civil fraud.”
Unlike IRS violations, which are prosecuted at the federal level, criminal charges pertaining to trust violations are generally prosecuted at the state level. That would mean if charges were brought, they probably would be filed by Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters-Baker.
It’s her office, of course, that has jurisdiction over the Pickert case, and it’s her office — as well as the police department — that appears to have been at least temporarily stymied in the criminal investigation.
Like you, I am anxiously waiting to see what unfolds. And like you, I’m sure, I’ll be deeply disappointed if nothing happens.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
There’s something missing between “He didn’t call police, didn’t warn the two men, just opened fire, from inside the building, with an assault rifle” and “In his petition on behalf of the homeless man.” Is it true police investigated the shooting, and no charges were filed?
What Jungerman did on Sept. 25, 2012 — shooting the men on the loading dock — was illegal under Missouri law. I have no idea if police investigated, but I have seen no indication that criminal charges were ever filed.
As I read Missouri Chapter 563 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, it authorizes the use of “deadly force” against another person only under these circumstances:
“(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.”
The only crime the homeless men were obviously guilty of was trespassing. You can’t shoot someone, at least in Missouri, simply for being on your property without permission.
The shooting of the homeless men must have met the criteria in the statute above, because apparently the police investigated the case, no charges were filed, and no criminal case took place.
Guilty unless proven innocent!
Not necessarily…I’m just waiting for police to produce another white, elderly, gray-haired man driving a white van — suspiciously like one Jungerman owns — who happens to have a motive to have killed Pickert and who settles disputes in his own rogue fashion, with gunfire and without calling police.
Show me that person, show me…
I agree about the series right now about Kansas Department of Children and Families – incredible amount of detail, research, diligence, and write-up. But this leads me to ask: I know what the Star is capable of, with a series like this. Why does the quality of the articles, the selectivity, the opinions, etc., not continuously reflect this excellence? This series is great by itself, but it also seems great because it’s such a deviation from the common agenda-driven nonsense posing as “objective news”. There would be a great series: investigate exactly how a newspaper does what it does. Require staff to wear body cameras, like officers. FOIA requests to get all documents. Report on the reporters – now there’s a series I’d be willing to pay for!
This is a frightening situation. A murderous bully on the loose in plain sight. A bully who continues to mock and win against the criminal justice system. Jean Baker has to be feeling the pressure. She failed to file criminal charges in 2012 and now has this case that seems to be falling apart. Every attorney in town has their eye on this case and all are scratching their head waiting for JPB to pull a rabbit out of her hat.
Either Jungerman is a genius or JPB and detectives are grossly incompetent. Or he didn’t do it. Could be the rabbit in the hat?
You’ve got it all there, Anon, every bit of it…
“Patrick” said in a comment last week, “I personally believe it’s very likely (like 99.9% likely) Jungerman committed this crime…”
It’s not 100 percent, though, and even if charges are brought, it could be a difficult case to make.
Didn’t police say he is not a suspect? http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article183713501.html
Here is the seminal quote, from Sgt. Kari Thompson, on the police department’s view of whether Jungerman is a suspect in the Pickert murder:
“We do not consider him a suspect at this time.”
You be the judge, Mr. Nelson…And thank you for rousing yourself from your dusty grave to comment on this important case.
The full quote is “We do not consider him a suspect at this time,” said Sgt. Kari Thompson, a police spokeswoman. “Nor did we consider him a suspect at that time.” I suppose he could be a suspect at a future time. And a person of interest is different than a suspect.
I’ve appreciated your reporting on this, but I admit to being confused here. The Star ran a big story essentially clearing Jungerman, but the police statement does seem equivocal. What could be the editorial decision in running a story like this, when The Star has been careful in referring to Jungerman by name, and it fails to unequivocally clear him. And this isn’t a story by a rookie reporter either. A penny for your thoughts.
To Mike Round: Excellent question about why The Star does not “continually reflect this excellence.”
The answer, and I think you intuitively know it, is that for financial reasons, The Star has had to cut back so much in every area the last 10 years that it no longer is capable of the broad-front, sweeping coverage it was known for over a period of more than a century. Now, generally, the coverage is reactive and targeted rather than broad based. It’s a much different operation than it was a decade ago, but at least the paper is still capable of pulling out the stops on a big story, as you noted.
I’d like to think that based on the recklessness Jungerman has displayed in the past he didn’t leave every stone unturned to cover up his alleged fraud. Hope I’m right.
That’s my hope, too, Patrick…
Has the Star started an investigation into why Jungerman was not charged in the shooting of the homeless men? Did the Police decide? Did they pass along information to the DA, and they decided against it? Did the decision not to file in criminal court include any knowledge about a pending civil trial? Was there a pending civil trial? How many cases go to criminal court, and regardless of adjudication, end up in civil court, and what are the results? How many cases are initiated in civil court alone? What is the history of such a legal system that seems to violate the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty”; i.e., double-jeopardy, reasonable doubt, etc.
Come on, Star! Get in the game!
I’m sure they appreciate your agitation down at 18th and Grand, Mike.
Did the decision not to file in criminal court include any knowledge about a pending civil trial? Was there a pending civil trial?
This case was only filed after the MO law regarding the limitations on punitive damages was overturned. There was no interest by the original atty who “sold” the case to Pinkert until there were unlimited punitive damages on the table. And Pinkert came prepared to take all he could get. After all Pickert would become an overnight millionaire.
Maybe Pinkert wasn’t so interested in his client who couldn’t cover the filing fees as he was in multi millionaire Jungerman’s deep pockets?
All those bad things they say about “personal Injury” lawyers just makes you think of Saul Goodman didn’t it?
Quick update…I just got this email from Sgt. Kari Thompson:
“This is an ongoing investigation. We have no updates in this investigation at this time.”
Just as you assumed — a very telling response.
I am sorry but what did you expect her to say? Oh yeah,
“This is an ongoing investigation. We have no updates in this investigation at this time.”
Back to W.R. Nelson’s follow-up comment about the naming or non-naming of suspects.
First, the term “person of interest” is almost never used any more. Just too vague.
Regarding the name of suspects, I came across a very interesting article on a website called “The Conversation,” an independent, not-for-profit media outlet — based in Australia — that uses content provided by academics and researchers.
Here’s an excerpt of what the site says about “the ethics and practice of naming suspects”…
“The traditional reluctance of police to release the names of suspects is grounded in good principles and policy. Key concerns are the presumption of innocence, reputational damage, and the right to a fair trial…
“Damage to reputation can be significant for people who are suspected of having committed a serious crime. While they are unlikely to sue for defamation, people who are incorrectly identified as responsible for a crime become part of a public record that is searchable and permanent.
“The prospect of adversely affecting the right of a person to a fair trial because of the negative pre-trial publicity is real, especially when extensive information is released about the crime and clear links are made to the accused.”
As you can see, police have good reason to choose their words carefully. As a blogger, I have a responsibility to be careful, too, but I have the leeway — just as anyone else writing for public consumption would have — to attempt to interpret and parse “official” pronouncements.
This case cries out for critical analysis and laying out all relevant information. The Star has failed abysmally…and the other media outlets aren’t far behind. But they’re paralyzed for fear of being sued.
Note to “Joe” —
I have blocked only one other person from the comments section during the seven years I have been writing this blog. I regret that I have to take the same steps with you…Your comments are ridden with grammatical and contextual errors, and they add nothing to the discussion.