ZUS addresses the court
Lee’s sister then stood up to address the court. Holding a bundle of documents, she said she didn’t really need the delay and was prepared.
“I want to say in advance that my family and I do not condone my brother’s misconduct,” she told District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam.
“In fact, our lives as family members have been most affected by his irresponsible actions,” she continued. “My mother and I have financially supported his four-year-old twin daughters in Japan, and my eldest brother, who will be 42 this year, is mentally retarded and can’t take care of himself.”
She explained that her brother had taken out large loans from his parents to pay his “very hefty legal fees” for the previous trial and other legal matters.
“That was on the understanding that he wants to pay them when the car is released. In other words, what he did was pawn the car to pay back the loans he took from his parents,” she said.
She said her 76-year-old father had taken out a loan from his “only life insurance policy” and is unable to repay the loan until now. He has paid interest to the insurance company, she said.
Lee’s sister continued to say that her mother pawned her jewelry to lend her son a large sum of money.
“In addition, my mother and I have been paying his children’s expenses all along,” said Lee’s sister.
“So while my brother legally owns the vehicle, we can essentially argue that the fact that he pledged the proceeds from the vehicle to return the money to my parents, my parents are the actual owners of the vehicle,” he said. she.
She added that when her brother was first convicted in 2001 – also for driving with a disqualification – he was under 18 and had not joined the army.
“A mistake is still a mistake, he did wrong and under the law the court has every right to forfeit the vehicle,” said Lee’s sister. “But what we’re trying to get across is that the first conviction was when he was under 18… it’s a bit harsh to take into account.”
The judge asked whether the term “promise” was being used casually or legally, and asked whether the family would seek legal advice.
Lee’s sister said they had no documents to prove the “pledge” as the transfer of ownership of the vehicle could not take place while the vehicle was impounded.
She added that they had no intention of seeking further legal advice.
“I don’t see the correlation between personal loans your parents gave to your brother to help him,” the judge said.
“And this vehicle, I’m not sure what the market value is, or how much we can get for it.”
She adjourned the forfeiture hearing to February 27.
Lee’s sister refused to speak to the media.