1.
LAW OFFICES
KFB RICE LAW GROUP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
12100 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 245
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025
www.KFBRice.com
Owen Kaye
(Owen@KFBLawGroup.com )
Michael Fedalen
(Michael@KFBLawGroup.com )
Neda Barkhordar
(Neda@KFBLawGroup.com)
David L. Rice
(DRice@RiceLaw.com)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Russell Ozawa
(ROzawa@LawRice.com)
Elizabeth Allen
(Elizabeth@KFBLawGroup.com )
Georgiana Young
(Gina@KFBLawGroup.com)
Hollee Kassim
(Hollee@KFBLawGroup.com )
2780 Skypark Dr. #475
Torrance, CA 90505
310-517-8600
Of Counsel
Bruce Givner
Bruce@KFBLawGroup.com
James C. Fedalen
Jim@KFBLawGroup.com
PHONE (310) 307-3441
FAX (310) 307-3944
July 15, 2020
The Cleopatra Cameron Case:
South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To
Asset Protection Trusts
I. Introduction.
1. Definition.
A trust I set up for myself with my own assets which is protect from my creditors.
2. History.
The law we inherited from Medieval England did not allow self-settled spendthrift trusts.
2.1. Jersey, Guernsey & Man.
2.2. Caribbean.
2.3. 1989.
Barry Engel, Esq. – Cook Islands
Jonathan Blattmachr, Esq – Alaska
Alaska and Delaware
In the 30 years after that:
South Dakota
Ohio
Missouri
Connecticut
Tennessee
Rhode Island
Indiana
New Hampshire
Wyoming
Michigan
Mississippi
Hawaii
Utah

2.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 2 of 20
Oklahoma
Virginia
West Virginia1
3. California.
Probate Code §15304 (put into somewhat simpler English):
(a) If the settlor is a beneficiary of a trust the settlor creates and the settlor's interest
is subject to a provision restraining the voluntary or involuntary transfer of the settlor's
interest, the restraint is invalid against settlor’s transferees or creditors. The
invalidity of the restraint on transfer does not affect the trust’s validity.
(b) If the settlor is the beneficiary of a trust the settlor creates and the trust instrument
provides that the trustee shall pay income or principal or both for the beneficiary’s
education or support or gives the trustee discretion to determine the amount of income
or principal or both to be paid to or for the settlor’s benefit, a transferee or creditor of the
settlor may reach the maximum amount the trustee could pay to or for the settlor’s
benefit, not exceeding the amount of the settlor's proportionate contribution to the trust.
4. Nevada.
NRS Chapter 166 is the “Spendthrift Trust Act of Nevada.”
166.020: “Spendthrift trust” defined.
“Spendthrift trust” means a trust in which by its terms a valid restraint on the voluntary
and involuntary transfer of the beneficiary’s interest is imposed. It is an active trust not
governed or executed by any use or rule of law of uses.
NRS 166.120 Restraints on alienation; exclusive jurisdiction of court.
1. A spendthrift trust…restrains and prohibits generally the assignment, alienation,
acceleration and anticipation of any interest of the beneficiary under the trust by the
beneficiary’s voluntary or involuntary act, or by operation of law or any process or at all.
The trust estate, or corpus or capital thereof, shall never be assigned, aliened,
diminished or impaired by any alienation, transfer or seizure so as to cut off or diminish
the payments, or the rents, profits, earnings or income of the trust estate that would
otherwise be currently available for the beneficiary’s benefit.
1
https://db78e19b-dca5-49f9-90f6-1acaf5eaa6ba.filesusr.com/ugd/b211fb_0e205011bc5f4e4cb9d6232ee68647ca.pdf

3.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 3 of 20
2. The trustee’s payments to the beneficiary, whether such payments are
mandatory or discretionary, must be made only to or for the beneficiary’s benefit and not
by way of acceleration or anticipation, nor to any assignee of the beneficiary, nor to or
upon any order, written or oral, given by the beneficiary, whether such assignment or
order be the beneficiary’s voluntary contractual act or be made pursuant to or by virtue
of any legal process in judgment, execution, attachment, garnishment, bankruptcy or
otherwise, or whether it be in connection with any contract, tort or duty. Any action to
enforce the beneficiary’s rights, to determine if the beneficiary’s rights are subject to
execution, to levy an attachment or for any other remedy must be made only in a
proceeding begun pursuant to NRS chapter 153 of, if against a testamentary trust, or
NRS 164.010, if against a non-testamentary trust. A court has exclusive jurisdiction over
any proceeding pursuant to this section.
3. The beneficiary shall have no power or capacity to make any disposition whatever
of any of the income by his or her order, voluntary or involuntary, and whether made
upon the order or direction of any court or courts, whether of bankruptcy or otherwise;
nor shall the beneficiary’s interest be subject to any process of attachment issued
against the beneficiary, or to be taken in execution under any form of legal process
directed against the beneficiary or against the trustee, or the trust estate, or any part of
the income thereof, but the whole of the trust estate and the income of the trust estate
shall go to and be applied by the trustee only for the beneficiary’s benefit, free, clear,
and discharged of and from any and all obligations of the beneficiary whatsoever and of
all responsibility therefor.
4. A spendthrift trust’s trustee must disregard and defeat every assignment or other
act, voluntary or involuntary, that is tried contrary to this chapter’s provisions.
5. South Dakota.
55-16-2. Trust instrument defined.
For the purposes of this chapter, a trust instrument, is an instrument appointing a
qualified person or qualified persons for the property that is the subject of a disposition,
which instrument:
(1) Expressly incorporates the law of this state to govern the validity, construction,
and administration of the trust;
(2) Is irrevocable, but a trust instrument may not be deemed revocable on account
of its inclusion of one or more of the following:
(a) A transferor's power to veto a distribution from the trust;
(b) An inter vivos power of appointment, other than an inter vivos power
exercisable solely by the transferor in favor of the transferor, the

4.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 4 of 20
transferor's creditors, the transferor's estate, or the creditors of the
transferor's estate;
(c) A testamentary power of appointment;
(d) The transferor's potential or actual receipt of income, including rights to
such income retained in the trust instrument;
(e) The transferor's potential or actual receipt of income or principal from a
charitable remainder unitrust or charitable remainder annuity trust as
such terms are defined in § 664 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
26 U.S.C. § 664, as of January 1, 2009;
(f) The transferor's receipt each year of a percentage of the value as
determined from time to time pursuant to the trust instrument, but not
exceeding the amount that may be defined as income under § 643(b) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. § 643(b), as of January
1, 2009;
(g) The transferor's potential or actual receipt or use of principal if the
potential or actual receipt or use of principal would be the result of a
qualified person, including a qualified person acting at the direction of a
trust advisor described in this section, acting either in the qualified
person's sole discretion or pursuant to an ascertainable standard
contained in the trust instrument;
(h) The transferor's right to remove a trustee, protector, or trust advisor and
to appoint a new trustee, protector, or trust advisor, other than a trustee
who is a related or subordinate party with respect to the transferor within
the meaning of § 672(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26
U.S.C. § 672(c), as of January 1, 2009;
(i) The transferor's potential or actual use of real property held under a
qualified personal residence trust within the meaning of such term as
described in the regulations promulgated under § 2702(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. § 2702(c), as of January 1, 2009;
(j) A pour back provision that pours back to the transferor's will or revocable
trust all or part of the trust assets;
(k) The transferor's potential or actual receipt of income or principal to pay,
in whole or in part, income taxes due on income of the trust if the
potential or actual receipt of income or principal is pursuant to a provision
in the trust instrument that expressly provides for the payment of the
taxes and if the potential or actual receipt of income or principal would
be the result of a qualified person's acting in the qualified person's
discretion or pursuant to a mandatory direction in the trust instrument or
acting at the direction of an advisor described in § 55-16-4;
(l) The ability, whether pursuant to discretion, direction, or the grantor's
exercise of a testamentary power of appointment, of a qualified person

5.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 5 of 20
to pay, after the death of the transferor, all or any part of the debts of the
transferor outstanding at the time of the transferor's death, the expenses
of administering the transferor's estate, or any estate or inheritance tax
imposed on or with respect to the transferor's estate; or
(m) A transferor's service as a noncontrolling member of a distribution
committee that functions as a distribution trust advisor, as defined in
subdivision 55-1B-1(7); and
(3) Provides that the interest of the transferor or other beneficiary in the trust
property or the income from the trust property may not be transferred,
assigned, pledged, or mortgaged, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, before
the qualified person actually distributes the property or income from the
property to the beneficiary, and such provision of the trust instrument shall be
deemed to be a restriction on the transfer of the transferor's beneficial interest
in the trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law within the
meaning of § 541(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2), as of
January 1, 2009.
A disposition by a trustee that is not a qualified person to a trustee that is a qualified
person may not be treated as other than a qualified disposition solely because the trust
instrument fails to meet the requirements of subdivision (1) of this section.
55-16-9. Creditors' actions limited to transfers with intent to defraud.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including chapter 54-8A, no action of
any kind, including an action to enforce a judgment entered by a court or other body
having adjudicative authority, may be brought at law or in equity for an attachment or
other provisional remedy against property that is the subject of a qualified disposition or
for avoidance of a qualified disposition unless the settlor's transfer of property was made
with the intent to defraud that specific creditor. In the event of any conflict between any
provision of this chapter and any provision of chapter 54-8A or any other provision of
law similar to any provision of chapter 54-8A, the provisions of this chapter control and
prevail.
II. Issues.
1. U.S. Constitution.
Article IV, §1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

6.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 6 of 20
Sachs and Sanders:2
“Most of the original Constitution focuses on creating the federal
government, defining its relationship to the states and the people at large. Article IV
addresses something different: the states’ relations with each other, sometimes
called “horizontal federalism.” Its first section, the Full Faith and Credit Clause,
requires every state, as part of a single nation, to give a certain measure of respect to
every other state’s laws and institutions.
The first part of the Clause, largely borrowed from the Articles of Confederation,
requires each state to pay attention to the other states’ statutes, public records, and
court decisions. The second sentence lets Congress decide how those materials can
be proved in court and what effect they will have. The current implementing statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1738, declares that these materials should receive “the same full faith and
credit” in each state that they have in the state “from which they are taken.”
These broad statements of principle don’t always translate well to specifics. States
will take note of each other’s public records, but they aren’t always expected to
give these records precisely the same effect that they have at home. (A fishing
license from one state doesn’t give you the right to fish anywhere else.)
The Clause and federal implementing statute also have a relatively light impact on
state statutory law. As the Supreme Court has recognized, when two states’ laws are
in conflict, it’s impossible for both of them to give effect to each other’s law at the
same time. Alaska Packers Association v. Industrial Accident Commission (1935). In
situations where either state’s laws could plausibly apply (say, a car accident in
Florida between two residents of New York, where the two states have different ideas
2
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iv/clauses/44

7.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 7 of 20
about how to parcel out damages), the Clause exerts relatively little force. Under the
prevailing standard in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague (1981) and Phillips Petroleum
Co. v. Shutts (1985), depending on where the case is filed, either court can apply its
own state’s law to the dispute—so long as that state has “a significant contact or
significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law
is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.”
Once a court has made a decision, though, the Clause has real teeth. So long as a
state court has authority over the case and the parties, its judgments will conclusively
determine the parties’ rights in every other state—even if it might be wrong on the law,
and even if the judgment violates public policy in the state where it’s enforced. One
state’s judgment on a gambling debt can still be collected in another state where
gambling is a crime, as the Court established in Fauntleroy v. Lum (1908).
In recent years, the most controversial applications of the Full Faith and Credit Clause
have involved family law. Each state has slightly different laws about marriage, and
marriages themselves typically aren’t treated as judgments receiving nationwide
effect. Until recently, same-sex marriages formed in one state weren’t always
recognized elsewhere. Congress attempted to use its power under the Clause to slow
the recognition of same-sex marriages by passing the Defense of Marriage Act—1
U.S.C. § 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C—but this was rendered obsolete by the Supreme
Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Other marriages are still treated
differently in different states, which have conflicting rules about marriages by young
people or between close relatives. But because divorces often take the form of court
judgments, they usually do receive nationwide effect, so long as the issuing court had
the necessary authority over the parties. Congress has rarely used its power under

8.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 8 of 20
the Clause, but it has passed statutes clarifying which courts may issue orders on
child custody—28 U.S.C. § 1738A—and child support—28 U.S.C. § 1738B—when a
family is spread across multiple states.”

9.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 9 of 20

10.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 10 of 20

11.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 11 of 20

12.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 12 of 20
2. Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 3439.10
(a) In this section, the following rules determine a debtor's location:
(1) A debtor who is an individual is located at the individual's principal
residence.
(2) A debtor that is an organization and has only one place of business is located at
its place of business.
(3) A debtor that is an organization and has more than one place of business is
located at its chief executive office.
(b) A claim in the nature of a claim under this chapter is governed by the local law of the
jurisdiction in which the debtor is located when the transfer is made or the obligation is
incurred.
3. Liquid Assets.
Assume:
* a California resident sets up a self-settled spendthrift trust (DAPT) under Nevada
law.
* that person transfers $10,000,000 of liquid assets to the DAPT.
* someone (judgment creditor) gets a judgment against that person (judgment
debtor) in California.
* the judgment creditor can’t satisfy his judgment against the debtor with California
assets.
* the judgment creditor takes his judgment to Nevada (domesticates it) and asks
the Nevada court to give the California judgment “full faith and credit.”
Will the Nevada court do so?
Or will the Nevada court refuse to do so on the grounds that it is against Nevada’s public
policy favoring DAPTs/

13.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 13 of 20
4. Real Estate.
Assume the same facts except the asset transferred to the Nevada trust is title to an
apartment building in Los Angeles.
Will the California judge decide that he or she must defer to a Nevada court because
title is in the name of the Nevada trust?
Or will the California judge say “I don’t care whose name is on title. I order the County
Recorder to change the title to the name of the California judgment creditor”?
5. Intangible.
Assume the same facts except the asset transferred to the Nevada trust is membership
interests in an LLC which owns an apartment building in Los Angeles.
Same two questions.
Wait aminute!!!!!!!!!!
What did we learn in lawschool?
“Mobilia Sequuntur Personam, Immobiliasitua”
“movables follow the person, immovables their locality.”
III. Earlier Cases.
Dahl v. Dahl.
7 pages attached.
IV. In re Cleopatra Cameron Gift Trust.
1. Case Reprint.
18 pages attached.
2. Case’s Implications.
2.1. Use South Dakota.

14.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 14 of 20
2.2. Use Trident Trust.

15.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 15 of 20
$6,000 acceptance fee & $6,000 per year.
More than twice as expensive as Alliance and Premier in Nevada.
2.3. Use A Single Member LLC.
In a jurisdiction with great privacy, e.g., Wyoming.
V. Conclusion.
1. The Borsarge Divorce.
https://dolcefino.com/2020/07/03/fireworks-in-the-bosarge-divorce-case/
FIREWORKS IN THE BOSARGE DIVORCE CASE
July 3, 2020
The Freedom Over Texas fireworks show will still take place on July 4th
but there are
fireworks today in the highly publicized divorce fight between Houston billionaire Ed Bosarge
and his wife of more than 30 years, Marie.

16.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 16 of 20
Dolcefino Consulting has learned Marie Bosarge alerted the Internal Revenue Service to
where they can look for Ed’s secret money stashes in a rather unique way.
We have now obtained a part of Marie’s solo tax return from 2017 — the year that Ed
Bosarge filed for divorce. The numbers are not so important but at the end of her tax return
Marie added “Exhibit A” — a document from financial services powerhouse BDO. The
document lists all of the trusts and entities that BDO had discovered that were connected to
Ed Bosarge.
Some of the trusts and entities have some pretty unique names. Spotted Leopard. New
Ostrich. Big Bird Partners. Black Rhino. Mountain Song. Last Samurai. Dangerous Beauty.
More than 150 trusts and entities listed over five pages.
Marie claims that after thirty years of marriage, Ed left her dead broke and that he is hiding
billions of dollars in secretive trusts in South Dakota and around the world. The jury trial in the
Bosarge divorce is delayed by the Coronavirus pandemic.
In recent documents filed in the divorce case, Marie’s lawyers claim that Ed is refusing to turn
over necessary financial records that can help her prove the fraud and other key elements of
her case. The highly publicized Bosarge case may pit Texas courts against South Dakota
courts. If a Texas jury finds that Ed committed fraud, will South Dakota allow Marie to get
what is hers out of the South Dakota trusts or will South Dakota simply ignore the rulings and
the will of courts in Texas? Stay tuned.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/how-marie-and-ed-bosarges-divorce-spotlights-south-dakotas-
asset-trusts.html
Billionaire divorce uncovers secretive
world of trusts in South Dakota
PUBLISHED WED, MAY 6 202010:23 AM EDTUPDATED WED, MAY 6 202011:05 AM EDT
KEY POINTS
• In a lawsuit, Marie Bosarge claims that her estranged husband, Texas billionaire Ed
Bosarge, created trusts “to hide income and property and to hold what would otherwise
have been personal income and assets.”
• More than just another billionaire divorce spat, the case offers a rare window into the
highly secretive world of asset trusts in South Dakota.

17.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 17 of 20
• South Dakota is fast becoming a mini-Switzerland for the world’s rich trying to shield their
assets.
During their more than 30 years of marriage, Texas billionaire Ed and Marie
Bosarge accumulated an unusual collection of treasures.
They owned 12 homes, including five properties in Maine and a private island in
the Bahamas. They had a 180-foot sailing yacht with its own grand piano. They
bought a $5 million Egyptian mummy. Marie bought some of Marilyn Monroe’s
personal effects, including her furniture, dresses and bras.
“It was over the top,” Marie said of their lifestyle.
Now, instead of living the high life, Marie Bosarge fears going under. When Ed filed
for divorce in 2017, Marie discovered that almost all of the couple’s property —
from the homes and island to her jewelry and even some of their tableware — had
been put into a special trust that shielded the assets from any claims. Rather than
getting half of a fortune she estimated to be worth more than $2 billion, she may
wind up with little or nothing after paying her legal bills.
In a lawsuit filed in 2018, Marie claims that the trusts “were created and used by Ed
to hide income and property and to hold what would otherwise have been personal
income and assets.” She claims the purpose of the trusts and the transfer of assets
between the trusts was “to cut Marie out of her rightful share of the community
estate.”
Attorneys for Ed Bosarge — who founded high-speed trading firm Quantlab —
declined to comment on the case, citing confidentiality rules. Marie’s attorney also
declined comment. But in court papers, Ed’s attorneys have claimed that the
assets are owned and controlled by the trust, not by him, and are therefore not
marital property. They say the total value of the couple’s marital property, which
would be subject to division, is about $12 million.
Marie said that since her legal bills are already well into the millions, “I could wind
up with nothing.”

18.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 18 of 20
More than just another billionaire divorce spat, the Bosarge case offers a rare
window into the highly secretive world of asset trusts in South Dakota, a state
whose protective trust laws have made it a haven for billionaires and wealthy
families around the world.
South Dakota is fast becoming a mini-Switzerland for the world’s rich. Analysts and
local politicians estimate that $250 billion to $900 billion is now stashed in South
Dakota trusts by the likes of Chinese billionaires looking to keep their fortunes out
of reach of the government, Europeans looking to avoid taxes and Americans
looking to shield wealth from spouses.
Marie said that when she and Ed married in 1989, they had little wealth. Soon after
they were married, their house was repossessed. But Ed, an accomplished
mathematician and former NASA contractor, eventually found success trading
commodities.
In 1998, he and a business partner founded Quantlab in Bosarge’s house. Marie
said she was one of the first employees, managing the main office in their dining
room and smoothing relations between the co-founders and early employees.
As Quantlab grew, so did the Bosarges’ wealth. They built a 37,000-square-foot
home in Houston called Chateau Carnarvon, which had its own hair salon,
massage room, music room and theater. Some rooms were filled with gold leaf,
tapestries and paintings.
They had five properties in Maine, one in Aspen and a luxury flat in London. They
bought a succession of sailing yachts, including a 180-foot superyacht named
Marie. Since she liked to play piano, they had a grand piano permanently fixed to
the floor of the yacht “so it wouldn’t slide around,” she said.
Ed had a fondness for berets and antiquities. They bought $1 million tapestries and
a $5 million Egyptian mummy, now in a Houston museum.
Marie, with her high cheekbones, arched brows and blond hair, had an affinity for
Marilyn Monroe. She bought an array of Monroe memorabilia, including the
actress’s hot-pink Ferragamos, the couch that she reclined on during her

19.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 19 of 20
psychiatrist visits, a table from Monroe’s Brentwood, California, home, the red
dress she wore in “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” and some of her bras.
“She was ahead of her time,” Marie said.
In 2012, according to the lawsuit, Ed began an affair with a Russian woman. He
filed for divorce in 2017 by registered mail, Marie said.
Initially, Marie thought she would get half of everything they owned.
“I thought I would be fine,” she said.
Instead, she found out that Ed had been transferring their business and personal
assets into a complicated series of trusts — first in Bermuda and then in South
Dakota.
Initially, Marie was a beneficiary of the trusts, meaning she would receive income
or benefits from the assets. But before their divorce, according to the lawsuit, Ed
transferred the assets into new trusts that limited or shut out her interests. In
keeping with South Dakota law, he was not required to notify her of the changes,
according to the lawsuit.
Marie said she had little knowledge of the trusts during their marriage. She knew
Ed had offshore trusts for many his business assets, since, as she put it “he always
said only dumb people pay taxes.”
But she said she didn’t know that their personal belongings — from the yachts and
mummy to a diamond necklace he gave her and even their tableware — were also
locked up in a trust.
She said when she found out about the trusts, “I cried. I was in tears. I couldn’t
believe some of the things, you know, that I found out.”
“He had a fiduciary duty as a husband to tell me,” she said. “I just can’t understand
how it can be legal.”
Yet South Dakota’s trust laws may be difficult to challenge. Trusts in South Dakota
are perpetual, meaning a wealthy family can put assets into a trust that are held in

20.
LAW OFFICES
KFB Rice Law Group
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Cleopatra Cameron Case: South Dakota Supreme Court
Provides A Boost To Asset Protection Trusts
July 15, 2020
Page 20 of 20
perpetuity, rather than for a limited period of time. The state also gives trusts
sweeping privacy and asset-protections against creditors, business partners,
lawsuits or ex-spouses.
Adding to its attraction, South Dakota has no inheritance or capital gains or income
taxes.
Marie says she and her attorneys have had difficulty finding even basic details
about the trusts because of the state’s strict information protections. South Dakota
has put strict nondisclosure orders on all the attorneys and filings in the Bosarge
divorce case.
The divorce was scheduled to go to trial in April, but has been postponed
indefinitely by the coronavirus crisis. Marie said her legal bills have already topped
$3 million. When asked what she will do if she gets only enough to pay her legal
bills, she said “I don’t know. I don’t really have a plan.”
2. U.S. Supreme Court.