Jungerman’s daughter released from jail

A Jackson County judge has approved the release of the jailed daughter of a man accused of killing a Kansas City attorney — but with a stern warning about how both are required to cooperate with a general receiver in a related civil case.

At a March 6 status hearing, Judge Kevin D. Harrell authorized the release of Angelia Buesing, who had been held for more than a week. Buesing is the daughter of David Jungerman, a Raytown businessman who is awaiting trial for the murder of Kansas City attorney Thomas Pickert in October 2017.

Buesing and Jungerman, as well as a Jungerman family trust and Jungerman’s businesses, are defendants in a wrongful-death suit brought by Pickert’s wife, Emily Riegel, and his parents, Allan and JoAnn Pickert.

Jackson County Courthouse, Kansas City.

On Feb. 26, Harrell found the defendants in contempt of court for violating a November order to cooperate with the general receiver in the case, Charlie Harris Jr. of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris.

Harrell then ordered Buesing to jail. He also ordered that her father, who was being held without bond, as well as the trust and the business defendants each be fined $25,000 a week until further order.

At the status hearing, Harrell said he received a letter from their attorney, Nicole Forsythe, which outlined her clients’ attempts to cooperate with Harris.

Harris noted three failures to disclose assets: a bank account with a balance of $4.8 million, a property in which they had ownership interest with Jungerman’s ex-wife and Jungerman’s Social Security account.

Forsythe said Buesing did not know about the bank account, and she disputed that Jungerman’s Social Security account was subject to the receivership.

Harris, however, told Harrell he had an audio recording of a jail conversation from July 2018 in which Buesing and Jungerman discussed the $4.8 million account and talked of changing the address on the account.

Harrell said the crux of his contempt order was to identify and disclose all of their assets.

“Since the order, the defendants have done everything other than to be compliant with the order of disclosure,” he said.

He said they should disclose all assets first, and then dispute whether accounts are subject to the receivership.

Harrell told Buesing that he takes incarceration seriously, and he warned against further allegations of failure to disclose assets in the case. To illustrate his point, he offered what he called “a silly hypothetical” about how the defendants should proceed.

“If they found a nickel on the street and picked it up and put it in their pocket, I think they should call Mr. Harris and say, ‘I found a nickel,’” he said.

The case is Riegel et al. v. Jungerman et al., 1816-cv12977.