A few nuggets we found interesting from today’s Nashville Scene follow-up article posted below. “Danny’s investments and nest egg are all but spent.”
“Yet David Tate says he had nothing but the best intentions in seeking conservatorship over his brother.”
“In David Tate’s eyes, the winner was the system trying to help his recalcitrant brother, as much as he fought it every step of the way. And in his brother’s estimation, Danny didn’t get much for the money he spent fighting it.”
David Tate doesn’t think Danny’s freedom from an oppressive conservatorship was “worth the money”. We beg to differ. Danny did what he HAD to do under the circumstances. It cost money to pursue his freedom through the court system David Tate so dearly loves. Danny was, and is, entitled to spend his OWN money to defend himself, or any other way he wants. What wasn’t right, was David Tate being allowed to handle his brother’s hard earned cash.We’re STILL curious to see how he’s going to explain all those checks he wrote when he submits his accounting to the court. And FDT won’t rest until Danny’s got every dime back..and then some!!!
Boycott Signet Inc.
Source:
Free Danny Tate!!!
See Also:
What Has Danny Tate Really Won?
They all should pay...To start with the corruption of the court...I would like to see their accountability and what the charges were that was burdened to community over the years...something I bet the tax payers in state of Tennessee can not afford or should have paid with for.
ReplyDeleteDespite what David Tate says or would like us to believe, his motive for being his brother's conservator had nothing to do with love.
ReplyDeleteDavid and Danny Tate were adversarial. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know an adversarial relationship is not condusive to healing or working as a team toward any goal. And when Danny asked to have David removed and a different party appointed, David fought it -- using Danny's money.
This conservatorship benefited David Tate and Paul Housch. That's the bottom line.
What other so called "legal vehicle" (guardianship)mandates that a person pay for the attorneys in opposition to one's own best interest. Pays attorneys to collect money to defend a position in direct opposition to one's freedom, welfare, self determination & over all best interests, including unlimited depletion of one's resources. If a case is lost, the losing party pays costs for the prevailing party. Here the person pays for opposing party to win a case against oneself.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but, in my mind -- which some may question -- it is nothig but an insult to one's intelligence to try and claim that while spending every dime of the ward's money --- and I mean every dime --- that it was done in the ward's best interest. In fact, such a claim is laughable and nothing more than a wholly subjective and self-serving statement.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, for example in Indiana, at the time I was guardianized ... one state code strictly prohibited "attachments, executions, and garnishments" .... so how and why prey tell can any of a ward's estate be dimminished except for "necessaries of life for the ward"
So here is what the legal profession does not want any wards and victims to know .....
Interim accountings and reports in a guardianship and awards for atty fees are not FINAL JUDGMENTS for which there is an automatic right to appeal. Not until the FINAL Accounting and,discharge/termination of the guardian/guardianship is there an appeal in a guardianship case.... Stated otherwise, during the ongoing administration of a guardianship all the orders and judgments of the court, except those specifically stating otherwise, are termed interlocutory, and in order to appeal an interlocutory order or judgment one needs the trial court's permission [in Indiana anyhow]
So, while on the surface all that was rubber-stamed along the way, all the money for the attys fees claimed to have earned and the court orders awarding these fees appear valid .... they are not really worth the paper they are written on .... until approved on the final accounting....
Good luck Danny Tate --- take everything they own, all of it.
here is one way to stop this crap ----
ReplyDeletePetitioner's, guardians and all attorneys, except the ward's attorney .... pay their own expenses and costs .... and submit their bill on the final accounting ....
bet they would not be so eager to protract the process and milk it along the way then ....
Everything they own and then some!
ReplyDeleteRICO allowes treble damages; doesn't it?
The crooks in "the system" love people like David Tate.
ReplyDeleteWhether its interlocutory appeal, or "review" hearing or a hearing to get rid of guardian for violation of fiduciary duties_ it all comes under the very judge who is abusing his discretion or worse in the guardian case. Even if you take it to Fed Court or anywhere else _you are sent back to the same Probate Court judge. Supposedly he is the only one with jurisdiction. NO WONDER THE PROBATE INSIDERS CALL probate court _ the "candy store".
ReplyDelete