A Friday hearing once again brought the conservatorship of Nashville musician Danny Tate to the docket of Judge Randy Kennedy's Davidson County probate court. The proceeding addressing Danny Tate's case was enlightening as ever, but prior to his case being called, observing the interaction of Judge Kennedy and the attorneys before him reaffirmed impressions from previous visits to this and other courts of the disjointed relationship between members of the legal industry and the industry outsiders they theoretically serve. Despite courts being a taxpayer-funded entity supporting a theoretical pursuit of justice, Friday's court schedule illustrated how the court system is a workplace seemingly more attuned to the pursuit of income-generating employment endeavors. Within this environment, legal practitioners oversee the creation, advancement or termination of legal cases. Free markets and conditions that support healthy business enterprises are always a desirable goal. The legal industry's "closed shop" protectionist attitudes along with ever changing, unpredictable interpretations of the law, procedures or rules are why the general public views the legal system with skepticism and those with direct experience may come closer to views bordering on complete contempt.
Judge Kennedy's Friday sessions evidently provide a legal bureaucracy catch-up opportunity. They additionally appear to serve as a probate payday of sorts as attorneys line up to submit to the court legal fee approval requests for services rendered in estate cases. Administrative ease and casualness of process in executing major actions affecting people's property and long-term welfare is something to watch and fear. While distinguishing the good guys from the bad isn't something a court observer can necessarily determine, it's easy to see that process and/or positioning often appear to outweigh any discussions of right and/or wrong.
Entering the courtroom to a view of lawyers amassed and awaiting time with Judge Kennedy is reminiscent of The Godfather scene in which people lined up for an audience with Don Vito Corleone in hopes the Mafia boss would grant a favor or help fix a problem. A kiss to his ring signaled respect and all involved had a tacit understanding that favors received would ultimately prompt future favors being returned. A significant degree of metaphoric ring-kissing indeed seemed the practice at Friday's court session.
Full Article and Source:
Danny Tate's Latest Hearing Provides 'Inside Courts' Teachable Moment
See Also:
NashvilleCriminals.info
Danny Tate Hearing
Facebook: Justice for Danny Tate
I knew the fix was in before I heard the results!
ReplyDeleteSounds like a sick scene from "The Godfather"?
ReplyDeleteMob boss seated at the throne?
Are those who want 'favors' are lined up, to kiss whatever needs kissing to get what they want?
And what is given back to the mob boss for granting favors hmmmm?
Only this is a courtroom, not a private residence!
as I read the accounts of what transpired and hear the reports a couple things come to mind ----
ReplyDeletefirst of all was, there a "meaningful hearing" that comports with due process? 20/30 minutes for a hearing on a fraud matter is hardly "meaningful".
Next,these probate judges that bring in a number of hearings to be held wham bam one behind the other on a "rocket docket", operating like a slaughter house, is not a court conduct which is "meaningful" and "fair" .....
Now, ya say "the fix was in" --- we all feel like "the fix is in" .... truth is folks "maladministration by a public administrator" presents a nuance in law that history tells us is of such character that "an action in law won't reach it, and an action in equity, can't touch it." Those quoted words come from a US Supreme Court case dating back to 1867 and again at the US Supreme Court in 1869 [something like that the dates may be a year of or so off] and so my point is this .....
picture 1000 acres of land filled with haystacks .... find the needle ....
Sorry to say, Danny did not prevail not because there is no fraud in the case, but because the fraud was not very specifically identified..... In sum, reframe the argument and facts .... get a "fair and meangingful" hearing .... and Danny wins.
Pleading fraud and in particular extrinsic fraud is very tricky, and it is never about what you plead but rather how you plead what you plead .....
I feel for Hoskins ... I wish he would get ahold of me .. Danny too.
I was there. The courtroom was packed with lawyers and some conservators, all meeting each other and sharing laughs and an altogether good time. I am sure there were some of those lawyers there on a good reason.
ReplyDeleteBut, the rest had their hands out and Kennedy smiled and rubberstamped their wishes.
I expected pizza and beer to be delivered any minute.
This article didn't really go into the award-winning performance of Paul Housch in the science fiction catagory.
ReplyDeleteI don't like to have bad thoughts about anybody, but I found myself wishing that someday he'll feel the same thing that he did to Danny -- maybe from one of his own children.
It was a disgrace. His performance was one of those lawyer performances that have given the legal system a bad name.
It was obvious Housch and Kennedy had compared notes - maybe even met for breakfast. And the show was on.....at Danny's expense.
I think Hoskins did a good job laying out the facts of the case and Kennedy just ignored it.
ReplyDeleteThere were areas where Hoskins could have done better, of course, but over all, he spelled it out clearly.
Housch started his usual "CRACK COCAINE" OCD type repetitions and he didn't even make a convincing rebuttal. But he didn't have to. As Anon 1 said, the fix was in.
this is the underworld a place where we are the outsiders the insiders have their own community where they control we the little chump people who are churned into products to fund this racket what must have started out long long ago as a good idea that went bad really bad when the vultures saw how they could manipulate and twist the system while the court goes along with team probate while we pay the freight nice tidy package ey?
ReplyDeletehey tim you are right why didn't hoskins hold up the 'fraud' evidence not only at this hearing but when all the poas and dgpoa's were discovered?
i think the courthouse walls should be wallpapered with the fraudulent documents that enabled the brother who manufactured these invalid documents to get what he wanted everything
this is what is waiting for us folks so don't be so smug as a warm bug and say gee whiz how sad for danny tate but this won't happen to me false sense of security is exactly what these court thugs love they love sneak attack it works every time
Housch and Kennedy's are rampid in society today. The are equivalent to a vulture or a form of parasite! Imagine such a pathetic human being stooping so low.. destroying another human beings life and even his childrens all for personal gain.
ReplyDeletejerri --- you aksed why hoskins did not hold up the fraud evidence before .... and judge Kennedy scoffed off hoskins asking why danny's attys before did not bring up the fraud evidence. before.
ReplyDeleteThree things
1). In all fairness to Atty Hoskins .... he was not on the case when this scheme began, and so Hoskins never had a "timely" opportunity to present this evidence.
2). Kennedy wanted to know why dT's previous attys did not bring up the fraud questions previously.... well, excuse me but I think I recall reading where DT did not have his own atty until well after this crap started and even then not until Hoskins stepped up and barked loud enough to be recognized and "permitted" to serve as DT's atty. Am I correct in this ??
Three --- and here is where law gets dicey .... the extrinsic fraud is not found in the fact there are forged docs, perjured testimony and exaggerated facts .... the extrinsic fraud is found in the scheme to see that DT was never actually in court [his physical presence does not count] ; that his ability to fairly and fully present his claims and defenses was prohibited by the scheme to keep DT out of court, and those with the DPOA and self-serving benevolence to "help" DT did not help DT, they helped themselves to DT's money..... sold him out .... DT got no benefit whatsoever from the protection they claimed to have provided DT.
As for their fees --- they are not entitled to collect a fee for the performance of a task that they failed and refused to execute ....
[petitioning for fees and getting paid for a task one did not perform is an "actual fraud" which is in and of itself gives rise to an entirely different cause of action. If any of these documents went through the us mail .... now ya have a scheme of fraud which also involves mail fraud .... ]
I would really like to meet Atty Hoskins .... he has spunk to take this on and dive in .....
couple more things ----
ReplyDeleteKennedy did not conduct an evidnetiary hearing. Heck, fro the discriptions of the day in court Kennedy was hearing "procedural motions" which are generally without argument and administered to in mere minutes... You guys call this the rubber stamp, I call it running the courtroom like a slaughter house ... anyhow;
what most do not realize, historically the "probate court" of old England was the creditors court ---- where creditors came to collect from estates. Generally the estates of those who are dead and have no personage before the court.
But guardianship also comes under probate and in a guardianship the ward is "alive in fact", although incompetent and therefore "dead at law" [non sui juris] In addition a guardianship proceeding involves an ongoing administration that will never close until the ward either dies, is "judicially restored" and the guardianship "judicially terminated" ---- whereas in a death estate it is open the estate pays the bills, close the estate.
Now, here is the problem .... the "ongoing administration that will never close until the ward either dies, or is "judicially restored" and the guardianship is "judicially terminated", means that everything that happens in court during this time period is not appealable as a matter of right. The ongoing and continuing administration is interlocutory in nature and only by permission can those decisions be immediately appealed. These decisions do become appealable on the final accounting and termination of the guardianship .... but that means a decision made in court today in a guardianship matter can never be appealed during the life of the ward, and or until their "judicial restoration" and termination of the guardianship.
So actually folks --- the court order judge Kennedy entered the other day is not "a final appealable order".
Instead --- it is part of the fraud, because Kennedy is trying to convince everyone that this stuff is final ..... and it is not final. It is "in fieri" --- which meanes "yet to be done" ...
surprise !!!!
i just gotta love tim he is on fire and shares his heat with the followers of NASGA thanks tim and i hope you get your wish to meet with hoskins and better yet with danny tate too now that would be a heck of a meetinng
ReplyDelete